Here's a thoughtful article by Rep Rusche. I hope it resonates, but there's no "Obama's not a citizen he was born in Hawaii maybe or maybe not!!!!!!!" so I don't expect it to gain much traction with the run of the mill Idaho R voter.
*********
Gem State Democrats are Idahoans first
By Rep. John Rusche
Much has been said about the imbalanced makeup of the Idaho Legislature. National magazines and even Steve Ahrens, former executive director of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, have commented on the lopsided nature of the Idaho Legislature. As Steve documented in a recent column for the Idaho Business Review, one-party government can result in arrogance, chaos and worse. Idahoans got a vivid example of this via the 2009 session, which fell just one day short of the longest ever and still failed to address many of our state’s problems.
A recent Gallup poll showed that just 37 percent of Americans identify with the Republican Party, a 10 percent drop since the start of this decade. Throughout the Mountain West, Democrats now hold a majority of governorships (five of eight) and Congressional seats (17 of 28, including Idaho’s 1st District).
Yet the Democratic brand continues to lag across much of Idaho. Perhaps we Idaho Democrats have not yet adequately made the case that we are Idahoans first, and that we share the values held deeply by most people in our state. Or perhaps we are doing what Democrats tend to do, trying to articulate those values in policy and “six-point plans” rather than with straight, honest talk.
There’s little question that Idaho needs more balanced, effective government. Idaho Democrats are committed to bringing about that balance, but we know that our fellow Idahoans will not shift long-held voting patterns unless they have compelling reasons to do so. So here’s my best shot at telling you what Idaho Democrats stand for:
Idaho Democrats believe in fairness. Everyone should play by the rules and pay their share.
Idaho Democrats have faith in our state’s future, and we try to plan for progress. That’s why we work so hard to ensure that our children have excellent schools that will prepare them for good jobs, and that’s why we want to help business create jobs that will allow our kids to stay in Idaho when they grow up.
Idaho Democrats believe in personal responsibility. Sometimes “stuff happens,” and when people are out of work they may need help like unemployment pay and food stamps – but they also need the opportunity and the motivation to learn new skills and get back on the job.
Idaho Democrats prize our state’s unique qualities: our accessible recreation, our glorious wild spaces, our clean air and water. We know we are stewards of these resources and we can use them for economic gain as well as fun, but it’s also up to us to preserve them for future generations.
Idaho Democrats believe in limited government. If government can do the job best – as in maintaining roads, public safety and the schools that most of our children attend – it makes sense for it to do so. But Idaho Democrats believe government should let lawful people live their private lives, and that businesses do best in an atmosphere of creative collaboration and innovation.
Finally, Democrats are different from district to district. As Congressman Walt Minnick has shown, Idaho Democrats are independent thinkers who vote their consciences, and this is true on the state level as it is in Congress. But we are all Idahoans and Americans, and we’re all committed to the values our founders laid out 233 years ago: freedom, liberty, opportunity and justice for everyone. Like you, we know that one-party government is not working for Idaho, and we seek your trust to show how effective, efficient and ethical a balanced Legislature and Democratic leadership can be.
Rep. John Rusche (D- Lewiston) is Minority Leader of the Idaho House of Representatives.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Surprise, surprise, surprise
Well, I'm finally off the tenterhooks. The suspense was killing me, but now it's mercifully over. Senator Crapo (and Sen. Risch) after long and careful study, much research, and thoughtful consideration, has decided to vote against Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court. Boy, I'll bet he just agonized over that decision. I see in a recent photo that Crapo's got bags under his eyes, no doubt from all the sleep he lost struggling with this decision.
Apparently one key thing was that Sotomayor thinks she can "look to foreign law to interpret the Constitution." Crapo's perception on this point must be keener than mine. I though it was pretty well settled that, since our legal system is somewhat an outgrowth of the English system, at least old English law is instructive in interpreting the US Constitution and other laws. Magna Carta, old maritime and property law, I thought all that stuff can be looked to for guidance on current Constitutional issues.
All snark aside, it was clear from the get go that Crapo (and Risch) would just vote the Party of No line. These Supreme Court nomination hearings are a farce, nothing more that a political kabuki dance. It's all about sending messages and pandering to the base. Good grief. Once the ABA determines the candidate is qualified (like Thomas) or highly qualified (like Sotomayor), shouldn't the argument be pretty much over?
If there's some inappropriate behavior, like failing to pay taxes on a housekeepers salary, or sexual harassment, then bring it out and discuss it. But if you got nothing like like, please, spare us all the faux thoughtfulness.
