Press "Enter" to skip to content
Stress tests

Stress tests

July 10, 2020

stapiluslogo1

Consider this a party stress test bracketed by chairmanships.

Go back to the summer of 2014, when the Idaho Republican Party descended into something approaching chaos, when at its state convention delegates were unable to pass a platform or agree on a state chairman; in the manner of conflicting popes, there were arguments for a while over who was actually leading the group.

It was a contentious time for the party generally, with a split through the middle between ideological groups. None of this affected the party’s success in state general elections - that has rolled on undisturbed for the last decade and more - but the state’s governing group was nonetheless in trouble. The leadership up until the conventions of 2014 tried but weren’t able to hold things together, and the fight for the chairmanship was bitter. It was a party stress test, of sorts.

That battle was finally won by Steve Yates, a newcomer to Idaho Falls who did pull the pieces together, at least well enough to tamp down overt and damaging squabbles. It was a strong performance (maybe his newcomer status, with the absence of local connections and conflicts, helped), and he set a template that seems to have persisted since. Successor chairs Jonathan Parker and until a few weeks ago Raul Labrador similarly managed to avert major blowups inside the party structure.

Last month, after Labrador opted out of another term, the party had another close contest for his replacement; it was won by former Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna. The contest was a lot more even-tempered than that of 2014, but Luna may have his hands full keeping order in the party in the months to come. The signs of trouble ahead are clear enough.

Some of those indicators are local. The battles of 2014 tended to pit the establishment Republicans (then led by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter) against the party’s agitators and ideologues. Similar battles, involving some of the same people in different positions along with some new ones, are brewing now. The conflicts over Governor Brad Little’s orders and positioning over pandemic regulation are the most visible part of that, but a string of other issues are on simmer. The recent chairmanship race revived echoes of that history.

There’s another explosive element coming around the bend, a little more than three months from now.

The Idaho Republican Party has mostly - maybe overwhelmingly, at least in its structure - strongly backed President Donald Trump. What happens if he loses - or even, for that matter, if he wins?

If Trump prevails in November, the national mood - in a country where substantial majorities are registering not just opposition but fierce opposition to Trump - could turn volcanic. How would Idaho’s Republicans react? Idaho is not an isolated island, after all; it is in this together with 49 other states.

But indicators now show a probable loss for Trump, with a good chance it won’t be close. If that happens, the national Republican Party - which like the Idaho chapter has thrown in almost fully with the president - will have some serious rethinking to do. Where will it go? Will it try to recreate a Trumpism without Trump? Will it go off in some other direction - maybe a recreation of where it was before 2016, or maybe an alternative? The discussions on that nationally already have begun and turned intense.

So what would be Idaho’s reaction? Whatever it is, it too is likely to be intense, and strong emotions - and conflict - can easily be unleashed.

That job of holding the party organization together in the months to come will fall to Tom Luna. No guesses here about how well he does, or in what ways he tries to manage the situation, or how well that works.

But very likely the stress test to come may be one of the weightiest challenges he has had.
 

Inspiration

Inspiration

July 9, 2020

schmidt

I was mostly tired in medical school, not inspired. But I remember one small part of just one of hundreds of lectures and it has stuck with me to this day.

It was the mid 1980’s and Medicare had instituted a plan to control costs in hospitals. The lecturer spoke at length about how health care costs were rising way too fast (forty years ago!) and at one point he paused and looked out at us, the next generation of MD’s for the Pacific Northwest. “You guys can change this,” he said. “Well-trained, hard-working, smart doctors will change this cost growth. We must.” I was inspired.

I resolved to only prescribe medications that offered benefit, only order tests that would benefit outcomes. It’s all in the evidence, and if you know the evidence and make decisions so based, the waste in health care will decrease, right?

Fast forward to a middle-aged Family Doc practicing in a small Idaho town. A retired engineer comes to me for a physical and asks me to order a “stress treadmill test”. He had a heart attack with bypass surgery some ten years before and he wanted to “make sure everything was OK”.

He walked daily, up and down hills, had no symptoms, no chest pain, no ankle swelling, no shortness of breath. He was doing great, just worried.

I explained the best I could to him that a treadmill test was a waste of time, and money. Because of his heart attack, he had an abnormal EKG, so interpreting the treadmill was impossible. If he had any symptoms we should do a different test, but without symptoms, no screening test was indicated at this time.

