Press "Enter" to skip to content

Something’s happening

As a curmudgeon of the first order, I've found a lot to bitch about over the last few years.  "Complaint fodder" has been growing and there's been a seemingly endless supply of division and political chaos.

Legally and morally.

But, from out here in the oft-soggy Northwest, it looks, smells and sounds like we may be moving slowly - very slowly - to better social and political climes.  Maybe.

First, it was the federal election results of 2016 and 2020.  Little noticed were some significant shifts toward the middle in many state and local government outcomes.  Not so widely noticed, yet there seems to be apparent movement toward a return to SOME political moderation.  In SOME places.

Another example, Faux Nues.  Ratings for Murdoch's crew of vocal truth-deniers have been slipping downward.  Still ahead of CNN but, even MSNBC periodically beat 'em over a few weeks, especially in the 25-45 age group advertisers want to capture.  First time.  Not to say viewers are suddenly coming to their senses and are tired of being lied to.  Just interesting.  A small thing.

Example: Staying with the broadcasting arm of the GOP, several of its major blights on respectable journalism have stepped over some publically unacceptable lines.  Carlson, Pirro, Hume and Hannity have finally come under fire for bending facts into unrecognizable garbage.  Carlson and Hannity in particular, got so far out in right-right field that even Fox had to disavow their despicably racist words.  Public rejection by your own family.  My, my. Then, Carlson "moved on."  Further right.

Example: recent polling.  The most reliable numbers crunchers show fewer people identifying as Republicans or Democrats.  Those calling themselves "independents" or "unaffiliated" are becoming more of a factor.  A sign many Americans may be saying "A pox on both their houses" and they're not feeling "hidebound" either way.

Deeper down in the numbers, you'll find small movements toward more moderate views on issues.  A good thing.

Example: the Evangelical crowd is being taken less seriously than it was a few years back.  There's much more writing and speaking by some of the major respectable Conservative voices disavowing the Graham's, Robertson's, Perkins' and others of their ilk.  What once appeared to be a solid block of support for anything Republican - far-out Republican - is showing large, significant cracks.

Example: CPAC  - an annual function of the American Conservative Union.  Once a rather thoughtful gathering of conservative voices, it has become a hate-filled few days for extremists of every stripe.  In recent years, for example, conditions especially have been pretty gross with the Nazi Party, KKK and other dangerous cretins having large, formal, prominent displays of their "wares" at GOP meetings.  The speaker's roster, which used to feature Repubs like Bill Buckley and George Will has devolved into hate-mongers Michelle Malkin, Sebastian Gorka and a couple dozen lesser-known trash talkers.

But, the best news coming out of the CPAC political dung heap was that attendance for their "conventions" was down.  Way down.  TV news shots of the seated faithful showed lots and lots of empty chairs. Vendors complained their "take" on marketing was also down.  Even the "Lock Her/Him Up" pullovers weren't selling like they used to.  All good news.

There are other bits and pieces of change.  Of possibly more moderate news on our horizons.  Even in such a formerly solid bastion of the Republican caucus in the Senate, a few voices - and more importantly,  a few votes - have indicated some members are willing to say "No" at times.  Probably not enough to override a veto but enough to break a stranglehold and allow some more moderate legislation to pass.

As younger voters become more of a factor in elections - as more Black and Hispanic voters get involved - we're seeing real political change.  The declining numbers in self-identified party affiliation will also play a part.  More change there will be.

It's not time to breakout out in strains of  "Happy Days Are Here Again" but, maybe, we could just hum a few bars.

 

Fill out your ballot

When my Oregon primary election ballot arrived in the mail and I unfolded it, my first thought was: This won’t take long.

My second thought was whether to bother. But that stray idea passed quickly.

My ballot, slight as it is, does matter, and even when it’s not packed with critical inflection points, the decisions on it can have real impact.

I’m in the largest plurality of Oregon voters, those registered as not affiliated with any party. Since a lot of the interest in primary elections concerns choosing party nominees, especially for major parties, I’m a non-participant in a lot of the action this season.

