Press "Enter" to skip to content
Advance care

Advance care

November 20, 2018

jones

The old saying about the certainty of death and taxes is not entirely true anymore. A talented tax lawyer can help some legislatively-favored individuals and businesses to avoid paying taxes.

On the other hand, nobody has yet figured out a way to escape mortal death. But even with that certainty staring them in the face, way too many people do not plan for their own departure from the living.

According to Honoring Choices, an Idaho non-profit dedicated to advanced care planning, 85% of Idaho adults think it is very important to choose their own end-of-life treatment options, but less than half have completed an advance care directive. Unless those choices are documented for health care providers, they may well be disregarded.

As a lawyer and judge, I have witnessed too many family tragedies resulting from people who do not get around to writing a will or designating a trusted friend or relative to carry out their end-of-life decisions regarding medical care. Conflicts among survivors could easily have been averted by writing a simple will or signing an up-to-date directive for medical care.

We each have it in our power to say what medical treatment we want or do not want as we approach death, and to appoint someone to carry out those wishes when we are no longer competent. We just have to quit procrastinating and get it done.

Honoring Choices and a broad coalition of interested parties, including the Idaho Hospital Association and Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, want to remedy the problem. The coalition will seek legislative funding to help educate the public about the vital importance of end-of-life planning, assist people in making advanced care medical directives, and set up an up-to-date registry of directives that can be used by doctors and hospitals around the state.

A primary objective of the program is to increase awareness of the need for adults of all ages, not just seniors, to get their wishes documented. And to let them know the unfortunate consequences of failing to do so. A wider range of interested parties--insurers, businesses, veteran groups, to name a few--can be enlisted to spread that message and get people motivated to document their wishes in an advance care directive.

Equally important is establishing an electronic registry where directives can be filed, updated and available when and where they are needed. Having some health problems of my own in 2017, I was asked numerous times at numerous health provider offices for a health care directive. You either took in the one you did several years ago or filled out a new one. Many folks have any number of directives sitting around in provider offices, bearing different dates and often containing conflicting information--a situation ripe for confusion.

A person may currently file a directive with the Secretary of State but few do. The ones that are filed can become outdated and are hard to access. The Secretary of State supports moving the registry to Health and Welfare where it would be continually updated and made accessible by health care providers around the state (with the maker’s consent). That would help to ensure that end-of-life treatment choices are known and honored.

Advance directive forms are available on the websites of the Idaho Secretary of State and Honoring Choices Idaho.

Jim Jones’ past columns can be found at www.JJCommonTater.com.
 

P-I-N it

P-I-N it

November 19, 2018

rainey

Our recent national election contained the most outright, in-your-face cheating and lying of any in my lifetime. Just flat-out scandalous and, at times, illegal behavior. We’ll be living with the after effects for a long, long time. But, it may be just the precursor of the next one. And the next. And the next.

In state after state, the Republican Party - or what’s left of it - was the prime ruinous sponsor and leading miscreant. There may have been some Democrats flouting ethics and laws in some places. But, overwhelmingly, Republicans outdid themselves in despicable, lying behavior. Some are still at it.

The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in our neighborhood looked straight at the TV camera in her commercials and told of the times she had voted to “protect pre-existing conditions for all Arizonans.” But, her votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, more than 40 of them, were to kill ACA (Obamacare) and some specifically to erase pre-existing conditions. She lost by less than two-percent. Nearly half of all voters apparently believed her.

That’s one case. Across the country, thousands of misleading, false or outright bogus claims and gross behavior. Names like Scott, Kemp, DeSantis, Anderson, Rohrabacher, Hunter, Akin, Kobach, and many more tried every lying trick-in-the-book. Some still are.

Many GOP efforts were to disenfranchise voters - make getting to the polls (especially in Dodge City, Kansas) nearly impossible. Or, legislating Native Americans out of the process. Voting machines with no power cord or were inoperable when installed. Some switching votes electronically. Overseers who were candidates themselves rigging outcomes. (Kemp and Kobach.)

Republican gerrymandering, in some places, meant a Democrat had get more than 60-percent to win. (S. Carolina and Alabama.)

