Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in August 2017

The death of privacy

August 31, 2017

rainey

Sometimes, tying together two seemingly disparate events/stories can make a good connection to explain an issue larger than either of them. So it is as I look at the national outpouring of deserved condemnation that followed the musings of multi-millionaires Donald Sterling and Mitt Romney some time ago. Talk about disparate!

But they do share one commonality - aside from one disparaging 47% of the citizens of this nation and the other with his racist vehemence involving an entire race of Americans. Both instances involved men who believed they were speaking only to the people in their private presence while the words of each were surreptitiously recorded and later made public.

Whether the principals of either situation engaged in speech that was morally right or wrong is up to any of us who care to decide. But one thing is sure. Both fell victim to expectations of privacy that were violated - a privacy that is gone from our lives. An individual right we were brought up to expect, but which has now been eradicated by our own technology and the immoral use of that technology by those so devoted.

We’ve long been openly or surreptitiously spied upon by microphones and cameras in public - and some not-so-public - places. Banks, grocery stores, parks, street corners, while we’re driving and - if Eric Snowden’s disclosures are accurate - for years while we’ve engaged in written or spoken conversations with the expectation of absolute privacy. We can be outraged. We can be vehement in our opposition. We can demand an end to such activities. But we’ll lose. The genie is out of the bottle. We have become a world where Big Brothers - and Big Sisters - keep an eye and an ear on all we do.

From a legal standpoint, Sterling may have a case that his First Amendment rights were violated. He uttered his now infamous racist and sexist words in a two-way conversation in California where recording any such conversation is illegal unless approved - in advance - by BOTH parties. Seems obvious he didn’t know of the recording and, thus, at least in California, it appears to have been an illegal act.

Then there’s the part of the story in which someone with knowledge of that recorded conversation leaked it. His then-girl friend - the second party in this instance - denied it was her. A little shakier in the legal department but certainly a moral issue.

Big box stores - grocery and otherwise - often advise you are being recorded “for your own safety.” Pure B.S.. You’re being recorded as a shoplifting tool, a video record of robbery attempts and at the advice of insurance carriers to catch people falsely claiming injury on the property. Your “protection” figures into none of it.

Banks, convenience stores, gas stations, traffic enforcement, parking lots, city parks, toll road, pizza parlors, airports, casinos, cruise ships, theaters, museums, court houses, city halls and other public buildings, bars, merchants of all sizes - all are represented in the official “people watching” industry. Some even use sonic or ultrasonic signals to notify local police of illegal entries or other after-hours interruptions. It matters not how small a community you live in - you are under surveillance.

Cell phones have made amateur “reporters” of all of us. Think of videos or pictures you’ve chuckled about in your emails or social media. Much of the time, what amused you was the subject of the missive was unaware of his/her situation. So, innocently someone passed it to you and - innocently, of course - you saw it, laughed and - innocently again - sent it along.

I’ve seen cameras disguised as buttons. Medicine now uses “live” cameras in pills! Swallow one and the Doc can watch your innards at work. More and more cops are wearing cameras to protect themselves from false charges of brutality or other inappropriate actions. Bail bondsmen, process servers, cab drivers - even postal delivery workers - are following suit.

Awhile back, I decided to count cameras I could see in one day’s travels. The total was eight readily identifiable with another six “could be’s” in cop cars, two stores and on the highway. And I live in a town of only 1,400 folks. Of course, the whole idea is you shouldn’t be able to spot surveillance cameras in some cases but you can figure they’re there. In addition to those you’re told about - for your own “protection,” of course.

Privacy - personal privacy - as we’ve known it is gone. Has been for some time. Even in our most unguarded moments, we’re apt to be spied on by someone. It matters not where you live - what you do - where you go. We’ve either gotten so used to it we don’t think about it or - as in the case of those big stores - we’re told of the spying and we accept it.

Used to be old political hands warned newcomers “If you don’t want to see it in the morning headlines, don’t say it.” Not so anymore. They’ve just gotten more defensive. Check out the number of “public” meetings where professional media is turned away. Outsiders only know what went on if someone inside leaks pictures or audio recordings. Which happens often.