That’s worth noting because 1.1 million Oregonians are in my boat, considerably more than the next-largest group, the Democrats, fewer than a million. Many registrants of the smaller parties have little role this season, either. State law bars all of those people from joining in critical partisan primary contests: You have to be registered with a party to obtain a ballot with those choices.

For unaffiliated voters, a ballot looks like this: Some local government races and some judicial seats, mostly uncontested, and occasionally a ballot issue. In Oregon, the highest-profile of those may be the bond ask for the Portland zoo.

In the case of the uncontested offices featuring only a single name – the norm for most judicial and many local government offices outside the metro areas – a voter can withhold support from a candidate but realistically has little chance of affecting the outcome. For many unaffiliated voters, ballot issues are the main reason to cast a vote at all.

Oregon is one of only nine states to limit primary participation, and citizens here have brought forth a number of proposals to open its primary elections to those not registered with a party.

Still, the group All Oregon Votes, which has backed open primaries in Oregon and filed an initiative proposal for the 2024 general election, said in February, it has “paused work on 2024 Initiative Petition 26 to focus on more promising strategies to enfranchise voters in Oregon.” Those other strategies weren’t specified. The group, which has been trying since 2020 to put a measure on the ballot, has run up against conflicts with state officials over ballot titles, which the group said left the intent of the measure unclear for voters.

Meanwhile, many major party members are seeing slim ballots, too. The presidential nominating process, which often drives primary turnout in presidential years, is effectively done – long before Oregon voters got a chance to weigh in. Only one Republican, Donald Trump, is even on the ballot, and the Democratic contest is just about over as well.

Two congressional districts do have heated primary contests, those being in the 3rd and the 5th districts, both on the Democratic side. The race in the 5th District does have serious national implications, because in the fall it may be among the handful determining whether the Republicans or Democrat will control the U.S. House next term.

And legislative primary contests are sprinkled all over the state. But for many voters, there’s still little there.

So why bother, especially for unaffiliated voters??

In my case, the ballot has several unopposed judicial races and several unopposed local offices – little to debate about there. But the main reason I wasted no time filling out and turning in the ballot was the one race on it which is contested.

This is a battle, a real political knock-down, for one of the three Yamhill County Commission seats. The incumbent seeking re-election is locally controversial enough to have been the subject, a few years back, of a recall attempt. She prevailed then, but not by much, 52.5% to 47.5%, and she hasn’t won office by much more than that.

Many commission races in Yamhill County in recent years have been similarly close. And this season’s contest, in which she has two challengers, may be another. One of those contenders hasn’t been seriously active, but the other has been running a highly energetic campaign, and local conventional wisdom is split on the probable outcome. As in many Oregon counties, the seats are officially non-partisan, but they party they belong to is an open secret.

In theory, it’s a race that could go down to a single vote. I wouldn’t want it to go what I consider to be the wrong way because I failed to vote.

Local Oregon ballots have lots of individual races like that, and they all matter.  So, look closely at your ballot. It may offer more chances to make a difference than you initially think.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

The ultimate voter guide

Political contests in Idaho seem to be getting uglier with each passing year. The closing of the Republican primary in 2011 deserves a great deal of the blame. Extremist candidates found that they could win by brandishing fake culture war issues against traditional Republicans who were interested in solving problems. Stoking fear and outrage produces more votes than pledging to fix roads and schools in a low-turnout closed primary.

The flood of money into Idaho from out-of-state dark money interests that favor extreme candidates has added to the problem. One such group, Maryland-based Idaho Federation for Children PAC, has spent $228,000 in the GOP primary, most of it in negative campaigning against three highly-regarded House Republicans–Richard Cheatum, Kenny Wroten and Melissa Durrant– who opposed using taxpayer money for private and religious schooling.

Another extremist group, Texas-based Young Americans for Liberty (YAFL), has been one of the biggest spenders in Idaho elections over the past few years. An affiliated PAC, Make Liberty Win, has made false claims against traditional Republicans, including Senators Chuck Winder and Treg Burnt and Rep James Petzke. Winder expects the PAC to spend $500,000 this election cycle, supporting extremist candidates and trashing their opponents. Columnist Randy Stapilus wisely recommends that this type of garbage be disposed of with the other trash.