Candidates are who they are. Some qualified. Some not. Some honest. Some not. Too many of the latter - not enough of the former. With the current lack of trust in both national parties, getting better, more qualified people to run is nearly impossible. That’s got to be a priority in 2020.

But, it’s gerrymandering and blocking voters that’s so heinous. Republicans, in many legislatures, used the 2000 census to twist, splice and draw voting districts to their benefit. Now, Democrats say, if they’re in the majority in 2020, they’ll be more honest. I’d like to believe that. But, I don’t. The most accurate description of political power I’ve ever been told was “When they’re in power, they do it to you; when you’re in power, you do it to them.” From an Idaho Democrat.

Several states blocked registered voters - especially Black, Hispanic, Native American - by all sorts of contrived schemes. More than any other factor, that needs to be addressed.

Oregon, in so many instances a leader in creative thinking, has some excellent approaches. One is “motor voter” registration. Register your vehicle and you’re automatically registered to vote. Parties assigned randomly. If you don’t like the assignment, change it. It’ll take several generations to reach 100-percent but, eventually, all Oregonians will be registered voter.

Also, as in Oregon and several other states, voting by mail should be federal law. I realize there are still people who like to go to a polling place. I’m one. I always felt a bit prouder when the little gray-haired lady announced for all to hear, “Barrett Rainey has voted.” But, like so many other things, times have changed. Voting by mail is one of those changes. There are some wrinkles to work out but they’re not insurmountable.

Do away with signatures on ballots. Assign each voter a PIN - personal identification number. Banks worldwide use ‘em. All credit card outfits use ‘em. They know within seconds when one of us hundreds of millions of users buys lunch anywhere in the world. Instead of laboriously checking signature authenticity - which in my case is impossible - check the PIN by high-speed scanner. Cut down or eliminate recounts.

Use a standardized national ballot format. Leave flexibility for states to enter necessary information. But, format all the same. In Florida, a U.S. Senate seat hinges on the way one county laid out its ballot with that race separated from all the others. Exit polling shows some people didn’t see it.

Require all counting to be done electronically. Standardize machines.

There are many more ideas out there. But, the plain fact is, we can’t keep doing things as we are. We can’t do much about political parties or individuals who want to lie, cheat, block and steal. But, no large corporation would run a national business the way we run the most important element of our democracy: voting.

We need our ballots handled accurately and treated with the certainty that our most basic, guaranteed freedom requires. Leaving it to political parties is not the best way to assure that.

Many things must be changed. Updated and streamlined. One of those things seems a natural: “P-I-N it.”
 

Idaho Weekly Briefing – November 19

Idaho Weekly Briefing – November 19

November 18, 2018

This is a summary of a few items in the Idaho Weekly Briefing for November 19. Would you like to know more? Send us a note at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.

We're at work trying to make the Briefing a free-access publication through contributions. See our donation site at IndieGogo.

Work has started on developing a new Little gubernatorial administration, and the Otter Administration was caught up in discussion about a possible flawed education contract. Meanwhile, legislators met in North Idaho and pondered their leadership lineup for the coming legislative session. Just ahead this: A relative quiet, with Thanksgiving anchoring the week.

Governor-elect Brad Little has named Zach Hauge as his Chief of Staff. Hauge served as Little’s campaign manager during the 2018 primary and general elections. Before joining the campaign, Hauge was Vice President at the Idaho Association Commerce and Industry.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory continues to demonstrate its commitment to using small businesses by achieving all its small business goals for the sixth consecutive year.

Legislation to extend the Secure Rural Schools program by one year, through Fiscal Year 2019, has been introduced by Senators Mike Crapo and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon). The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS) was first introduced in 2000 to assist counties containing tracts of federally-owned land that is tax-exempt.

Idaho’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate stayed at 2.7 percent in October, unchanged from September and continuing at or below 3 percent for the 14th consecutive month. The state’s labor force – the total number of people 16 years of age and older working or looking for work – was essentially unchanged since July at 853,444.

Boise residents are invited to delve into the issue of housing affordability as part of the City of Boise’s third round of Community Conversations on Growth on November 29 and December 1.

