Ridenbaugh Press/publishing

The sensible choice

June 7, 2023

Three members of Idaho’s congressional delegation had a choice: Vote for a measure they did not entirely hate, or face the possibility of an economic train wreck.

Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, and Congressman Russ Fulcher chose the train wreck. So be it if a federal default would mean delays in Social Security payments, or if Wall Street were reduced to a pile of dust. In their minds, the plan worked out by President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy – a rare display of bipartisanship in Washington politics -- wasn’t good enough.

Thank goodness, the three Idaho Republicans were in the minority. Both houses of Congress passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act, giving us almost a two-year break from talking about debt ceilings.

Not everyone in the delegation has his head in the clouds. Congressman Mike Simpson voted for the bill, along with an overwhelming number of his congressional colleagues. He outlined some compelling reasons for his positive action, including an increase in defense spending, a cap on non-defense spending and the scaling back of the controversial $80 billion increase to the IRS. Simpson says it will reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

The cuts were not as deep as Republicans wanted, but there was at least some progress in changing Washington’s big-spending culture. And it all came about because Republicans hold a slim majority in the House. The GOP should be basking in glory, opposed to trying to hold the nation’s economy hostage.

Simpson is taking that victory lap, and good for him. He offers a nice civics lesson in the process.

“Raising the debt limit does not create new spending – rather, it allows the federal government to pay back loans that were taken out in the past and ensures that the government meets its obligations to bondholders, taxpayers, Social Security recipients and the veterans and service men and women who have served our country faithfully,” he said. “Democrats’ unchecked spending got us to the circumstances we’re in today, and this bill sets a strategic and responsible path forward to grow the economy and save trillions in taxpayer dollars.”

OK … you can’t blame it all on the Democrats. We have a $31 trillion debt and Republicans have helped make that possible. But Simpson’s points overall are well taken.

Crapo acknowledges that the Fiscal Responsibility Act had some good features, as Simpson outlined, but says it doesn’t go far enough. “Because the White House waited months to engage in serious bipartisan conversations with Republicans, Congress was left with little time to adequately address our overall ballooning national debt, keeping spending at swollen post-COVID levels. The Fiscal Responsibility Act is a missed opportunity for true budget reforms to prevent the type of excessive spending we have seen over the last two years.”

Budget reform is a tricky proposition. Crapo, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, has come up with two proposals – zero-based budgeting (a failed idea from the Carter years) and a balanced-budget amendment (promoted heavily during the Reagan presidency). Lord help us if Crapo is holding out for those two moldies.

But the senior senator represents the majority of thinking in the delegation, which a generous following beyond.

“This debt ceiling increase puts a band-aid on a hemorrhage, and we will be in this same situation again and again until we address the federal government’s underlying spending problem,” said Risch.

Fulcher, a member of the House Freedom Caucus – which overwhelmingly opposed the bill – said he could not justify “the debt implications that the legislation poses to Idahoans and fellow Americans.” State GOP Chair Dorothy Moon and the Legislature’s Freedom Caucus also weighed in with their opposition to the debt-ceiling package.

The decision to raise the debt ceiling, says Moon, “while it may help us avoid immediate disaster, does little to change the trajectory of government growth. … As we move past this recent debt ceiling issue, it is essential to focus on the actual problem at hand: our government routine and significant overspending.”

Granted, our fiscal policies are a mess and have been for a long time. But we can only speculate about the economic “mess” that would be in store if the country defaulted on its financial obligations.

To get a clue, try skipping payments for a few months on housing, the car and the power bill … and see what happens.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

We need to be afraid

We need to be afraid

June 6, 2023

Artificial intelligence (AI) scares me to death!

The most serious of my fears is why so many of the scientists and others working in the field - much more educated that I - are expressing fears of their own. The professionals! When the people who "birthed" this thing are afraid, it should set off alarm bells for the rest of us.

Worries about AI systems outsmarting humans and running wild have intensified with the rise of a new generation of highly capable Chatbots such as "ChatPT," Bard, Stable Diffusion, DALL-E and Midjourney.

Check this from "Tableau," one of the AI websites. "Worries about AI systems: outsmarting humans, killer robots, consumer privacy, biased programming, dangers to humans, unclear regulations, sentient AI programs."

That last one is a nail biter.

Basically, we unschooled masses are relying on thousands of scientists, programmers and other highly trained folk to "do the right thing." To be the "the good guys."