He was not happy, and the evidence I presented did not comfort him. I failed to gain his confidence. Upon reflection, I also probably didn’t listen well to his concerns, his worry. And that was the symptom I should have addressed.

So, he found a different doctor who would order the test (and charge for it).

That doctor was a partner of mine and he came to me after the test. “Dan, you were right not to order that test,” he said. “But he really wanted it so I did it.” So, I lost a patient, my partner gained one, and the world kept turning.

I think of how we are all talking about the testing, the treatments, the public interventions in response to our current pandemic with Covid 19. Everybody wants a test, but they are fraught with inaccuracy. Our President touts a miracle cure, but there is no evidence to support it. We want to know who is immune, but the research hasn’t been done to show how, or if our bodies’ immune system responds to this virus. We don’t have the knowledge. It’s a great time for opportunists and grifters.

Heart disease (decreased blood flow to heart muscle) was the big killer 50 years ago, and it still is. The research on treatments and prevention had a lot of time to come up with the evidence we needed to make the best recommendations for public health. And believe it or not, we made some headway. But health care costs sure kept climbing.

But most of us aren’t thinking about “public health”, we are thinking about our own mortality, and the health and welfare of the ones we love. Cost is not the concern right now. Not for Congress and our President who just had the treasury print a few trillion dollars. Did you get your check?

We should all listen better to the worries voiced by our neighbors. For those worried about paying rent or buying groceries, printing money and sending checks provides some short-term ease. For those worried about their loss of freedom and independence, maybe giving them a wide berth would provide them comfort. For those worried about their mortality, we might have to share some spiritual strength, if we have any to spare.
 

Covid is under control – in Germany

Covid is under control – in Germany

July 7, 2020

jones

America has led the world in science and technology for decades. Ever since World War Two, the U.S. has dazzled the world with its scientific prowess--nuclear weapons, space exploration, medical advances, the internet and so many other inventions and innovations that it is practically impossible to catalog. The rest of the world has marveled at the scientific leadership of this remarkable country.

The coronavirus is no exception. Karl Lauterbach, a Harvard-educated epidemiologist who is now a German legislator, credits American scientific research for that country’s successful fight to control the virus. As of June 20, Germany had reported 191,000 cases of Covid-19, with 8,960 deaths. As a result of keeping infections low, deaths and economic disruption in Germany have been relatively modest

Lauterbach says that many of the measures which proved effective in his country were “based on studies by leading U.S. research institutes.” Based “almost entirely” on U.S. studies showing the effectiveness of face masks, Germany mandated their use in public settings. The country also implemented a nationwide strategy of social distancing, as well as rigorous testing and tracing for infections.

It is satisfying to learn that American scientific knowhow was instrumental in saving lives and substantially reducing the economic impact of the coronavirus in Germany. Unfortunately, the Trump administration disregarded much of that U.S. scientific research. We have no nationwide strategy for testing, tracing and social distancing. Recommendations were made available to the 50 states, but each has been left to fend for itself in the struggle against the virus.

If the U.S. had followed Germany's lead and relied upon the advice of the same American experts, we might have suffered only one-fourth as many Covid-19 infections and deaths. That is, since the U.S. population is four times that of Germany, we might have had only about 764,000 infections (instead of 2.29 million) and only about 35,840 deaths (instead of 121,000). Taking Germany’s lead, which was based on U.S. science, 85,160 Americans might still be alive.

One of the most effective means of controlling the virus, as shown by numerous studies, is to wear a face mask in public settings. Yet, the President has shown no leadership in urging the use of this simple means of preventing infections and saving lives. Rather, he has made it a test of loyalty for his followers, essentially implying that they would spite him by wearing a mask.

American experts say that we must substantially increase testing to find Covid-19 carriers if we hope to effectively fight the virus, but Trump blows off testing as unimportant. At Tulsa on June 21, he said he had told his staff to “slow the testing down” because more testing reveals more Covid-19 cases. That may explain why we have no national testing program.

Years ago, when U.S. scientists revealed that second-hand smoke can cause cancer and respiratory diseases in non-smokers, states and cities took action to restrict smoking in public areas. Some smokers claimed the restrictions violated their constitutional rights. We have now accepted those restrictions because they protect the rights of others to breathe without risking their life or health.