One tactic of YAFL is to finance waves of door knockers who pass out scurrilous handouts, trashing responsible legislators. They may appear to be dedicated volunteers, but are often college students earning up to $4,160 per month, plus gas and housing. It might be revealing for recipients of the handouts to ask the door knockers where they are from, whether they are being paid and who hired them.

In this day and age, when voters are often unable to get reliable information about candidates on the ballot, where can they turn? The closure of so many weekly newspapers and the decline of daily papers has dried up traditional sources of news for many. The explosion of social media has flooded voters with information, but a great deal of it is unreliable. What is a voter to do in getting the information necessary to make an informed choice?

All is not lost. Despite the fact that most daily papers in Idaho have fallen on tougher times, their reportage on political candidates is still generally reliable. What information is available on our TV stations is good. New publications like the Idaho Capital Sun and Idaho Education News (IEN) are doing a fine job of political reporting. I have been impressed with IEN’s voter guide. The Idaho League of Women Voters also has a trustworthy voter guide.

The latest addition to reliable information on political candidates is Take Back Idaho’s comprehensive voter guide. Take Back Idaho (TBI) is a non-partisan group of Idahoans dedicated to removing extremism from Idaho politics. TBI does not endorse candidates in its voter guide. The guide lets primary election candidates speak for themselves. It contains news reports, links to candidate websites and information furnished by and for candidates. The purpose of the guide is to provide information to allow voters to judge candidates based upon what they say and do, regardless of what dark money interests may say about them. To get a flavor of the guide, I would recommend checking out the Jim Woodward vs Scott Herndon contest, which appears first in the publication. And make sure to get out and vote in the May 21 primary.

 

Few common threads

Republican primary contests this year in many states – Washington and Idaho for two –  have evolved into battles between traditional conservatives and more uncompromising activist and often Trumpist groups.

Oregon is mostly an exception.

The state has no lack of Republican primary contests, five in the state Senate and 10 in the House, with about four times as many House seats are up for election. While some candidates identify themselves along the lines of former President Donald Trump, few do so very explicitly.

The reasons why aren’t clear. The state’s late presidential primary, which will feature only Trump on the Republican side, may have lowered the attention level a little in Oregon at the local level. Maybe, too, Oregon’s nature is more inclined to focus on local concerns and individual personalities.

Oregon’s Republican contests seem at least to have evolved that way.

That holds true for the statewide and ideologically-oriented Republican Unity Caucus PAC, which has become involved in Republican primary contests, one of the few state organizations to do so. Its finances are not massive, with it reporting so far less than $17,000 in either contributions or spending for the primary. It describes itself as “uniting activists and legislators to empower the Freedom Movement in Oregon,” and does not get much more specific from there, freeing it to act in the primaries however seems desirable.

Its most visible activity concerns incumbent Republican Sen. David Brock Smith of Port Orford, who is facing three primary opponents for his southern coastal seat, with logger Todd Vaughn winning RUC backing. The PAC’s blasts at Brock Smith led to cease-and-desist letters from Brock Smith’s attorney with indications that he might sue over what he described as false campaign statements. The complaints against Brock Smith are hard to parse, but seem to argue that he was too supportive of Democratic initiatives and might have been helping a Chinese businessman.

Brock Smith describes himself as a staunch conservative, and RUC leader Ben Edtl said his group is “bound by America First values.” The group’s core complaint against Brock Smith remains unclear.

RUC also weighed in on the Republican primary in House District 51 in Clackamas County. With no Democrats filing, the seat will go to Christine Drazan, who represented the area before resigning when she ran for governor in 2022, or James Hieb, who was appointed to replace her and now is the incumbent. The PAC described Drazan, the Republican governor nominee two years ago, as “supported by special interest groups who want to continue their agenda of socializing housing and health care and continue to undermine election integrity and local democratic control of our school districts.” Hieb, it said, had begun his legislative term similarly but then “he began an assent to fearlessly representing his voters.” The reasons for involvement never get much more specific.