But, what if not all of them do? Or are?

In almost all human endeavors, there have been "bad guys." People who seek to use a developing invention - like AI - for bad rather than good. Though you won't find many explicit comments about the wrongful use of AT, it's certainly on the minds of many in the field, judging by their sounding of alarms.

More than a thousand researchers/technologists have signed an international letter calling for a six-month pause on AI development. The letter says "AI posses profound risks to society and humanity."

When hundreds of leading figures in the AI field sign such a list internationally, yes, I get scared. You should be, too.

Dan Hendrycks, executive director of the San Francisco-based Center for AI Safety wrote: "There's a variety of people from all the top universities in various fields who are concerned that this is a global priority. We've got to get people "out-of-the-closet," so to speak, on this issue because many (professionals) are sort of silently speaking (only to) each other."

Countries around the world are scrambling to come up with regulations for the developing technology. The European Union seems to be a bit out front with its promise of an AI Act expected to be approved later this year.

Well, that's just hunky-dorry. So, the EU is going to put something on paper. An "Act." A statement of how AI is to be used. Gee whiz.

Problem is - and this is the largest concern among the professionals - AI is at the stage of development that all who want to use it can. All. Good and bad.

This is the stuff of science fiction. Like "Star Wars," "The Jetsons" and "Star Trek." Except, AI isn't science fiction anymore. It's real now! We've got it and even the experts don't know how to use - and how to safeguard - AI from having it turned on civilization.

AI - in the right hands - may be the most important "invention" in our lifetimes. It has so damned much promise when used wisely. It's truly a "game changer" in almost every way. It can open doors in nearly all fields of human endeavor. It can entirely alter the way we live and communicate with each other.

But, it can also be used against civilization. It can be used for just about any bad purpose you can think of. That's why the warning statements of thousands of scientists and computer professionals are so meaningful. That's what should concern all of us.

We - and all of civilization - are facing a real "Hobson's choice" with artificial intelligence. Even if you - like me - know little to nothing about it, AI is going to affect every human on planet earth. It will.

Google AI as I did. Read up on what it is and how it can be used. And for what purposes. You, too, may suddenly be concerned.

AI is truly a universal mind bender. And, that's really frightening.

The dangers of extremism

The dangers of extremism

June 5, 2023

The political extremists who took control of North Idaho College in the 2020 trustee election wasted little time trying to destroy what had been the jewel in Idaho’s community college crown since its founding in 1933. The hostile take-over of NIC’s board of trustees was engineered by Brent Regan and his collection of far-right extremists. They falsely claimed in the election that NIC was run by a bunch of radical liberals who were essentially brainwashing the students. Nothing could have been further from the truth but Regan’s candidates carried the day.

Regan chairs the so-called Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), which deplores public education. IFF’s president has said: “I don’t think government should be in the education business. It is the most virulent form of socialism (and indoctrination thereto) in America today.” This attitude would explain why Regan’s trustees have driven the college to the brink of disaster. Unless things take a dramatic turn very soon, NIC will lose its accreditation and just be a fond memory of the thousands who were educated in its hallowed halls.

Regan’s trustees fired one NIC president after taking control, prompting a lawsuit and settlement. The trustees attempted to fire a second president, Nick Swayne, who was reinstated by the judge. Swayne remains on the job despite repeated efforts to dislodge him. Luckily for Swayne, the trustees hired a lawyer last December who is better at cranking out hefty billings than providing good legal assistance. It is a clear demonstration that when you hire an attorney who will tell you what you want to hear, instead of what you need to hear, you are headed into legal trouble.

When the lawyer claimed that Swayne was hired in violation of Idaho’s open meeting law, the no-nonsense judge correctly shot down that specious argument on a number of grounds. Judge Cynthia Meyer ruled that the contention was about 4 months too late and “not done in good faith.” She also indicated that the intended conclusion of the lawyer’s investigation of the matter was evident from the beginning. The combination of a competent, courageous judge and bumbling lawyer have thus far frustrated the effort of Regan’s trustees to dump Swayne.

In what might be a hopeful sign at an April 26 meeting, one of the three trustees supported by Regan joined with the two reasonable, capable trustees, Brad Corkill and Tarie Zimmerman, to hire a qualified attorney to replace the bumbler (although the same trustee reversed his decision on the replacement attorney two days later). Some actual business–conferring tenure upon a number of faculty members–was also accomplished during the meeting.

