|
 |
Making Statism
Unpopular |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Television's RX for Free Enterprise
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
January 11, 1978
Hats off to the National Broadcasting Company (NBC TV). Last week they ran one of their documentary spectaculars. A three-hour program entitled "Medicine in America" took a long and careful look at medical services, particularly high costs.
Now then, this writer is no starry-eyed fan of NBC, whose attempt to be the eyes, ears, nose and throat for all of America, not to mention the entire moral conscience thereof, is exceeded only by the other two networks effort to do likewise.
For years the network's combined ventures brought near-tears to the eyes of the Statue of Liberty and a lump in the throat of anyone whose political leanings were to the right of Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern.
But this time it appeared at long last to be a genuine attempt on their part to present a fairly balanced portrayal of medical care problems in America.
It was at least LESS bad than the scores of past documentaries, some of which made small headlines in the Federal Communications Commission's complaint division.
Many excellent suggestions came out of the interviews shown. For example the demand for the "best" medical care by the public regardless of cost, excessive testing to avoid absurd malpractice law suits and the desirability of getting two or three doctor's opinions before surgery.
Excessive costs of spage-age technology such as the fabulously expensive computer axial tomographic scanners and too many empty beds in hospitals were cited as adding millions to the cost of medical care.
Still, the NBC expert's silence was thunderous about some rather obvious matters which would have helped greatly to put the whole matter in better perspective.
First of all was monetary inflation. Almost entirely the fault and responsibility of government, and accounting for the high cost of most everything - it was hardly mentioned. Secondly, although NBC is seldom known to champion free enterprise in ANY area, it looks like a gutsy and in depth comparison between private medical care versus government medicine would have been in order. It wasn't.
The government provides total care for veterans, Indians ad soldiers. Private medical care costs slightly over $600 per capita. It has been projected that the cost for the Va, Indians and the military is over $2,000 per capita.
The currently fashionable rhetoric, which has been heard from both major political parties, is that every American has a right to first class medical care, but after 11 years of Medicare and Medicaid costs, politicians are seeking ways to REDUCE medical costs. What a laugh!
All this in the dawn of President Carter's promise of a new Government Health Care bill for 1978. NBC forgot to emphasize, too, the striking parallel between the chaotic socialized medicine in England and the present path we are on in the USA.
Economics and the preservation of a free society were scarcely mentioned by NBC's documentary analysts. Perhaps they were trying too hard, but a little digging would have turned up a delightful rejoinder to some jackass they interviewed who said "There's no supply and demand in medicine. You cannot go shopping for a gall bladder operation."
Well, I wonder why? Because three or four years ago in Montgomery County, Maryland, some activists published a medical directory. The results of their survey of doctors interviewed listed their prices, fees charged, telephone availability, yes or no on house calls, whether they were accepting any new patients, etc., etc.
The directory sold like hotcakes. What happened?
The medical association blew its stack, even going to court to stop the publication of the directory. Can't shop, eh? Small wonder! But then network television's potentates USUALLY miss these stories.
NBC's TV documentary seemed at bottom to suggest that competition and free entry into the market is the main problem in medicine.
Considering the government franchised monopoly that gigantic TV network enjoy - I guess it was about all they COULD suggest.
Stacking the Deck on Health Costs
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
January 21, 1978
With the possible exception of the Borah Symposium at the University of Idaho two committees sponsored by two governors of Idaho have skyrocketed the art of stacking the deck into an all-time new high.
The University of Idaho's Borah Committee has for many years been the target of repeated and unsuccessful attempts by conservative students and even a few faculty members there to get some decent balance for free market, private ownership and less government ideas.
But while the Borah hard core liberals, who "own" the famous symposium lock, stock and barrel and only on rare occasion give anything remotely resembling equal time to free market radicals, one has to recognize something unique.
The Borah group is not spending government monies to push specific forms of legislation. Their private foundation funds push ideas, most of which would cause Idaho's world famous Sen. William E. Borah to turn over in his grave. Still, the foundation's funds are not taxpayers' funds.
Which is what one cannot say for former Gov. Cecil Andrus' Idaho Tomorrow committee which was a thinly disguised promotion set up to push land use planning, (read, GOVERNMENT land use planning).
Comes now Gov. John Evans and his Blue Ribbon Committee on Health Care held Jan. 13-14 at Boise State University.
Just exactly who lined up the aces, deuces and jokers in this deck isn't clear, but the responsibility is clearly that of Gov. Evans and the Association for the Humanities in Idaho (AHI).
The latter group, whose entire funds come from government's National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), put $7,000 in the symposium on health care, although it is not entirely clear that AHI knew that its funds were to be used to push for legislation in Idaho.
Sincere intentions or not depends much on one's particular point of view, but clearly the health care conference had but two things mainly in mind to contain health care costs. One was a new Certificate of Need law to limit the number of hospital beds and, secondly, a law to set hospital rates by the government.
The only person raising a voice in vigorous protest of the conference was Gil Gilbertson, administrator of St. Luke's Hospital in Boise.
Said he, "I think the statistics in the governor's committee literature are absolutely indefensible and a deliberate distortion." They showed Idaho hospital rates higher than the national average and Gilbertson insisted they were among the very lowest.
The St. Luke's chief went on to assert there was no need for a government rate review commission since most hospitals already had one, namely, a board of trustees. In any event his hospital had such and they were tough, intelligent and dedicated.
But the conference stage was already set and not much else arose to rock the already left-leaning boat.
A representative from the Ford Motor Company was a principal speaker who rose to state that free enterprise would not work in health care. It never had, he seemed to be saying, consequently it couldn't now; therefore, we need more government.
It was ironic indeed that his giant company was so successful in the market place and yet health care could only be managed by the bureaucrats. No one rose to ask which of the other "well managed" government bureaus he thought could manage our health care.
Cost containment, non-profit, government planning, insurance reform and even a few common sense ideas like changing one's lifestyle to cut health care costs were some good topics of discussion.
Oddly enough, a former assistant secretary of the department of health, education and welfare expressed, albeit very softly, some grave doubts about the idea of a law to limit the number of hospital beds, but it got no discussion on the program.
The only significant reference to the matter of freedom of choice by a major spokesman to the conference came from Dr. Charles Sanders, chief administrator for Massachusetts General Hospital at Boston.
Amidst the two-day conference's almost total devotion to more governmental intervention, his remarks were a breath of fresh air and something of a surprise.
Said he, "Faults we have, busy we are, but the individual still counts in this country. I would respectfully suggest that if we fail to exert our best efforts to maintain our system of free enterprise, then we shall soon be protected out of it ... if those of us who believe in a strong private sector do not hang together, then most assuredly we shall hang separately."
Apparently Gov. Evans' committee will be glad to furnish the rope - either way.
Media Double Standard Troublesome
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
January 28, 1978
The firing of an assistant U.S. attorney general by the Carter administration brings thoughtful observers both pain in the sides from laughing and pain in the neck from some of the news media's reaction to it.
David Marston, you'll remember, is a sharp, young and competent lawyer in the Philadelphia office of the U.S. attorney general. Even Attorney General Griffin Bell himself had to admit to newsmen that Marston was quite competent and performed his job well.
What was the reason, then, that President Carter asked Bell to move quickly to remove him? Simple. First, he was investigating Democrat Congressman Joshua Eilberg on charges of corruption. Second, Marston was a Republican appointee. He had an excellent record of similar investigations and was hot on the trail of this one.
When former President Nixon fired some men in his legal department prior to Watergate - what happened? The sky fell in, of course, and well it should have. Never mind the Bobby Baker and Billie Sol Estes cover-ups of the Johnson administrations and the witness in Texas who committeed suicide by shooting himself in the back, five times - with a rifle.
Never mind too, President Carter's promise to remove partisan politics from federal appointments and his vote-buying campaign promise, "I'll never lie to you."
Comes now Congressman "Tip" O'Neil, Speaker of the House of Representatives, appearing on CBS-TV's "Face the Nation." Asked how he could explain the rather gross circumstances surrounding the firing of the government's investigator, O'Neil replied, "It's nothing, we do it all the time."
The panel of highly paid TV newsmen scarcely pursued the matter at all. The Democrat's chief of the House of Representatives got off virtually scot-free.
If you asked what else is new I'd agree and charge it all off as the Eastern Liberal Establishment protecting itself as per usual, but for an astounding editorial recently in the Lewiston Morning Tribune.
Managing Editor Ladd Hamilton wrote an editorial about Bell's firint of Marston at the direction of President "Trust Me" Carter.
"U.S. attorneys operate outside the Civil Service and are blown about by the winds of politics. Since they represent the Justice Department and the executive branch that is the way it should be," said Hamilton.
Well now, isn't that CONVENIENT for fellow Democrat Hamilton to say about his ideological compatriot. It's almost incredible.
It reminds me of a statement of the late Adlai Stevenson, speaking about a politician of particularly rancid practices: "If he were a bad man," said Stevenson, "I wouldn't be so afraid of him. But this man has no principles. He doesn't know the difference."
Whether or not Hamilton "knows the difference," his editorial goes on to suggest that there is probably nothing wrong at all with Marston's being fired during the investigation and that there is "no reason to assume just now that a cover-up is under way."
Unbelievable? Of course it is; especially coming from (1) one of Idaho's "suspicious by trade" news media and (2) in the aftermath of both Watergate, and now, Koreagate.
Perhaps not all of the media will swallow this. Perhaps Hamilton will come to his senses, but it reminds me vividly of the dissolution of the Greek city-state.
"Everything goes on as usual, and yet there is no longer anyone who believes in it.
"The invisible spiritual bond which gives it validity no longer exists, and so the whole age is at once comic and tragic - tragic because it is perishing, comic because it goes on.
"For it is always the imperishable which sustains the perishable, the spiritual which sustains the corporal."
What scares me just now is that our media's credibility may be neither comic nor tragic.
Indeed, if an increasing double standard is any sign - it may have already perished.
Cost of Scratch-the-Back Politics
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
February 13, 1978
"A little seed money, spread judiciously in the political fields, can bring forth such a bountiful harvest that this sort of farming continues to be as popular as it is profitable.
"You may remember the milk producers, who suddenly were (exposed as being) favored by the Nixon administration after a contribution of - compared to the return - what amounted to peanuts."
So began an editorial written last fall by the Miami Herald. And the farming continues, according to the editorial, albeit after a bit of crop-rotation.
So acceptable has the idea of political payoffs and bribery to politicians become that even the late Hubert Humphrey, immensely popular U.S. Senator from Minnesota, was included in the payoffs from the milk lobby. But the national news media didn't see fit to pursue the matter as very newsworthy, i.e., after all, the smiling and effervescent politician had only made it to the nation's vice-presidency and been a senator for decades.
After a brief mention of the milk scandal, the whole matter sunk into the quicksand of the all-too-typical Washington, D.C.'s "What else is new?" game. And, anyway, there were too many OTHER politicians in on the payoff for Humphrey to be newsworthy. One assumes, for example, like former vice-president Spiro what's-his-name? Now HE was big news.
Comes now George Meany (et al) and organized labor's time-honored payoffs. The Fair Election Commission, after an unconscionable, if typical, delay just announced that the labor unions spent $20,326,000 in the 1976 elections (speaking of payoffs).
The bulk of this, $15,400,000 from Meany's AFL-CIO. This is not dues, mind you, this is political action money. Dues, and unreported in-kind services, are another matter yet again.
Comes now Korea's Tongsun Park, the well-known and now famous lobbyist for that little tiny country for which we went to war against the Communists in the early 1950's.
Park passed around envelopes stuffed with crisp $100 bills to almost everybody on Capitol Hill who had any influence at all. Some returned the payoffs, or if you like - Bribes, some did not.
The flamboyant Korean lobbyist seemed to be saying to those screaming for somebody's political blood: "Gee whiz, fellas, doesn't EVERYBODY make payoffs in Washington to those who do you favors?" Gosh, this is where all the muscle is.
And of course he's right. So much power has been assembled by the politicians in Washington that nearly every major organization in America has lobbyists permanently stationed there. Many have built or rented huge buildings to house the hordes of staff necessary for efficient lobbying.
To express so much outrage at Korea's lobbyist and payoff artist Tongsun Park amidst all our own chicanery makes as much sense as expressing hope for free beer from Billy Carter and free peanuts from his presidential brother in the White House.
The system's at fault - not the farmers, not Humphrey, not Meany, not Park, not even the Carters in that peanut parlor on the Potomac. It's too much power in the hands of Washington, D.C. politicians.
Right here at home, for example, over 75 percent of Idahoans are furious about the Panama Canal giveaway. Three out of four of our congressional delegation vigorously oppose the canal treaty. Of those Republican party members in Idaho it is safe to say well OVER 75 percent oppose the treaty.
Now then, I've got some rather strange news for you. Forgive me if I withhold the names, for now. But the suggestion has been made by an important Republican official (too important to ignore) that their party should come right out in front of God and everybody and, believe it or not, takes SIDES on the canal issue.
How? The obvious and rather politically fortuitous opportunity is to attack the opposition party's number one politician. Who? Why, Idaho's senior senator Frank Church, of course.
Church favored the so-called give-away treaty right from the start, then in the face of the national furor - he waffles. Now he's on record. He's just recently voted for it as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hence the time is now if the Republicans were to mount a meaningful attack.
But another high GOP official (also too important to ignore) must travel to Washington soon in quest of mineral and or water rights. He admits he might need Sen. Church's "help." The GOP salvo at Church has been vetoed. The establishment boat will not be rocked on this one.
While it must seem unbelievable, my guess is that Church is sincere, but for now, as for the GOP right here in Idaho - well, give me Tongsun Park or George Meany.
At least they know which SIDE they are on.
"Weird Magic"
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
February 22, 1978
Anyone who thinks America's farmers today do not have a tough row to hoe just hasn't examined the facts.
That assumes that anyone these days is impressed very much by facts which, of course, they are not.
This fact alone seems forever to escape well-meaning types like the Chamber of Commerce and the Idaho Power Company for example, from whose offices pour forth page after page of facts about which more and more voters seem to care less and less.
Nor is it necessary to read the news media's accounts of the various grass roots "tractorcade" demonstrations by exacperated farmers fearful of losing their farms for lack of profit.
The late Will Rogers once urged President Coolidge to institute a farm relief program. In support thereof the cowboy philosopher suggested his friend Coolidge be: "Put on a farm with the understanding he has to make his own living off it, and I bet he will give the farmers relief next year. I offer mine for the experiment, and if he makes a go of it he is not a President, he is a magician."
Well, the Idaho State Senate Agriculture Committee must have decided the U.S. Congress is indeed just that - magicians.
A Senate Joint Memorial No. 113 was recently introduced and sponsored by State Senator Dane Watkins asking the U.S. Congress to perform some weird magic.
Absent the whereases and wherefores and after stating the family farms were in big financial trouble, which is true and most of it due to government meddling, the Watkins proposal declared that unless the U.s. Government took some "positive action to build net profit into the prices of agricultural products, large corporations or the government will be the only entities left with the resources to produce food ... which action," the memorial went on to say, "should not include further subsidies or unreasonable regulations."
Now I ask you, how's that for trying to suck and blow in the same breath?
After explaining that "parity pricing does not mean a guaranteed income but rather a fair price ... for the risks and costs," the memorial said, "the American Agricultural Movement rejects the current farm program and DEMANDS (my emphasis) 100 per cent parity for all American agricultural products."
Some of the whereases in the memorial seemed understandable, some even made some sense, but the crowning glory of all came in this one (forgive me) "Whereas:
"The American Agricultural Movement demands a creation of an entity or structure composed of American Agricultural producers to devise and approve policies (one must assume this meant GOVERNMENT policies) that affect agriculture."
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, or the gist of it at least. Clearly, the seeds of classical fascism, i.e., you own it, but we control it. "We", meaning a group of our guys acting with the authority and muscle of Big Brother who will hopefully, protect us from ourselves. Sound familiar?
The good news is that the memorial resolution was voted down. But no matter how well intentioned it may have been it would surely have pleased the late Benito Mussolini and his followers, had they been here to see it almost succeed.
The bad news is that it only went down by a vote of 16 to 19. Had it not been for the vehement protests of State Senator Phil Batt, it may well have passed with a comfortable margin.
Watkins is said to be seriously considering the race for lieutenant governor against Batt in the GOP primary. Both can be said to be friendly to farmers and have their best interests at heart. But good intentions are hardly enough.
'Green Panthers' Cow Utility Men
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
February 25, 1978
Did you ever have a friend come up with a conclusion you thought was so strange and convoluted as to make you wonder if indeed he was perhaps an adversary after all?
Of course most of us have, and most of the time we continue to be friends and that's as it should be.
However, circumstances alter cases, so let's take the case of the Idaho Power Company and their legal responsibility to furnish electric power for that area covered by their legal monopoly, and see if they're friend or foe.
Now then, I have for many years been a great booster for Idaho Power and their privately owned set-up, especially since it is so often compared with government owned power. Notwithstanding the fact that government power does not have to show a profit, nor pay interest on its borrowed capital, nor please customers at peril of losing them to other competitors, nor fear harrassment by the vast army of bureaucrats, etc., government power still leaves a whole lot to be desired.
All too often the private sector fails eloquently to even state the case for private ownership let alone mention freedom. We seem almost ashamed to tell our own story. It is precisely in these two areas where the Green Panthers have done their homework against new energy.
Like the Black Panthers, they savvy people's emotions and gut feelings, and, further, they understand that ideas come BEFORE politics. Sell an idea, be it good or bad, to the public and the politicians will fall all over themselves to "deliver" no matter what the cost.