The Unity Caucus seems to be about as large a group as has become involved in the many Republican primaries.

In only one case among the 15 Republican primary contests was a significant policy difference between two candidates clearly central. That is in House District 12 in rural Lane County where incumbent Rep. Charlie Conrad of Dexter faces a challenge by Darin Harbick over Conrad’s  vote in 2023 for a Democratic-backed reproductive health care bill. Conrad went against his party on the bill, which sparked a Republican Senate walkout that lasted for six weeks. Harbick told the Capital Chronicle: “When I found out that my state representative (was) the only Republican in Oregon who voted with the rest of the Democrats on that bill, I was outraged because I do not believe that is what House District 12 represents,” Harbick said. “That was kind of a catalyst that put me into running a primary against Representative Conrad.”

Most of the candidate differences, however, relate more to approach to the job than to policy or even personality differences.

In Senate District 2, which includes Josephine and parts of Douglas and Jackson counties, incumbent Art Robinson was legally barred from running again, so his son Noah Robinson has filed to replace him. He is opposed by current Rep. Christine Goodwin of Canyon City. She told the Capital Chronicle:  “I filed because the threat of another Robinson was frightening to me.” She said the elder Robinson only opposed bills while she said she would compromise, when necessary, to find solutions. The thread of practical legislating against an uncompromising edge runs through several races. In the coastal House District 32, where incumbent Cyrus Javadi of Tillamook is rematched against Glenn Gaither of Seaside, Javadi talks about working across the aisle, while Gaither’s message does have clear echoes of a Trump-like view but in the context of being uncompromising.

At least one other House race is specifically shaped around the background of the incumbent, in this case the longest-serving House Republican, Greg Smith of Heppner in eastern Oregon. Challenger Raymond Akers drew on headlines about Smith’s extensive private-sector but government-related contracts, chronicled by Malheur Enterprise, and said on his Facebook page that “while Greg is out and about telling about all of his corporate endorsements (voters should) hold his feet to the fire (since) you may not see him again for many years.”

On the day after primary election day, Oregon Republicans – and political analysts – may have a hard time drawing any sweeping conclusions about what the party’s voters want. Whatever it is, apart from liking or disliking their incumbents, they won’t have a lot of room to express it on the ballot.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

Idaho Mother’s Day

Idaho laws are clear about being a mother in this state. So, on this Mother’s Day, let us be clear how we celebrate you.

It is simple.

We love you and cherish you. That is not in the laws, but maybe I am going out on a limb to state it is understood. Maybe we can all agree on that.

But any pregnancy you carry is clearly written in our laws. And such is the process of motherhood, isn’t it? There are women, and then there are mothers. Since we celebrate Mother’s Day in Idaho, any woman considering motherhood should know just what Idaho laws say to you.

The laws are multiple, confusing, contradictory, but ultimately clear if you believe our Idaho Supreme Court and Attorney General.

Let me summarize.

If you have a growing fetus in your womb, we Idahoans, by the laws we write, express our care for that fetus at your expense. The life you grow in your body is more valuable to this state than your health.

Maybe, if it comes down to the ultimate question, that your life will be lost for you to maintain your pregnancy, the state will allow you to save your life at the expense of the life growing inside you.

But if the condition of your pregnancy is a risk, or harm to your health, you are forbidden to terminate the condition of pregnancy, no matter the stage, no matter the circumstances.

I believe this strong prohibition has been written into Idaho law because so many conservative Republican legislators believe women kill their babies growing inside them for convenience, at their whim.

No legislator has considered or proposed a law to allow a woman carrying a malformed, doomed fetus to be terminated. If you, an Idaho woman find yourself in such a situation, Happy Idaho Mother’s Day.

You will be required to carry this fetus, this child to term and deliver it to die, maybe in your arms.

If your growing fetus was the result of a rape or incest, you may be allowed to terminate this process toward motherhood. But only if you have a police report on record that confirms these suspect allegations. Our legislators are sure women are always crying “rape” or “incest” for their convenience.

Such generous wiggle room in this motherhood process has been contested by my own State Senator. He’ll get reelected.