Apparently one key thing was that Sotomayor thinks she can "look to foreign law to interpret the Constitution." Crapo's perception on this point must be keener than mine. I though it was pretty well settled that, since our legal system is somewhat an outgrowth of the English system, at least old English law is instructive in interpreting the US Constitution and other laws. Magna Carta, old maritime and property law, I thought all that stuff can be looked to for guidance on current Constitutional issues.
When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws.I guess that blurb on the web site of the National Archives & Record Administration is wrong.
All snark aside, it was clear from the get go that Crapo (and Risch) would just vote the Party of No line. These Supreme Court nomination hearings are a farce, nothing more that a political kabuki dance. It's all about sending messages and pandering to the base. Good grief. Once the ABA determines the candidate is qualified (like Thomas) or highly qualified (like Sotomayor), shouldn't the argument be pretty much over?
If there's some inappropriate behavior, like failing to pay taxes on a housekeepers salary, or sexual harassment, then bring it out and discuss it. But if you got nothing like like, please, spare us all the faux thoughtfulness.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Scenes from a conference
I've been at a conference this week. I was a bit amazed at the gargantuan light box, shown below. It was like a dinosaur version of the current projectors. It's kind of hard to tell without some scale, but this monster is about 3 feet long and a couple wide.
This is just a shot of the restaurant trying to put lipstick on the pig, so to speak. A goofy garnish on an otherwise undistinguished Reuben Sandwich.
Went to a luncheon and paid $30 for this chicken sandwich (plus a salad and dessert).
I guess what we really paid for was the view from the restaurant.
This is just a shot of the restaurant trying to put lipstick on the pig, so to speak. A goofy garnish on an otherwise undistinguished Reuben Sandwich.
Went to a luncheon and paid $30 for this chicken sandwich (plus a salad and dessert).
I guess what we really paid for was the view from the restaurant.
Officer training
I recently flew to South Dakota to observe some officer candidates in training. On the way, we flew directly over the Grand Teton Mountains, seen in the pic below.
Part of the training was a water event designed to increase confidence, discipline and obdience. Have a look at the pic below. This is called the "unexpected entry" event. The candidate stands on the diving board, blindfolded, holding an M16. They then walk off the end until they fall into the water.
In the pic below, the candidate is standing on the edge of the pool, and the trainer talks for a moment then suddenly shoves the candidate backward into the water. The Army needs to train its officers to do whatever they are asked to do, without question, even if it sounds crazy. This is part of building that mindset.
Yer basic military briefing.
You've all heard about one of these. Many of us have been unfavorably compared to one. I saw one in the briefing shed, and snapped this pic before it could get away. Yes, it's a box of rocks.
Part of the training was a water event designed to increase confidence, discipline and obdience. Have a look at the pic below. This is called the "unexpected entry" event. The candidate stands on the diving board, blindfolded, holding an M16. They then walk off the end until they fall into the water.
In the pic below, the candidate is standing on the edge of the pool, and the trainer talks for a moment then suddenly shoves the candidate backward into the water. The Army needs to train its officers to do whatever they are asked to do, without question, even if it sounds crazy. This is part of building that mindset.
Yer basic military briefing.
You've all heard about one of these. Many of us have been unfavorably compared to one. I saw one in the briefing shed, and snapped this pic before it could get away. Yes, it's a box of rocks.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Idaho Brewing Company
There's a new brewpub in Idaho Falls, the Idaho Brewing Company. The pic below is of their seven offerings, and Brewmaster Leon, who was happy to explain in detail how he crafted the brews.
He explained the processes, the types of malts, hops, all kinds of stuff. Unfortunately, after trying the sampler platter, it seems my memory of the evening is not that crisp.
The Hefeweizen had a fair amount of banana, and some clove, per Leon. I picked up the banana, not the clove so much. My fav was entitled "Scotch." Really nice malty flavor, and 8% alcohol. The rest were in the 4-5% range. Had a couple of good pale ales, and had a decent stout. Leon recommended I try the stout last, as "the malts in it will coat your mouth and affect how you taste everything afterward." So I saved it til the end, and well worth the wait.
Aren't bottling it, yet. They don't serve food, and aren't sure whether they will. Don't want to get overwhelmed.
Have a nice outdoor seating area, and a pleasnt bar, tables, couches, and a fireplace inside. Hope they do well.
He explained the processes, the types of malts, hops, all kinds of stuff. Unfortunately, after trying the sampler platter, it seems my memory of the evening is not that crisp.