I can think of no defense against this invasion in our lives. Not one that works, anyway. As citizens, we can’t afford to hire security people to daily check our homes and other places of expected personal privacy for recording devices. If the professionals can’t do it, the rest of us don’t stand a chance.

As the old joke goes, “even paranoids can have real enemies.” The unblinking official eyes and unofficial ears most of us are caught by each day may not be enemies. But, no matter whose hands operate them, they’ve changed our lives forever. And not for the better.

R-I-P, privacy.

So long, Cece

August 30, 2017

carlson

When Cecil Andrus first ran for governor in 1966, his campaign manager was Leo Krulitz, a brilliant young attorney from Mullan, a graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law. He came up with what he thought would be the winning slogan: Cecil Andrus for Governor—“My kind of man.”

In today’s politically correct world Krulitz would probably come up with something else. The slogan did not resonate with the electorate even back then. Andrus lost the 1966 election not once, but twice.

In saying so long to the longest-serving, most successful, progressive governor in Idaho history it is important to understand the man behind the public figure.

Andrus was an extraordinary person who filled the multiple roles required with grace, character, elan and panache.

He genuinely liked people, and had a photographic memory for people’s names. If he met a person once then did not see them for years he would still instantly recall their name.

Despite his phenomenal political success he was at heart a humble man. “I put my pants on one leg at a time just like every other man,” he would state. He always drove his own car, and eschewed security details. He never was one to brag, either. He let success speak for itself.

He had a great sense of humor and took pleasure in telling self-deprecating stories. While speaking he once was rubbing his hand across his balding head saying that “grass doesn’t grow on a busy street,” A voice from the rear of the audience loudly piped up saying “neither does it grow on a rock.”

He was a natural teacher who always took time to explain the teaching moment whether it involved kneeling down to look a youngster seeking an autograph in the eye or underscoring a life-lesson in a matter troubling an aide. He cared about the person regardless of who or their station in life.

He was a religious man, but didn’t wear it on his sleeve. He let his actions, his compassion, his caring speak for his adherence to the Gospel values. He participated in a monthly Bible group for years that few knew about.

Largely self-educated few knew he was a prodigious reader.

He was a devoted father who loved his daughters and knew the best thing a man could do for his children was to love and respect their mother. Like most dads he was a soft touch for his girls but he always had time for them to offer advice and counsel when asked.

He loved to hunt and fly fish in Idaho’s great out-of-doors. A hold-over from his own hard-scrabble youth was a sense of the need to fill the freezer each fall with the deer and elk he shot, the ducks, geese and pheasants he brought home. He ate what he killed and was a genuine conservationist.

Because he loved hunting he kept and trained a hunting dog which always became a devoted companion that he and Carol would walk in the Boise foothills. His current bird dog, Maisy, was next to him when he died.

He wasn’t afraid to show emotion and shed tears in front of others. Once, while visiting him at his home I walked into the living room quietly only to see him sitting in his recliner with big tears rolling down his cheeks as he was watching the tv. A Fish and Game ad he’d done several years earlier was running and the video was of him and the hunting dog he had then and deeply missed.

He understood the importance of one taking responsibility for his actions, of not being afraid to admit a rare mistake now and then. He never pretended to be perfect. Like the “gyppo logger” and saw mill operator he was before being elected to the Idaho Senate and entering the industrial insurance business, he could get angry. Those who lied to him never had a second chance, and the only times I ever saw his eyes flash and thought he was about to punch someone was when his integrity was questioned.

In this monochromatic world where society seems to be striving to homogenize everyone and minimize gender differences, he stood out as an authentic man—a real man’s man. He stood on life’s stage as a giant, often surrounded by pygmies. It is doubtful Idaho will ever see the likes of him again.