Happy Mother’s Day, Idaho women.

 

On the radar

Driving a few weeks ago across back roads in the Magic Valley, I was interested to see a few political signs up already, and several in a top of ticket race many people don’t have on their radar.

To the extent Idaho gets some national attention on the night of the 21st - the night the votes are counted after this month’s primary election - it could relate to one contest, not likely to generate a surprise but significant if it does.

That’s not, as it would have been in years past, the presidential primary: Republicans held caucuses back in March, and former President Donald Trump then received 84.9% of the vote, over contenders who had withdrawn (Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis). That settled the question of who would get how much of the state’s support for the Republican nomination.

Be it noted that the caucus was held at a point when Trump already had the nomination more or less sewn up, meaning there wasn’t a real contest. While he easily won the primary four years ago, when he was running essentially unopposed as an incumbent president, Trump did not win Idaho four years before that, in 2016. The blue ribbon that year went to Texas Senator Ted Cruz; Trump was in second place, about 20 points behind him.

This year, Idaho won’t provide in its primary the Haley percentage some other states have.

So whatever else we learn about attitudes of the state’s Republican voters this year is more likely to come from just down the ballot. Legislative races may tell us a lot, but keep watch too on the numbers in the primaries for the two U.S. House districts.

Not, that is, in the first district, where Republican Russ Fulcher is unopposed in the primary. (In the fall he faces Democrat Kaylee Paterson and two minor-party contenders.)

But do watch the numbers in District 2, where veteran Representative Mike Simpson, first elected to the House in 1998, does have primary competition from Scott Cleveland and Sean Higgins.

Higgins is likely to wind up in third place. He has not been especially visible, and for a congressional candidate has raised little money, often a good tipoff to political strength.

Cleveland is a little different. He ran for the U.S. Senate as an independent in 2022 (losing to Republican incumbent Mike Crapo), pulling 8.4% of the vote - not bad, actually, as independents go - and raising about $104,000, also not bad for an independent.

That independent run is likely to weigh against him this time, as he contends to be a Republican standard-bearer for Congress. The money he has raised so far, roughly in line with the amounts he raised last time for the Senate race, is pretty good for an outsider but way behind what established incumbent Simpson can do and has done.

In all, Simpson, who has swatted back lots of primary challenges over the years including a serious one just two years ago, is unlikely to lose, and it’s not likely to be close.

But the unexpected does happen from time to time in elections, and even if Simpson wins, his percentage could be - depending on the attitudes of the district’s Republican votes - small. If it’s either unusually small or unusually large, some kind of message can be drawn from it.

Why might Simpson be harder pressed this time? It could relate to his uncomfortable relationship with the Freedom Caucus side of the House Republicans, and his overall centrist - in the context of House Republicans - role in the House. Or, if he’s not centrist enough for you, there are two challengers who can serve as a repository for that opposition. This kind of calculus is what can make election analysis so tricky.

Or, of course, Idaho might be more or less ignored by the national news coverage on May 21, and probably you can count that as the most likely outcome.

 

Wrongness

I have made a few mistakes in my life. God willing, I will live a few years to make more. When we make a mistake, it means we did something wrong. Admitting the mistake, accepting our wrong behavior, choice, maybe even thought, allows for us to learn to not make that mistake again. There will be so many others we can learn from.

Isn’t this life wonderful?

Idaho was and is becoming again a bastion for wrongness. We are a place where people can live free in their wrongness. We have the space; we have the tolerance to accept our neighbors’ crazy ideas.

I am OK with that. I love space, I love tolerance.

Except when it crosses a line.

This week a prosecutor in North Idaho decided it wasn’t crossing a line to yell racial slurs and profanities in a threatening way at guests in our fair state.

I’m not saying he was wrong to make that decision. Our legislators write laws carefully, thoughtfully to draw these lines that we can go right up to and not cross. The prosecutor must read these laws carefully and act on them.

I am saying the behavior in that beloved North Idaho city was wrong. But with no criminal charges, I guess those folks are left to figuring out their wrongness on their own.