The Hefeweizen had a fair amount of banana, and some clove, per Leon. I picked up the banana, not the clove so much. My fav was entitled "Scotch." Really nice malty flavor, and 8% alcohol. The rest were in the 4-5% range. Had a couple of good pale ales, and had a decent stout. Leon recommended I try the stout last, as "the malts in it will coat your mouth and affect how you taste everything afterward." So I saved it til the end, and well worth the wait.
Aren't bottling it, yet. They don't serve food, and aren't sure whether they will. Don't want to get overwhelmed.
Have a nice outdoor seating area, and a pleasnt bar, tables, couches, and a fireplace inside. Hope they do well.
Here's how to get there. Red dot near the bottom. (Click to enlarge.) Kind of tricky to get into.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Here we go
See this?
That's Walt Minnick's signature on a letter from the House Blue Dog Coalition saying they don't like the current health care bill. One of the listed problems? It's not bipartisan.
The letter says a reform to the bill must address each of their concerns, including bipartisanship, and it says "We cannot support a final product that fails to do so."
Yes, thanks Walt, for standing up for Republicans. It's pretty gratifying for Democrats to see you going to bat for the Party of No.
That's Walt Minnick's signature on a letter from the House Blue Dog Coalition saying they don't like the current health care bill. One of the listed problems? It's not bipartisan.
The letter says a reform to the bill must address each of their concerns, including bipartisanship, and it says "We cannot support a final product that fails to do so."
Yes, thanks Walt, for standing up for Republicans. It's pretty gratifying for Democrats to see you going to bat for the Party of No.
Time to change the Constitution?
Our founding fathers set up a system of government that intentionally made it difficult to pass legislation. They feared the power of unfettered authority, and desired a structure that would protect individual rights, and would keep minorities safe from the tyranny of the majority. A wonderful system, and it has worked well.
It’s not working so well any more. Our government seems incapable of doing anything well, and is almost certainly incapable of doing the right thing. Part of the reason is the inherent structure. Legislation has to pass both houses of Congress, and then be signed by the President. But the biggest reason Congress is such a sinkhole of stupidity can be laid on the steps of the Supreme Court.
Actually, two reasons, neither of which was anticipated by the original authors of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has issued two rulings which together have completely upended and subverted our government. They might appear benign or innocuous, but they unleashed a sort of cancer that’s consuming our leaders.
Ruling one: that corporations have the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Ruling two: that campaign contributions are political speech. That’s it; we’re toast.
You can see where this is going. Politicians have to get elected, then reelected, and that takes increasingly large amounts of money. Who has money to give? Rich people and corporations, mostly. Given the two rulings I mentioned, we can’t really restrict the amount of money corporations can spend to influence legislation.
NPR is following the obscene money being spent on the health care bill. Have a look. Click on the photo and gaze (in disgust, or fear, or maybe wonderment) at all the lobbyists leeched onto the hearing. Business is well represented; you and I aren’t. I know, we elect “representatives,” but they don’t give a shit about us. Our vote they care about, periodically, but us, not one whit.
We no longer have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We have a government of the people, by the elite and well connected, for the corporations. And we can’t do anything about it.
It’s not working so well any more. Our government seems incapable of doing anything well, and is almost certainly incapable of doing the right thing. Part of the reason is the inherent structure. Legislation has to pass both houses of Congress, and then be signed by the President. But the biggest reason Congress is such a sinkhole of stupidity can be laid on the steps of the Supreme Court.
Actually, two reasons, neither of which was anticipated by the original authors of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has issued two rulings which together have completely upended and subverted our government. They might appear benign or innocuous, but they unleashed a sort of cancer that’s consuming our leaders.
Ruling one: that corporations have the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Ruling two: that campaign contributions are political speech. That’s it; we’re toast.
You can see where this is going. Politicians have to get elected, then reelected, and that takes increasingly large amounts of money. Who has money to give? Rich people and corporations, mostly. Given the two rulings I mentioned, we can’t really restrict the amount of money corporations can spend to influence legislation.
NPR is following the obscene money being spent on the health care bill. Have a look. Click on the photo and gaze (in disgust, or fear, or maybe wonderment) at all the lobbyists leeched onto the hearing. Business is well represented; you and I aren’t. I know, we elect “representatives,” but they don’t give a shit about us. Our vote they care about, periodically, but us, not one whit.
We no longer have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We have a government of the people, by the elite and well connected, for the corporations. And we can’t do anything about it.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Join the Navy and see the world
While driving home last night, I passed a small strip mall and saw a store front for a Navy recruiter. Perhaps you recall that their advertising/recruiting tag line was "Join the Navy and see the world." Two doors over in the same mall was an Army recruiting storefront.