As with smoking, there is no constitutional right to endanger the lives of others by exhaling coronavirus into the air in public places. It is at least as dangerous and rude as blowing smoke in the faces of others. Spreading the virus in that fashion will result in more infections and deaths, while impeding efforts to get the economy back up and running. Let’s follow the advice of American scientists, just as Germany and other countries have done, by wearing masks in public places and taking other prudent measures to bring the virus under control.
 

Baby and bath water

Baby and bath water

July 6, 2020

rainey

“Baby and the bath water” is an old saw. But, it keeps running in my head these days as we’re watching some of our history being swept away in a wave of political correctness.

I’ve never been a big fan of “political correctness.” Sort of felt it’s too - uh - correct. Still do.

We’re currently witnessing the demolishing of statues, renaming prominent buildings, removing public art and “correcting” almost anything tied to the confederacy that existed in this nation in the mid-1800's. And after.

Even Teddy Roosevelt has been threatened. Yes, Teddy! There’s a statue in Boston with Teddy on his horse and an Indian on one side and a Black man on the other. Both standing. The raucous outcry to end ol’ Teddy’s days on public display is because he’s “higher” than the other two depicted and that makes some of the P-Cer’s unhappy. They say the difference makes the two other figures “lesser.”

Well, la de dah. Of course, Teddy’s “higher.” He’s sitting atop a horse, idiots! The sculptor, to anyone’s knowledge, wasn’t making a “racial statement” when carving in the 1930's. Still the voices of rancor want the whole shebang torn down. Now!

Woodrow Wilson’s name is being sandblasted off an old building on the Princeton campus. Seems he was a “bad guy,” too. Yes, he said and wrote some things that could be considered racist. And anti-Semitic. But, his words, however they appeared, were nearly 90 years ago. His worth - whatever history deems that to be - will likely be based on what he did - or didn’t do - as President of these United States.

We’ve even been told some voices want the artwork on Stone Mountain in Georgia blasted to bits. If you’ve ever seen Stone Mountain, its not something you’d likely want to see reduced to pebbles.

I understand - about as much as a Caucasian man can - the feelings of some Black Americans when referring to various public objects with depictions of the years of the Civil War. Anger being the most universal, we’re told. I understand.

But, what comes next? Do we pillage libraries everywhere by removing texts telling of slavery - or the war - or the Confederacy? Do we stop teachers in our public schools from teaching students about that terrible time of a divided nation - of the destruction and death - the terrible toll when Americans were killing Americans? And Black Wall Street and Red Summer?

Can’t some standard be set by somebody before junking public art depicting the people, the events, the history of our nation at that time? Do we have to destroy it all in the name of “political correctness?” There must be some other way.

Bad as the Civil War memories are for some, I have my own memories of another time when our nation was in danger and those in power made a terrible decision.

I was six-years-old, in early 1942, when sheriff’s deputies raided my first grade classroom and literally carried out some of my classmates - my friends - because they were from Japanese-American families. I can’t forget the screaming voices. They, and their parents, were hauled off to isolated camps in the Western U.S.. Mostly barren places with tar paper dormitories surrounded with barbed wire and armed guards.

It was a national tragedy - a national shame - authorized by Franklin Roosevelt at the urging of other politicians. One of the loudest and most persistent voices belonged to Senator William Borah of Idaho.

So, what happened to those camps of shame? After the war and after the release of those families, did we destroy them? Did we try to cover up our national disgrace by obliterating any trace?

No, we didn’t. Some of those terrible places were reconstructed. They’ve become monuments to constantly remind us of the wrongs committed. Like slavery. To the tragedy we allowed simply because the lives uprooted were those of a people who didn’t look like the rest of us. With different skin color. Like slavery.

I used to occasionally travel past one of those WWII camps near Minidoka, Idaho. Everytime - every time - I remembered those first grade kids - the big, armed deputies - the screams. Mostly the screams. I now live 15-hundred miles away but, even as I write these words, I can see Jimmy Yamamoto twisting and screaming as he was picked up out of his little seat.