Governor C. L. “Butch” Otter said on Novmber 16 that he was granting a pardon to Aaron M. Bonney, a former Elmore County felon who was convicted in 1997 and served a 6-month rider for the statutory rape of his then, under-age girlfriend. At the time of the crime, Bonney was 18 years old and the victim was 15.

Micron Technology, Inc., an industry leader in innovative memory and storage solutions, today introduced the industry's first 1TB automotive and industrial grade PCIe NVMe™ solid state drive in BGA and 22x30mm M.2 form factors at Electronica 2018.

IMAGE The Idaho Association of Counties held its fall county officials institute at Idaho Falls on November 15. (image/Idaho Association of Counties)
 

Little needs his own team

Little needs his own team

November 17, 2018

johnson

Idaho Gov.-elect Brad Little has some big decisions to make. In the next few weeks, he'll need to put his stamp on a state budget that will spell out how he proposes to implement the Medicaid expansion initiative supported overwhelmingly by the state's voters last week.

Presumably he'll want to, at least at the margins, differentiate his proposals for education funding from those of his longtime boss, retiring Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter. Maybe he'll propose a grocery tax repeal and a way to pay for it. Additionally a major challenge for the governor-elect is the perception, and remember perception is reality in politics, that he is simply gearing up to preside over Otter's fourth term.

There is a way to immediately change that perception and it involves how Little will stock the leadership ranks of state agencies. The new governor has two choices: He can tinker at the margins or he can clean house. He should clean house. Not doing so would be a big mistake for one simple reason.

Every governor, whether one that is succeeding a member of his party as Little will be, or taking over from the other party, has one clear moment when he (or we can hope someday soon she) can place a dramatic imprint on state agencies. This is such a moment for Little, a guy who has long prided himself on being a student of government, a kind of cowboy boot-wearing policy wonk steeped in the details of governing in a way that Otter never was.

Idaho has, all things considered, a relatively weak governor model. The governor doesn't directly appoint some of the most important state agency heads. A governor can have influence, but has no direct appointment authority over the departments of Transportation, Correction, Fish and Game, Lands or Parks and Recreation. Nevertheless what he can control is very important: the state Commerce Department, Health and Welfare, the departments of Administration, Labor, Insurance and Finance, the state personnel chief and the critical job of state budget director.

One can only imagine that Little, still basking in his decisive win on Election Day, has discovered just how many new best friends he now has. Half the GOP members of the Legislature - a conservative estimate - lust after an appointment to a state job, even if the outrageous perk of receiving a big jump in state retirement benefits may soon go away. For many legislators, snagging the good salary and benefits that go with being an agency director has to look pretty good.

Many of the current occupants of these state jobs - all appointed by Otter - will be working overtime to hang on to their positions. The natural tendency for most new governors would be to take the path of least resistance and keep a bunch of the Otter crowd. They're loyal Republicans, after all, and many contributed to Little's campaign. They'll pledge their fidelity and most will want Little to succeed. But Little can't - or won't - shape a new version, his vision, without new people, his people, in key positions.

My old boss, Cecil D. Andrus, lived this lesson in 1986 when he was preparing to succeed fellow Democrat John V. Evans in the governor's office. Evans, a good man and still an underrated governor, had assembled a good team and many of them wanted to stay on into a new Democratic administration. Andrus knew better. He imposed a rule during his campaign that he would accept no contributions from staffers in the Evans administration. He wanted no implied understanding that someone from the outgoing regime might curry favor with the new crowd, while hoping for a job. Andrus angered more than a few people, fellow Democrats mostly, when he made it clear that he was cleaning house. With only a couple of exceptions, he brought in an entirely new cast of state government leaders, people loyal to him, people sharing his vision, people understanding his priorities, people who knew he was the boss.

Little's immediate staff - a chief of staff, a press secretary, counselors on key issues - will constitute a critical part of his team. He should pick them wisely from among people he knows, trusts and is confident will serve him - and Idaho citizens - with diligence, energy and, as Franklin Roosevelt famously insisted, a "passion for anonymity."