Who would have thought that in a state in which 70 percent of the real estate is already owned by government that so many Idahoans would see fit to try to lock up permanently even more resources into federal wilderness areas and wild river untouchable green belts.
Yes, it's true the Green Panthers have gone too far, but they've done their homework. And a superior job, too, from their point of view. They're anti-growth, so lock up the energy supplies and their job is done. Idaho Power savvies the old time political concepts, but the panthers (both Green and Black) savvy ideas.
As a case in point: Jim Bruce, president of Idaho Power Company, one of the best managed energy companies in the nation, introduced their new color film entitled "Search for Energy" just the other day. But before showing the film he suffered yet another attack of superorthodxy.
Alluding to their continuing campaign for more energy via a coal fired plant, Bruce said their detractors accuse the power company of merely seeking a profit, but he assured us, as we listened with eager ears, that they were NOT seeking a profit - rather it was only a "return" they were after.
One is forced to assume that amid al the confusion these days people still think profit is a dirty word so the power company, abandoning the sinking ship of profit, now scrabbles for the life-boat word "return."
As if that tiptoe through the tulips wasn't bad enough, the film came on narrated by Dan Smede, former TV newscaster, who explained that since our rivers were all "Set aside" now as both scenic and wild, other sources of power would have to be found, presumably a coal-fired power plant and - located ANYWHERE except near Boise.
Gone the same route, apparently, as "profit is a good word," Idaho Power's dams and electric generators in our rivers and streams have now been set aside for the children's history books. Score one more for the Green Panthers.
But the crowning coup of all was yet to follow Smede's statement about the lock-up of all our streams and rivers.
Following the que, no doubt, of a Madison Avenue advertising firm usually hired by big business to tell the "free enterprise story," Smede conceded the rivers were now the property of the poets and the backpackers and the recreationists, or words to that effect.
"And," he quickly added, "we surely don't want to change that." In other words he may as well have added that they don't want to be scratched AGAIN by those dirty Green Panthers.
As to who is friend or foe, you can't tell the players even with a program.
Trouble At Small Colleges
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
March 8, 1978
Small private colleges in general and the College of Idaho in particular are in BIG financial trouble.
Dr. Lloyd Averill, president of the Kansas City Regional Council for Higher Education, said during an interview at the College of Idaho recently that colleges "... had to get with it in order to attract students."
Egad, that's downright educational blasphemy! Yes, sir, sounds like Adam Smith on capitalistic response to the market.
While his statement was qualified and couched in terms at which few academicians could take even the slightest offense, the former dean of faculty at Davis and Elkins College in West Virginia, noted that "major educational reform" was in process elsewhere in American colleges.
Meeting with the Caldwell college's steering committee for planning, he said "The impulse for change was in the colleges long before acute financial pressures developed."
Well now, that's interesting if true, but he also added that colleges were "resistant to change."
Boy, oh boy, THERE is the educational declaration of understatement of the century. One if reminded the educational establishment was at one time teaching that the earth was flat, but fortunately some uneducated sailor's leanings towards supply and demand suggested otherwise.
Recognized as an educational planner and author, Averill could be expected to couch his criticisms in euphemistic terms lest he offend the high priests of education.
After reasserting the almost religious hallmark of formal education: "change for the sake of change", Averill said, "We will have to ... suspend our confidence in conventional wisdom about liberal learning long enough to see if there may be a better way."
Hats off for Averill and the College of Idaho for having him, but he raised and left hanging, some unanswered questions, many of which were previously asked of the trustees of the College of Idaho back in 1970 by a little known publication called the Idaho Compass.
In a special edition entitled "How Come?" and sent with a cover letter to each of the 35 trustees of the college, the Compass editors asked a series of questions:
1) "How come the overwhelming majority of professional educators seem to have a profound distrust of private enterprise?"
2) "How come the number of graduating students who plan to go into business for themselves compared with the umber of those same students planning to be government workers, politicians or social workers, doesn't wake up even the most dull-witted trustee?"
3) "How come the profit motive is thought to be incompatible with formal education?"
This Compass issue, centered around a reprinted speech by a scholar and president of yet another small liberal arts college called Rockford College in Rockford, Ill., with a student body of 600 students. The college forbids its students to even take government loans in order to be as free of government influence as possible. In spite of this self imposed burden, the college is financially vigorous. The president admits this self imposed discipline adds to the problem in competing with the government's universities.
The content of President John Howard's speech is entitled "The Subtle Suicide of Private Enterprise." Typical of Howard's remarks therein are such as: (1) "There has been a widespread assumption among college personnel that whosoever makes his living by the profit motive is inherently selfish and unconcerned ..."
(2) "It is usually the people in the liberal arts who make the big decisions inside the institutions of higher education."
(3) "Let me observe that the businessmen and the academician are fundamentally and devastatingly isolated from each other."
(4) "The private enterprise system is the most incredible anti-poverty program man has ever devised."
"Voluntary" Compliance -- It Just Ain't So
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
March 15, 1978
There was a famous American humorist of the 19th Century by the name of Josh Billings. One of the sharpest things he said was, "The trouble with people ain't ignorance, it's what they know that ain't so."
Our very own Idaho Legislature, for example, seems absolutely convinced that people know so much that ain't so they must labor day and night to give voters guidelines, sometimes called laws, for each an every act of each and every day. And it's getting worse."
Think about it. Have you ever heard a legislator even SUGGEST "Hey, my fellow lawmakers, this mater is none of our damned business?" Well, don't hold your breath 'til you do.
Two examples just showed up this very week. Both involved governments' good intentions gone nutty, but each resulted in dramatically different responses to the problem.
The first involved the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 503 and 504. The government's good intentions through this act were to help encourage business to hire handicapped persons - a laudable and no doubt sincere intention.
But as so often happens when government injects it's "values" into the people's affairs things go awry, beginning with COMPULSION.
In other words if you contract to do work for the government, as more and more people are having to do in order to survive their unfair competition, you must hire handicapped persons, in the exact and precise manner the bureaucrats prescribe, or you're in big trouble either in court or in some bureaucrat's kangaroo court.
Certainly the handicapped are not the problem. On the contrary, most of them would dearly love to work at some job they could handle and, bless their hearts, many do. But it's risky - tremendously risky. If employers don't get harassed by some bureaucrat with big authority and small brains they often get sued by some ambulance-chasing attorney likely on the bankroll of the federal government.
So what to do? Six Chambers of Commerce are jointly sponsoring a seminar at Boise State University March 16 on how to COMPLY with the government's usually asinine stewardship on how to practice the Golden Rule toward the handicapped and ALSO stay out of jail.
The brochure advertising the seminar (it costs $45 if you register early; $70 if you don't) says not ONE word on how to stem the tide or get the government out of the employer's hair - only how to COMPLY to Big Brother.
Case number two, while not exactly parallel, has similar qualities of asininity. It involved Brigham Young University and that same big brother mentality, although in this case its good intentions are not so readily to be conceded.
It seems the Mormon Church-owned university, located in Provo, Utah, requires its students, who live off campus, to be housed in sexually segregated buildings.
This immensely successful, privately owned school has about 25,000 bright eyes and happy students with more lined up at the door wanting in, but the U.S. Department of Justice doesn't like it.
What the government's legal-eagle bureaucrats seem to want is non-discrimination, i.e., boys and girls may NOT be required of BYU to live in separate quarters.
University President Dallin Oaks said, "those who desire more intimate living arrangements with members of the opposite sex may attend other universities."
Notice, he didn't say they HAD to, he said they may. Oaks thinks that's what freedom is all about: may versus must. Oh, yes, there are indeed some strings be attached - but only if you go to his school at BYU.
Not altogether unlike Uncle Sam's strings attached to HIS schools, is it?
Nevertheless the Justice Department investigated BYU and Provo's private landlords saying a civil suit would be filed alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. Sounds like Orwell's 1984 has arrived.
All of which reminds us that a welfare state is when the governments of the people and for the people BUY the people - and, like Josh Billings, the Mormons know something that "ain't so,", namely, they ain't bought yet.
Chamber of Commerce seminars please note.
Church, Symms and Panama
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
March 22, 1978
One last word on the Panama Canal give-away, which is all over but the shouting.
Perhaps "give-away" is not a fair term because the U.s. is paying Panama a huge sum of money to take it off our hands.
Still, the REASONS for such a bizarre scheme are what is interesting. Presumably, it is partially to bail out some big banks owned by the eastern liberal establishment whose huge loans to Panama are no good.
Who knows but what the U.S. Department of State's policy of secret diplomacy didn't urge these banks to make the asinine loans in the first place?
If this were so, one could almost argue that Foggy Bottom (the State Department) was merely repaying the banks for past favors. Never mind the fact that buying friends has not been at all successful as the main-stay of U.S. foreign policy - especially when it's done in secret as it so often is.
But foreign policy is exactly what the dull-witted one-man-one-vote mentality is not interested in.
Idaho's Senator Frank Church, for example, is BIG on one-man-one-vote, but for some reason concerning the canal he feels the overwhelming majority is WRONG.
In fact, he thinks they're so dumb he's even agreed, by the treaty, that we will never, ever build another canal to compete with Panama - without their permission.
Church and the news media have succeeded in subduing public awareness and debate on this "no-compete" agreement with a Communist sympathizing dictator unfortunately giving some credibility to the conspiracy theory.
But Church's sympathy for the Communists like Cuba's Fidel Castro, Panama's Trujillo and others by no means makes him even a near Communist.
Church is an elitist and a political do-gooder whose sincere attempts to redistribute the world's wealth, is a clear and consistent, and again, sincere cause for his foreign policy attitudes. The Panama Canal is merely today's example. It'll become even clearer when he becomes boss of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he's about to do.
All of which brings us around to another completely different brand of politician - Idaho's First district Congressman Steve Symms.
Equally sincere, equally dedicated, Symms is about as popular in Idaho among his followers as his political opposite - Church.
Like Church, Symms is no weak sister. He is as hell-bent to keep the canal as Church is to give it away.
But the immensely outspoken congressman does not have the support of two of the state's largest newspapers, the Lewiston Morning Tribune and Boise's Idaho Statesman, both liberal and almost reactionary in their knee-jerk support of Church.
In fact, so knee-jerk is the Statesman's support for Church, they ran a five-day series favoring Church's position on the treaty, but when faced with a request for a response by Idaho's Second District Congressman George Hansen AGAINST the Canal treaty, Idaho's largest newspaper said "no." Hansen, too, feels the knife of the press.
All of which says to me that Symms should get off Church's back and go after the REAL conspiracy, America's diplomatic negotiations almost always done in secret, i.e., SECRET DIPLOMACY, aided and abetted by a power oriented and mostly an intellectually constipated news media, bent more on molding the news than reporting it.
But Symms is also partly to blame. Driven by conservative pragmatists and tacticians who see Church himself as the "enemy" and driven partly by Symms' own sincere and honest love for ideas about freedom, private ownership and limited government, he lashes out at political opportunists instead of ideas. Ideas are where our hope for success lies, along with some libertarian optimism for it's attainment. But he can be intellectually constipated too.
For example, why didn't Symms call a press conference to commend the President on what started out as a glimmer of sense in American foreign policy - the Carter human rights thrust? (Unfortunately, the glimmer has since returned to the bumbling foreign policy which has characterized the last three decades.)
Symms could have said, "our" government has never come to grips with the basic fact that the common political thrust in the world today is the demand for redistribution of wealth from those who created it to those who are unwilling to follow the model of the free society which makes all lasting progress possible.
For starters, Symms should put Don Ernsberger on his payroll. Don is the libertarian editor of the Society for Individual Liberty (Box 1147, Warminster, Penn.) and author of the above paraphrased statement on U.S. foreign policy.
He just might show the congressman how to get on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and SELL the Panama Canal, maybe even to someone who respects human rights.
Doctors Waste Captive Readers
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
April 1, 1978
Next to the federal government, the American Medical Association probably comes in for more scathing criticism than any other organization in the U.S.A.
Oh sure, there are many decent and well meaning citizens who seem to have an almost blind faith in government, but generally speaking the only blind faith almost universally shared by Americans is in their own family doctor, if not the doctor's trade association.
Freely chosen and selected by the outcome of no political monkey-business whatsoever, with the possible exception of occupational licensing, medical doctors inspire and enjoy more real confidence than any other profession in the world.
In the light of all this esteem and respect for their advice which, by the way, runs all the way from how to choose a mate - clear across the spectrum to urban renewal or county land-use planning, or wife swapping.
Sound ridiculous? Well, such tremendous regard to do people hold for their paternal painkillers, that, typically, even the most ardent church going deacon is apt to grab his first copy of "Playboy" magazine, provided his family physician were to suggest a casual reading of that publication's feature, "sex life after 80", i.e., if it were such a feature.
If all this prestige and influence is truly present, whey are these same doctors, nearly all of who claim to be vehemently against socialized medicine, losing the race against it? Of all the doctors I've ever met and, of those who do CARE, nearly all frequently expressed great sorrow for the sorry direction medicine is headed.
I think these doctors are without a doubt as sincere and dedicated a profession as exists. They work long hours and again, generally, deserve their prestige and pay. So why are they so consistently losing their "war" on government medicine?
Since I've been such a long-time crusading comrade of the private medicine story, I too, wonder why. So I had a survey made. A rather honest one, too, I suppose, since I paid for it. It's apporach was clean, unusual and revealing.
The survey was to see what the doctors were doing with their waiting room literature. Of all the captive audiences in the world, with the exception of the government's compulsory school system, doctor's offices are the biggest and in terms of THIS fight, certainly the best, I.D., made to order.
a random survey was made of the literature to be found in the waiting rooms of doctors in Caldwell, Nampa and Boise. The idea, of course, was to see what kind of a job the doctors themselves were doing to help pull "their" fat out of the fire of government medicine.
It is true that such a fight is not altogether the doctor's alone, since socialized medicine is sort of a bellwether of more nationalization to come. Great Britain is, of course, the free world's classic example, but certainly they should put their mouth where their money is.
The survey may or may not be the equivalent of Gallup, Roper or Lou Harris, but I can assure you it was honest. The office waiting rooms of 100 doctors were checked at random in Caldwell, Nampa and Boise. Over 1,000 magazines, publications and periodicals were carefully counted and cataloged to see how many we could find in which one would LIKELY find the case against socialized medicine.
We didn't expect to find many, since those magazines favoring private medicine are in the minority, but they DO EXIST. For example, Private Practice, National Review, Reason, Conservative Digest, Human Events, The Freeman, to name only a few, plus a host of excellent newsletters.
Result? We found not one. NOT ONE. Now I'm sure there must be some doctors who do provide good anti-government medicine publications, in fact I've seen one or two. But our random survey found none and I think, therefore, it is alarmingly representative. What a golden opportunity - lost - to state their case.
Idahoans are fortunate to have such a large number of fine medical people in this area, and I myself have a great respect for them, but they must be politically and economically illiterate, or dull. Certainly they are not stupid.
Or perhaps, shades of the millenium, the idea of using their waiting room literature to "educate" just might not have occurred to them. Or, horror of horrors, maybe they just don't want to irritate a paying customer - in public.
Pathologically Irrational
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
April 5, 1978
One of the sharpest public observers of this generation said some time ago that "America's foreign policy is so pathologically irrational that many people believe there is something clever hidden in it."
That's sad, I think, but true. At least the first part.
I should like to try to make a meaningful connection between America's foreign policy and her domestic policy because far too many people say in response thereto, "Oh what's the use? None of it makes any sense anyway, so who cares?"
Of course many people DO care. I'm sure in my own mind President Carter cares, but his recent trip to Europe demonstrated in country after country that American requests for "human rights" and for self-development are laughed at by the powers involved.
Don Ernsberger, unusually bright editor of the national newsletter "Individual Liberty" summed it pretty well recently.
He said, "In Western Europe which still is content to rely on foreign troops for defense and foreign workers for menial labor, Carter's visit brought forth more demands for all the U.S. help they can beg or borrow.
"In Poland the topic of discussion was a request for another $200 million in credits, bringing to a half billion dollars the latest outlays to help Poland meet food shortages.
"Carter agreed to bail out yet another folly of communism and got the cold shoulder on human rights.
"Because of his failure to allow the free market to provide American energy needs, the President went to Iran hoping for price assurances in oil.
"Carter dared not open his mouth in Iran about human rights violations where torturers and executioners maintain the power of the Shah.
"For the visit the Shah came away with promises for six to eight nuclear reactors."
Certainly there are limits to how much the U.S. can interfere with other countries, but it is indeed "pathologically irrational" for us to build bridges of trade with Communist countries and others who have almost NO respect for human rights and then boycott friendly and anti-communist Rhodesia's chrome.
Instead we buy chrome from Soviet Russia at a 200 to 300 percent higher price.
On the domestic front many people of good will wonder why the Carter administration waited so long to stop the United Mine Worker's Union shutdown of the coal mines.
I cannot honestly say that I blame the coal miners altogether.
Notwithstanding the fact that they received an average of $332 per week in 1977 while all manufacturing workers received an average of $226 per week.
Notwithstanding the fact that President Carter made it easy for the UMW to extort a settlement that rewards a 28 percent loss in productivity with a 37 percent pay increase, it is still understandable.
Why? Because extortion works. It works at home in the USA and these tin-horn foreign politicians are not STUPID - it works abroad.
If a labor union can hold hostage for months several states full of jobless and innocent people shivering from the cold then why shouldn't a few Arab terrorists take a few hundred airplane passengers hostage?
Why shouldn't they charge exorbitant prices for their oil? Why shouldn't the Panama dictator holler at the top of his voice for the U.S. to give him the Canal and pay him cash to take it?
Why shouldn't the Russians build the Berlin Wall?