Krulitz had it correct, after all. Cecil Andrus is and was my kind of man, your kind of man and Idaho’s man for all seasons and all reasons. His trail ride is over but it was one heck’uv a ride. I will always believe he could have been president if he had wanted to be. He loved his family and Idaho too much to put them through the rigors of that pursuit. He will long live on in our hearts and in the many legacies he left us.

As he rides off into history you can almost hear him saying “I’ve been rode hard and put up wet a few too many times” but it was my honor to serve the people of Idaho.

Rest in peace, Cece.

Contempt for the courts

August 29, 2017

jones

While the country’s attention was focused on the approaching danger of Hurricane Harvey, a former county sheriff in Arizona was pardoned by the President for having deliberately defied the order of a United States Court. Ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt of court in July by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton for his willful violation of a 2011 court order prohibiting his department from detaining individuals not suspected of a crime.

Arpaio had previously been found by a different federal judge to have engaged in racial profiling and unlawfully detaining persons of hispanic origin. Despite the court order to cease violating constitutional protections, Arpaio persisted in doing so. Judge Bolton ruled that he had demonstrated “flagrant disregard” for the 2011 order, citing his own words in press releases and media clips.

Regardless of what a person may think of racial profiling, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether anyone should be able to deliberately violate a valid court order and get away with it.

When a court issues an order prohibiting a person from engaging in specified activities our constitutional system of justice expects them to obey, regardless of who they are or whether the court may arguably have been wrong. That is what we call the rule of law, which goes to the very foundation of our democracy. If a person disagrees with the order, the proper way to get relief is to file an appeal to a higher court. We don’t allow any individual, no matter how powerful, to thumb his nose at the courts.

Our system of justice depends on respect for the law and compliance with the law. The only power a court has to enforce its orders is through the contempt power. This is a particularly important enforcement mechanism where constitutional protections are being infringed upon by public officials.

Mr. Arpaio had the opportunity to put on a defense at the proceeding that resulted in the 2011 order. Yet, he disregarded the order and repeatedly demonstrated disrespect for our justice system by taking the law into his own hands. He apparently regarded himself as being above the law.

The unprecedented pardon of Arpaio’s unpardonable conduct also shows disrespect for the justice system and our constitutional courts. It shows that some favored people can get away with misconduct that the great majority of citizens would have to answer for. It is not a very good example to set, especially where the pardoned individual was part of the law enforcement community--a person sworn to follow and respect the law.

Remembering Cecil Andrus

August 28, 2017

richardson

I first met Cecil Andrus in 1966, when I was13. My dad introduced us, and I was impressed. Andrus had kind eyes, took time for everyone, and conveyed real interest in each person he met. Four years later, along with a dozen other Lewiston High School teenagers, I spent a summer knocking on doors working to secure Andrus the Democratic nomination for governor. 18-year-olds had not yet won the right to vote, but we were determined to make a difference.

In those days, state primaries were held in late summer. So it was on a hot August night in a store front headquarters on the low-rent end of Main Street that we celebrated his nomination. Three months later, the “north came in” (which it did back then) and at the ripe age of 39, Cece Andrus was elected governor. When the legislature convened in 1971, I was a page sitting in the House chamber proudly watching our new governor deliver his first state of the state address.

Andrus often quoted from Proverbs: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” No one listening to that state of the state speech could doubt that Cece Andrus had both insight and foresight. His vision for the state was manifest – excellent public schools, including kindergartens; a healthy and sustainable natural environment, with clean air and clear water; and a vibrant business environment where labor, no less than capital, received its due.

Being well-acquainted with a fair number of politicians, I know that the public persona often differs from the private individual. But Cece Andrus was authentic. Comfortable in his own skin, he was consistent – wise, tough-minded, loyal, and kind.

When our son Jason was just 5 years old, and a year before being elected to his third term as governor, Andrus was the guest of honor at a political event at our home. Jason was thrilled to meet the governor and, afterwards, using his best printing, wrote him a letter: “Dear Governor Andrus, Thank you for coming to our home. I think you are a wonderful governor. Love, Jason – Age 5.”