Beyond his immediate staff, Little would be well advised to put his own person in charge of economic development at the Commerce Department. He should install a seasoned administrator at the Department of Administration, an incredibly important agency that handles everything from computers to risk management, and a place where more than one governor has been tripped up. Most of society's problems land daily on the desk of the director of the Department of Health and Welfare and the director there best be a person the new governor can both trust and personally hold accountable.

It's no knock on the Otter crowd that a new governor should want and is entitled to his own team. There are lots of names on doors in state government, but only one name on the ballot. Gov. Little will send a signal about how he'll run state government by the personnel decisions he makes between now and Christmas. If he's smart he'll make a clean sweep. He'll start fresh and from day one be in a position to hold his own people accountable. He'll never have a second chance for a new beginning. He'll never have a second chance to have his own first term rather than Otter's fourth term.

Johnson was press secretary and chief of staff to the late former Idaho Gov. Cecil D. Andrus. He lives in Manzanita, Ore.
 

Prognosis Idaho

Prognosis Idaho

November 16, 2018

stapiluslogo1

The just-ended North Idaho Chamber of Commerce tour for legislators is a biennial tradition, but the word emanating from the first gathering of incoming lawmakers is about an unusual subject as a primary topic.

Taxes and budgets are a little more to the norm. This time something else got a lot of attention, not least in the incoming governor’s address: Health care.

It makes perfect sense, what with the passage of the Medicaid expansion - Proposition 2 - ballot measure only days ago.

Some legislators will be inclined, or even committed, to oppose it and try to kill it. They’ve had the numbers to do that in legislative sessions reaching back almost a decade; hence the arrival of the ballot issue.

But will they try to bury it again in 2019?

Legislators have reversed ballot issues before. They heavily modified at least (some would say gutted) the One Percent initiative of 1978. They outright reversed a term limits issue in the early 90s.

Still, before too eagerly taking the knives to Medicaid expansion, legislators may want to pause a bit. I’ll leave to others to discuss the impacts on the health of actual Idaho citizens, important as that is. Here, I’ll just toss out for consideration a few political facts.

Expansion did not pass by a little. It passed by a lot: 60.6 percent - a landslide.

And it was widespread. Because of the requirement (legislature-imposed) that ballot issues must demonstrate substantial support in legislative districts all over the state, there was in fact support for Prop 2 all over the state.

The top three counties in levels of support - Blaine, Teton and Latah - could be explained away by critics as places that do have significant Democratic bases. And that’s true. But Valley County, which to date is strongly Republican, supported it 67.3 percent. Twin Falls County backed it 58.2 percent, Bonneville 57.4 percent, Canyon 56.8 percent, Payette 56.6 percent. If Idaho has a localized beating heart of movement conservatism you could probably best place it at Kootenai County, and even there it passed, albeit narrowly, at 50.4 percent.

Of Idaho’s 44 counties, just nine opposed Prop 2, but none overwhelmingly: Its weakest county was Jefferson, and there it received about 41 percent support.

I skipped the most significant county. From a standpoint of raw politics, the most important was Ada County, where Prop 2 passed with 69.7% - and that’s county-wide, not the city of Boise, but Meridian, Kuna, Eagle and Star as well. All but four precincts out of more than 140 approved it.

Ada is important not just because it is the largest county, accounting for more than a third of the Idaho general election vote. And not just because it is growing rapidly, while most of the lower-support counties are growing slower.

It is also important because Ada County west of Boise is where Republican dominance is most critically being challenged, where in this year’s election breaches were found, on the Ada County Commission (two seats flipping to Democrats) and in legislative District 15 (two seats at least flipped there). Maybe the Democratic push goes no further. But know this: It can progress in 2020 if its candidates have good ammunition in hand, and legislative reversal of Prop 2 would be some of the strongest ammunition they could have.

The national evidence this year is that health care is a big issue; many of the newly-arriving Democrats to the U.S. House campaigned more heavily on that than on anything else. There’s no reason it can’t be potent in Idaho next time around as well.

Republican legislators might be able to round up the votes to reverse or gut Medicaid expansion at the Statehouse. But they would be well advised to consider all the consequences, political included, if they do.
 