As I said, intimidation WORKS! It works in Carter's domestic policy and it works in his foreign policy. It's not complicated - it's simple - it's criminal. And, all too often, "legal".
Crime doesn't pay? Oh yes it does too. Especially when our engraved "invitations" go out all over the world.
Some may ask about foreign and domestic policy: "which comes first the chicken or the egg?"
To which I would only respond that WE (the U.S.) are chicken and the egg is on our face.
Lesson in Faith from 'Customers'
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
April 11, 1978
In his book "Legacy of Freedom" Dr. George Roche, president of Hillsdale College in Michigan, writes about one of humanity's really difficult problems. It's been kicked around since the Middle Ages, perhaps even long before.
The problem affects everybody today just as it did way back then even though most of us hate to grapple with it.
In fact so tough is this age old problem that some people claim that it doesn't even exist. Still others claim that it is not even a problem except, perhaps, for pointy-headed intellectuals.
But it concerns us all in a very real way, and can even be a lot of fun if we look at it with a grin - so bear with me. We might shed some light on why today's plumbers are paid more than many of today's college graduates.
The problem is producing some sort of sympathetic connection between faith and reason. Blind faith, and common sense reason.
Roche's book is about how we seem to have been sweeping the problem under the rug for far too long. It is also an interesting historical account of what some of the world's great thinkers have said about the matter.
One of these thinkers, Roche says, was St. Thomas Aquinas, "a man of unparalleled power of mind, whose capacity for the clarification of ideas has seldom been surpassed in the history of human thought.
"Thomas's intellectual capacity ranks with that of Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. Like them, he advanced man's understanding of the major intellectual problems which he faced.
"Like them, he gave answers to the 'Big Questions,' questions concerning the nature of man, of God, and of their relationship."
Now then, how does all this affect you and me today? Well, most folks send their kids to college - ostensibly to learn about such things. Why? You might well ask, and where or to which college or university?
Good questions. Some are answered by asking which has the best fraternity, or the most fashionable sorority, or the cheapest tuition or the fewest hippies, or radicals, etc.
Some even dig into the various school catalogs in an effort to "discover" where they can get the specific courses they want after considerable and thoughtful inquiry with others.
But for the most part they choose by faith - all too often BLIND faith, because REASONS are hard to come by.
This isn't to say that reasons do not exist, nor that colleges are all bad. Not that at all, but when was the last time you ever looked at a university catalog?
If you can find therein what the particular college is all about, not to mention education in general, you must be a faith-healer.
Reasons and content are almost non-existent in most catalogs not to mention the professor's particular philosophy or reputation among his or her former students (read, customers).
But hang on! Help is on the way. "Big Questions" are being answered - for students - of all people.
The Yale Daily News has published a guide in cooperation with reporters from more than 150 campuses.
The "Insider's Guide to the Colleges" gives student views of 200 schools - facts and views. It probably belongs under the pillow of every high school student looking into colleges.
A tip in the Guide relating to college applications says: "The pre-admission interview is basically absurd. If the interviewer makes you nervous merely imagine him sitting there in his underwear, and whatever else happens, don't walk off with his pen."
Here's a sample of reports on colleges. "Arizona State University: If a male doesn't have a car he might as well confine himself to the celibate pleasures of his room. If a girl doesn't have a car the situation is not so desperate."
"Bard College, New York: The school does not try to make you, the meat, into a pre-fabricated cheeseburger. It lets you cook along in your own fashion."
"University of California, Berkeley, California: The desire for jobs and sex is all-encompassing, far outstripping the traditional concerns of Berkeley students for community involvement."
Georgia Tech, Harvard, Yale and others come in for a ribbing as well as some compliments in the Guide, but it is NOT meant to please the administrators of the respective schools.Who knows - maybe some sharp students will publish a guide as to why the government's subsidy of higher education has produced such a surplus of college graduates, especially in education.
Meanwhile the shortage of plumbers gets worse - just like the price.
Small private college administrations and trustees - please take note.
A Deeper Look at the Wrath
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
April 17, 1978
Idaho's senior senator, Frank Church, is in big trouble. The state's chief Democrat is, and has been, leading the floor debate in the U.S. Senate for those members who want to give away the Panama Canal.
Notwithstanding the fact that that in itself is pretty big news in the eastern establishment press, one can scarcely find mention of it in the Idaho press.
One can indeed find out that Sen. Church voted to give the canal away, but it's hard to find much said in Idaho's news media about him LEADING the fight to give it away.
Former Idaho State Chairman of the Democrat Party, John Greenfield, wrote recently to challenge Congressman Steve Symms' statement that an overwhelming majority of Idahoans are against the treaty. Symms, of course, wants to keep the canal.
Comes now the Democrat's new chairman, George M. Klein, with letters to the editor following his predecessor's attempts to support Church's controversial position. Greenfield and Klein, of course, favor the canal giveaway.
Greenfield's letter to the editor seemed to say Symms was lying because, he too, took a poll and the overwhelming answer was people were undecided. They wanted more information about the canal, he said.
Now then, I don't know Greenfield very well, but I wonder if he's pulling our leg or if he took his "poll" among the state's high school debate students - in order to get such a response.
But I DO know Klein, Greenfield's successor as Democrat Party chief. Klein has been Sen. Church's Idaho representative for many years.
He's a sincere, intelligent, decent, and perhaps most unusual of all his good qualities, tries to be intellectually honest.
In my opinion, and to his everlasting credit, even though we disagree on most partisan issues, Klein sees himself as an American first and Democrat second.
But in addition to being a first class human being Klein is (1) immensely loyal to his former boss Sen. Church and (2) chief party spokesman AGAINST Idaho's other three men in Congress who want to keep the canal. It is also significant that these "other three" are Republicans.
The knee-jerk liberal media, and some that are not quite so knee-jerk, support Church in most of his efforts to redistribute America's wealth.
It is in this arena where I want to call for a warning. Church is also sincere. And, toward this end, he's quite consistent.
What I'm trying to say is that neither Church's sincerity, nor Greenfield's, nor even Klein's is at stake here. In fact the latter's loyalty to Church, and now, the Democrat Party, makes his otherwise intelligent letter to the editor possibly suspect and self-serving.
What is at stake in all this canal controversy is some honest differences in philosophy. Also, some honest and difficult communication problems exist between and among honest politicians who often are fleeced by the media's penchant for sensationalism. It is further compounded by the media's own differences of opinion on what - as well as who is "newsworthy" - in their efforts to mold public opinion.
But Klein did at least offer some reasons in his support of Church's canal giveaway. Some, I must admit, even made sense to me. (Greenfield's letter had little to offer except politics as usual.) Still, their sincerity is not enough.
Something, neither Greenfield, Klein, Church, nor especially the knee-jerk liberal press, whose double standard they almost always follow, has told us is why Church is in big trouble.
Dr. Donald M. Dozer, professor of Latin American history at the University of California, pointed it out in his 1967 talk with U.S. Ambassador to Panama, Joseph Farland.
Dozer asked the ambassador if he ever asked for anything in exchange for the canal and the Canal Zone when he conducted the negotiations.
Farland replied, "No, I don't think I did ... Oh yes, on second thought, I asked the Panamanians to give us an additional 55 feet of land adjoining the U.S. embassy residence in Panama City for a parking lot which they had promised."
Dozer then asked, "Did you get the 55 feet?" The ambassador answered in a sorrowful tone, "No."
That is why Church is in big trouble - we've lost our bearings. And the voters in Idaho sense it. Not only do they see the U.S. giving ground in Panama (pardon the pun) to a tin-horn dictator, but they wonder why we boycott chrome from Rhodesia then turn around and buy chrome from Russia that the Russians imported from Rhodesia and doubled the price when selling it to us.
Do They Know Something . . . ?
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
April 22, 1978
Ralph Joins the CFR
One of the most controversial organizations in America is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
The Boise Committee on Foreign Relations is a member chapter of that organization and has been meeting regularly in Boise for many years.
I know this because I have attended several of their meetings dating back into the 1950's.
Having been invited there by some good friends of a much more liberal persuasion than myself, I thought beforehand that their slant would be well to the left of center.
It was. Still, the members were pleasant, intelligent and polite, (not to be construed to mean reaching the right conclusion, mind you) so I attended a few subsequent meetings as well.
I enjoyed hearing some very experienced and knowledgeable speakers, but decided not to join because the inescapable conclusion reached by the speaker seemed almost always extremely liberal, at least I thought it was, anyway.
A good many years went by until some new friends invited me again to attend the CFR meetings.
Well, I am indeed interested in foreign affairs and if one wishes to engage in organized dialogue with others, in any depth at least, one is just about limited to the CFR.
Since for rather obvious reasons, a parallel conservative organization on foreign policy cannot exist, I reconsidered joining the CFR.
I attended several more meetings, but again the dialogue seemed quite one-sided and the prospects of any "equal-time" speakers seemed rather dim so I declined again my friend's kind invitation.
Well, time passed once more and I'm again reconsidering, but this time with some different insights. Bear with me and we'll see if I can make this add up without losing both my liberal AND my conservative friends.
According to the 1977 Encyclopedia of Associations found in most good libraries, the CFR was founded in 1921, has 1700 members, a staff of 95 persons and 36 local groups.
The library's book goes on about the CFR: "(composed of) Individuals with specialized knowledge of and interest in international affairs ... To study the international aspects of American political, economic and strategic problems."
But controversial as the CFR is, especially in conservative circles, there is precious little else published to be found in public libraries about the foreign policy organization.
For example, an examination of 15 years of the prestigious Readers Guide, used in almost all public libraries to list articles published in most of the important periodicals, found NOTHING about the CFR.
One reason may be their policy called "non-attribution," i.e., not quoting directly any of their speakers, many of whom are U.s. Embassy officials from countries all around the world. Generally speaking they just avoid the news media - on purpose.
It is of at least passing interest that of two very controversial organizations both of which seek to influence U.S. foreign policy, each has an opposite tactic toward news media publicity.
The John Birch Society, (JBS) which blames the CFR for just about every foreign policy blunder of the USA actually SEEKS publicity in their efforts to educate the public to what they see as the cause for foreign problems, i.e., a CFR conspiracy.
However, to the best of my knowledge the media sees almost nothing the JBS does as newsworthy, unless, of course, it's BAD news.
If the CFR is even half as influential as the JBS people claim, it's an interesting testimonial as to the so-called power of the printed word. Not to mention, of course, the power of what is NOT printed.
Still, I met several knowledgeable and thoughtful people this last time I visited the CFR, who are, oddly enough, fairly conservative. Again I received a kind invitation from both right and left to join. This time I probably will.
Except that the statement of one of America's great novelist-philosophers, Ayn Rand, keeps bugging me. She said: "America's foreign policy is so pathologically irrational that many people think there must be something clever hidden in it."
Well, I agree. And if that policy IS at all clever - maybe the CFR knows something we outsiders don't.
At least they certainly have a clever evaluation of how to handle the news media.
To Hell With Less Taxes Now
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
May 10, 1978
Some say there is a taxpayer's revolt on in Idaho. Many say that taxpayers are furious. And everybody talks about taxes.
But like Mark Twain said about the weather, "nobody does anything about it."
Well somebody has come up with an idea that too much government and too much tax are somehow connected.
I saw "somehow" because that idea somehow seems to have escaped the attention of the voters, at least until now.
This simple idea (not to be confused with an easy idea) has resulted in a referendum presently circulating around Idaho to limit property taxes to one percent of market value per year.
That's not one percent just once, mind you, that's each and every year. In ten years you've given up 10 percent of your home or your farm but if the politicians have their way, and inflation continues, you'll give up 30 percent or 40 percent of your home or farm. It's called re-appraisal.
The value of your home goes up 25 percent and your taxes go up 25 percent; without the politicians even having to increase the tax rate.
However, the politicians cannot wait for inflation. They keep spending anyway and adding to the mill levy, too, in order to pay the bill whether you demand it or not.
So the Idaho Property Owners Association comes up with a plan to limit the tax rate per year. Simple, easy to understand, and people are lining up to sign the referendum to get the plan on the ballot in spite of the politicians.
As you might imagine those favoring MORE government are aghast at the idea of actually having less to spend BY government.
The Association of Idaho Cities, the League of Women Voters, the Idaho Education Association, the most powerful special interest group lobby in the state and others of the big government turn of mind, all oppose the one percent tax limit.
Even many persons of good will with no axe to grind fear the advent of actually having to face a limit on spending. A sort of tribal apprehension.
Comes now Steve Ahrens, political editor of the giant newspaper monopoly, the Idaho Statesman, writing on the tax limit idea. His paper, by the way, has supported nearly every scheme known to modern politics to increase government intervention including, of course, more taxes. They are furious at the One percent tax limitation idea.
So is Ahrens. He's no doubt sincere, but seldom will you find a column, like his, so full of humor, wisdom, sadness, nonsequitors and downright contradictions as this one against the tax limitation plan.
The plan's popularity is sweeping California and has just been passed inot law in Tennessee, but Idaho's news media somehow doesn't think that's newsworthy.
Here's some excerpts from Ahren's column: "... taxpayers, revolt holds exciting potential ... difficult for the public to grasp such complicated matters as inflation ... (inflation is not complicated) rising taxes are ripping money right out of their paychecks and pocket books."
Space prohibits reprinting very many of Ahren's comments admittedly without contextual support, but suffice it to say he sees Big Brother's Frankenstein monster at all levels of government. This is to his credit, but to limit property taxes to one percent of market value he said is "a simplistic approach," i.e., he's against the idea because it's simple.
He says, "Those taxes now have become so onerous, so unfair, so economically unbearable as to spawn the taxpayer's revolt..." Not bad for a Statesman writer, one supposes.
But Ahrens lapses back again into romanticism, saying "John Corlett," his predecessor wrote recently "a scholarly and objective analysis" of the Idaho tax system concluding - wouldn't you know it - that the Statesman's anti-one percent tax limitation idea is truth, right and justice all rolled into one.
However, in my view if Corlett is "scholarly and objective" on ANYTHING political, then Idaho's gubernatorial candidate Butch Otter is a pastoral college president from Plains, Georgia, pushing free beer.
Corlett said that even if the property taxes were "eliminated" other taxes would be raised so taxpayers wouldn't notice any difference anyway. Ergo, lay down, give up, don't even try. By the way, who said anything about "eliminate?" Is there no such word as limit.
Still, Ahrens seems to agree with Corlett saying the one percent limit idea is a bad idea. Instead, he says we must "control growth of government at ALL levels - local, state, and national - to reduce the demand for taxes." Ye gods! All or nothing at all.
Maybe Ahrens actually wants to be the Mark Twain who once commented that on the basis of information reaching him, his choice would be Heaven for climate and Hell for good conversation.
Or, by the political editor's reasoning: Heaven for less government someday and to Hell with less taces now.
Idaho Patriots Overlook the Key
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
May 20, 1978
Boise came very close to having a national or perhaps an international celebrity visit recently, but something happened.
The Boise Chapter of the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) had secured the services of Major General John Singlaub, former commander of United States forces in South Korea, to be their keynote speaker. Then they lost him.
You may remember singlaub said publicly last year he thought President Carter made a very bad decision to remove U.s. troops from Korea thus inviting further Communist expansionism.
Whammo! Singlaub was ordered back to Washington, D.C. and demoted to a lesser command stateside and told to shut up.
Well, Singlaub complied for a while, then accepted some speaking engagements around the U.S. One of these was at the Boise ROA.
Before the outspoken general got to the Boise meeting however, he let loose publicly with another opinion which the Pentagon politicians didn't agree with and again - whammo! They hauled him back to Washington, D.C.
This time he was fired, once and for all, and forced to cancel several pre-arranged speaking engagements at the last minute, thus putting the Boise ROA in a real pickle for a keynote speaker.
The Boise officers managed to get two last minute speakers to replace their fallen hero and fire-eater, Singlaub.
U.S. Senator James McClure and Congressman Steve Symms substituted and each gave rousing endorsements to what the ROA could be expected to want to hear, namely, more and better national defense.
About McClure, Symms and the ROa annual convention a few observations: (1) I attended that meeting and without wanting to seem unkind or ungrateful for their kind invitation I was appalled that neither McClure nor Symms criticized the news media for their lack of concern for freedom of speech for General Singlaub.
Apparently it's okay for newsman Daniel Schorr to sell Pentagon secrets for publication, but for an outspoken general to speak his mind is, well, hardly worthy of an editorial fuss like they made for Schorr.
Sort of depends upon whether the news media likes to hear what one is outspoken about, i.e., freedom for us to sell newspapers, but no freedom for an Army generaly who fears for the safety of his country.
On the other hand maybe McClure and Symms didn't think the officers association wanted to hear about freedom of speech.
And maybe they were right. Much of the military personnel in the country are of conservative persuasion not unlike the two Republican politicians, i.e., long on defense, shorter on freedom.
Now then, I most assuredly respect this conservatism. In fact I share a good bit of it myself. I agree that a good way to start a war is to pursue the present politics of weakness, flabby will and lack of moral and righteous indignation, but something else is missing.
Symms touched upon it in his remarks, but it was treated s lightly as to escape the attention of all but the most perceptive of the sincere and patriotic military men attending the Boise convention.
It is this. When was the last time you ever heard a conservative ask just what are they teaching the military ROTC students in Idaho and the cadets in the great military academies of the Army, Navy and Air Force about the underpinnings of a free society?
How do they expect young men to defend their country if they cannot make a convincing and articulate case for the free market and private capitalism as opposed to socialism?
I asked the same question of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt when we were both on the University of Idaho's Borah Symposium program a few years ago. His answer was easily predictable, but revealed little insight.
His response was the observation that the U of I students' enthusiastic applause was for the anti-military professor on the program. Only polite applause was given to Zumwalt's and the U.S. military's presentation.