The recruiting storefronts are scattered all across America. The Air Force and Marines also have them, as all are trying to gain recruits. In fact, they're all competing for the same demographic. So, we have brand differentiation. Army Strong! The Few, The Proud, The Marines. You get it.
It seems to me that is pretty stupid. That's not duplication of effort, or triplication of effort, it's quadruplication of effort. Pentuplication (if that's a word) if you count the Coast Guard. Here's my money saving tip; close down all the separate recruiting stations, and send those soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen back to their bases where they're needed. Develop a professional sales/recruiting force that will work with recruits to determine their interests and desires and help them get into the most compatible service.
Also, in times of need, the Dept of Defense can prioritize one or the other to try to keep its numbers up. If one service is to grow (as the Army and Marines are under a recent budget proposal) then perhaps a bit less $$ goes into the Air Force advertising budget and more into the others.
I also think one other tragic result flows from the current system, in addition to the waste of money. And that is, the Marines trying to convince themselves and everybody else that they're "the toughest." They are a very competent fighting force, but have gotten beyond their core mission of amphibious landings. The general concept was, the Navy takes large numbers of Marines in on ships. The Marines take the beach, so to speak, and set up operations. Once set, the Army comes in and conducts the land offensive.
Well, there's not a lot of call for amphibious landings any more, so Marines are being used in many cases just like the Army. See, Iraq, Afghanistan. The Marine brand is, "we're the toughest," and many of the Marines, the younger ones especially, believe that. Part of being the toughest is being aggressive. And that's where the tragedy comes in.
Look at the casualty rates in Iraq. Much higher per capita for Marines as compared to the Army. (see below, link here) Marines are overly aggressive and put themselves in harm's way needlessly. It is not because the Marines, being the toughest, are in all the toughest spots. They have no lock on difficult and dangerous missions. It's because the kids believe the advertising and try to prove how tough they are by being aggressive. And it's killing them.
So, Dept of Defense recruiters can enlist recruits and steer them toward compatible jobs, and toward the needs of the overall DoD, and the services won't need brand differentiation. We'll save lives and money. (Probably do need separate recruiting for Active vs Reserve component, however.)
The recruiting storefronts are scattered all across America. The Air Force and Marines also have them, as all are trying to gain recruits. In fact, they're all competing for the same demographic. So, we have brand differentiation. Army Strong! The Few, The Proud, The Marines. You get it.
It seems to me that is pretty stupid. That's not duplication of effort, or triplication of effort, it's quadruplication of effort. Pentuplication (if that's a word) if you count the Coast Guard. Here's my money saving tip; close down all the separate recruiting stations, and send those soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen back to their bases where they're needed. Develop a professional sales/recruiting force that will work with recruits to determine their interests and desires and help them get into the most compatible service.
Also, in times of need, the Dept of Defense can prioritize one or the other to try to keep its numbers up. If one service is to grow (as the Army and Marines are under a recent budget proposal) then perhaps a bit less $$ goes into the Air Force advertising budget and more into the others.
I also think one other tragic result flows from the current system, in addition to the waste of money. And that is, the Marines trying to convince themselves and everybody else that they're "the toughest." They are a very competent fighting force, but have gotten beyond their core mission of amphibious landings. The general concept was, the Navy takes large numbers of Marines in on ships. The Marines take the beach, so to speak, and set up operations. Once set, the Army comes in and conducts the land offensive.
Well, there's not a lot of call for amphibious landings any more, so Marines are being used in many cases just like the Army. See, Iraq, Afghanistan. The Marine brand is, "we're the toughest," and many of the Marines, the younger ones especially, believe that. Part of being the toughest is being aggressive. And that's where the tragedy comes in.
Look at the casualty rates in Iraq. Much higher per capita for Marines as compared to the Army. (see below, link here) Marines are overly aggressive and put themselves in harm's way needlessly. It is not because the Marines, being the toughest, are in all the toughest spots. They have no lock on difficult and dangerous missions. It's because the kids believe the advertising and try to prove how tough they are by being aggressive. And it's killing them.
So, Dept of Defense recruiters can enlist recruits and steer them toward compatible jobs, and toward the needs of the overall DoD, and the services won't need brand differentiation. We'll save lives and money. (Probably do need separate recruiting for Active vs Reserve component, however.)