We made those memorials to remind an entire nation to not forget the misplaced racism. Yes, racism. That’s what it was. Pure and simple. The “cover story” we were told was that some of “those people” might be”secret agents”of Japan. Our bloodthirsty enemy on the battlefields of the Pacific. But, at it’s core, it was racism. A different color skin.

Germany also decided to remember that nation’s shame - and racism - by making monuments out of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau and others. Some were rebuilt as they were during the mass killings. They, like the American camps, stand as constant reminders of shame.

For those hell-bent on removing all the public reminders of Civil War racism and slavery, there are other ways of looking at those times - those tragic times. And those pieces of rock and stone and granite.

“Baby and bath water.” Be careful.
 

The meaning of ‘treason’

The meaning of ‘treason’

July 5, 2020

readings

A guest opinion from Everett Wohlers from Idaho.

We have heard about the story first reported in the New York Times that the Russian GRU offered bounties to the Afghan Taliban for the killing of US servicemen, and that the US intelligence services briefed President Trump in March of this year. The NYT reports that information on the bounty offer was briefed “to the highest levels of the White House” in January.

The matter was discussed by the National Security Council at a White House meeting in March, and a matter of such importance would have been reported to the President. The NYT had personal knowledge that information about the GRU operation was included in at least one President’s Daily Brief (PDB). We have since learned that the intelligence services first alerted the White House to the bounty scheme in early 2019 and that it was included in a PDB at that time. Further, intelligence professionals around John Bolton at that time have reported that Bolton verbally informed Trump of the report.

Since the NYT story broke, Trump has repeatedly denied that he knew anything about the Russian scheme. But, based on the number of times that the matter came to the White House’s attention, Trump’s denial that he knew of reports of the Russian bounty offers is just not plausible. To bolster Trump’s denial, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Daniel Ratcliffe issued a statement saying that Trump had not been briefed. However, Ratcliffe did not take the DNI job until May 26, so he had no personal knowledge of facts that occurred in March and therefore had no basis for his statement.

The bottom line is that Trump knew of the GRU program to pay bounties for American deaths. Not only did he not take action against Russia, Trump engaged in a series of pro-Russian actions. In April, Trump joined Russian President Putin in a joint statement about trust between the US and Russia. Trump phoned Putin five or six times between March and June of this year.

Following a call on June 1 that was described in favorable terms by Trump, he publicly advocated for the re-admission of Russia to the G-7 and having Putin attend the G-7 meeting Trump was planning to host at Camp David in June.

More importantly, just a few days after the June 1 call, and with no notice to NATO allies nor even to Defense Department leadership, Trump announced that the US would withdraw a third of its forces from Germany, something about which Putin has dreamt for years. One day later, Putin announced that Russia would be deploying more troops to Russia’s western region, facing NATO. The combined effect of those actions will be a shift in the balance of power in Russia’s favor. Needless to say, Germany and the other NATO powers were furious at the perceived betrayal by the US.

As an American, and particularly as a war veteran, I am beyond outrage at a Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces who knew of a campaign by a hostile foreign power to pay for the assassination of American service members, and not only failed to take action against that foreign power, but actively befriended its leader and gave that hostile power two huge strategic gifts – the unilateral withdrawal of a third of US forces in Germany that serve as a deterrent against Russian aggression, and advocating for Russia’s readmission to the G-7. Trump’s betrayal of the troops of which he is the supreme commander and his betrayal of our NATO allies are beyond shameful.

The term “treason” is often misused, frequently by Trump himself, but it seems in this case to be appropriate. Article III, section 3.1 of the Constitution says, “Treason against the United States, shall consist . . . in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” I contend (1) that the GRU’s offer of bounties established Russia as an “enemy,” insofar as it was intended to kill American troops, and (2) that Trump’s failure to respond appropriately, his subsequent public embrace of Russia’s leader, his withdrawal of US forces from Germany immediately after the call with Putin, and his advocacy for Russia’s re-admission to the G-7 would constitute “Aid and Comfort.” The Constitution’s remedy for treason, in Article II, Section 4, is removal from office.

Everett Wohlers is a lawyer who served as a Republican appointee in Idaho state government for over 21 years. He is a Vietnam war vet, and later served in the National Guard for over 20 years. He is now a consultant to the World Bank Group, and has spent substantial time in both Russia and Afghanistan.
 

