Appaloosa

A few years ago, BSU updated its sports logo.  I've heard some people credit that revision  with sparking the rise of BSU football.  Both happened at roughly the same time, but it's hard to tie one to the other.  Here is a version of the current logo.

Which is fine and all, but it has always struck me as pretty busy.  Plus, it is very reminiscent of the  Denver Bronco logo.  Since the two teams have the same colors, differentiation of logos would be nice.

  I think the best logos are the simplest.  If you click on this link, you'll see a Google images page showing college football logos.  Look them over and see if you don't agree that simpler is better. 

A couple of logos that, to me, really stand out are Texas, and the Wyoming Cowboys.  For some reason (probably some hidden google thing that prevents copyright infringement, or something) I can't grab and upload the logos.  You can see Texas' here, and Wyoming's here.  The Clemson Tiger paw print is also pretty cool.

My suggestion is to use the appaloosa as the basis for BSU's logo.  I'm no artist, so you're just going to have to picture the appaloosas below in orange and blue, in some aggressive pose and looking angry, which for some reason seems to be a requirement of most mascots.

Not only could you make a simpler logo, but no sports team (that I know of)  uses the appaloosa as a symbol.  Plus, it's symbolically perfect for a Boise, Idaho team.  The appaloosa was developed by Nez Perce Indians, almost certainly in Idaho, and the Nez Perce reservation is still here.  The appaloosa is Idaho's state horse.  An appaloosa can still be a "bronco," which just means a wild and untamed horse.  And, since the appaloosa was originally called the Palouse Horse, and since the University of Idaho is in palouse country, it would be sort of a subtle shot at the Vandals, which would be nice.

A wedge issue

For Idaho Democrats.  A recent story in the Statesman points to a circumstance that Dems could use to try to improve their image among Idahoans.  I think that most Idahoans just dismiss Dem candidates out of hand because the Republicans have successfully branded Dems as "liberals."  And Idahoans really dislike "liberals' for some reason.  I don't believe there is much thinking going on, just reflex, really.  Idahoans think they  know Dems and have, for the most part, rejected them.

I have noted before that Dems have an opportunity to break this up, at least with some voters. Ponder this a moment:

But a new study of the Department of Interior’s economic effects in Idaho shows there are far more hunting guides, river rafters and others who cater to recreational users on these lands than there are miners and cattlemen.
...
 Recreation accounts for more than six times more jobs than grazing and timber and three times more than energy and minerals. 

Recreation brings more jobs than livestock and mining. However, Red leaders are pretty tied into the livestock and mining industries, and in fact just think only of those industries. Remember this quote? "You've got to dig it out of the ground, you've got to grow it or you've got to cut it out of the forest," Otter said. There it is in a nutshell; mining, farming and ranching, and logging.

Who do you think are getting  those jobs in recreation?  Well, if the percentages hold, about 65% are going to Reds.  And who do you think are being guided, or traveling out into  the woods to hunt or fish?  Again, lots of Red voters.  But for those voters, their interests clash with those of the miners, ranchers and loggers.  Ever been run off BLM land by some  rancher who acts as if he owns it?  I have, and  so has pretty much anyone who spends much time on or crossing BLM land.

To finally get to the point, Dems ought to very publicly align themselves with those recreation interests, and with recreationists who want public access to public lands.  I think it's entirely safe to side with recreationists over miners, loggers and ranchers.  Miners and loggers perhaps used to vote Blue, but obviously no longer.  Dems have lost N. Idaho.

Don't approach this from an environmental viewpoint, but from a jobs and access viewpoint.  If Dems start talking about ensuring that hunters have access and opportunity for a quality outdoors experience, perhaps some of those Red voters might finally take a look at Dem policies and find that voting Blue might actually be in their own best interests.

Bowe Bergdahl

Bowe Bergdahl, the Idaho soldier captured in Afghanistan, was recently promoted to Sergeant, and he's been named as the Grand Marshal of the  "We The People" Liberty Day Parade in Boise.

The Grand Marshal thing is a nice gesture, and should help the family to know that they have support and that Bowe is not forgotten.

Getting promoted to Sergeant seems a bit odd to me.  Promotions from E1 - E4, Private to Specialist (or corporal, in some cases) really aren't promotions.  They're "advancements," and they're pretty much automatic.  You get advanced unless there is some reason not to.

Promotion to Sergeant is another matter.  It's competitive, and you have to meet certain requirements.  Good reviews, pass the PT tests, make weight, etc.  Bowe just cannot meet those requirements while in captivity.  So, someone somewhere decided to waive the requirement and promote Bowe.  Which is nice.   It will certainly help with his pay, which must be accumulating somewhere.

However, if, as some report, he violated the rules and wandered off base and put himself in a position to be captured, it seems a bit of a stretch to promote him. But it's not clear.

Accounts of his capture differ. The version offered by Bergdahl, in the video, is that he was captured when he fell behind on a patrol. CNN, in its report, cites both Taliban and U.S. military sources, the former alleging he was ambushed after becoming drunk off base, and the latter denying that claim stating: "The Taliban are known for lying and what they are claiming (is) not true."