And a recent evaluation indicates some progress in addressing accreditation problems. The efforts of the concerned citizens group, Save NIC, to push back against the destructive antics of the Regan trustees may be bearing fruit. They have awakened the community as to the danger posed by the Regan bunch. With the help of other good folk in the community, they might be able to save this treasured community college from destruction at the hands of Regan and his Freedom Foundation acolytes.

The rest of the state can’t rest easy, thinking it won’t happen elsewhere. Just last November, there was an unsuccessful effort by right-wing extremists to take over the board of trustees of the College of Western Idaho. In 2016, an anti-refugee candidate ran for the board of trustees of the College of Southern Idaho and came close to a win.

Regan’s plan is to turn Idaho colleges into indoctrination mills, forcing them to preach his hateful and divisive dogma. Our colleges have done a fine job over the decades of educating our children and preparing them to meet the challenges of the future. We don’t need interlopers coming in to wreck them with scare tactics and vague promises of reform. Idahoans must rise up to support public education like the pro-education folks in Save NIC.

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served 8 years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He is a regular contributor to The Hill online news. He blogs at JJCommonTater.com

A more personal Memorial Day

A more personal Memorial Day

June 4, 2023

For a lot of Americans, Oregonians included, Memorial Day means time off from work and the effective start of summer season, featuring enjoyable activities in communities large and small from the Rose Festival City Fair to the Prineville Memorial Day Parade.

Most of us in recent years have become separated from the reason for, and the human reality, behind the day.

Memorial Day, formed out of the lesser-known Decoration Day, originally in honor of Civil War veterans, was created in 1971, more recently than most Americans might suspect. It was launched while the Vietnam conflict raged and with the intent of honoring the U.S. military members who died in service.

As an Oregon website dedicated to the holiday noted, “Memorial Day is completely unique as a holiday, or any day we have really, in its particular focus: to get us to reflect on the nature of major sacrifice. What can we learn from and feel about those who died in war for our country and local communities? What does it mean to sacrifice for something bigger than oneself?”

Back in 1971, most Americans – and Oregonians – had strong personal connections with that idea. The draft was on, through the world wars, Korea and Vietnam, and those in uniform were drawn imperfectly but still broadly from the population. Many of us from those years knew directly or indirectly people who had died or been wounded in battle.

Military service has been undertaken by more specific and narrower segments of the population in the half-century since the draft ended in 1973. The sacrifices are no less real or great, but fewer of us are personally connected to them.

The Oregon connection is no less significant than any other state’s. The numbers can tell that much.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, at least 74 Oregonians died.

In Vietnam, an estimated 818 died, and about 57,000 people from Oregon served there.

In Korea, 283 deaths.

In World War II, 3,832 fatalities among Oregonians serving.

In World War I, 1,030 deaths.

In the Civil War, an estimated 48 died, bearing in mind Oregon had just become a state at that point and still had a tiny population.

One report on the subject concluded, “I think it’s impossible to get a precise count of how many people from Oregon have died fighting for their nation since the 1840s, but it appears to be more than 5,800, with the greatest number of losses in WWII.”

Today, we see the connections in the form of memories, some of them in physical form. Oregon has four national military cemeteries – in Portland, Roseburg, Warrenton and Eagle Point. There are also veterans memorials, probably more than in most states: 277 of them around Oregon, from a Grants Pass Civil War memorial for union troops to the Jeff Lucas Veterans Memorial Stadium – dedicated to a Navy Seal from Oregon who died in Afghanistan in 2005 – in Corbett.

When we hear about veterans in news articles or elsewhere, the context often concerns veterans services, especially health and social (including housing) care. And those are concerns which often have not been nearly well enough addressed.

But we should be talking about more than just statistics, cemeteries and services. This holiday is about people who died for their country, and we should have a more personal connection to that. But it also should be about those who served and returned home, dealing with conditions that range from PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, to the loss of limbs.

There’s an age factor here. Nearly all of the people I know personally who have served in uniform are in their retirement years, and the number has been falling. Growing numbers of us never knew a person who died in combat, or even served, although we walk past them as we duck some of those homeless veterans on the street.

The Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs has an advisory committee which has developed substantial regular reports on veterans concerns, mainly in these areas.