Impeachment redux

Impeachment redux

July 4, 2020

richardson

It seems increasingly likely that Trump was briefed on, and failed to respond to, Putin offering a bounty for killing American soldiers in Afghanistan. Even in an administration that brazenly discards norms and consistently lowers the bar, this shocks the conscience and must not go unaddressed. The House of Representatives needs to begin hearings in aid of impeachment.

Some will say that such hearings would be a futile exercise. They will predict -- probably correctly -- that even if the House votes to impeach, the GOP Senate will never vote to convict. After four years of embracing our errant president ever more tightly, Republicans aren’t likely to spurn him now.

Others will argue that the general election is just four short months away and that the people can vote to remove him then. That point, too, has merit.

But here's the thing. If we do not immediately act to remove Trump from office, how do we explain our inaction to the brave and patriotic soldiers serving abroad? How do we justify making them wait until January to have an engaged and loyal commander-in-chief? How many more Putin-sponsored body bags will be met by grieving families? How many more bounties will be paid?

As my friend and former Idaho state representative Gino White predicts, “History will judge Trump harshly, which will lead to the question of ‘what did the opposition party do?’” Gino rightly suggests that the answer should be “everything we could.”

The hearings would not need to be long and drawn out. If Trump was briefed about this travesty and did nothing, the proof should be easily obtained and presented. Moreover, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution, who has later gone to war against the United States, or given aid and comfort to the nation's enemies can serve in a state or federal office.

Trump took such an oath and it would seem a small matter to adduce evidence that, even after being briefed on Russia’s machinations, Trump actually rewarded Russia by inviting Putin to visit the White House, by pulling American Troops from Germany, and – most incredibly – by pushing for Russia’s inclusion in the G-7. The U.S. may not be at war with Russia, but Russia is most certainly our enemy. Trump’s actions, in the face of Putin's treachery, gave Russia aid and comfort and should disqualify Trump from serving in federal office.

Once again House Democrats are called upon to lead by example. Unlike Trump and his Republican cohort, they should do the right thing without hesitation. They must investigate promptly and, if the facts warrant impeachment, proceed to schedule that vote. If Republican senators choose to nail themselves to the mast of the sinking S.S. Trump, so be it; they will have the distinction of going down with the first American president to be impeached twice.
 

Denial

Denial

July 4, 2020

johnson

In 2017, Tom Nichols, a professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, published a book that anticipated our current state of affairs. Nichols’s book, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters, made an overarching point: with so much information literally at our fingertips everyone can be an expert on everything. Or at least play at being an expert on Facebook.

One example Nichols cited was a Washington Post poll that found after the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine “only one in six Americans could identify Ukraine on a map; the median response was off by about 1,800 miles.” Yet, this lack of basic knowledge hardly kept Americans from their sure-fire opinions about what action the country should take.

“In fact,” Nichols wrote, “the respondents favored intervention in direct proportion to their ignorance. Put another way, the people who thought Ukraine was located in Latin America or Australia were the most enthusiastic about using military force there.”

Turns out our certainty frequently has an inverse relation to our intelligence. Why? Why do so many Americans disdain expertise?

“Americans have reached a point where ignorance, especially of anything related to public policy, is an actual virtue,” Nichols wrote. “To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything. It is a new Declaration of Independence: No longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true. All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.”

The country’s disastrous, fragmented and deadly response to the global coronavirus pandemic is deeply rooted in the America aversion to expertise. Unfortunately for the first time in modern history we have a “fragile ego” in the White House who has made being ignorant about virtually everything a governing principle.

“Across the rest of the developed world, COVID-19 has been ebbing,” David Frum wrote this week in The Atlantic. “As a result, borders are reopening and economies are reviving. Here in the U.S., however, Americans are suffering a new disease peak worse than the worst of April.” As a result, the European Union this week barred almost all travelers from the United States because we have failed to control the virus, and we have failed because millions of us have rejected fundamental common sense.

Back in February the president and his Fox News echo chamber were calling the virus “a hoax” that was completely under control. It wasn’t and people who have spent a lifetime studying such things knew it wasn’t. Yet, governors in Arizona, Florida and twenty other places embraced Trumpian logic about the virus, waited too long and then acted inadequately.