This ought to tell Mcclure and Symms, and the Idaho ROA and all of us something about today's education.
And it ought to be something besides: "My country - right or wrong."
Jenson: An Unlikey Miracle
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
May 27, 1978
The idea that Dwight Jensen, former news reader on the Boise television, and now a free lance writer, could possibly win an election against Idaho's U.S. Senator James McClure is a little far fetched.
Of course ANYTHING could happen in politics. One supposes that Yassar Arafat could marry Golda Meir - but it isn't very likely. Still Jensen will try to defeat McClure next fall.
When the TV personality first announced some of us thought it would be fun and might introduce a new dimension to an otherwise lackluster crusade.
But a recent and major statement of Jensen's indicates only politics as usual and dirty politics at that, unless he is simply economically illiterate.
Everybody knows that farmers are in trouble, so in typical political fashion he accuses his opponent McClure, of throwing up a "smokescreen about farm labor."
Jensen refers, no doubt, to the labor union organizer, Cesar Chavez whose lettuce boycott helped clobber McClure's last challenger, university president Bud Davis.
Davis, along with U.S. Senator Frank Church, both very sympathetic to labor unions, scared Idaho farmers to death six years ago on the lettuce-Chavez matter.
Church is the darling of the liberal news media, however, and was able therefore to avoid a total disaster, albeit only by the skin of his teeth.
But not Davis' teeth. He went down to defeat to McClure and that's what Jensen wants to avoid by accusing McClure of "riling up the farmers about some farm labor organizer who hasn't even shown up in Idaho."
The Democrat challenger claims that it is shabby scare tactics on McClure's part to "make farmers forget about real problems."
One wonders how "unreal" Jensen thinks Chavez and his muscle bound goons would seem if he himself operated a farm with a labor-intensive and perishable crop.
"McClure has hurt the farmers," Jensen says, by helping the oil companies and the utilities who are socking it to Idaho agriculture."
"If he would make a few junkets to the south-forty instead of Saudi Arabia or do as much for the grain grower as for the oil baron, Idaho's farmers might have the money they need."
Now, I ask you, gentle reader, is that demagoguery or is it not? One could have expected more of a writer, who knows better and who, in the past has had some decent philosophical tendencies toward freedom and honesty.
But now it's politics, Jensen seems to have decided, and therefore anything goes - it MIGHT work.
The news media takes care of its own, and Jensen is"one of the boys." The media could elect him if they took a notion, and he knows it.
To his credit the former TV news caster has had less of a tendency than many of his colleagues in the media to twist and distort, especially in the area of civil liberties, but now he's in politics.
McClure gave the Arabs an "even hand" with the Jews in U.S. foreign policy by his "junket to Saudi Arabia" instead of the "south forty" as Jensen inpuned, and McClure helped get the confidence of Arabs.
Thus McClure played a key role in what many see as the most dramatic peace gesture in modern history - Egypt's President Sadat went to Israel to ask for peace. It couldn't happen - but it did.
It just might work, too, if the integrity, judgment, breadth of of knowledge and other desirable qualifications for high office have not been entirely abandoned to the voters in favor of the candidate's presumed capacity to deliver favors to his constituents.
Jensen was quoted as promising the farmers "to deliver, next September, a detailed farm proposal to guarantee a fair return on their investment."
Meantime, politics as usual for the farm vote, since Jensen's idea of the farm problem seems to be a hybrid cross with a political one.
Namely - how to farm the farmers.
Bad Vibes About the Tongue
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
June 3, 1978
A friend of mine who was invited to give the commencement address to a local high school asked me recently what I thought he should say to the graduating seniors.
Since each of us had for years gone to great lengths to criticize the government's compulsory school system for their "liberal" bias in economics and political science, my first thought was to say it again.
Fortunately, I changed my mind. I suggested, "You might tell them that if a free society is to be preserved as we know it today, it just might depend more on the English teachers across America than the political science and economics teachers."
My friend said, Hooray, I'll do it." Whether he did or not, there is ample proof it was a good idea.
Edwin Newman, the famous news commentator, has written a new book about the matter. It's entitled "Strictly Speaking" with a sub-title: "Will America be the Death of English?"
Newman concludes that it will. His book is worth your while and is recommended to all those graduating seniors who somehow feel they were short-changed by being compelled to take "too much" English in school.
Newman argues, "If words are devalued, so are ideas and so are human beings."
In scolding U.S. Sen. Howard Baker for his over-use of the word "viable," the author says, "Automatic recall should be visited upon anyone on the public payroll who says viable.
"The poor state of language in the United States may not be at the heart of our problems, but it's mighty close.
"And it is at least conceivable that our politics would be improved if our English were.
"If we were more careful what we say, and how, we might be more critical and less gullible."
One could hardly give graduating senior students better advice, particularly if one sees politics in general and advertising in particular as a bad trip and getting worse.
All of which isn't to say that graduating seniors would take such advice even if it were offered, but they might. It'd certainly beat the usual effort(s) to get some politician to come-on with the usual garbage they spread, like: "Don't be apathetic, be good citizens - be sure to register and vote."
Why? Well, because that's usually all they have to offer, i.e., your vote paid for by your money.
And the typical adult wonders why so many of today's students are turned off. Egad!
Now then, I'm no big fan of Ed Newman and his band of "nattering nabobs of negativism," the news media, but they are not all bad. Many are, but not all.
Indeed, Newman's book suggests even he is deserving of my own second look and that my bias about news media types may be somewhat aside from its mark.
Of particular gripe to us both is the phrase "Y'know."
"Y'know," says Newman, "is one of the most depressing and far-reaching developments of our time, disfiguring conversation wherever you go.
"In Great Britain, a National Society for the Suppression of Y'know, Y'know, Y'know in the Diction of Broadcasters was organized in 1969.
"It put out a list of the worst offenders," said Newman, "but nothing changed."
His wrath at the phrase is chuck-full of humor (unlike most English courses) and winds up with this suggestion to modernize our patriotic pledge to the flag:
"I pledge, y'know, allegiance to the flag, and to the, y'know, republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible, like I mean y'know, with liberty and justice for all. Y'know?"
The TV newsman, now author, goes on to give the politicians and even some newsmen a bad time for their semantic sinfulness. Enough so, in fact, as to suggest his being invited for some Idaho commencement addresses.
He'd be a rip-roaring improvement over the typical bill-of-fare usually offered by the education establishment in Idaho.
Newman's delightful book said nothing about Congress' hopelessly asinine use of the term "oversight committee," nor that august body's absolutely insane garble of the word "inflation," the uses of which I say are grounds for instant impeachment.
But it abounds with other examples well worth the reader's time. For instance, there is the one about the socially aware politician, a Cheerful Charlie type who announced that, "Since the advent of the pill, a condominium is no longer necessary."
Get a copy of Newman's book for your favorite graduating senior - his English teacher may not have realized how important she was.
And lest some of you readers take issue with my use of the English language, whether chuck-full or chock-full of errors, remember I, too, am a produce of the - y'know - government's compulsory school system. It isn't always viable. Y'know?
Missing the Point on Taxes
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
June 10, 1978
On the matter of the 1 percent tax initiative soon to come up in Idaho, a few observations.
There seems to be a tax revolt of general proportions all across America. A tax limit initiative was just recently enacted into law in Tennessee and on June 6 the famous Jarvis-Gann measure in California was passed into law by a landslide vote of the people.
Similar measures are up for consideration in several more states, including our own, and the California success is bound to give them a big boost of enthusiasm.
Generally speaking, the news media has been very much opposed to the idea, but somehow the average taxpayer has had enough and has found a way to say so, in spite of the politicians and news media.
But even after the overwhelming vote on California's 1 percent tax limit, many of the politicians seem actually offended at the public's insistence on limiting their spending.
Now then, I hate statistics and I'd guess that most of you do too, but let's just take a short look at a few figures for a little perspective.
According to Idaho's First District Congressman Steve Symms, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare lost $7 billion last year through fraud, abuse and waste, but somehow that's not newsworthy.
It's not peanuts either, even out of HEW's budget of $148 billion, but HEW's 1977 budget is $164 billion and President Carter's proposing $181 billion for them next year.
Incidentally, by way of comparison - Idaho's entire 1977 budget was $648.3 million (less than two-thirds of one billion).
Those well-meaning folks who oppose the 1 percent tax limit will (and do) say that those are federal spending figures - not local or state spending, i.e., don't effect Idaho taxes.
But that is only partly true. Many state and local taxing entities are falling all over themselves to get these federal "give-away" dollars and raising local taxes in order to get the matching funds to satisfy the feds. It's a disease that's contagious.
Now then, many of the politicians are sincere and honest. Many want to do the "right thing," but Power is an ego trip of the first magnitude and does things to people.
Simply stated, it gives most of them a God-complex, and before long they hear only what they want to hear, especially more government.
For example, on the front page of the June 7 Idaho Statesman a news article written by Rick Ripley, one of their better reporters, was headlined, "California vote boosts 1 percent leaders."
It quoted Caldwell Councilwoman Alta Williams as neutral, Nampa Mayor Ernest Starr as against, and Gov. John Evans as wondering where Idaho could "make up the lost revenue."
But Ripley missed the fact that Evans can't hear the point most people are trying to get across, namely,that the people do not want them to raise all the money elsewhere - they want LESS government.
Well, it was supposed to be a news article, one might say, so perhaps such a comment wasn't called for.
But the Statesman's ace reporter missed a couple other newsworthy items.
Only two Idaho politicians have leaned over backwards to bring the limited government idea into politics - state and federal. Both signed the 1 percent tax limit initiative and support the idea.
They are Congressman Steve Symms and candidate for governor C.L. "Butch" Otter. Neither one is supported by the Statesman, by the way, nor does the giant paper support the initiative.
But Ripley didn't miss everything in his "news" article. Get this editorial comment of HIS OWN in his 10th paragraph: (front page, mind you) "If the 1 percent measure became law the tax burden would shift to the homeowner and away from the big property owner." So says Rick Ripley, as if it were matter-of-fact news.
That is not only editorial comment, but it is downright misleading - if not downright untrue. The 1 percent limit is for all property alike.
Now then, men of goodwill disagree, the Statesman and Ripley and myself included, I even doubt they had malicious intent.
But if there is not room on their editorial page for Ripley's editorial comments they should at least offer the tax protesters an equal-time editorial on their front page.
Truby's Flyer Doesn't Tell All
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
June 28, 1978
It has often been said that the most important news seldom appears on the front page, rather it is "buried" inside in the fine print.
Unfortunately that's all too often true. It is also true that much of importance is what is not said, i.e., it's called selective news reporting.
Of course there is not room for all of the news, and so there goes the proverbial barn door - wide open.
But the news media is not the only one deserving of super-skepticism thses days. Another printed "media," political pamphlets, deserves increasing examination as the lust for legal looting heats up.
The good ones are lavish in their praise and glorious in their living color, but like the newspapers and TV they often reveal more by what they don't way. It's been called trying to suck and blow in the same breath.
A most recent addition to such an array is State Superintendent of Public Instruction Roy Truby, who is the latest Democrat appointee out to "get" Symms.
Truby's quest for the office of Idaho's First Congressional District is not new, but his political brochure which has just arrived is new, so let's take a look.
It starts of: "By electing Truby we'll have a congressman with real interest in the feelings, hopes and desires of all Idahoans."
This is, of course, impossible since many Idahoans want less government while some seem to want even more.
A further implication is that his competitor, Congressman Steve Symms, does not have the interest, feelings, hopes and desires of "all" Idahoans. Many would respond: Thank Heaven for that. We have at least one politician not trying to be all things to all people.
The pamphlet goes on: Truby is "responsible for Idaho's more than 200,000 school children" but it says nothing about whether their ability at the three R's is better or worse than it was in years gone by.
It does say that he believes in "family life" and will work toward legislation to strengthen American family life. Presumably Symms favors government guiding our lives rather than the family. If Truby can sell that, the voters and he deserve each other.
Both Symms and Truby cite their children's ages, but not their wives' ages. One guesses this is the only thing they agree on since neither wants to reveal his wife's age. Like in government these days secrecy, too, seems to be on a selective basis, but virility is a sure fire vote getter.
On agriculture, Truby's pamphlet says he's in favor of it. That's nice, because Symms is already a farmer and on the House Agriculture Committee, too.
Score one for Truby's farm posture. Pretty much the same goes for his "position" on "jobs, clean air and wild mountain streams," although the word "wild" borders on his no doubt intent to support Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus and their fellow Democrats' lock-up of Idaho's rivers and mountains.
Just where all the miners, loggers and their supporting jobs will come from wasn't staed. But then it was only a small brochure, not too much room for "small" economic matters.
And apparently too small to mention Truby's support of the Panama Canal treaties.
Perhaps the most interesting statement of all was: "He doesn't believe that it's possible to love our country and hate our government." No doubt this is the only clear, if meaningful, shot at his opponent Symms in Truby's whole printed political flyer. If he can sell THAT.
Unless, perhaps it might be the statement that followed: "The government is us, the people -." That is a direct quote, ladies and gentlemen, and it's not out of context either.
Now then, its hardly likely Truby cannot read at all, although some say that many of his students have great difficulty doing so. But campaign statements such as these last two certainly cast doubt on his ability to read and comprehend. But then what can we expect? Truby is a product of the compulsory school system he now heads.
Amateurs Showing "Pros' the Way
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
July 3, 1978
Not long ago I tried to point out some rather obvious holes or inconsistencies in the political pamphlet of an Idaho candidate now actively seeking an important high office.
The examples I pointed out were bad indeed, real bad. Not so much because the candidate is off base, but mostly because these examples presume the voters to be dull and uninterested.
It's true, perhaps, at least to a large extent. Many voters and non-voters ARE dull, but many do not vote because they are disgusted with politics asusual. Many are tired of having candidates insult their intelligence as they promise the moon in order to get elected.
The candidate I referred to is a Democrat presently holding a very high office. He should know better, but the Democrats are not much better than the Republicans, I'm sorry to say.
The latter met recently at their state convention in Pocatello and the most interest, almost the only red hog issue discussed was, as you might guess, the proposed 1 percent tax limit initiative.
Seldom have the delegates to a GOP convention had so much enthusiasm for an issue. Some even saw it as a principle, but in any case even the Republicans had a hard time trying to straddle this one.
One candidate who did not straddle it was C.L. "Butch" Otter. Indeed, Otter's candidacy for the GOP nomination for governor has achieved some nationwide publicity for his tendency to NOT straddle.
But when a politician takes controversy head-on he's fair game for the news media, and Otter takes to that game - like an otter takes to water.
Now then, the Idaho press, like the national media, resists the tax limit idea for some reason or other, thus making Otter's crusade FOR it even more controversial and colorful, if confusing.
For example, the Idaho Statesman's political editor, Steve Ahrens, wrote that Otter's staff committed the "major gaffe" of the campaign so far by getting a telegram from the Republican National Committee (RNC) endorsing the 1 percent tax limit issue.
The wire was signed by National GOP Chairman Bill Brock in Washington, D.C. and was released to the convention by Otter. A bombshell for sure favoring, of course, Otter.
Well, only one other gubernatorial candidate, Allen Larson, also Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, openly supported the 1 percent law. This tended to embarrass hopefuls Larry Jackson, Jim Crowe, Vern Ravenscroft and former mayor of Boise, Jay Amyx, who do not favor it.
So, after the typical phone calls to Washington, D.C. by both the media and the opposing candidates, the RNC backed out. They said Brock never saw the telegram. An aide did it, without permission.
Well, that's politics for you. Whatever happened to: "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen"? Seems like now it's "WHAT kitchen?" It's the oldest ploy in Washington - don't rock the boat.
But Ahrens, like most of the other reporters chose instead to ignore the real news, i.e., RNC's Chairman Brock who quite obviously reneged on the telegram. In spite of Brock's television appearance of a few days earlier endorsing the tax limit idea, the Statesman reporter said that Otter's staff goofed. Get that, "Otter's staff." Egad.
Ahrens strayed even further saying the telegram "mistake" would not have occurred if political pro Paulette Pyle was still in charge of the Otter effort as campaign manager.
Pyle, who resigned recently due to a rather impudent, on her part, clash with campaign chairman Lee Barron, was certainly not a "pro." In fact she allowed a much worse boo-boo to pass some weeks ago, trying to cover for Otter's hard-to-explain position on pornography.
No, Pyle was merely way in over her head trying to fill a job usually filled by a political pro. And contrary to Ahrens' all too typical analysis, Otter's staff did NOT goof on the telegram.
No, what happened was the Republican party goofed. And almost as bad as the Democrat party goofed in their Idaho convention last week.
Both parties have led the people down the primrose path of far, far too much government, thus too much taxation and loss of freedoms. Early Americans dumped tea in the harbor over much less, but many here have had a belly-full.
It took an admitted amateur on Otter's staff, press aide John Stegner, to get the RNC to take sides - on something - at last!
Otter himself is an amateur. So he takes sides.Congressman Steve Symms is still an amateur. He takes sides, thank Heaven, even when his staff of amateurs wishes he'd shut up.
Meantime in the news media EVERYBODY's a pro - so they don't take sides - except when they are asleep or awake. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.
Symms' Growth Hearing: a Ploy?
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
July 10, 1978
The great justice of the Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said, "No generalization is worth a damn including this one." What a clever way of putting it, i.e., an understandable dilemma.
Even if it still leaves us up in the air, somewhat, it serves at least to show us that even the great minds have some of the same problems as the rest of us.
Speaking of the highest court in the land, another general observation comes to mind. It's often said of those powerful jurists: "The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says."