What the state – and federal agencies too, for that matter – have addressed far less is the subject of what’s called “mainstreaming,” bringing the world of the people who serve and served in the armed forces closer together with those who have relatively little direct contact with it.

Some form of institutionalized outreach, connecting veterans and our military to the broader public could help. Stories about those who gave their lives are available on line. But we need more than we have now.

We need to find a way to reconnect. We’ll be better off for it. And so will our veterans.

A big deal

A big deal

June 2, 2023

This is a financial deal of an almost unprecedented type, of enormous size, involving a purchase (sort of but not exactly) by the state (sort of but not exactly) that amounts to a transaction involving more money than the state of Idaho spends on all of its higher education institutions put together (sort of).

It might be a good idea. Or not. It’s hard to say.

The deal involves the University of Idaho and the University of Phoenix, an accredited for-profit private university serving about 85,000 students nationally (several times as many as U of I) mainly through online learning. It’s described as a purchase and also as an “affiliation,” which sounds a little contradictory. Or not.

A “purchase price” of $550 million is noted, although the U of P is said to plan a $200 million cash infusion to the new non-profit corporation which actually will own and operate the University of Phoenix, and taxpayers are said not to be underwriting the deal. So the University of Idaho is buying the institution, except that no, a brand new non-profit is.

The deal got underway, according to reports, in March, with an approach to the University of Idaho from the U of P owners. Why does it want to sell? An online U of I FAQ says: “University of Phoenix has been working diligently to improve its reputation by continuing and amplifying its focus on student success and outcomes since it was purchased by its current owners in 2017. University of Phoenix management believes the goals set several years ago have been accomplished and is ready for the next chapter in the university’s evolution.”

Let me know if you spot a plausible selling reason in all that.

The U of Idaho is expected to get “$10 million in supplemental education funding” through the deal, which it expects will grow over time. The exact source or rationale for this isn’t specified.

U Phoenix actually is being bought by a newly-created organization, NewU.Inc, by raising $685 million in bonds. How NewU exactly links to the University of Idaho is unclear. Idaho taxpayers are said not to be on the hook except possibly for $10 million of U of I money (is that the same income money mentioned earlier, or not?) which might be drawn upon, which the U of I says almost certainly won’t be needed. Exactly what happens if money does run short also is a little blurry.

So again, how will U of P and U of I relate? Might Phoenix be merged or folded into Idaho somehow? Here’s the FAQ: “Initially, University of Phoenix will operate separately from U of I, in a 501(c)(3) that is affiliated with the University of Idaho. University of Phoenix will remain an independent educational institution operated by its own president and leadership team. There are areas of future collaboration and integration that we will explore and evaluate together. We will take the time to do this right for all involved.” Does this mean it’s largely a financial transaction? The word is that it’s more than that, but how much more?

So why is this happening? The primary reason given: “we share a common mission, to illuminate and elevate students to be successful in their careers and lives.” Right: Same as every educational institution around the globe.

The FAQ also notes the institutions have been doing different things - U of I’s traditional local teaching and younger students against U of P’s far-flung mainly older distance students, each with expertise in different kinds of delivery. The idea that each could learn from the other has some appeal, but how exactly that would happen remains a little fuzzy.

Is there precedent? Yes, to a point, and the U of I named three. Purdue University in 2018 bought the for-profit Kaplan University for one dollar. In 2021 the private not-for-profit Brandman University affiliated (that word again) through a “change of control agreement” with the University of Massachusetts, becoming University of Massachusetts Global. And in 2020, Ashford University was acquired by the University of Arizona and renamed the University of Arizona Global Campus; it has been the subject of many controversies. All three of these acquiring institutions are considerably larger than the University of Idaho, and the purchased colleges all were considerably smaller. And there’s not been a lot of time to observe how these deals have panned out.

So what do we make of the Idaho-Phoenix deal? Based on what’s out there at this point, I’ll admit to not understanding it.

More time for careful reflection and review, by a wider audience, wouldn’t be a bad idea.

IRS accountability

IRS accountability

May 31, 2023

Idaho Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch have given at least 80 billion more reasons to hate the Internal Revenue Service, which has never been in danger of winning popularity contests.

That’s how many more dollars the IRS is spending to crack down on tax cheaters and otherwise make life miserable for those who don’t cheat and get caught up in the tangled web of tax audits.