Owning our health

Owning our health

November 15, 2018

schmidt

The campaign to expand Medicaid health insurance eligibility in Idaho brought some broad health policy questions to the forefront. I am thankful we are having these discussions now; we have put this off for a long time.

One of the recurring counter arguments I heard when talking to voters was how “giving people a free handout” (Medicaid health insurance) made the recipients less likely to be responsible. This is the “moral hazard” argument that is well-studied and documented in economics. I’m not sure why this argument doesn’t apply to employment-based insurance also, but I get the rub. We all want people to be responsible and any program that might discourage responsible behavior should be scrutinized.

So, let’s scrutinize. I’m sorry if this gets uncomfortable. I’ll put on the gloves and you’ll need to bend over. You see, I am a doctor.

When I first meet a patient (before the gloves and bending over) I ask them questions about their symptoms, their medical history. One of the many questions I ask is phrased carefully: “What medicines do you take?”

Approximately 2/3rds of the time the patient response is phrased: “They’ve got me on a pill for my blood pressure, and they have me take a cholesterol medicine.”

I believe the words we use can often reflect how we think about things. In this case, “They have me on” suggests, I believe, the patient feels little involvement in the commitment to take a medication. In fact, the phrase suggests they are forced to take it, like “They have me in solitary confinement.”

When I can have the time, I encourage patients to say “I take a medicine for my blood pressure. I take XYZ for my cholesterol.” I believe in promoting ownership in our health. The passive, unengaged patient is not healthy.

I have no sense that people on Medicaid, Medicare, VA (that is, government-funded) benefits are more likely to use such phrasing. In fact, I have no evidence that such language is in fact related to a sense of disengagement with one’s health. Maybe you can ask yourself how you feel about the medications you take and the language you use to describe them.

If we can promote engagement in responsible behavior, engagement in our health, we may in fact promote better health. Private insurance companies spend a good deal of money with programs like this. In some plans, premiums are lower for people who participate in exercise, weight loss, healthy diet, smoking cessation. The hard part about all these programs is that the return on investment is probably 10-20 years out, and people change health insurance companies every 3 years, so the company rewarding the behavior doesn’t receive their return on investment.

I’m all for promoting healthy behaviors. But the best way I have found to do this is with direct interaction with a person, be that doctor-patient, or friend to friend. Governor Otter started building this plan 6 years ago with the Patient Centered Medical Home model for primary care in this state. It is an ongoing and successful model for healthy primary care relationships that could have leverage to change behavior.

I can’t believe someone writing a law in Boise will suddenly make people change their attitude toward their own health. But I can sure see them trying. Without gloves on.
 

A recurring vote pattern

A recurring vote pattern

November 14, 2018

stapiluslogo1

Anyone following the results from the razor's-edge Arizona Senate race over the last week could hardly miss the regular line of complaints:

They're stealing the election! Martha McSally was ahead on election night! She won, dammit! Now it's being stolen! Where did all these votes come from days after the election? Looks mighty suspicious ...

A lot of people were saying such things over the last week; comment sections on websites reporting on the race were loaded with them.

These people were mostly betraying their lack of understanding of how elections in many states, Arizona recently among them, work.

If they'd lived in Oregon, they would have found nothing unusual at all. They would instead have found a familiar pattern.

It goes like this.

In states where many votes are cast outside polling places, part of the verification regimen - to make sure the votes are legitimate - involves checking the ballots one by one and often verifying that the signatures are as they should be.

Oregon is a good example of the way this works. In this state, voters have cast their ballots by mail - or by posting them in a ballot box that looks like a street-corner mail box - in the couple of weeks between receiving the ballot in the mail, and the election day deadline. Before sending it in, the voter has to sign an outside envelope. That signature is compared with one on file, as a security device. It sounds a little funky, but it has worked.

On election night in Oregon, results from many of the votes cast are released in a small flood shortly after 8 pm. These are the votes from earlier days in the return process, and early on election day. But the voters still pouring in will still be tabulated on Tuesday evening, and if there are enough of them the process of verification and counting may continue into and through Tuesday and beyond. And because a ballot submitted to a ballot box anywhere in the state by 8 p.m. on Tuesday may take a day or two to make its way from one end of the state to the other, the last of a county's votes may not come in until Thursday or Friday of election week.