All of which brings us around to a hearing in Boise July 5 on the problem of growth in Idaho. It was instigated at the request of Idaho's First District Congressman Steve Symms and conducted by him.
But the news coverage, or rather the lack of it, about an important concern of many Idahoans was, if to be expected, still unreal.
It was a beautiful example of what George Orwell called "new-speak" in his famous book "1984". You'll remember that's where the word good means bad, peace means war and freedom really means slavery.
Now then, it's also been said frequently that: "News is what the news media says it news," and that's true - a generalization perhaps, but true nevertheless.
The news prior to July 5 about the Symms hearing on growth consisted mostly about the green panthers or the environmentalists who intended to boycott the gutsy congressman's efforts.
Instead of those who would be attending the hearing, the media emphasized who would not be attending. How one could be more "negative" is difficult to imagine, especially in view of the ever-so-old criticism that conservatives like Symms were "always negative."
This is, again, a generalization. It's not 100 percent true, but it's so generally true that the news media is fast overtaking the proverbial used car salesman for lack of public credibility all across America.
In fairness there was some TV coverage of the hearing, but it is difficult to treat most matters in any depth at all unless a special TV segment of some sort is devoted to it. In depth stories almost have to come through the newspapers, if at all.
Some of those testifying in the all day long hearing were Idaho Power Company President James Bruce, Caldwell Mayor Robert Pasley, Boise Building Supply President Robert Linville, Larry Jackson, ex-Boise Cascade executive and GOP candidate for governor, and Jay Amyx, ex-mayor of Boise and gubernatorial hopeful.
Certainly there were enough newsworthy personalities and issues to make it worthwhile for good newspaper coverage, but, for example. United Press International (UPI) didn't see fit to attend.
To their credit, the state's largest newspaper did indeed cover some of the testimony including that of Walter Minnick, an environmentalist representing "Citizens for Quality Living" who claimed "growth" was not a partisan political issue and complimented Symms for the hearing.
But not only did the giant newspaper's pre-hearing publicity play down Symms' side of the hearing in favor ofthe anti-Symms detractors, it failed to mention Dr. Barry Asmus' very articulate and colorful remarks critical of the radical environmentalists.
Not mentioned either was the popular Boise State University economist's remarks about the news media's lack of interest in a $100,000 energy survey he and some colleague's made under contract for the Idaho Legislature. Its conclusions, that Idaho faced serious energy shortages, was not what the media wanted the public to hear, apparently.
The newspaper noted there was a "small audience" at the all day long hearing, not because hearings are usually dull (they are), but rather the writer suggested the hearing was an "election-year ploy."
It was actually a coup by Symms and his opposition is frustrated. Even Gov. Evans has said, "Growth is Idaho's greatest challenge."
Again, in fairness, some of the media is honest. It is fair, however, to point out a few of these "election-year ploys" of the media.
Most of them do not like Symms. Oh yes, some of them like him personally, but most are dedicated green panthers themselves. Most can't stand conservatives in general and particularly in this area at least. The giant newspaper, for sure, can't stomach the popular ex-apple farmer Symms' open-handed politics.
The Nobel laureate Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, the exiled Russian author, told graduating seniors at Harvard University recently that an irresponsible news media controls America. To their credit Boise's giant newspaper printed his entire speech without editorializing in it.
But then, the popular Rusian could hardly have been acused of an election-year ploy, could he?
What Political Signs Really Say
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
July 18, 1978
No matter what one thinks of the late Aldous Huxley and his various theories he had one that was a real "doozie" about politics.
He called it the coach-dog theory of political leadership. He defined it this way: "That a leader's duty is to look sharp which way the social coach is going, and then run in front of it and bark."
Well, there's another one for which there is not such a clear statement nor definition, but it is an offshoot of the old Hollywood cliche' that "bad publicity is better than none at all."
It was quickly followed by the key phrase "... just so they spell my name right."
Today's advertising agencies have parlayed this into the mass advertising technique of highway billboards to get votes for various politicians. It's called "name familiarity."
Madison Avenue in New York City is just loaded with companies whose sole occupation is to achieve nothing but name familiarity for their customers most of whom are politicians.
"It's the name of the game," they say, and I'm forced to admit that it works. It's based at least in part upon the dull-wittedness of many voters and their usual unwillingness to do their "homework" on all those persons running for office.
But it's not all bad. The billboards are only one facet of the political campaign and many are revealing and even informational if only by what they do NOT say.
A case in point is the super-heavily travelled Highway 30 between Caldwell and Nampa. I drove out there and wrote down what the main bill boards had to say about the coming election.
I didn't have to write much, of course, since they didn't SAY much.
The first one we saw said, "Retain Robert L. Jones Third District Judge. Honesty and Integrity." Now then, that doesn't say much for his competitors, does it? Unless they, too, have honesty and integrity, in which case one wonders why he bothered to list those virtues at all.
Possibly because President Carter told us recently the legal profession is a bunch of bums. Well, it's reassuring that Jones says he's different.
The second bill board said, "Larry Jackson is a winner. Republican for Governor." Nothing else matters, I guess. The word Republican was so small you could just barely see it. One has to guess whether his party isn't very important or perhaps he even hopes we won't notice it at all.
Larry did have his picture up there, bit as life, and smiling. It's reassuring he can smile and it DOES prove he is a handsome "rascal."
"Phil Batt for Lt. Governor," said the 10 x 24 foot poster. Phil's picture was right up there, too, big and handsome. This one is down right misleading, however.
Well, if not misleading, it is at least a half-truth. Batt is indeed as handsome as Jackson, but then he's much shorter and the unsuspecting voter is apt to think he's as tall as Jackson, judging from their pictures anyway.
Whether they're tall or short doesn't have much to do with their worth as office seekers, but then, neither does their handsome pictures.
The fact Batt is running for the GOP's number two spot and Jackson for the number one spot is less significant than is the fact Batt didn't even put the word "Republican" on his poster.
Can't say I blame him. Maybe some Democrat will cross over and vote for him - by mistake.
Next bill board said "Larsen for Governor. He's got a way of bringin' (sic) people together." Al is handsome, too, but no picture for him. No, sir. Instead he says he's "Speaker of the House."
Must be his claim for experience, but he left out "honesty and integrity." Hard to tell, then, if he's braggin' or complainin' - ain't it?
Comes now the shortest, bluntest highway sign of them all: "Otter for Governor." No party, no slogan, no red, white and blue super-patriotic jargon, and thank heaven, no photograph of the candidate.
This last I note in gratitude for all other candidates because Otter is easily the most handsome of all.
In fact the nationally circulated magazine, Reason, in a rare (for a politician) full page article about the "most articulate and outspoken" candidate called him "obscenely handsome."
If it were not for the fact Otter is not only the most controversial candidate in the race, but seems to go out of his way to hit tough politics-as-usual problems head on - well, it's hard to fault C.L. "Butch" Otter for the shortest sign of all.
Next sign said "Ravenscroft - a Natural for Governor." Nothing else! A former GOP state chairman and perennial candidate for something - anything - had no party label either.
But then, Ravenscroft is a former Democrat. It is to his credit, however, that he changed parties because he disagreed with too many of their policies.
Perhaps that's his badge of "integrity." Still, it's too bad he hasn't been able to articulate those specific policy "differences" any too clearly.
But, back to the Hollywood story: they did "spell his name right."
Then, "Jay Amyx for governor. Proven ability to keep taxes down." His billboard had a small elephant on it. One must assume he's a Republican, I suppose, like one must assume the proof of his "ability to keep taxes down."
Amyx is a former mayor of Boise so, I say one must "assume" the proof. Judging from Boise's enthusiasm for the 1 percent tax limit initiative, their residents have some doubt.
Boycott the Olympics: That'll Teach 'Em
By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
July 22, 1978
"The Soviet carckdown that began early last year has destroyed most of the dissident corps in Moscow, leaving physicist Andrei Sakhorov as one of the few prominent human-rights activists out of jail."
That is a quote from a recent front page Associated Press wire service story announcing a 13-year sentence for Anatoly Shcharansky.
President Carter, speaking from West Germany, said the outcome of the five-day trial produced "a sadness the whole world feels."
The Soviet Supreme Court issued a statement saying Shcharansky, who joined the dissident movement after his efforts to emigrate to Israel were rejected, had committed "particularly dangerous crimes against the state."
Almost everyone in Russia who gets in big trouble with the law seems to get accused of helping the United States. It's hard to imagine that SOME of these accusations are not true, since the U.S. has claimed to support the idea of freedom off and on for generations and has, until recently, maintained a rather effectiveundercover agency in furtherance of that cause. But now it's called human rights.
Such a policy, of course, leads our presidents (both present and past) to routinely denounce such participation whenever it comes up.
President Carter personally denied the Soviet charge that Shcharansky supplied state secrets to U.S. Intelligence agents, but of course the Russian leaders didn't "buy" his denial.
Other trials and prosecutions are continuing this very day, most of them in SECRET. Why? Well obviously the Soviets have something to hide. What do you suppose it is?
Notwithstanding that there is a rapidly growing awareness that the term U.S. Intelligence is a contradiction in terms one must conclude something's "fishy."
Why all the fuss by the chief of what was one the most powerful nation on earth over what the Russian government does witha couple of their own citizens?
You'll remember, too, about Alexander Ginzburg, on trial for something or other. Both are front page news now for an unusually long time. That's great, but why?
The U.S. news media has played up the plight of these two Russian dissenters far beyond all past and similar situations. Why?
Has all this sudden and sustained publicity over two Russian civilians suddenly come up as a result of President Carter's statement announcing that human rights would become a more important part of America's foreign policy?
I certainly hope so, but America's foreign policy has for years been so pathologically irrational that some people think there MUST be something clever hidden in it.
If there is, the cleverness still escapes my attention. But Carter is at least to be congratulated for emphasizing human-rights. It's long over-due and I salute his efforts even though he ignores such events as the mass genocide in Cambodia.
Carter's statement was, "The struggle for human liberties is long and difficult, but it will be won. There is no power on earth that can long delay it."
To which I say he's dead wrong. There IS a power which can "delay it."America can. By being misunderstood, acting like a spoiled child.
It's clearly pussy-footing to threaten to withdraw from the SALT talks. We clearly have as much to gain from them as the Soviets d. It's pussy-footing to threaten to simply withhold export of a computer and such mish mash as that.
If Carter really wants to make a point let him make a REAL threat, i.e., to cancel the U.S. participation in the Olympic games which are soon to be held in Russia. That'd be a peaceful and meaningful gesture.
The U.S. should really be charging the Soviets for the television rights to broadcast their propaganda here anyway, but of course that might make too much sense.
In any event the Soviets would never risk losing such an opportunity to broadcast their propaganda.
the National Broadcasting Company, which negotiated such a staggering sum of money to the Soviets for the television rights to the games, might hasten to negotiate some most revealing human-rights.
For starters they might insist on televising the Soviet politicians at work and the U.S. politicians at work - the whole year around.
The need for secrecy just might VANISH - along with about two-thirds of the politicians.
Envying Otter
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
July 31, 1978
Candidate for governor C.L. "Butch" Otter has been castigating the news media for their "not making sufficiently clear" the differences among all six of those office seekers competing for Idaho's top job.
There are, of course, some exceptions to the universality of such a criticism, but I have to admit that in general it's all too true. Judging from the fact that nearly every other candidate seems almost tongue-tied when it comes to criticising the media - so beholden have they become to the gods of publicity - it is refreshing indeed when a candidate, any candidate, takes in after the press.
Refreshing may be the wrong word. Perhaps daring would be more appropriate word when one considers the tremendous power the media wields over the fate of candidates.
One has only to remember what happened to a recent president and vice president of the United States to note what happens to those who presume to attack the media with anything a tall like the virulence with which they attack politicians.
Freedom of speech and expression seems to have become something reserved only for journalists, authors and hippies.
Regardless of what one thinks of Nixon and Agnew, the tin horn crimes of which they were convicted in and by the media were merely orthodox when compared to similar excesses of their predecessors.
But the media mongers are not entirely at fault. Some of their efforts are built-in trade practices and peer group practices that are clearly understandable.
One such is their everlasting search for a colorful and interesting political candidate. Politics has become so loaded with do-gooders, reformers, goof balls, meddlers, yo-yo's and would-be social-workers-of-the-world that the news media sometimes even applauds a candidate whose policies they abhor.
Such a candidate is Butch Otter, who has come from near last to second place in the race for governor to the surprise of almost all political watchers.
So abrupt, candid, colorful and articulate has this young challenger become that even his harshest critics find themselves hard pressed to grapple with his super intellectually honest (for a politician) platform.
Described by some detractors as "obscenely handsome" with charm and personality to burn, Otter has even attracted some newspaper endorsement. But the fact remains that MOST of the news media, even though they admire his wit and articulation of controversial, anti-establishment positions, resort to the oldest criticism of all - envy.
It's dirty pool too, but it works. Otter is the son-in-law of what many say is Idaho's richest man - Jack Simplot. The media never lets the public forget it, either.
Rightly or wrongly this being related to Simplot has been and continues to be a millstone around Otter's political neck.
Aside from the fact that the Rockefeller and Kennedy families' wealth are of the same giant proportions and their political power infinitely greater, it's somehow different for the non-liberal rich to run for office. Different and bad.
Quite naturally Simplot wanted to help his son-in-law. He offered thousands of dollars and his personal TV spot endorsements to "help" the campaign. But Otter said, "Thanks, butno thanks, Pop."
He later explained in a newspaper article that he had to prove to himself that he could win or lose the primary on his own.
Although an interesting poll showed that a staggering percentage of Idaho voters would vote against a gubernatorial candidate backed by Simplot (a somewhat smaller group polled reported they'd not vote for a candidate backed by Boise Cascade Corporation) Simplot still offered his "help." But Otter said no.
Two observations among a host of touch trade-off decisions in this otherwise, delightful race:
(1) It's tragic that so many Idahoans apparently hate a man who has provided Idaho with 5,000 to 6,000 jobs and became fabulously wealthy in the process.
(2) It's tragic also that Otter thought he had to use the phrase """had to prove to himself that he could win or lose the primary on his own." Because he CAN NOT - on his own.
Otter, whether he wins the primary or not, stands on the shoulders of giants to do what he's done politically. giants like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, Leonard Read, Milton Friedman and a host of others, but NOT Simplot's.
My main criticism of the big potato tycoon is that he's not twins.
My second and most passionate criticism is that he doesn't take some sort of poll himself and try to learn why so many of the people to whom he gives money hate capitalists like him and why so many little people who work for his wages and vote for his son-in-law - love him.
Calcuttas: Bringin' Folks together
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
August 6, 1978
Idaho's political primary campaign for governor seems to have the Republican candidates up to their elbows in alligators.
In typical fashion it looks like the last few days of campaigning will find the GOP hopefuls cursing the nasty alligators instead of showing us how to drain the swamp.
Bitterness seems always to increase as the leading contenders get close to election day and this one seems no exception.
One week before election day a front page deadline story tells about a "gambling" raid on a gold club Calcutta in McCall, Idaho.
Now then, this wouldn't be such big news except for what now appears to be a fact that the gold club auction was held at the summer home of J.R. Simplot, Idaho's most renowned capitalist.
The potato tycoon has been in the news over-much lately since his son-in-law C.L. "Butch" Otter, is running for governor. Coming from near last to, now, second place in the political polls Otter is seen to be what nobody thought could be even an outside chance - he just might win the GOP nomination.
In addition to being a colorful and a most controversial candidate for governor. Otter has had a tough time putting to rest the fact that he's related to Idaho's richest citizen - Jack Simplot.
But in spite of a generally hostile news media the handsome challenger of almost every political hack in the trade has become a real threat to the GOP frontrunners for governor.
All this after going out of his way to take sides on just about every controversial issue known to modern politics. Otter's answer to most problems he stole from Thomas Jefferson, i.e., "throw the government in chains and free the people," and he's convinced a pile of voters he intends to do just that - expand individual freedom of choice.
There's where Otter is "fair game" for typical politicians. Any time one is for very much freedom the reformers and do-gooders almost always come out screaming against "sin" to the joy and pleasure of many candidates who unfairly exploit this asinine political condition.
Otter was not present at the recent golf tournament Calcutta, but his supporters are crying foul play because McCall has had these events for about 25 years. It finances a large share of the city-owned golf course and seems to be "legal enough" until just before this election. Many golfers are madder than hatters, claiming a politically motivated raid.
In any event the raid confiscating something like $35,000, 10 percent of which always goes to the city's golf course fund, looked too good to pass up for Otter's competitor Allen Larsen, former Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Larsen is a frontrunner and running hard, especially in eastern Idaho, for much the same type of conservative vote Otter appeals to. So he attacks Otter via the tin horn golf raid.
All of this wouldn't be so bad, considering Larsen wants to take the wine out of the grocery stores and restore it to the socialistic liquor stores, except for a few special reasons:
(1) Larsen now is quoted accusing Otter of being backed by Simplot as though this now "proves" he (Otter) favors: gambling, pornography, prostitution and, one supposes, sin in general.
(2) "Gambling is illegal in Idaho," says Larsen. True. But what about bingo at the Catholic Church, lotteries called "Let's Go To The Races," paramutual horse racing in Boise and gold Calcuttas at most every popular club in Caldwell, Nampa and Boise?
(3) Larsen is a big shot in the Mormon Church. Several important Mormons support Otter and Larsen knows this. Still he accuses Otter of favoring pornography because of Otter's vote against a pornography law during his last term in the Idaho Legislature.