From June 15 to the end of the month Arizona’s totals went from about 1,000 cases per day to nearly 5,000 per day. Idaho’s cases seem on a similar trajectory. Little wonder Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s top infectious disease expert, worried this week that the country could soon be headed for 100,000 new cases per day. “I am very concerned,” he said. And for good reason. Death numbers, a lagging indicator compared to cases, will almost certainly begin rising in coming days.

Meanwhile, every disease expert in the world is recommending the wearing of face masks as a fundamental necessity in slowing the spread. Yet, Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul – hard to believe he is actually a doctor – mused out loud at a hearing where Fauci testified, “We shouldn’t presume that a group of experts somehow knows what’s best for everyone.”

Delegates to the Idaho Republican convention fumed last week about Governor Brad Little’s contact tracing efforts, an effective and proven method of isolating the virus and containing its spread that has been widely implemented in countries that have brought the pandemic under control.

One “expert,” Heather Rogers, a convention delegate from Lewiston, was quoted by reporter Nathan Brown as saying, “What Governor Little did was frankly, in my opinion, completely unconstitutional.” The key words here are “in my opinion.”

Donald Trump is scheduled to be at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota’s Black Hills Friday for a big fireworks display that defies common sense on at least two fronts. Fireworks displays at the national monument were long ago suspended due to concerns about forest fires and a big crowd of people will create a mountain sized petri dish of virus spread.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem welcomes the chaos. “We told those folks that have concerns that they can stay home,” she told NBC, “but those who want to come and join us, we’ll be giving out free face masks, if they choose to wear one. But we will not be social distancing.”

One of the toughest tasks in politics is to muster the courage to tell your followers that they are wrong. But so many Republicans have lived for so long in the land of science denial, in the universe of expertise bashing, that when confronted with a genuine crisis that can’t be flim flamed away they’re left with little but their own nonsense.

But at this moment, as David Frum writes, “reality will not be blustered away. Tens of thousands are dead, and millions are out of work, all because Trump could not and would not do the job of disease control” – a task that requires deferring to science, accepting facts and behaving responsibly about things like wearing a mask. The task also involves leading the skeptical.

From denying climate change and abandoning the international effort to rescue an imperiled planet to embracing the claim that the virus would somehow magically “go away,” the president and a sizeable percentage of the American population have, as Tom Nichols says, chosen to be ill-informed.

They are left with only their anger and their demands because they have abdicated “their own important role in the process: namely, to stay informed and politically literate enough to choose representatives who can act on their behalf.”

Meanwhile, the cases continue to grow.
 

Initiative squeeze redux

Initiative squeeze redux

July 3, 2020

stapiluslogo1

The specifics are as new and current as Covid-19 but, really, we’ve been here before.

The news is about the school funding and tax initiative being proposed by the group Reclaim Idaho, which launched its effort to gather petition signatures - which are needed to obtain a line on the ballot - last October. Signature-gathering was rolling along, and might or might not have succeeded under the usual rules, when the pandemic intervened, and shut down a lot of person-to-person communications around the state.

In some ways, the impact of shutdown orders on petition signatures for an initiative proposal may be among the smaller effects of the new way or where we are. But it’s significant nonetheless, and a way forward actually is suggested in the recent rulings of federal Judge B. Lynn Winmill.

Back up for a moment to the whole matter of initiatives in Idaho. The Idaho State Constitution was amended in 1912 to allow for voter-driven initiatives as a method of bypassing the legislature if it proved unwilling to act as the voters want. The provision specifically said voters “reserve to themselves the power to propose laws … independent of the legislature.” So the ability of citizens to do this is explicitly part of the state governing policy in Idaho.

The legislature, and a number of other state officials, haven’t always liked that. Starting from a base of setting reasonable requirements for petition signatures within a scheduled period of time - to ensure substantial voter support for the proposal actually does exist, and to keep the ballot from being flooded with initiatives - legislators periodically have tried to make the rules for ballot qualification so difficult that the right reserved to the people in the state constitution would become meaningless. For the last decade the requirements have been so strict that only an extremely well-organized and well-supported effort could manage the task (which the recent Medicaid expansion effort did). Another legislative effort to tighten the requirements still further - to all but eliminate the initiative in Idaho - only narrowly failed last year.

That’s the context for the conflict this year, in which state governance may in another way effectively block the right of the people to make their own laws.