Consider one more aspect to this process: Not all counties handle all this the same. Specifically, small counties generally are able to work through their ballots fairly quickly, and nearly all usually are done well before midnight in Oregon. On the other hand, the biggest counties - especially Multnomah (Portland) - take longer, and usually as a normal matter don't finish reporting until well into Wednesday.

The larger counties in Oregon, as is the case with most of the larger counties around the western states, tend Democratic. (Multnomah is an almost extreme example.) The smaller and more rural counties tend to be more Republican. What that means in practice, for people watching the vote come in on election week, is that Tuesday night generally shows a relatively strong Republican vote, but it edges down as the count goes on over the coming day or two. It's not especially unusual for a Republican to seem to be winning on Tuesday and losing on Wednesday. The 2008 Senate race between incumbent Republican Gordon Smith and Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley was a precise example of this; close election watchers around the state cautioned not to draw too many conclusions from Smith's modest lead on Tuesday night, because it would likely diminish the day after. As it did.

The same patterns are developing in many western states. Washington has seen them for some years; so have Colorado, Nevada, Utah ... and Arizona, all states where one or two large metro areas, which are trending Democratic, deliver many of their votes after many of the rural counties have already checked in.

And so it was this week in Arizona, albeit a little more drawn out than usual, in part because the race was so close.

But the pattern should not surprise anyone. It probably surprised no one in Oregon.
 

A too-slim majority

A too-slim majority

November 13, 2018

rainey

We’ve been hearing for a couple of years now that our country is “divided,” “broken,” “fractured,” “splintered” and that current society is “tribal.”

All of those descriptions seem mostly accurate. Signs of strain, fractured will and stress are everywhere.

The most recent evidence is in many of the outcomes of our recent national elections. While some candidates and ballot issues were decided by solid majorities - Idaho’s Governor and Medicaid expansion for example - such one-sided results were rare.

I didn’t look at all national races, but in the 63 I did examine, 57 were decided by less that three-percent – many by tenths of a point. Yes, Democrats picked up the U.S. House. They needed 23 wins. They got 30. In a body of 435, hardly a landslide. If a few don’t follow caucus instructions on whatever the vote is about on any given day, that majority can evaporate. The new majority “whip” is going to be kept busy.

Less than a one point separation is likely to give Florida a Republican governor and, less than two-points, a senator. Same margains in Texas with Cruz over O’Rourke. Kansas, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, California, Nevada and more had Senate and House victories by two and three points. Or less. Many state races and ballot issues were squeakers. Arizona is still counting Senate votes. No winner in Alabama Governor yet, either.

“Well, Rainey, a win is still a win,” you say. “What’s the matter with you?”

I see several “matters.”

For one, like Jack Kennedy faced, when one of these squeaker winners walks down the street, that person has to realize nearly one of every two people passing by voted against her/him. So much for a mandate. So much for real constituent support.

Another example. Legislating. If your majority in a congressional or legislative body is around one-percent or so, keeping your “horses” going in the same direction on significant issues is very difficult. Especially issues of conscience. Think Supreme Court candidates, budgeting or abortion rights. Without the heft of a solid majority, such issues are often near-impossible to settle.

There are many folks still saying we must stop speaking ill of each other - must stop the arguing and fighting - must return to a “kinder, gentler time.” Must “come together.” “Love your enemy” and all that.

It seems to me we’ve gone too far down the national road of vitriol, hate and division for any of that to be effective. We’ve got a serial liar president with millions of supporters who say “Sure, he lies, but he says what’s on his mind, he’s not a politician and I like that.” When what’s “on his mind” is constant lying about everything, how do you reach those people?

Another example. During exit polling in Florida, the question CNN put to voters, regardless of party affiliation - or none - was “Which national party do you want controlling Congress?” The answer? Dead even at 49% for each. How do you create effective governance out of that?