(4) If Larsen wants this nomination for governor that bad, perhaps he deserves it. Why? Well, after all, candidate for governor Vern Ravenscroft won't take sides on much of anything, candidate for governor Larry Jackson takes everybody's side and, although Larsen hasn't attacked him on it, yet, Otter also voted against the bill asking for a compulsory course in free enterprise, during that same legislative session. By Larsen's reasoning that'd make Otter favor socialism along with sin.
With Simplot in jail for gambling, Otter exiled for sin, and the golfers all going to Nevada to gamble, maybe Larsen would be our best hope for a political leader, since he's forever trying to build something out of nothing.
This time he may have made it - but it's a hole and he's in it over his head.
Has Larsen Heard the Word?
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
August 12, 1978
Thank Heaven the election is over. I wish we could stop there and talk about something that makes more sense, but I'm afraid the problems have just begun.
Not that the problems are new, mind you, but the labels get changed. Often times this is because otherwise the voters would get wise. Properly labeled most politician's ideas, if indeed they had any, wouldn't stand even the light of day.
One exception, however, just might have actually surfaced in the recent gubernatorial race between Allan Larsen and C.L. "Butch" Otter. Larsen won by a whisker the GOP nomination for governor.
Although Vern Ravenscroft actually came in second the real news, now that the primary is over, centers around Otter because of his campaign's constant concern with ideas.
Most of these ideas were anti-establishments. They were anti-union-establishment since Otter opposed compulsory unionism; they were anti-government-establishment since he tried to point out that every person has a natural right - from God, not the government. In these times THAT'S a very radical concept. One that threatens the very foundations of bureaucracy and messianic politics.
His campaign was anti-business - establishment inasmuch as it not only advocated freedom of choice, but said openly that that included free entry into the market. Something almost hated by big business and, unfortunately, many small businesses holding government franchise monopolies or licenses or work permits of some kind limiting their competition.
Albert Jay Nock once summed it up pretty well when he said, "the simple truth is that our businessmen do not want a government that will let business alone. They want a government they can use."
Well, I say bully for old Nock, but it isn't only business. So do the unions want a government they can use, so do the politicians, so do the bureaucrats and so on and on.
Comes now the Mormon church. I had thought, until now anyway, they were different. I knew the Methodists, the Prebyterians, the Episcopalians, the Catholics and just about all the rest wanted to "use" the government to push their ideas - but I thought by golly the Mormons were different. I thought they did NOT want to socialize the whole world like the other churches apparently did and are doing.
Now then, candidate Larsen is a big shot in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and he's accused of having used the church to win the recent primary election.
In and of itself such an accusation isn't exactly news worthy. But what's causing the roof to just about blow off both the Mormon church AND the Republican party is the fact that Larsen seized upon an innocuous so-called gambling raid during a golf club Calcutta to "prove" his competitor, Otter, was immoral.
The raid took place at the summer home of Jack Simplot, big business tycoon and Otter's father-in-law, Larsen claimed the police raid proved Otter's record of opposing pornography laws and other civil liberty legislation linked him, somehow, with gambling and prostitution.
Otter's supporters screamed foul-play. In view of the 25-year history of golf club Calcuttas in Idaho the raid was politically motivated they said, and timed just to hurt Otter's election.
But what's causing front page concern is two pamphlets circulated last Sunday in several LDS churches both in Eastern and Southwestern Idaho, presumably by Larsen and-or his supporters. The circulars showed the "perfect" Allied civic Forces rated voting record of Allan Larsen FOR morals and the "zero" voting record of Butch Otter AGAINST morals.
In other words Larsen claimed that since Otter voted against anti-pornography legislation (he did) therefore he favored pornography gambling and prostitution.
Otter, of course, denied the charges but it was too late; the election only two days away and not enough time to clear up the charges on morals.
Anyway, ideas did get some attention: "Can the government, or in this case the church, legislate morals?" A good question upon which men of good will can and do debate. But two days before the election? No way!
Mormons supporting Otter, of which there were a remarkably large number, are screaming foul play again. Some almost angry at their church, at least some angry at Larsen. Many are confused, partly because their church's integrity is also at stake.
But here's something the news media may overlook in reporting the upheaval that's BOUND to come up - and soon - on the subject of legislating morals, and Larsen and the GOP.
It's a quote from Ezra Taft Benson, Council of the Twelve and thought by many to be the next church president of all the Mormons in the world:
"The greatest right humans possess is the right of free choice, free will, free agency. This, above all, is what today's true conservative strives to preserve for his fellowmen and for himself.
"Because the conservative fervently believes in human freedom, he is slow to tell everybody else how to run their lives. It goes against the conservative grain to be a political, social, or economic busy-body, and especially to beat the drums for government action on virtually every existing problem."
Otter knew about the above quote. Indeed he told me he has discussed it with Benson himself. One wonders, now, if Larsen ever HEARD of it. Anyway I'm still convinced the Mormons are different; for sure Benson is.
Either way, Larsen's high rank in the LDS church could possibly get him forgiven by the Mormons for this "oversight."
But who will forgive the Republicans come next Nov. 7? THAT may take a latter-day miracle. Or a revelation yet, by Larsen himself.
Truby and Junk Food
By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
August 17, 1978
The matter of junk food for sale in the public schools has again reared its controversial head.
Why? Well, several reasons, some of which are amusing, some frustrating, and some disgusting.
The so-called junk food is dispensed from coin machines placed in the school hallways by private distributing companies who pay a royalty to the greedy, grasping, profit-minded educators.
Depending on one's point of view, this is either good or bad. It's good because it brings money, i.e., a commission, into the school and bad because it's disruptive, litter-bugging and less than good, healthful food for the kids who feed the machines.
But some fun aspects of the story keep getting glossed over. About these aspects some observations:
(1) The junk food machines make a profit - for somebody.
(2) One reason is that they have a captive market, sometimes called a monopoly - for somebody.
(3) Nobody seems to ask just why this government operated "service" (school) is in the food business anyway, when learning is supposed to be their sole product.
(4) Notice, however, that a major name almost always connected with the junk food controversy is Dr. Roy Truby, Idaho's State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Not only does Truby want to eliminate junk food from the schools, he also wants to eliminate Idaho First District Congressman Steve Symms from Congress. He wants Symms' job for himself.
Now then, it's an old saw in politics that almost ANYBODY can get elected to public office if he or she can get their name before the public often enough.
It's called "name familiarity." This idea has always been thought to be sound as a dollar, but since Truby's brand of politicians have come to own congress lock, stock, and barrel of beer, things have changed.
Congress is drunk - not on beer, but drunk on power. Consequently, the idea of name familiarity is now MORE sound than the U.S. dollar, thanks to a big spending congress.
Now back to Truby. As a candidate, he needs name familiarity real bad and junk food is a better attention getter than junk politics which his gang of Democrats in Washington D.C. is largely responsible for anyway.
Not that the Republicans are much better, mind you, its just that there's more Democrats in congress.
If Truby was really interested in education, i.e., ahead of politics, he'd just leave the junk food up to the local school boards. Or, for that matter, he could use the coin machines as an educational tool. It'd make a great one, too.
I made the suggestion a year or so ago and it's worth repeating.
The schools are always carrying on about government - taking part in it, being responsive to the people, voting regularly in each and every election, etc. etc. They even have youth legislatures, student government and all manner of crap like that.
Here's the idea: They COULD turn the coin operated machines over to the student government at each individual school. Let the students choose which food they wanted, which would sell, which would make money and which would lose money. They might even learn why.
It's called freedom of choice, responsibility and management. The subjects required would include reading, writing, arithmetic and maybe some history. The latter, of course, in case they wanted to LEARN from past mistakes in order to avoid making them again.
It's called trade, profit and loss, and making friends so you can trade with them again. It involves ownership and free entry and LIMITED government.
It all happens in a market place which, if left free, even teaches racial equality since the market is color blind.
But that would be radical and against the status quo that Truby wants to protect. He wants yet another law, this time against junk food.
Truby said in his announcement against Symms that he wanted to "do something for agriculture, too." Maybe we should experiment.
Maybe we should let Truby run the agriculture department and let Symms run the education department.
Then all we'd have to do is pray for change - any of which would HAVE to be an improvement.
4-H Kids Get Distorted View
By Ralph Smeed
The Nampa Times & Idaho Free Press
August 19, 1978
"Making changes in a police department is like trying to make changes in the Catholic Church ... It usually takes about 200 years."
Such is the opinion of a famous chief of police and former police commissioner, but one wonders if the chief ever dealt with county agents.
Boise has just been host to the national convention of county agents from all over the country and judging from the array of nationally prominent speakers they've had, they're on the march - to somewhere. But where they've BEEN is also important.
Fortunately and unfortunately neither county agents nor police departments are very market oriented. Partly because each is an arm of the government and financed mostly from taxes and partly, one supposes, because it's always been done that way.
Well, notwithstanding the fact that the private enterprise police (like Pinkertons) just may out-number those employed by government, the county agents are in some ways better off since they are in competition daily with a fantastic assortment of private enterprise county agents, i.e., salesmen, selling everything from seed and fertilizer to market newsletters and books and seminars on better farming methods.
I use the term "better off" because competition, when it's open, understood and vigorous, tends to keep us all on our toes. Certainly our customers are, almost without exception, better served thereby.
A case in point, however, centers around the term "understood." I'm not sure such an understanding obtains in the 4-H fat stock program usually managed by county agents. I'd wager that this popular project will not see ANY critical examination at the national meeting in Boise, since understanding competition is not a part of most, if not all, 4-H projects.
I'd dearly love to be proven wrong in this, but even though most county agents I've harangued over the past many years express sympathy and even some concern over the demise of market considerations intheir program, not much change seems to come about. I've even appealed to the U of I department of Agriculture, but without success.
Without wanting to diminish our own friendly and highly dedicated agricultural agents, it's fair to say that no competition exists with their stewardship and promotion of the 4-H livestock show and fat-stock sale, although kids do learn some good things there.
Often-times, to the chagrin of some of the county agents themselves, the local businessman committee of the chamber of commerce calls up some cattleman friend who lets the 4-H leaders sort off the top of his herd of Hereford calves for the club members' benefit, meriting of course, premium price.
This is done, of course, in the name of equality so that no 4-H club member starts out ahead of the others. Never mind that he or she is thereby denied a part in one of the most vital conditions in raising livestock - choosing the animal.
Never mind, too, the fact that "to make money" is a vital part of said selection of the livestock and never mind either that TWO Holstein calves may cost less than one Hereford to start with and may end up bringing more profit depending upon what the market does.
In any event the eager boy or girl gets the calf (or sheet or pig) without regard to it's profit or loss making potential and takes it home.
The education begins.
To halter break the calf is one of the first orders of importance and since the calves constitute 90 percent of the glamour of the 4-H sale - that's a big deal. The calves are led into the ring at judging time and having combed its hair and broke it to lead as well as fatten it, the boy or girl is judged winner of the blue-ribbon on the calf's deportment as well as its owner's.
The local merchants are cajoled and coerced to attend the 4-H fat stock sale and bid these kids stock up way beyond the market price if possible. Why? "Because these kids deserve it, and they've worked so hard."
Well now, I've never heard much criticism that such a ploy teaches Karl Marx's labor theory of value (it does, you know) but it also denies the students access to how the market functions, sometimes cruelly, even after all that labor and risk is spent.
Much more could be said about the popular game of the county agents and the local businessmen's chamber of commerce promotion, to romance the farm kid's families, but I won't say it now - it's like attacking the flag, motherhood and apple pie.
But businessmen, who should know better, are prone to blame others for students who grow up demanding a managed economy and a phoney price system.
As to the lesser of the two evils, I'll still take the county agents. At least they don't try to pass the buck.
Legislate Morality? Sure, But . . .
By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
August 27, 1978
It may be a little bit difficult to tell whether the Republicans, the Mormons or the GOP's candidate for governor, Allan Larsen, is in the biggest trouble, but we'll soon see.
Maybe all three are, but there's hardly more than 60 shopping days left before election of an Idaho governor.
Oh sure, there will always be two congressmen, a U.S. Senator and the regular county and important lesser candidates, but the gubernatorial contest still holds some special kinds of interest - particularly in the minds of the major news media.
There is an old legal saying to the effect that "The constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says." Well, political issues are what the media says they are. Likewise political candidates say what the news media says they say.
And so that's the way it is. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. The press, who resents Larsen's idea that the government legislate morals, is not about to let the matter drop, so let's take a look at it.
By saying the GOP is in trouble I mean that almost everywhere I go a huge percentage of people who would normally vote Republican are saying that they just may have to vote for Democrat John Evans for governor.
This is usually accompanied by some muttering about separation of church and state, but of course the real reason is religious prejudice, a kind of reactionaryism, as a sort of being "told" who they're going to have for chief of state.
never mind whether Larsen's competitor is a socialist or a capitalist. Never mind whether he wants more energy or less, more wilderness or less, more government or less.
Never mind, either, that we'll tend to have more moral legislation (read, controls) under Larsen and more economic laws (read, controls) under Evans. The latter being the area presently under more and more severe attack these days.
Never mind, too, that Evans, so I'm told, voted for legislating morals when Andrus was governor. Oddly enough the media seems reluctant to make much news out of this or even to pursueEvans' ideas.
Candidate C.L. "Butch" Otter continually castigated the media for their unwillingness to show up the real difference between the candidates, especially on these matters.
This met with little success largely because the media's awareness for freedom centers almost exclusively around freedom of the press. Other people's freedoms are newsworthy only when they're fighting for one.
Essentially freedom and or justice is a negative factor and unfortunately not so easily discerned by the media watchdogs whose penchant for sniffing out conservative "sinners" over liberal ones is well known.
I say Mormons may be in trouble because we are prone to forget that although they belong to a church that is a giant political force, they are also people, and as such they may want to be loved and respected even by those of us who aren't members.
So I say let's give them a chance, at least. If Otter was right about their church's belief in free agency, freedom of choice and self-responsibility which was most certainly his position, let's let the Mormons deal with that.
It's their story. They either believe it or they don't. Of course we can legislate morals, but the question is - should we?
Which brings me to whether Larsen is in trouble, too. I think he is. In big trouble. And not only with the news media.
Sad to say it's because of religious prejudice, real sad. But I don't know of a candidate who would not have welcomed the LDS Church's support if he or she could have pulled it off.
Whether Larsen's giant block of church (members) support was right or wrong what he should be faulted for is the accusation, express or implied, that his number one competitor for the GOP nomination for governor, Otter, favored pornography.
Otter did indeed vote against the anti-pornography bill when he was in the legislature. But to say or even imply, as was reported, that Larsen said after the "timely" golf Calcutta raid in McCall that this somehow proved Otter supported pornography, etc. is, well, at least low class.
What to do now that the election is over? Larsen should write a letter for the record stating that Otter's vote on said porno bill does not at all necessarily mean that he (Otter) favors that scum literature.
It'd be too late to save Otter's, but may not be too late to save Larsen's reputation - people's memory being what it is.
Larsen's "position" on free agency and individual responsibility? Well, that could be between him, his church and his Maker. Certainly some consistency therewith would help.
Sugar Men Blind to the Truth
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
September 9, 1978
The Amalgamated Sugar Co. has done it again. They've punched business's credibility right square in the nose. No wonder we lose, but let me explain.
Now then, the GOOD that the sugar beet industry in general, and the Amalgamated Sugar Co. in particular, has done for this part of the country is beyond question, although oft-times we don't fully appreciate it.
The investment and the job-producing effect of both the sugar processors and the farmer-producers has been with us for so long and is so very huge and wide-spread that we almost take it for granted.
Certainly America would be in bad shape if we had to depend entirely on foreign countries and import all our sugar, not only for our employment and food, but also because conventional explosives require substantial sugar in their manufacture.
Other reasons abound for the need to keep our own sugar industry healthy, not the least of which is the fact that free trade on the high seas may very soon become a thing of the past, now that Soviet Russia has built up a huge world-wide navy which many experts say may very well be better than ours.
with the present state of mental health in the Congress, we may soon have to ask the Russian's permission to ship and trade on the high seas. For example our own truckers have to ask the Interstate Commerce Commission for a permit to haul across state lines and the Idaho Public Utilities for a permit in many cases, even INSIDE state lines. Egad!
Now back to our very own sugar company. In what appears to be an editorial in the current issue (summer 1978) of their publication called "The White Satin Sugar Bee," they make two very curious statements.
1. "Many of our growers participated in the local farm strike, which helped educate consumers about rising food prices."
Almost incredibly the above statement was followed by a real zinger, and I quote: 2. "It should be one of our major goals to keep cheap, foreign sugar out of the domestic market." There was more, but that's the punch line.
To their credit, the magazine's editorial was at least a signed one. Emery Spangler was the man.
I do not know Spangler very well, but no doubt, he's as sincere and conscientious as you and I. I do know and have known several of the other Amalgamated executives to be gentlemen of intelligence and social concern.
But business in America is on the run. They, of all people should know better. They run from the unions. They run from the environmentalists. They run from the politicians. They run from the bureaucrats, and they run from most educators, if not most all the students both on and off campus.
Why? Well, partly because of statements like: "Our major goal is to keep cheap, foreign sugar out of the domestic market." No WONDER we're losing the hearts and minds of the youth of America, and adults too.
Of course, there is understandable concern behind the Spangler editorial. The sugar beet industry and farmers, too, are in big trouble. Not all, perhaps, but most are. These troubles should be well known, but they are not. Why?
Well, one reason is that U.S. business is so busy running, so busy apologizing, so busy trying to buy off politicians -much of it just in an effort to survive - that they merely compound the problem of trade and commerce.
"We must educate as well as legislate," they are often heard to say. Good gosh o'mighty! Most all the money that business gives to education goes to professors and pedagogues who hate their guts. (Small wonder.) But they STILL continue to give, all the time running and looking back over their shoulder.