A few days later, Jason opened our mailbox to find a hand-printed letter addressed to him. It read: “Dear Jason, Thank you for your letter. I think you are a wonderful boy. Love, Cecil – Age 48.”

That kind of personal care and concern was a hallmark of the governor’s interactions with his fellow Idahoans. Many years later, when my dad was in the winter of his life, Cece dropped by the hospital after visiting hours and talked the staff into bending the rules so he could say hello to his “old friend Fred.”

In 1990, in his last run for governor, Cece asked Pete and me to co-chair his re-election effort in Ada County. The governor announced his candidacy at the grade school his granddaughter attended. I was in charge of the logistics and wanted everything to go smoothly. The day was sunny but windy and the podium, flanked by Idaho and American flags, was buffeted by gusts of wind.

As the governor stepped to the podium to speak, the wind picked up and the American flag rapidly unfurled, draping the governor. I was mortified thinking I should have thought to secure it in advance. But Andrus didn’t miss a beat. “You’ve heard of politicians wrapping themselves in the flag,” he said. “But this may be the first time the flag has wrapped itself around a politician!” The crowd roared its approval.

This week, Governor Andrus will again be draped in the American flag. The man may have passed, but his vision endures. I think if he could give us marching orders from the great beyond, it would come in a hand-written note, reading something like this: “Dear friends, Thanks for remembering me. Now get to work and realize our vision. Love, Cecil.”

Idaho Briefing – August 28

Idaho Briefing – August 28

August 27, 2017

This is a summary of a few items in the Idaho Weekly Briefing for July 17. Interested in subscribing? Send us a note at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.

Cecil Andrus, governor of Idaho for longer than anyone else (from 1971-77 and again from 1987-95) and secretary of the Interior in the Carter Administration, died on August 24 in Boise, of complications from lung cancer.

The Idaho Department of Lands auctioned 59 state-owned lakefront lots on Priest Lake for deeded ownership during public, oral auctions Friday and Saturday in Coeur d’Alene. The land sales generated $29,066,040 for the endowment funds that support public schools.

In an Idaho Falls laboratory, interns Matthew Yim and Michael Crain-Zamora tinker with complicated glass and metal vessels used to grow Gluconobacter oxydans, a bacterium that causes fruit to rot.

Idaho State University researchers are seeking input from farmers, water managers and policy makers about their experiences with efforts to replenish the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer that began in 2016.

Faced with declining revenue as Idahoans increasingly abandon land line phone service, state regulators have raised a monthly surcharge on land lines and questioned the sustainability of the Idaho Universal Service Fund (IUSF).

A public hearing will be held August 31 to take comment on applications allowing trucks weighing up to 129,000 pounds on sections of U.S. 26, the I-86 Business Loop, Idaho 37, Idaho 38, U.S. 91, Idaho 34, U.S. 89, Idaho 61 and U.S. 30.

PHOTO In a photo from 1974, then- Governor Cecil Andrus and Senator Frank Church converse at a political event. Andrus is wearing a tag for lieutenant governor candidate John Evans, who would win that year and succeed Andrus as governor. Andrus died last week.

Water Digest – August 27

Water Digest – August 27

August 27, 2017

Water rights weekly report for July 17. For much more news, links and detail, see the National Water Rights Digest.

Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt led a ten state coalition of attorneys general in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending the ability of state governments to effectively regulate groundwater usage within their state. The brief urges the Court to review a recent Ninth Circuit decision that concluded, in conflict with multiple state-court decisions, that the federal government has broadly reserved rights to groundwater that preempt long-established state-law regulations.

The South Carolina Supreme Court on July 19 rejected a potentially sweeping challenge to the state’s water regulation system, which sought a declaration that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking.

Kinross Gold U.S.A., Inc., Trout Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation announced on August 17 an agreement to protect and conserve important fish and wildlife habitat adjacent to Yellowstone National Park.

A federal court judge today found that the Bureau of Land Management failed to show how it would compensate for significant losses to wetlands and wildlife habitat caused by the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s massive groundwater pipeline development project.