The difference in this case is that the state action wasn’t undertaken with the intent of doing that. The pandemic shutdown orders by Governor Brad Little were issued for health reasons. But the petition circulators, who under state law had to obtain a certain number of signatures during a period when in-person contact was sharply limited by state order, were caught up in it.

What to do?

Since the state’s official (and constitutional) policy is to allow people to pursue initiative efforts, the answer logically seems to involve some flexibility in the specifics of the rules, maintaining them enough to continue to ensure some support for the proposal, but easing them enough to give backers a reasonable shot at ballot status.

When state officials declined to accommodate that, Reclaim Idaho sued in federal court. Winmill proposed one of two options: the state could simply put the initiatives on the ballot, or allow the signature gathering to be done online, over a period of 48 days.

That second option, because it seems so similar to how a whole lot of governmental and even commercial activity is being handled during the pandemic, feels like a no-brainer. We’re being encouraged to conduct all sorts of activity, wherever realistic, online; why not petition signatures, at least during the pandemic period? Where’s the great harm in allowing that?

The state, of course, said it plans to appeal. Reclaim Idaho is, in the meantime, pursuing its online signature-gathering effort. We’ll see what happens when the case hits the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the core of this debate is the same as the core of the legislative debate on the structure of initiatives last year:

Is the state government of Idaho going to uphold the rights of the voters as enumerated in the state constitution, or not?
 

Don’t think like a virus

Don’t think like a virus

July 2, 2020

schmidt

As the numbers climb in some states and bump up a bit in ours, I thought we should take some time to consider the lowly viral point of view. I’m not here to sell you on “viral rights” or equal opportunity for viruses, none of that usual liberal stuff. But if you put your mind into the viral point of view for a minute, this pandemic might make sense. Or maybe not, since after all viruses don’t think. And that might be our problem.

We think too much. Viruses just want to procreate.

That’s all, their focus is simple: make more of me. Spread my RNA across this planet. But they can’t even think of a planet.

Whatever host that serves will do. It just so happens this virus spent some time in some bats and it made a change that allowed it to find a host that happens to be the most prevalent, wide spread large mammal on our planet. Except maybe rats.

Don’t think we humans are too special. The virus really doesn’t care. Honestly, rats would do just fine too. But this Covid 19 virus got stuck with us humans.

One of the limits to spreading its RNA are its ability to transmit itself from one host to the next. And we sure are a social animal, as much as rats. So, this virus has found a welcome host.
The efforts that have been successful in limiting the spread have been what makes us so frustrated; they are antisocial.

Masks are antisocial.

Staying at home, limiting contact with others has worked. But boy, that ain’t fun, and it sure kills the economy. We don’t think like a virus.

The communities that have had full hospitals and known folks who have died sense the reality of this infection. The less affected communities wonder, “Why all the fuss?”. That’s not viral thinking.

Viruses would find these thoughts a waste of time, since all they want is more of themselves spread all over. Thinking doesn’t help a virus, so they don’t. I’m not sure it’s helping us right now. But we can’t stop ourselves, can we? We are thinking, social animals.

The virus doesn’t really want to kill us. A dead host can’t cough and spread the RNA as effectively. So, all those folks infected but not really too sick, who may not even know they have it are doing the virus a favor. They spread the infection much more effectively. The unlucky ones who have to be hospitalized, isolated, ventilator, aren’t nearly as valuable a viral vector as those out walking around without masks.

We sure have our thoughts about masks, don’t we? Viruses don’t think about masks, just as they don’t think about killing us. But if they could, I’ll bet they’d vote against the masks. They just want to spread. They probably like big gatherings too, if they could like something. They are lucky they adapted to infect a social animal.

One of the gifts this pandemic has given us is a bit of insight into how our neighbors think. We sure don’t think like viruses, and we probably can’t, thought we have grown our species on this planet virally. There must be a part of us that has that viral, procreate focus.

It may turn out that how our bodies, how our immune systems react to this virus determines who lives and who dies. The strong, well balanced, healthy immune systems get to work and deal with it like a bad cold. The older, weak ones can’t manage. The over reactive ones suffer too.

This pandemic is an opportunity. It has made me think about the place we humans have on this planet. It has shown me how some of my neighbors think. But a virus wouldn’t care. We should. We shouldn’t think like a virus.