In the above-mentioned "Sugar Beet" editorial, not one mention was made of the double-standard the government uses to harass producers in this country and excuse those producing in other countries we import from.
Not ONE word in the sugar editorial about the unfair and asinine effects of OSHA, EPA, ICC, PUC, DOT, FPC, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of State, etc., etc., not to mention the IRS and a host of others, the cost of which must be passed along to the consumer. Not even one lousy word about agriculture's No. 1 enemy: bureaucracy. Why?
Does the Amalgamated Sugar Co. expect the masses of voters in the big cities, where one-man-one-vote is a virtual tribalistic god, to buy their so-called goal of high tariff and high prices food?
They can't even sell THAT here in the Treasure Valley, except perhaps to a few farmers who refuse to read and heed the lessons of politics and history.
There is a big business lobby headquartered in Boise called Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI). Recently a group of theirs headed up by their president, John Clute, chief lawyer of the giant Boise Cascade Corporation, thought it would be nice to have the government declare "Business Week in Idaho." To sort of pat us on the back, so to speak.
So they asked Gov. John Evans, a nice guy but one of the most anti-business governors Idaho has had in years, to do the honors for them. He did - at their government financed business-education project.
Like the giant sugar company, Clute is a nice guy and concerned for freedom, too. But neither one need look very far to see why we keep losing.
'Newspeak' and Amtrak
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
September 13, 1978
The passenger train called Amtrak runs from Salt Lake City through southern Idaho to Seattle, Washington.
It is newsworthy, especially considering the train's background.
Since the privately owned railroads could not afford to operate their passenger service, thanks in part to the labor union's hate-your-employer tactics and thanks in part to the equally asinine mentality of the Interstate Commerce Commission, they had to throw in the towel. Passenger service has all but stopped.
In fairness, one should add that the giant subsidies and special interest legislation the government showered on the highways and airways added greatly to the already existing economic constipation of the railroad's passenger service.
So the bleeding heart liberals, who own the political circus in America known as public affairs, called a series of hearings to promote nationalization of the railroads. We had always had railroads in this country they said, and we should continue to have them. never mind that we had saddled the modern camels with so many straws we finally broke their financial back.
Nevermind, too, that Great Britain's nationalization programs were already famous for making matters worse, government's NEW fascism would save the day. We'd call it - Amtrak. Spell it with a "k" like the Soviets spell Amerika.
Then governor Cecil D. Andrus, popular hero of the people's pottage, pushed hard for the "new" scheme.
But not until their hero of the free society, Idaho's Senator Frank Church, entered the scene were they able to sell the deal.
It would be christened Amtrak they said, and together Church and andrus knighted Dwight Jensen, superliberal newsman and author of what the late George Orwell called "new-speak" and "doublethink" in his famous book "19484", to head up the Amtrak crusade in Idaho.
(Jensen, by the way, is now challenging Idaho's incumbent conservative Senator James McClure in the present campaign for the U.S. Senate)
One newspaper "justifies" keeping Amtrak now, even though Transportation Secretary Brock Adams, they say, has it on his hit list to kill. They justify this in spite of the government's rotten record of ruination of everything they run. It's done by using Orwell's terms - "Newspeak" and "doublethink."
The knee-jerk liberal editorial says "Amtrak loses less government money than all but three of the other Amtrak's 250 trains."
Get that! Profit isn't a dirty word, it's a NON-word. Loses less "government money," they say. Government money my axe! They should have called it "counterfeit money" since the government PRINTS so much of it. It's individual taxpayer's money.
"If cuts must be made," says the editorialist, "let them be made fairly on the basis of money lost per mile compared with OTHER money losers."
I don't know if Orwell had a newspeak language for accountants, but that is a good start for one. Sort of like 2 + 2 equals 22, instead of 4.
No doubt the writer, Senator Church, now Secretary of the Interior Andrus, and yes, even candidate Jensen are all sincere fellows, I really think they are, but somebody has neglected their schooling. We're becoming more and more like Russia every day, most in the name of compassion and humanism.
Somebody should tell them that the major distinction between our system and that of the Soviet Union is simply private ownership. And no amount of sophisticated word juggling will help us out of our mess.
This does not make these above-mentioned gentlemen communists. Not at all! But it is at least interesting that Erick Fromm, the noted social philosopher, tells us that Karl Marx was essentially a humanist in the best tradition of the world's great religions and philosophies.
In his afterword in the back of the New American Library edition of "1984" Fromm writes: "Orwell is not a prophet of disaster. He still hopes, but hishope is a desparate one.
"The hope can be realized only be recognizing, so '1984' teaches us, the danger with which all men are confronted today. The danger of a society of automatons who will have lost every trace of individuality, of love, of critical thought, and yet who will not be aware of it because of 'doublethink.'
"Books like Orwell's are powerful warnings, and it would be most unfortunate if the reader smugly interpreted '19484' as another description of Stalinist barbarism, and if he (the reader) does not see that it means US, too."
Orwell, we remember, was a British socialist. Bless his heart - his book came out in 1949.
Mr. Nice Guy Race Needs Fuse
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
September 16, 1978
The problem of publicity for less than the top national or state political offices has been ever so long and ever so dull. I refer mainly to the office of vice president of the USA and to lieutenant governor, in this case, of Idaho.
The ideal solution might be to have less publicity for all the offices candidates seek, but failing that perhaps we should pay more attention to our second level candidates. Certainly we pay more for almost everything else these days. That, thanks mostly, to many of those same politicians who spend your money to serve you so that they can get in and stay in power.
The office of lieutenant governor does not directly influence the spending of much money, but the influence of both the office and the man holding it do deserve much more attention than is usually accorded them. Remember: "Only a heartbeat away from Governor."
The state's number two office is now held by William Murphy, a long-time Democrat, and former legislator from Wallace. So far as I know he's a decent and experienced politician.
Contesting for that particular number two office is long-time Republican Phil Batt, also a former legislator, all around good fellow and immediate past president pro-tem of the Idaho State Senate from Wilder.
Last year when the governor and the lieutenant governor were both out of the state at the same time, Batt became governor for a say, since his office is third highest in the state. That was good luck for Batt since his opponent cannot now claim that Batt has had no experience whatsoever at being governor.
Seriously though, Batt and Murphy are quite friendly on a personal basis, but there are, so I'm told, substantial differences in basic political and economic philosophy. But nobody knows quite what those differences are. Each is being such a nice guy.
Now then, there is no reason why honorable men who contend for the same high office, or low office for that matter, should not be friends, but it is sometimes harder to argue for votes against a pal.
This is not necessarily fair, however, for the voters who all too often do not get a chance to see and understand the difference in the ideas and the conflicts between two men seeking the same office.
Part of this unfortunate situation is the fault of the news media who thrive on controversy. When there is none they are often accused of manufacturing it, however, they dig deep and find it and sometimes to the real benefit of a better society.
But for some strange reason the state's second highest office very seldom affords much in the way of color or controversy in the eyes of the news media.
Gov. John Evans, the incumbent, owed his being governor to the fact he was lieutenant governor when then Gov. Cecil Andrus was kicked upstairs. Apparently Andrus to his partisan credit, thought enough of the potential for the number two spot to campaign with great gusto to help Evans get on his popular coat-tails and defeat Republican Vern Ravenscroft.
Still, the basic responsibility for news is for the candidates to take sides and to force their opponents to take sides. To do otherwise is less than fair to the voters and, name familiarity to the contrary, a lot less fun.
Whether Evans or Republican challenger Allen Larson wins the election for governor Nov. 7 either Batt or Murphy could very well someday wind up holding that important office.
It is an important office. I could be newsworthy-if the media will give the lieutenant governor candidates a fair shake with each one's philosophy (if indeed he has one) and his controversial ideas.
And if each candidate will be candid enough to keep his opponent candid and the rest of us from falling asleep.
It's Attitude, Not Words, That Limit
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
September 23, 1978
some years ago, during the late sixties, Steve Symms and I were visiting one of the more famous libertarians in the Unites States, my friend, Robert LeFevre (rhyme with "save"), president of Rampart College in Santa Ana, Calif.
We were feeling pretty cocky, having had some rather remarkable successes with our Idaho Compass, a little journal of fact and opinion with a libertarian slant, and I thought we could pick LeFevre's brains to good advantage since hi's a brilliant and radical libertarian.
I said we were a little cocky, but it didn't last very long. I was trying to make the point to Symms about limiting government by virtue of the constitution. Looking for the big libertarian's approval, I said that the constitution's basic thrusts limits out government, though we tend to ignore much of it, I hoped, also to re-enforce Symms' natural libertarian tendencies.
Well, boy, oh boy, did I get brought up short. LeFevre snorted, "Limits, my foot. It grants the government absolute right to levy and collect taxes without limit: absolute right to draft out youth into the army or the navy in peace time as well as war. It grants the government absolute power to coin money and regulate the value thereof."
There were a couple more examples, but suffice it to say that my idea of the constitution, and I think my apple-farming co-editor friend's, too, took on a new and sharper focus about limiting government.
The white-haired libertarian ended that part of out extremely pleasant and edifying visit with something like, "What more power would you WANT if you intended to have dictatorship here in America?"
I got the message, I hope Symms did, I think he did, judging from the big chessy-cat grin he had from enjoying my intellectual discomfiture from out "limited" government constitution short course.
A few years later, when I asked LeFevre if he remembered having met my friend Symms who had just then been elected to Congress for the first time (in 1972), he responded: "Oh, yes, I remember the young apple farmer. I'm just sorry I didn't get to spend a little more time with him before he started on his life of crime." By crime he meant, of course, politics, since Rampart College people do not believe in political activism.
All of which led me to realize just how little a constitution can mean if the people's customs, mores, schooling, etc., do not all lean vigorously toward individualism and private endeavor and away from collectivism and statism. Certainly most of our schools provide little help here.
Soviet Russia's constitution provides for all sorts of rights and free elections, etc., but, of course, they don't mean very much. And in Hitler's Germany, you'll remember, almost all of the Nazis' powers were voted unto him in free and voluntary elections. They had even very little skepticism until it was too late.
So much has been written on and about the constitution of the United States and the successes of our free elections that I hesitate to rehearse the specifics, most of which are kind of old hat.
But something which seems forever to escape many sincere and well-meaning persons interested in the U.S. Constitution is the effect that the original 13 states' individual constitutions, and the people's attitudes attendant thereto, had upon its formation and apparent success.With all the shortcomings it perhaps had, as noted above and elsewhere, the overwhelming persuasion abroad in the land at that time was individualism - a healthy skepticism toward government, in general, and the King of England, in particular, the gist of which was to LIMIT government.
Remember Thomas Jefferson's: "Let's hear no more about confidence in politicians - let's bind them down with the chains of the constitution."
Well, it worked for awhile. So long as the document was interpreted within a negative context, it served pretty well and so long, too, as there was gold in the U.S. Treasury to back up the coins and "the value thereof."
But the politicians promise too much these days in order to get elected, so much so in fact that even WITHOUT gold backing, they cannot pay the government's bills. The deficit, i.e., the federal budget out-go over income, is so big that even the giant government's money printing presses cannot keep up.
Like Symms said once early in his "life of crime," as LeFevre labels a politician's career, "The government is the only organization that can take perfectly good paper and perfectly good ink - put them both together and render each worthless."
Well, Symms got the message all right, and he's been no criminal either, but his memory sometimes lapses when military appropriations, which he tends to rubber stamp,still do not provide for teaching free market capitalism at the military academies.
GOP Brass Says One Thing, But . . .
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
September 30, 1978
Just prior to the Idaho primary election I wrote in this column some observations about political candidate's billboards along Highway 30.
Most of the signs belonged to Republicans and most of the candidates were friends of mine. My remarks, while said ina light-hearted way, were not particularly complimentary since each billboard played down the fact that they had any Republican party affiliation whatsoever. The name of the game is called "name familiarity." It has absolutely nothing to do with anything - except the dull-wittedness of the average voter.
Well, everybody in politics says that it's being "pragmatic" and "everybody does it." I suppose voters ARE dull, but many are beginning to wake up.
On July 19 the New York Times quoted GOP National chairman Bill Brock attacking single-issue political groups as "hazardous for the political system." Of course he means HIS political system.
Brock compiled a moderate conservative voting record as Congressman and U.S. Senator, but now as top official of the Republican Party he has fallen into the rut which has kept the GOP going down hill for two generations.
I've received a good bit of chiding about my needling "my party's" candidates, mostly in good humor, and about my caustic and timely comments on the billboard advertisements. It was meant to be in fun.
But there's also truth in a jest. Current polls show only about 20 percent of the American voters consider themselves Republicans - about 40 percent Democrats.
It's no wonder. Why should people be loyal to a party that sometimes talks as if it cares about right-to-work, less government, private ownership, Panama Canal give-away, etc., but in fact takes virtually no party action on any. A party which gives equal support to Senator, Jacob Javits and senator Barry Goldwater.
Whether or not Idaho candidate's billboards reflect anything about a party's principles we should look the issue squarely in the face. The GOP has only itself to blame for its current weakness.
A recent article in the new and lively Conservative Digest magazine by Richard Viguerie (sounds like vigor-ie) the publisher says: "The enormous upsurge in conservative political action splinter groups, etc., is the RESULT, not the cause of GOP decline.
"The effective New Right activity which so concerns Brock is only a few years old; the GOP has not controlled Congress since 1954."
It is only prudent for people to form groups to fight for principles they believe in when the party organization does not.
According to Viguerie, who is one of the new major domos on the national political scene, the GOP raised money with huge mailings asking for funds to stop the phoney "reform" bill for organized labor.
But Senator Bob Packwood, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, voted down the line with big labor when the issue reached the Senate.
Walter Knott of the famous Knott's Bery Farm told this writer that the GOP National Committee refused back in 1964 to put Ronald Reagan's fabulously famous speech on National TV for Barry Goldwater.
Knott, who was then Western Division treasurer, had to threaten to withhold the money he had already collected in order to get the Eastern GOP hierarchy's attention and go-ahead for Reagan.
Disgusting? No! Rather it was shameful. Reagan's gutsy speech in 1964 brought in more money in $5-$10 bills than any single bills than any single effort in history - and catapulted him into national fame.
The Conservative publisher goes on to say: "What undoubtedly most troubles the philosophically neutral GOP top brass is that the increasingly strong single issue groups and conservative PACs (political action groups) all together represent a threat to their monopoly."
He could have added that those big business trade association professional lobbyists who profit from the strife between pro-business and anti-business forces ALSO see a threat to their playhouse from the philosophically motivated groups.
They enjoy power, obscuring issues by preaching pragmatism that only THEY understand as the only salvation. They've told us for years, "You send the dough, WE'LL do the thinking." Many Boise politicos still push this stuff onto Canyon County GOPers who still constitute the state's conservative stronghold - although it's weakened some lately.
Viguerie says, "Something approaching 90 percent of the contributors to the GOP are conservatives. But most of the GOP congressional establishment does not defend the conservative viewpoint."
Oh, it's true, Congressman Steve Symms defends it - but even he was kicked out as president of the University of Idaho's Alumni association for advocating a chair of capitalism in 1969 - the SAME thing, so I'm told, that the new U of I president Richard Gibb is out raising money for right now.
Barbs Aimed At Wrong Bunch
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
October 7, 1978
Of all the news commentators and newspaper columnists in the United States perhaps none are held in higher esteem than Paul Harvey.
Not only has he been in the business for many years, but even the sensation mongers seem to respect this "Mr. Clean" of the news people.
Long a champion of common sense and responsible behavior including, of course, special emphasis on government, this nationally famous "square" thinks even our officials need be bound by good sense.
This writer has often-times enjoyed public criticism by being labeled "as bad as" that Paul Harvey. To which I'm usually only too happy to applaud.
But last week this champion of individual responsibility and free enterprise surprised me with his comment about the free market versus the bureaucrats contest in a very big and disappointing way.
One is reminded of Richard Nixon who held long standing anti-communistic credentials and was the only person in the United States who could have gone to Mao's Red China, opened up our hearts - and closed up our minds to their past.
Neither Hubert Humphrey nor George McGovern could possibly have pulled off such a caper, so suspicious the public would have been of their socialist leanings.
This fine, patriotic, sincere and conservative newsman attacked what he saw as "bad guys" in business whose moral ethics he said, "cause free enterprise to be less free."
Harvey tells us that the government had to compel Safeway Stores this year to sell advertised bargains at advertised prices. Nothing was said about what's to keep them from trading with Joe Albertson? I know him and he's honest, and would no doubt appreciate the business.
McDonald's hamburger restaurants had to be court-ordered to stop advertising "fresh" orange juice hen it is not fresh, and "maple" syrup when it is not maple.
Now then Safeway Stores has a billion dollar reputation built over long years of faithful and good service. I'd put their reputation for a general lack of deception way ahead of the government's horde of bureaucrats and regulators, many of whom find payola today a way of life.
And the congressmen who pass the laws have all but made direct payola legal by common law precedent if not even precisely legal by many statutes.
McDonald's famous twin arches may have become fallen arches. Fallen into the flat-foot bureaucrat's web whose crusade to protect the people from themselves has become a national disgrace.
If the hamburger kingdom thinks its customers, who incidentally do not have to buy from them, are even half as stupid as the government's politicians think the voters are - well, whose "business" is the most honest - and the most free?
I'll take McDonald's phoney "fresh" fresh orange juice, any day.
This is not to condone false advertising, but whose pot is calling whose kettle black? They are not selling poison; they're merely lying. And who's to protect us from the government's liars? They don't even have competitors to keep them honest.
Corruption has taken on a new dimension since WWII and if it hasn't reached crisis proportions in the government's vast bureaus then Lyndon Johnson's Bobby Baker and Billie Sol Estes were born again Christians.