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Minnick and health care
As I've written, I think it's reasonable to give Walt Minnick quite a bit of room to be the conservative Blue Dog he ran as. And that is how he's been voting.
I was hoping that we could count on his vote for the big items, but so far I've been disappointed. He voted against the economic stimulus package and he voted against the energy/jobs bill. The next big vote is on health care. Here's to hoping that Minnick will support the plan favored by the majority of his party, even if it ends up including a "public option." I'm hoping, but certainly not expecting.
I guess Minnick is okay with House leadership to vote with the Party of No so often, so long as his vote is not a crucial tie breaker. If his vote really doesn't matter to the outcome of the bill, I suppose he's allowed to vote against it.
But I see two problems with this. One, by not supporting his fellows in the majority party, he is not racking up any chits and favors, and thus has little to call in should he ever decide to try to get something passed (instead of just voting no all the time).
The other, bigger, problem is that Minnick gives Republicans cover when he votes with them. S.C. Senator Lindsey Graham last week on one of the Sunday yak shows said that the true bi-partisan position on the energy bill was the Republican position, because so many Democrats voted with Republicans against it. So Minnick's vote, though not needed to pass the bill, was not harmless. It provided comfort to the Republicans and allowed them to argue it was an extreme position.
I was hoping that we could count on his vote for the big items, but so far I've been disappointed. He voted against the economic stimulus package and he voted against the energy/jobs bill. The next big vote is on health care. Here's to hoping that Minnick will support the plan favored by the majority of his party, even if it ends up including a "public option." I'm hoping, but certainly not expecting.
I guess Minnick is okay with House leadership to vote with the Party of No so often, so long as his vote is not a crucial tie breaker. If his vote really doesn't matter to the outcome of the bill, I suppose he's allowed to vote against it.
But I see two problems with this. One, by not supporting his fellows in the majority party, he is not racking up any chits and favors, and thus has little to call in should he ever decide to try to get something passed (instead of just voting no all the time).
The other, bigger, problem is that Minnick gives Republicans cover when he votes with them. S.C. Senator Lindsey Graham last week on one of the Sunday yak shows said that the true bi-partisan position on the energy bill was the Republican position, because so many Democrats voted with Republicans against it. So Minnick's vote, though not needed to pass the bill, was not harmless. It provided comfort to the Republicans and allowed them to argue it was an extreme position.
Sanford saved again
N.C. Governor's revelation about his affair was knocked from the headlines by the sudden death of Michael Jackson. He failed to capitalize on this, and gave another long statement, saying thing's like "she's my soul mate'" which put him back in the headlines. (And probably made it even more difficult to reconcile with his non-soul mate mate.)
So now soon to be ex-Gov. Palin's announcement of her soon to be ex-ness has again knocked Sanford from the headlines. So, I'm curious. Will he give it a couple of days and give yet another long interview that will put him back in the spotlight?
And regarding Gov Palin, speculation abounds about her real motives for her resignation. I'm throwing in the the crowd that thinks this was a preemptive strike ahead of some negative revelation about her shenanigans in office.
And also regarding her statement, she said that she polled her kinds, and "the count was unanimous." "It was four yeses and one "Hell yeah.!" Her kids are Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. So that adds up to five yeses. But really, did Trig, the baby, weigh in with an answer? Did he understand the question? Palin just cannot seem to avoid exaggeration.
So now soon to be ex-Gov. Palin's announcement of her soon to be ex-ness has again knocked Sanford from the headlines. So, I'm curious. Will he give it a couple of days and give yet another long interview that will put him back in the spotlight?
And regarding Gov Palin, speculation abounds about her real motives for her resignation. I'm throwing in the the crowd that thinks this was a preemptive strike ahead of some negative revelation about her shenanigans in office.
And also regarding her statement, she said that she polled her kinds, and "the count was unanimous." "It was four yeses and one "Hell yeah.!" Her kids are Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. So that adds up to five yeses. But really, did Trig, the baby, weigh in with an answer? Did he understand the question? Palin just cannot seem to avoid exaggeration.
Friday, July 03, 2009
We need more Down's babies
Yes, it appears that Sarah Palin is resigning as Governor of Alaska. In her - well, there's no other word for it - rambling speech, she said a number of crazy things. But one that jumped out at me was that "the world needs more Trigs, not less fewer of them."
So, the world needs more Down's babies. Weird.
Update: Heard the speech again, and realized she used the grammatically correct word fewer, so fixed the quote.
So, the world needs more Down's babies. Weird.
Update: Heard the speech again, and realized she used the grammatically correct word fewer, so fixed the quote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)