Chris Edwards, a tax and budget specialist with the Cato Institute, has written about the end result for most of us. “More aggressive enforcement would mean more paperwork, more lawyer fees, more time consumed on tax matters and more anguish and uncertainty for taxpayers. It could also result in less privacy and personal financial security.”

This isn’t about the IRS going after rich people. The IRS’ target could include those making less than $400,000 a year. Don’t underestimate the agency’s ability to show those Washington politicians that they are getting their $80 billion worth. Crapo, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, is asking for transparency and accountability.

“Unease about super-sized IRS enforcement hiring has nothing to do with supporting evasion by ‘wealthy tax cheats,’ but comes from fear that the IRS will waste untold taxpayer dollars chasing speculative or marginal revenue recoveries, while hardworking Americans and small businesses end up in a dragnet,” Crapo wrote in a recent op-ed. “The majority of the $80 billion funding boost for the IRS was earmarked for aggressive enforcement, while just a sliver was set aside to improve customer service.”

Says Risch: “It (the IRS) did not use these additional staffers to expedite your returns or ease your filing experience. I’m concerned how the IRS is treating Americans. In the last few years, President Biden empowered the IRS to bully hardworking Americans into settlements under the threat of financial penalties.”

Some of that $80 billion could go to other purposes if Congress approves the budget deal worked out between President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. But the IRS still has plenty of extra funds to work with.

The Idaho Republicans won’t have to look far for a presidential candidate to sign on with their cause. Earlier this year, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina – who recently announced his bid for the GOP presidential nomination --joined Crapo and Risch on on their legislative efforts to prohibit the IRS from financial surveillance.

Of course, there’s no chance of getting Republican-sponsored bills of that nature through the Democratic-controlled Senate. It’s also curtains for the IRS Accountability and Taxpayer Protection Act, pushed by Crapo and Risch. But for Scott, one of a growing list of Republicans trying to spare us from Donald Trump, taking aim at the IRS isn’t a bad platform for a presidential run.

Edwards, in his piece for Cato, makes some good points about the pitfalls that go with more aggressive enforcement by the IRS.

“Supporters think that greater enforcement would be good policy because the expected higher tax revenues would outweigh the cost of higher IRS spending,” he wrote. “But that ignores the higher costs that would be imposed on the private sector, including tax compliance burdens and the loss of civil liberties.”

Believe it or not, the IRS makes mistakes – perhaps as much as 90 percent of the time on tax audits, according to one expert. “Which the agency gets away with because many taxpayers won’t challenge them,” says Edwards.

Good luck in getting the IRS, and its army of lawyers, to admit to making a mistake, says Edwards. “More IRS enforcement means more targeting of people who end up being innocent. Individuals and businesses will have to invest more time and more money in lawyer fees to defend against false IRS claims.”

Crapo points out that the IRS code requires the agency to “act in accord” with codified taxpayer rights, including the right to be informed; the right to quality service; the right to challenge the position of the IRS and be heard; the right to privacy; and the right to confidentiality.

“Idahoans have time-and-again seen the IRS fail to meet these obligations and rightly concerned about the vitality of their taxpayer rights,” Crapo wrote.

The senior senator has justifiable reservations about the IRS and its bulging budget. But with Democrats in control of the Senate and White House, there’s little that he can do aside from writing convincing op-eds.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

Fewer folks at the altar

Fewer folks at the altar

May 30, 2023

Since our return to the upper Willamette Valley a year ago, we've been searching for a new church "home."

We've attended all the mainline denominations in a 15 mile radius. And, what we've found in each is the same story: reduced attendance to the point that several seemed about to close.

We've been to a nearby United Methodist church. The sanctuary built to accommodate about 300 people, but at our visit, had attendance of less than 50. The church was built on a whole block for future growth. The main building had a wing for classrooms and offices plus a full basement. Obviously planned for what appeared to be a future increase in membership. Growth that hasn't materialized. Presbyterian, Lutheran or similar faiths. All.

Some other mainline houses of worship we visited weren't even meeting in their sanctuaries, opting for classrooms or cafeterias. Smaller meeting areas for smaller attendance, cheaper upkeep and lower utility bills.

It's no secret many mainline churches have been seeing reduced membership for several years. Some have closed.

There are several basic factors here. One is the next several generations doesn't seem attracted to either religion as a whole or the strictures associated with traditional worship. Another is the rise of what could be called "modern thinking" churches with sanctuaries built more like concert arenas. They often have small bands. They encourage informality of dress and demeanor. Some would say there's a more "entertainment-like" factor involved with less reliance on traditional religious services.