If he fell behind on patrol and was captured, the Army should know that for a rock-hard fact.  Perhaps the promotion indicates that the Army is not viewing the circumstances of his capture as reflecting negatively on him.  It doesn't matter now, of course.  I just hope he gets out safely.
Little known fact:  the Army has appointed a Major - he's in my unit and he's a high-speed guy - to be the sole point of contact with Bowe's family.  Anything and everything that causes contact between the Army and the Bergdahl goes through this Major.  And, he's got the appointment until the situation resolves.  It's a way to try to make it easier on the family. 

Establishment choice

When picking candidates for President, it's said that Democrats want to fall in love, and Republicans want to fall in line.  That appears to be the case in Idaho.

Idaho Republicans are in immaculate harmoney with each other and with Republicans nationally.  The national R push to limit collective bargaining rights for teachers?  Check, done.  National R push to limit access to voting for minorities by enacting spurious anti-voter fraud measures?  Check, done.  Restrictive anti-abortion measures? Check, done.  It's easy here, and usually essentially uncontroversial.  Idaho gets it done so fast and easy that it doesn't seem to register as part of the nationwide R agenda to make life miserable for everyone except rich people.  Because, Republicans believe that if you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it.  But I digress.

Given the harmonic convergence Idaho Reps have with Reps nationally, this list of Romney supporters should tell you something. 

In addition to Otter and Risch, Romney’s Idaho steering committee includes 2nd District Rep. Mike Simpson, Lt. Gov. Brad Little, Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, state schools Supt. Tom Luna, state Controller Donna Jones, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Senate President Pro-Tem Brent Hill, House Speaker Lawerence Denney; Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis and Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder; and House Assistant Majority Leader Scott Bedke and caucus chairman Ken Roberts.

Seems unlikely to me that all these leading R lights would line up behind Romney if he isn't the putative Republican candidate for President.

McGee's follies

Sen. McGee's troubles with his recent DUI and grand theft arrest have a bit of a comic aspect, what with references to the promised land, and an angel (and midget and broom, and what not).  But, it's still a family tragedy, and I don't agree with piling on, under these circumstances.

I'm not sure that just because a legislator gets a DUI he or she is suddenly not qualified for the job.  I heard some sanctimonious twit on the radio condemning McGee's judgment and saying that the lack of judgment in "choosing to drink and drive" means he doesn't have the judgment necessary to serve in the legislature.

First, as toasted as he was, there was no "judgment" of any sort going on.  He may have chosen to start drinking, but clearly at some point he left the realm of rationality.  So long as he's not drunk on the job, I don't think his legislative judgment is implicated.  Also, since when is good judgment necessary to serve in the Idaho legislature, especially as a Republican?  Nullification of federal laws, anyone?

Getting a second DUI does begin to implicate judgment, I think, because once it happens to you and you fail to take precautions to prevent it from happening again, you're failing to exercise good judgment.

Update:  And one more thing.  Notice how they say he was drinking at a local golf course, but don't name the course.  Why is that?  Turns out he was drinking at Hillcrest Country Club, and I believe there was some sponsored event with an open bar that night. 

Facts on the ground

It seems like almost every time our political leaders discuss pulling out of Afghanistan, someone says they have to consult with the generals to assess the situation on the ground, the idea being that the situation on the ground will determine when and how we can withdraw.  To which I say, what a load of crap.

Specific logistical choices must be made by the military, true.  You know, you don't send out the shooter first and leave the support folks unprotected, that kind of thing.  But the decision to withdraw is a political one.  In fact, the military is an instrument to achieve political objectives.  That's all it is.  It's not a force unto itself, with it's own national strategies.

Leaving the decision to withdraw to the generals is just code for saying, "I want to stay but don't want the heat for it."  The generals will NEVER want to leave.  Not unless they are getting badly beaten, and that simply won't happen.  They will never want to leave for several reasons.

1.  A wartime command is much more valuable to a career that a peacetime command.  It looks better on a resume (or 201 file).  Plus, certain medals (bronze star, for one) are only given in combat zones. 

2.  For generals, war is fun.  They're not the ones humping a 40 lb rucksack up a hill, under enemy fire.  (How many generals do you know of that have been shot in combat?  I know of exactly zero.  There may be some, but dang few.)   War is what generals train for their entire careers.  Think you'd like to be a basketball player for a living but only practice and never play an actual game?  Generals also have many more opportunities to get in and out of the combat zone temporarily; they aren't just stuck there.

3. Promotions come faster in combat zones.

4.  As long as the war is on, money will flow.  Stop the war and painful budget retrenchment will follow.

5.  Soldiers in combat zones get hazardous duty pay, and don't have to pay income taxes on money earned while stationed in a war zone.  War is good for a soldier's finances.

Generals have too many incentives to stay in a combat zone.  Plus, as can-do guys, as long as they can look around and see something that needs to be done - and in a God-forsaken place like Afghanistan, there will always be plenty to be done - generals will want to stay and "get 'er done."

When generals are in charge of ensuring that water treatment facilities are built, you know that they have strayed vast distances from their core competencies.  Jeezus, Idaho Guardsmen in Baghdad are running hotels and acting like mayors, for crying out loud. 

It's time to get out of Afghanistan.  Start an orderly withdrawal now, and finish up by Christmas eve.  Leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.

You kiddin' me?

Whaaaat? Governor Otter has a Czar? I thought that was verboten. Oh, wait. IOKIYAR.* That's right, I forgot.

*In case you're not familiar with this, it's "It's OK If You Are a Republican."