Other exit interviews on just about any issue or candidate there were many similar near-tie responses, regardless of what region of the country was involved. If you take nearly any national issue, you’ll find just about a 50-50 split. A few choruses of “Kum-ba-yah” will not heal our coast-to-coast ills.

Seems to me we’re in a situation similar to what Quakers in this country faced during the Civil War. They made gallant efforts to stick to their pacifist culture and stay out of the fighting for a long time. But, eventually, many of them realized they’d lose that culture and all they had if they didn’t take up arms. So, many of them did. They joined up and helped overpower the enemy.
(http://ramwebs.wcupa.edu/jones/his480/reports/civilwar.html)

We’re now faced with significant threats to all our culture. To our peace and tranquility. To our chosen way of life. Even to preserving the Republic.

The sources of those threats are many. Politicians more concerned with continued public-trough employment than concerns constituents face. A political party using lies and terrible tactics - some illegal - to gain or keep control in Congress and many states. Millions of Americans divorced from reality by sick rightwing media and “consultant” forces pounding away in a closed environment of lies and half-truths. Millions of citizen naysayers believing their willful ignorance is as good as your factual reality.

There were way too many razor-thin victories in our last election - far too many candidates elected by hundredths-of-a- point to make real progress. The serious - some terrible - issues we face as a country can’t muster a significant majority to solve. The outcome - and the numbers - prove it.

The time for peaceful solutions seems over. It may take a national force-of-will to form the majority needed to get back on the right path. Force-of-will and a few more elections.

Like those Quakers, we may have to join a fight we really don’t want to.
 

How to keep faith

How to keep faith

November 12, 2018

jones

On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, the guns fell silent on the Western Front of World War One. The cessation of fighting between Germany and America’s allies was commemorated as Armistice Day until 1954, when Congress changed its name to Veterans Day. As we honor our veterans this year, we also observe the hundredth anniversary of the WWI Armistice.

Of the almost 20,000 troops who served in the “Great War” from Idaho, 782 died from combat, accidents or disease. One soldier, Private Thomas Neibaur of Sugar City, earned a Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism in France.

Private Niebaur is one of 35 servicemen with strong Idaho connections to have earned this high honor since the establishment of Idaho Territory in 1863. They were from every corner of the State and include African-American Vernon Baker of St. Maries who served in WWII, William Nakamura who enlisted from the Minidoka Internment Camp and died in WWII, Gurdon Barter a Civil War veteran laid to rest in Latah County, David Bleak from Shelly who served in the Korean War, Bernie Fisher of Kuna who served in the Vietnam War and Frank Reasoner of Kellogg who died in the Vietnam War.

Not every Idahoan who bravely served our State and country has received the Medal of Honor. I think of Raymond Finley of St. Maries, a Native American who died in Vietnam in 1965, and Octavio Herrera of Caldwell who was killed in Afghanistan in 2013, and Carrie French of Caldwell who died in Iraq in 2005. They did not get the Medal, but they are on the honor roll of Idahoans who deserve a place in our hearts.

We are deeply indebted to these and all the other men and women who have stepped forward to serve this great country. Their service and sacrifice have made it possible for us to enjoy the freedom and opportunities that we sometimes take for granted in America. Few nations around the world afford their citizens the same protections and privileges--freedom of speech and religion, the rule of law, the right to choose our leaders, and so much more.

We owe our veterans an obligation to defend the system that they sacrificed to preserve for us. If we don’t work hard to protect our system of government on the home front, as they did on the battlefield, we will have let them down.

What can we learn from them? They came from different backgrounds, different religions, different racial or ethnic groups. On the field of battle, they were one. All of them were Americans. They had a mission to carry out for their country--to protect each other and to preserve our way of life. They believed in and practiced service over self. During my service in Vietnam, I often heard the war being questioned but that did not in any way affect anyone’s dedicated service to their country.

We can honor their service and their sacrifice by pulling together, by working together for the common good, by treating each other with respect and dignity, by recognizing that each of us is entitled to his or her own opinion so long as it is not destructive of the basic principles of this great country. Let’s pull together and get along to keep faith with our veterans who gave us the opportunity to live in peace and freedom.

Jim Jones’ past columns can be found at www.JJCommonTater.com.