The Idaho Senate responded quickly to this story. Within a week of this hitting the national press a resolution was introduced that: “denounces acts of racism and commits to eradicating the conditions that allow racial animus and undue prejudice to persist in Idaho.”

One Idaho Senator voted “NO” on this resolution. Senator Phil Hart, who represents Coeur D Alene, voted against the resolution, both in his debate, and on the floor of the Idaho Senate. But only when he was forced to.

He tried to skate out of the vote by leaving the chambers before the roll call. The Senate Pro Tem, Chuck Winder did a “call of the Senate” which requires all Senator to return to their seats.

How you vote should be of note to your constituents. Phil came back and voted “no”. He’ll probably get reelected up there in that North Idaho district where it doesn’t cross a legal line to shout racial slurs and sexual threats to visitors of dark skin.

My Senator, Dan Foreman (Viola) voted for the resolution. I must give him that credit. You need to know; he did beat me in a remote election. Then he got beat, and then he won again. It’s fun to be in an Idaho legislative district where a Democrat has more than a snowball’s chance.

His debate on the floor argued against the Senate passing the resolution. He argued that the state, the Senate should not apologize. The perpetrator, the person who committed the act should.

Boy, can I agree with that. More people need to apologize. This world would be a lot better if there were more apologies and less growling.

Wag more, bark less.

Senator Herndon (Way North Idaho) did cast doubt on the veracity of the claims. “We don’t know if this really happened.”

Well, we now do.

We know it happened. We know there were multiple vehicles, and one perpetrator admitted to his behavior.

But, according to the laws of the state of Idaho, he didn’t cross a line.

So, in the realm of the laws that our legislators write, maybe it didn’t happen.

No line our legislature has seen fit to craft was crossed.

I respect this freedom they have given us.

But if my fellow citizens think such freedom is any sort of sanction for their wrong behavior, then our representatives need to be looking at the lines drawn, not toothless resolutions.

 

Electric

Of all the stupid things coming out of Washington, this one gets the golden dunce cap.

President Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a rule that will have two-thirds of passenger vehicles and a third of heavy-duty trucks running electricity by 2032 – putting your friendly Chevron and Shell gas stations on the road to extinction.

The proposal needs congressional approval, which is far from a certainty, but think about what this would do for U.S. transportation. It would mean less emissions, less pollution and cleaner air. It could end the nation’s reliance on foreign oil, and the big oil companies would have to find other outlets for their lobbying.

Hmmm, it all sounds good. Where do we sign up?

On second thought … 2032 is just eight years away, and a lot of things would need to happen to accommodate a massive influx of electric vehicles. Last month, my wife (Vicki) and I drove to Arizona, and here’s how many electric-vehicle charging stations we saw along the way.

Try zero. No billboards, or exit signs pointing to EV charging stations. It’s difficult to imagine in eight years that charging centers will be more common than Chevron stations.

Keep in mind, this is just a “proposed” rule change – which would turn into a government mandate with congressional approval. The rule on passenger cars is pending in the Senate, and Idaho Congressman Russ Fulcher, from the Energy and Commerce Committee, is spearheading efforts keep the rule on trucks from going anywhere in the House.

Fulcher, of course, is no fan of the Biden administration, but his concerns go beyond partisan politics – starting with the infrastructure needed for electric vehicles.

“That’s a real problem,” he told me. “Where are we going to get the electricity to charge all these vehicles? One charge on a heavy-duty truck is about the same as what a typical home uses in a week.”

The EPA rule is part of the war on fossil fuels, but the administration, and Democrats in general, also are not friendly toward hydro power, nuclear power or mining. All these elements come into play in some form when exploring alternatives to fossil fuels.

“We’re creating this government mandate to shift all these vehicles to electric and at the same time we are restricting our ability to generate electricity. It’s nonsense,” Fulcher says. “The problems keep compounding when you start thinking through the ramifications, and it begs the question, what in the world is this administration thinking?”

Fulcher’s “kill” efforts have plenty of Republican support. Idaho Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch also weighed in on the issue.

“These rules represent yet another attempt by the Biden administration to force its radical green agenda and pick winners and losers in the free market,” said Crapo.