The City of Aspen, Colorado, is in contract to buy two adjoining parcels of land in Woody Creek for $2.65 million to potentially use for water storage in the future.

A blueberry farm on Cockreham Island along the Skagit River will restore habitat on a nearby stream under a settlement agreement with the Washington Department of Ecology.

Cecil Andrus

August 25, 2017

stapiluslogo1

For those a long time around Idaho, losing Cecil Andrus is like losing a member of the family.

When I first arrived in Idaho in 1973, his was one of the few Gem State names I’d ever heard. He was then well into his first term as governor, following his second run for the office. At his death this week he had been a well-known Idahoan and a representative leader of the state for longer than just about anyone I can think of; statistically at least, he was governor longer than anyone else, and never was he a mere caretaker.

But it was a while before this point about him came clear to me: He didn’t get there by dint of deep Idaho roots; he didn’t, in a phrase I’ve heard elsewhere, live on a road named for his grandparents. At the time he first ran for governor, in 1966, he’d been in the state little more than a decade, moving to Orofino from Oregon in the spring of 1955 as a logger. He was elected to the state Senate only half a decade after his Idaho arrival. (Barely a decade after that, he was United State Secretary of the Interior.)

That alone speaks to something unusual about his capabilities in politics. Too often the word “politician” is used as a derogatory; it ought to be a term of praise, and as a natural politician Andrus stands as a good demonstration of why.

Those reasons weren’t immediately obvious back then, and have little to do with his charismatic presence, though Andrus was one of those people whose presence in a room is immediately felt. His urbane surface with well-chosen words and that smart you-know-and-I-know wink developed over time, and his entry into politics famously was said to come in a fit of anger. (A local Republican apparently taunted him that it was a good thing he didn’t run for the legislature, because he would have been clobbered; Andrus took the bait and defeated the Republican incumbent.)

But his instincts about how to run for office and about how to act and govern once there seemed to come from somewhere deeper; seem almost to have been there all along. They seemed rooted where they should, in an understanding of human nature stronger than most people have.

He also had a deep understanding of Idaho, and in turn he helped change the way Idahoans thought about themselves.

When Martin Peterson and I some years back published a list of the most influential Idahoans in state history, we ranked Andrus at 16, and the main argument about that was the contention he should have ranked higher. We did rank him higher than any other governor, and his long-time associate and columnist Chris Carlson built a book about him around the title, “Idaho’s Greatest Governor.” His effects on education, environmental protection and economic development in the state have been enormous.

Peterson and I suggested, “One of Andrus’ greatest impacts may be psychological: He added in 1970 a new dimension to the way Idahoans think about their state, when he campaigned in part on ‘quality of life’ as an important ideological consideration.” It had not much been part of the way Idahoans thought about their state before then, but it has been ever since.

Andrus left the governorship in 1995, and has not sought or held office since. But he has been visible through the years, taking a role on issues, mentoring people and helping candidates, building community activities such as the foundation started under his name.

That’s his role in the family. He carried it superbly.

Trade, growth and ‘tough talk’

August 25, 2017

stapiluslogo1

It was a striking headline in the business news site Bloomberg on August 18 that should have garnered more attention than it did in the Gem State:

“Trump-Friendly Idaho Doesn't Put America First.”

That does need some explanation. It doesn’t refer to patriotism as such, but rather Idaho’s business practices: Idaho’s economy is doing well, ranking high among strong state economies, because “its largest employers sell the bulk of their products overseas, count the world's biggest multinational companies among their customers and suppliers, and make most of their money from the technology driving globalization.”

That was Bloomberg’s core conclusion, supported by a raft of data. I found this nugget an interesting contrast: “... the economy of Idaho's southeastern neighbor, Wyoming, is driven more by domestic industries like metals and mining, which provided 20 percent of its gross domestic product. It was the worst U.S. economy during the 12 months ended March 31, with the largest job and tax-revenue losses and second-worst stock market and mortgage delinquencies.”