Whatever the case, church attendance is way down from the '50's and '60's. So, too, are the necessary financial underpinnings. Some churches even rent space during the week for outside events just to keep support the budget. And keep the lights on.

Look around mainline church congregations today and you'll find lots of gray hair. We haven't been to one recently where the average age was less than the late '60's or early '70's. In a few years, we'll be gone. What then?

Seminaries that turn out ministers for these traditional churches are obviously feeling the cutback.

These same churches with declining congregations got hit a couple years ago with a real hammer: COVID. Many scrambled to serve their home-bound congregants needs in a new way: television. Some were limited with a one-set camera shot. Some turned to TV techs for more professional setups with several cameras and more than one voice pickup.

Now, some of those same churches are faced with fewer folks in the pews and more at home, wearing pajamas and sitting in their favorite recliners. They like it. Such folks are hard to measure for attendance purposes. Or, continued giving in some cases. But, it seems, a goodly number of those at home won't be returning to the sanctuary. At least for awhile.

Some of the new, more "freestyle" movements have also drawn folks from traditional churches. Some even advertise "We've got answers to all your questions." Editors note: Not hardly.

Our society is experiencing momentous changes in nearly everything. It's been going on for sometime but COVID served to speed things up a bit. Everything from the way we buy cars to how we shop to the way we bank and pay our bills. And how we worship.

All of this I-Net stuff, Amazon and similar outfits, have lured millions of shoppers "online." "Buy today. Delivered tomorrow."

Sorry, but none of that works for me. I have to drive the car. Gotta feel the shirt material. Gotta touch the sheets. Want to go face-to-face with a salesman. Got to try on the pants. Have to attend to worship with others. Feel their closeness. Join their voices to sing the hymns.

Us older folks are still shopping at the mall or downtown. We're still buying cars and other goods from local retailers we know. Our health care is face-to-face local. We still sit in the same pews to worship.

I'm not "down" for all that new stuff. We'll still be doing things the way we've always done. Our choice.

More to remember on Memorial Day

More to remember on Memorial Day

May 29, 2023

Beginning with the Revolutionary War, almost 1.4 million Americans have died in our nation’s wars, including about 667,000 killed in combat. We remember, honor and mourn those gallant souls every year on Memorial Day–May 29 this year. Those Americans who have served in or near war zones carry their memories throughout the year. It should not be just a once-a-year observance for everyone else.

The country’s more recent conflicts, starting with Vietnam, have seen a blurring of the battle lines, where American service personnel have teamed up with local forces to fight a common enemy. For those who have worked hand-in-hand with local forces–South Vietnamese, Iraqis or Afghans–it is hard to forget those local troops who died in the common cause. Although our Memorial Day is for commemoration of our war dead, I think it would also be appropriate to honor those foreign partners on this special day.

For most of my tour in Vietnam, I lived and worked beside South Vietnamese soldiers (ARVNs), mostly Roman Catholics or members of the Cao Dai Church. As human beings, they had the same hopes and aspirations as most Americans. I trusted them with my life and I believe most of them felt the same. I can’t think of America’s fallen without thinking of them. Almost 300,000 ARVNs died in the war and we left many more of them to a horrible fate. They deserve remembrance and respect. I know that many Americans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan feel the same about their foreign partners. When you form trusting bonds in wartime, it is hard to break them.

Although our bonds with the people of Ukraine are at a different level, where we are mostly non-combat partners providing moral support and weaponry from the sidelines, I have that same feeling about those valiant humans. The Ukrainians are fighting and dying in a war that serves the vital national interests of the United States and NATO, as well as our allies on the other side of the planet. Ukraine is the proverbial point of the spear that protects freedom and democracy from the despotic regimes in Russia, China and Iran.

If we allow Russia to prevail, it will give great encouragement to the autocrats, quite possibly leading to a spread of hostilities to Taiwan and any number of Asian, African and South American nations currently in the sights of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

Although I rarely find issues upon which I totally agree with Senator Jim Risch, Ukraine is one such issue–an exceedingly important one. The Senator realizes that it is essential to America’s strategic interests that Ukraine prevail in Putin’s genocidal war. I agree with his view that the U.S. needs to increase and expedite the supply of war materiel to Ukraine. Senator Risch has observed that “the Ukrainians are fighting today for what our founding fathers fought for in 1776.”