“The Biden administration is determined to have every vehicle on the road be electric regardless of price or feasibility,” says Risch. “An EV mandate will significantly disrupt our nation’s supply chain, raise already high prices and severely impede the ability of consumers and businesses alike to make their own decisions.”

As Fulcher sees it, electric vehicles are not a bad idea. He says that with his short commutes in the D.C. area, it would make sense for him to be driving an electric vehicle and saving on gas. The problem is finding a charging station.

“If you go at the pace that consumers can accept, the Fords and Toyotas of this world could make it work, and especially in urban areas,” Fulcher says. “Over time, the cars will get better and the infrastructure will come along. But it won’t happen with the heavy hand of government mandating it.”

For now auto executives are telling congressional members they are not ready for a massive switch to electric vehicles. “They are telling us that they can build electric vehicles, but people won’t buy them,” Fulcher says.

However, China – the leading adversary of the U.S. – seems to be making inroads in the market. “So, there will be a wave of cheap and not-very-good Chinese vehicles dropped on the country. For consumers, who knows what they are getting or how safe they will be.”

So, who knows what the administration is thinking. But it’s good to see that Fulcher and others are asking some of the difficult questions.

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

 

We can but should we?

While "experts" - and the rest of us - fret over the computerized exposure of hundreds of millions of our personal files on Facebook and elsewhere, I've more fearful questions.

How much of all our other information has been shared by other data collecting sources we know nothing about?  By whom?  For whom?  And for what purpose?

Our electronic world has grown up amazingly fast in the long arc of history.  Suddenly, it was here.  After getting over the wonder and discovering what it could accomplish, we jumped in and it became an integral part of our lives.

"How did we ever get along without this," we gushed?  "Look what we can do!  Look at the possibilities!"

Yep, all true.  But, as it seems with nearly all leaps forward in our technology-driven world, we skipped a couple of steps before we dove headlong into it.  We dropped the old ways and went straight to the new.

Two steps we really didn't pay sufficient attention to seem to be these: What are the down sides and, just because we can, should we?

Human history is filled with examples of how our intellectual and technological accomplishments have been perverted to uses we never dreamed of and, sometimes, used by others against us.  Someone out there is always ready to turn a new invention to unintended purposes.  From the discovery of fire to our headlong rush into the information world, we've often suffered at the hands of the unscrupulous.

There's an important question that should be asked before we leap into a new advancement: should we do it just because we can?

Probably the most glaring example of that query deals with prolonging life.  Because we can, should we?  We have the technology to keep a heart beating forever.  But, is that right if the body is dead by all other measurements?  Are the unrealistic hopes of family more important than quality of life of the near-dead?

Esoteric?  Yes.  Happen every day?  Yes.  You can even pile up a stack of ethicists on either side of that issue.  Still, the basic question of "should we" goes unanswered.  We just do.  There are many such instances in our everyday lives.  Issues of "We can.  But should we?"

The subject of Internet abuse may seem far-removed from issues of life and death.  But, is it?  Haven't we seen myriad abuses of crime, threats to life (or lives), terrorism, illegal data gathering (and abuse), manipulation of financial institutions and even entire countries?  Fear spread by racists, demagogues and the unscrupulous.  All unintended consequences of Internet development.

I'm certainly not proposing we stop using or avoid contact with our amazing technology.  Far from it.  The dazzling array of things we can do to better our world by its use is tremendously important.

But, we're further ahead in development than in safeguarding ourselves in that use.   For better or worse, we've got this life-changing, world-changing force pushing us, for which we don't have realistic safeguards or protections.

As in the prolonging of life issue, we're further ahead in technology than we are in ethics.  We're in an electronic world without sufficient rules or even proper constraints on its use or the necessary safeguards.  But, here we are!

Even now, we've seen Internet abuses in our national elections.  We have the technology to cast a vote but apparently insufficient electronic safeguards to always assure a valid outcome.

We live in a world where the words "caveat emptor" have never been more important.

Given the proven personal exposure of an entire population to forces beyond our control, maybe that should read "CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!"