Idaho’s international focus should come as no surprise. Governor for the last decade, C.L. “Butch” Otter, has made his international business trips, many to Asia and Europe, highlights of his years in office, understandably since international business relationships have been a big part of what he did professionally back to his days at the J.R. Simplot Company.

Over the last 15 years or so, international exports from Idaho have more than doubled - a remarkable expansion many Idahoans may not even have noticed - according to the Idaho Department of Commerce. Many of Idaho’s larger businesses are involved in export.

None of this is really stunning news; even decades ago, international business was important to Idaho business. Nor is it an outlier nationally; a new poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs said that “for the first time since the think tank first asked the question in 2004, more than half of Americans — 57 percent — also agreed that trade is good for creating U.S. jobs.” But about half of Republicans nationally say that trade deals mostly benefit other countries, not ours. The issue becomes of bigger import these days because of attitudes toward trade in the Trump Administration, which voters in Idaho helped put into office.

Consider these headlines over the last month from a range of publications internationally: “Trump is 'hostile to trade', says American advising UK”; “Trump may be about to wallop global trade as we know it”; “Trump's Stalled Trade Agenda Leaves Industries in the Lurch”; “Trump's Trade Agenda Divides the Nation's Cities”; “China: Trump trade probe violates international rules”; “NDP trade critic calls Trump's comments about terminating NAFTA 'disconcerting'.” Among many more.

The details of trade agreements are where you find the good-or-bad; specific provisions can be beneficial or not. The talk coming out of the White House, though, has emphasized how “we are going to make some very big changes” (as the president said of the NAFTA this spring).

That’s making a lot of businesses nervous. And regardless who got the votes for the presidency last year, it ought to make Idaho economic developers nervous as well.

Spoils of war

August 24, 2017

richardson

One of the most concerning and vague statements made by the president in his speech on Afghanistan was this: “. . . . We are going to participate in [Afghanistan’s] economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us.”

This brief comment, coming toward the end of his speech, could be easily overlooked but it bears close scrutiny. Evoking memories of similar statements made during the presidential campaign and after his inauguration, it requires clarification – and the sooner the better.

The repugnant notion that our country should replenish its coffers at the expense of countries in which we are militarily engaged harkened back to a predatory time of conquest and colonization. How can other nations trust our motives when our president has repeatedly lamented, for instance, our failure to take Iraq’s oil?

Almost a year ago, as the freshly minted GOP nominee, Trump argued that the Iraq War was a mistake, but he seemed most frustrated that the U.S. did not take Iraqi oil after invading that country. “The U.S. should have kept the oil. I was saying this constantly and to whomever would listen, ‘keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil!”

Then, the day after taking the oath of office, Trump spoke at CIA Headquarters, complaining that our country erred in not taking Iraq’s oil when we had the chance. He longingly recalled the ancient expression “‘to the victor belong the spoils."

Then, just a month later, in a meeting at the White House with airline executives, Trump again groused that we had not benefitted economically from the Iraq War: “We’ve got nothing. We’ve got nothing. We never even kept a small, even a tiny oil well. Not one little oil well. I said, ‘Keep the oil.’”

With those ill-considered comments still resonant, we find it important to ask: Which of Afghanistan’s resources does he want to acquire? How much tribute would be sufficient to "defray the cost of the war?" How are the Afghanistan people, already so impoverished, to understand the president’s remark? What are the men and women of our armed forces to think about the true purpose of our mission?

Sadly, the president’s statement permits the inference that the U.S. now looks at Afghanistan as a potential source for pecuniary gain. In light of his long-standing obsession over our failure to "take" Iraqi oil, it is not a stretch to think so.

In some respects, this comment would have been less concerning had the president not been reading from a teleprompter. Then we could chalk it up to Trump's penchant to shoot from the hip and make things up on the fly. But this speech was clearly vetted to a fare-thee-well by the generals, on whose advice he was acting. And that may be the most worrisome thing of all.