Incidentally, that observation was made when the Senator recently recalled his meeting in Ukraine with a former Green Beret from Boise, Nick Maimer, who had been volunteering to train Ukrainian civilians in how to defend their country. Maimer was reported to have been killed by Russian artillery fire earlier this month. God rest his soul. He joins thousands of Ukrainians who have died in the fight.

Ukraine has reportedly suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded. Because their fight is largely our fight, it would be most appropriate to remember and mourn them, along with our war dead and our foreign partners who died in supporting American troops. On Memorial Day, I’ll be remembering my 58,220 brothers and sisters who died serving their country in Vietnam. I’ll also be thinking of Lieutenants Dinh and Tanh, Captain Thanh and interpreter Tom, who were with us all the way until we abandoned them to their ugly fate in 1975.

Book banners hit Oregon too

May 28, 2023

If you read about school or public library book banning in some places – Idaho or Texas, for example – it might come as a jolt but not a surprise. This kind of thing doesn’t happen in Oregon, right?

Except that it does, even in a state not usually identified as central to the conservative culture wars. But Oregon’s overall prevailing open attitudes toward books on shelves may be part of what is fueling the book-banning effort.

Last September, I happened to be in Bend when the Deschutes Public Library celebrated – if that’s the right word – Banned Book Week, which district officials saw as an attempt to raise awareness of censorship. One library official remarked, “It’s our ability to think what you want to think, learn what you want to learn, read what you want to read, and really develop your own thought processes.”

The tenor around the discussion seemed to be that the idea of open public access to widely read books in our libraries was a mostly settled issue in places like Oregon.

Except that it is not. A state library report on local library materials challenges from last summer shows the number of challenges around Oregon – more than 50 of them in the preceding year – had spiked well above the previous couple of years, and was running about twice as high as most earlier years. The largest share of those challenges relates to sexual or gender-related issues; a third of all the complaints were tagged as “sexually explicit.”

Lake Oswego school librarian Miranda Doyle commented that, “Right now, the books that are under attack tend to be by people of color. They tend to be about racism and LGBTQ people, and especially trans people are under attack right now, and this is happening all over the country and in Oregon.”

The 2,572 book titles – a record number – targeted for removal in libraries nationally are by or about people of color or LBGTQ issues, according to the American Library Association.

More book-banning cases emerged in Oregon this year. In March the West Linn-Wilsonville School District wrestled with a case from last fall, when the Oregon Moms Union called for removal from school library stacks of a collection of books typically described as by or about people of color or LGBTQ+ people. The question went to a book review committee, which mostly kept the books where they were but restricted a couple for high school use.

What happened in the Canby School District in April, however, was more extreme: That district decided to yank 36 books from school libraries. Another review of them is underway.

The Canby conflict came to a head at the district board’s meeting on April 11. High school senior Zachery Woodruff argued, “Two angry parents, 0.01% of the Canby population. That is all it took to remove over 30 books from our library. Without following any form of due process, the books were silently removed from the shelves. We have become ‘that school.’ The school in the media headlines.”

In the meeting, one parent commented, “Some of these books, as I got into them, have really explicit sex. A lot of it. It is not about anyone’s race, it is not about anyone’s gender. It is not about being transgender. It is not about LGBTQ+ . I didn’t look at any of those things. I literally looked at the content of the book and thought – not every 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 year old can handle this content.”

I’ll make no effort here to parse the motivations of individual book activists. Still, the connection to sexual, gender and race issues in those books clearly were central to the stated reasons for objections to them – arguments that also have become, in the last few years, highly visible in the nation’s political and culture wars.

Maybe one reason some of these complaints are as active in Oregon as they are is because of the political climate. In more culturally conservative states, legislatures and other governmental bodies have explored punishing libraries for placing controversial material on their shelves. One Idaho measure imposing fines and other penalties cleared the Legislature, but Gov. Brad Little vetoed it, he said, because “allowing any parent, regardless of intention, to collect $2,500 in automatic fines (on accusing a library of shelving inappropriate material) creates a library bounty system.”

It can get worse. In Montana, books shot through with bullets were found in one library’s book receipt box.

Oregon offers less outlets for such complaints in its state government. A national culture-war environment could put it at risk for as many local book-banning efforts as any state if only because that’s one of the relatively few ways culture warriors have for impacting their environment.