Harvey's column said a health food distributor was caught buying up cases of ordinary mayonnaise and re-labeling it "health food mayonnaise" and selling it at an inflated price.
Well, bless Bess, I wonder how much that cost the government to discover? And we can't even get the government to admit they stole the Social Security money from retired people who paid into it all these years - even today. I was honored to be asked a few years ago to introduce Paul Harvey to a Boise audience. I'd be honored to be asked again. He's a fine, honorable and conservative gentleman and a credit to the news media.
But I'd ask him, if I got the chance, how the big business bad guys (and I admit they are bad) stack up by comparing their reputation, in a free and competitive market, with the government meddlers' reputation in a compulsory captive market. Remember the post office monopoly, Amtrak and the Welfare departments, etc., etc., ad nauseum?
Free and open competition will do more and do it quicker to keep business honest and free enterprise free than all the bureaucrats and laws in the world. One exception. If they don't stack the deck against free entry into the market. They do it all the time, of course, but they need the government and well-meaning conservative newsmen to
Hooray for Freedom . . . Sometimes
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
October 23, 1978
The current flap among the city council members in Nampa, Idaho brings into sharper focus a tremendous double standard. In many ways, however, the condition seems only to become more obscure.
If that statement seems a little bit contradictory you're right. It is. Let me explain.
Nampa Mayor Ernest Starr recently vetoed an ordinance that would license adult book stores and control pornography. The veto was overriden by a 3 to 1 vote.
Council President Marguerite Brown, a vocal and articulate defender of civil rights and civil liberties,i.e., freedom of the press, freedom of expression etc. made a big objection to the over-ride.
Brown does her homework. She is an avid reader and defends what she believes in with a ferocity and tenacity that brings to mind another famous and outspoken lady. The late Carrie Nation, famous spokeswoman who favored freedom to pass laws against whiskey and sin.
She was successful, too. We remember the law, it was called prohibition. It didn't work too well and was later repealed. They neglected to outlaw bathtubs and homemade copper kettles thus affording the small businessman and the Ma and Pa operators to make huge profits in the black market.
Nampa's perky councilwoman wants none of this government monkey-business regulating the freedom of local libraries and super market magazine stands.
She brings to the council meeting tear sheets from nationally popular magazines like Vogue, Town and Country, Time and Newsweek. Each of these had "dirty pictures," i.e., nude women, bare bosoms, etc. as defined in the proposed Nampa ordinance which she opposed.
As I said Brown reads. She reads almost everything, especially the New York Times. Unfortunately most of the stuff published today is liberal therefore Brown,quite naturally, leans a little bit in that direction. Some say she leans over backwards.
There are, of course, a growing number of conservative and libertarian publications which present a different side of freedom. But somehow these haven't achieved enough status with Brown's friends to get on her reading list.
I refer to such publications as Human Events, Conservative Digest, National Review, The Freeman, Reason, Libertarian Review Libertarism Form, LP News, etc., ad infinitum.
But this isn't the punch line to the double standard yet, so bear with me. These publications do not seem to show up on the reading list of the councilmen who DISAGREE with the super well-read female councilmember - either.
This may well be the biggest tragedy of all and the most disappointing.
Both sides of the pornography free speech, freedom of choice flap should read regularly some of THESE excellent publications. If they did other flap currently before the Nampa City Council would show up the double standard I originally mentioned. Here it is.
Cecil Dobbs, a local auto dealer in Nampa wanted permission to page 20 feet of his parking lot to provide spaces for 9 more cars. The auto dealer had owned for ten years an old house next to his lot. It was an improvement to the area's appearance when he tore it down to add to his parking.
All the neighbors within one block supported Dob's "improvement" but it didn't agree with the city's master plan. Councilwoman Brown is a big booster of the "master" plan. She voted against Dobbs. Instead, she wanted a green belt of planting and strict adherence to the zoning law.
What happened to Dobbs' freedom? Well, they may compromise. But what happens to a person's choice to own (and control) his property when he does not harm his neighbors?
Surely a gigantic double standard exists here, but I find it hard to fault the super-intelligent, if WAY too "liberal," councilwoman Brown.
Larsen Loses, Heads or Tails
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
October 28, 1978
The current contest between Gov. John Evans and the challenger for that office, Allan Larsen, has several interesting aspects to it, but for some reason the news media consistently harps on the same old flaps over and over and over, ever missing the good ones.
There are of course a few exceptions. Some news media people try to be fair and educational. However, most are on a power kick trying to influence the public to see things "their" way - all the while screeching against the politicians most of whom are trying to do the same thing - especially at election time.
So far the media seems hell-bent on beating this religion thing into the ground as if people really just might have something to fear from the Mormons if Larsen were to be elected.
But the incumbent governor is also a Mormon, has been all along, and the sky has not fallen.
Evans was asked recently about the seeming non-interest in the fact that he, too, was a Mormon. The person asking wanted to know if one could conclude thereby that he was, then, a "jack-Mormon?"
A jack-Mormon is generally thought to be a member of that church, but one who will drink a cup of coffee or a drink of booze or in many ways doesn't take his church too seriously, at least in the eyes of the public.
Well, the governor blew his stack as was his every right, but I'm not too sure it was the wisest thing to do. If one feels threatened by some question or situation one often does blow up with sound and fury.
I say perhaps it is not too wise for Evans to protest too loudly because even though Larsen sort of asked for it, the obvious inference almost everyone gathers from the politically black cloud of Mormonism hovering ominously over Larsen's head is that Evans' Mormonism somehow does not matter.
All this is, of course, quite all right with the Idaho governor, since any public misunderstanding, misconception or even downright misinformation suffered by an opponent will, if it is sufficiently wide-spread, kill his chances of being elected.
Evans cannot be faulted for enjoying this political windfall, but he could rise to some welcome, if not ordinarily to be expected, statesmanship - even possibly to ensuring his election - if he came out loud and strong and clear denouncing the rather obvious religious bigotry going on in the present gubernatorial race.
The usually soft-spoken governor would have to come out with guns blazing loud and long and repeat himself in order to avoid seeming to be self-serving and insincere in making sucha denunciation believable, during a campaign, but it should be done.
Bad as I personally hate the low blow Larsen dealt to his opponent Butch Otter during the campaign, he does not deserve this beating he and his church are getting among the Idaho electorate. It's religious bigotry pure and simply and the media should treat it as such.
But the few friends I have in the media tell me it's called "wolf-pack journalism." It's a sign of the times, all across America and it will not go away. It's the collectivist mentality among news persons any way you slice it. Unfortunately, it is not limited to, although rampant in the media.
But bad as religious bigotry is, especially among those professing hatred of racial bigotry as, to their credit, most of the media does - even to the point of being tedious and oppressive - I have an idea that there's a better reason.
In other words I doubt that most of the press and media hate Mormons, maybe even, Larsen. But what I do not doubt is that they hate conservatives generally and the 1 percent tax limit initiative in particular.
House Speaker Larsen claims both sides of that last coin and each time the media flips it - heads OR tails - he loses.
Symms' Endorsement Fine, But . . .
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
November 1, 1978
Idaho's largest newspaper has editorially endorsed the re-election of Congressman Steve symms in their November 2 (Thursday) issue. This seems odd in view of that paper's almost consistent and virulent opposition to nearly everything the popular apple farmer has stood for since he first ran in 1972.
The Idaho Statesman endorsement said, "Many will say this endorsement is a contradiction to this newspaper's past and present editorial policies on a number of issues." Well, gentle reader, that is probably the UNDERSTATEMENT of this years entire political campaign - maybe, even, in the state's history.
But before we go too far in assuming that the Boise newspaper's editors have suddenly gone soft-headed, if not completely berserk, let's take a look at what might have motivated that newspaper's editorial board.
Now then, Symms' supporters would probably be pleased, if puzzled, at a similar endorsement of the conservative Congressman by the AFL-CIO or the League of Women Voters or the Idaho Press Club, all of whom tend to have about the same political philosophy. So one does not want to appear ungrateful for political applause from anyone.
But again, inconsistency is everywhere in politics and so is the confusion arising from it. Consider the large number of Idaho voters who like, and presumably vote for, the moderately conservative Symms, a Republican, and also vote for the extremely liberal Idaho Senator Frank Church, a Democrat.
So one cannot entirely fault the giant newspaper for being inconsistent. After all everyone's doing it these days - and it "sells newspapers" as the old joke used to say. Except that the old joke isn't so funny anymore due to the fact that selling newspapers has tended to promote a government that has grown so huge it interferes in almost everything we do or say.
But, now back to the seemingly contradictory endorsement of Symms' by one of his severest media critics. Challenger Roy Truby, present State Superintendent of Public Instruction, never has been able to get his campaign off the ground, i.e., he can not possibly win so the Statesman has nothing to lose by abandoning Truby whose positions are generally very favorable to their own.
Also, by endorsing the almost certain winner the extremely interventionist newspaper tends, thereby, to add to its own credibility.
After two years of almost constantly opposing and critizing Symms' conservative policy the paper needs credibility, especially in view of the country's dramatic shift towards the Congressman's position and contrary to most of their own political policies favoring more government.
This added credibility tends to give weight to the editorial board's attacks and condemnation of Second District congressman George Hansen and the 1 percent tax limit initiative, both of whom and of which they hate with political passion.
More of a similar nature could be said, for example, the Statesman endorsed GOP conservative Senator James McClure over his liberal challenger Dwight Jensen (who also does not have a prayer of winning) but human nature being what it is we expect to see an expanding gap between what people profess and what they practice and the high quality of the American dream has not prevented our politicians from behaving much like politicians everywhere. It has not prevented American businessmen from seeking political favors at the expense of the public even though newspapers in bygone days use to proclaim loud and long for freedom and America's free enterprise dream.
But no longer. What we once did from lck of principle we now are doing ON principle.
The Statesman's professed support of Symms, as contradictory as it may appear, is in truth consistent with today's pragmatism and abandonment of reason itself. Small wonder that people are confused with politics.
The Rope or the Platform
By Ralph Smeed
Valley News
November 8, 1978
It has frequently been said to me that liberals are turned on toward ideas and conservatives are turned off by them; that liberals love ideas, especially new ones. The newer, the better.
Their detractors claim that it makes little difference whether said idea is good or bad, so long as it denotes change.
One supposes that if there is any truth to the generalization at all, and there seems to be some, that might be where the cliche comes from that the modern liberal favors change just for the sake of change.
The liberals, of course, counter with the charge that conservatives are "against change" - any change in the status quo. At least, those who see themselves as traditionalists tend to cling to it until they think some change will bring about a sure-thing improvement.
Now then, you might well say, okay, but what'stall this got to do with anything about anything?
It has to do with the fact that some time ago I attended a meeting of libertarian leaning scholars in Brussels, Belgium, and the president, Arthur Shenfield, had some fascinating observations about the word liberal. As a European, we might gain an insight from him.
Shenfield has lectured widely in Great Britain and around the world as well as at several universities. He succeeded the famous economist, Dr. Milton Friedman, as international president of the Mont Pelerin Society. He's also a tremendously bright and perceptive individual.
He thinks the most significant feature of socialism in the USA is the fact that most American socialists call themselves liberals. "They have," he explained, "effectively appropriated that splendid word 'liberalism.'
"It originally meant, and still properly means, the exact opposite of socialism; indeed, appropriated so effectively that their American opponents also dignify them by calling them liberals.
"This fact is highly significant because in large measure it indicates the posture and character of American socialists.
"The famous pioneers of socialist thought have had only an extremely faint direct influence upon Americans and the American mind."
He said this not because only a small proportion of American socialists have ever read Karl Marx. That wouldn't be decisive because only a minority of people in countries under Marxist rule and probably only a minority of active Marxists themselves have ever read Marx.
"The majority of people in all countries and societies take their ideas at second hand."
Shenfield says this because in his opinion the great majority of American socialists would not agree with Marx or other leading social theorists even if they read them, though the area they disagree about would be extremely limited.
The truth is, he claims, that although there are cases where the adoption of the label "liberal" is a matter of subterfuge and deception, in most cases American socialists really do believe themselves to be liberals and would honestly and perhaps indignantly reject the socialist label.
"Yes they are genuine socialists," Shenfield says, "at least in the field of economist. They believe that the solution to all significant economic problems calls for some form or other of governmental intervention.
"When faced with any economic difficulty, their first and only thought is to call upon the power of government to deal with it."
Conservatives may be losing the battle of ideas, but they could take heart at one of the ideas I heard offered by one of Shenfield's colleagues at the Brussels conference.
It was that certain cities in ancient Greece had a policy that anyone proposing new laws had to do so from a platform in the public market - with a rope around his neck.
If the law was adopted, they removed the rope. If the law was rejected, they removed the platform.
The trouble is - even some of the liberals would probably agree.
'The Chair' Vote -- Another Look
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
November 14, 1978
The Ada County elections supervisor said that 22 different candidates received valid write-in votes in the recent election. Those names included for governor: Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Robert Smylieand "the chair," none of whom were running for the office.
No doubt "the chair" had reference to the television ad of Republican challenger Allen Larsen whose crusade for a debate with incumbent Gov. John Evans died for lack of pressure from the news media and, therefore, the public.
The ad, you will remember, featured an empty chair along side of Larsen which was supposed to dramatize Evans' unsportsmanlike behavior in being unwilling to meet his challenger fact to face.
Pressure for TV debates has been around for years, but incumbents usually refuse to debate since they have little to gain and everything to lose. Also the media tends, usually, to favor one candidate over the other, hence seldom puts the heat on by reason of high principle, so Larsen's ad attempted to force Evans out of hiding by repeated TV showings, many thought too tediously, of the empty chair.
Comes now the Ada County elections supervisor commenting on the silly write-in votes, "I don't know why people waste their votes like this. I think it's a crying shame..."
Well, now, indeed, it is unusual, but a crying shame it is not. A libertarian friend of mine started a national movement a few years ago complete with literature and bumper stickers. It was entitled "The League of Non-Voters" and alleged that little if any choice was made available between most candidates in either political party.
The League claimed that a bigger and better message could be made by no vote at all. Not at all unlike the little old lady who, upon being asked if she had voted, replied, "Oh Heavens no, it only encourages them."
The Non-Voters League suggests legislation for adding to the bottom of every ballot: "None of the above are acceptable." Oddly enough this was actually done in Nevada and in at least one instance "none..." received a majority of the votes.
Congressman Steve Symms was heard to say recently that, "If you don't vote, don't bellyache," but Symms' position is wrong if he means one has no right to bellyache if one does not vote. Indeed, if one does vote one agrees to be bound by the outcome - no matter what the issue.
But back to the Ada County elections supervisor who doesn't know why people "waste their votes" on Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and, presumably, none of the above.
The 1 percent tax limit initiative got as big a majority vote as did Gov. Evans, yet the ink was hardly dry on the election returns when he announced that he would propose altogether different kinds of tax relief measures because he didn't agree with what the peoples' vote decided. How intellectually arrogant can a politician get? And how fast?
A short few years ago Idaho voters had another referendum or initiative. I said in no uncertain terms that the voters did not want the legislators to raise their salary. It carried overwhelmingly.
What happened? They raised their pay anyway. Two of those legislators were re-called soon after that, but only two.
It takes a lot of work to recall a politician and it seldom happens even when they are arrogant in the face of a statewide mandate.
How did the remaining legislators respond to that recall of their two comrades?
They responded in the very next session by passing yet another law making it even more difficult for the people to recall a fellow politician. The law is still on the books.
That is no "crying shame" - that's a joke. And the joke is on you, with or without Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
'None of the Above' has Appeal
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
November 18, 1978
If the Idaho state legislators really heard the voter's new attitude changes as loud and clear as almost everyone of them claimed,they will no doubt enact a new law like the one of the books in Nevada.
Such a law calls for adding to the bottom of each and every ballot the phrase, "None of the Above Are Acceptable." Its advocates insist it provides at least some opportunity for freedom of choice which all too often neither major party offers. Many cynics claim the choice often amounts to Tweedle-dum versus Tweedle-dee.
Lest the casual observer might think this is too good to be true or perhaps even a joke, let's look at Nevada's recent election.
The governor's race had an unusually large voter turnout (192,00 votes) but "None of the Above" still appealed to 3,200 voters. In their Supreme Court race there was only one contestant. He got 122,000 votes and "None of the Above" got 36,000 votes.
Another contest between a Noel Manaukin and Ed Dotson for a statewide race (I'm not sure which office), 175,000 voters turned out and "None" got 19,000 of them.
Nevada is the only state with a "None of the Above" category in all statewide races, but their secretary of State Bill Swackhamer thinks it has become a "catch-all for voter ignorance and as such has lost its value." (Egad! He should have said politician's ignorance.)
He noted that the well-publicized races had the fewest "None" votes while the least advertised races like the Supreme Court had the heaviest "None" response.
"It appears to me," he said "that the voters may have voted for 'None of the Above' because they didn't know what was going on." (Bah, humbug, I say.)
But Swackhamer noted also that, except for the high court race, his own race had the highest number of "None" votes of the statewide contests, with 11,400 out of 185,000 votes cast.
Under the gambling state's law a minor party in order to stay on the ballot must get at least 5 percent of the total votes cast for at least one of their candidates.
Now then, this may well be both good and bad, but the Independent American Party did not get enough votes to stay on the ballot in Nevada. The magic minimum was 9,400 and the closest IAP candidate polled only 3,300.
It was good, however, for the ever growing and freedom loving party candidate Florence Fields, the Libertarian Party's candidate for lieutenant governor. She received 10,877 votes. How about that?
In a state with towns like Reno, Sparks, Elko, Las Vegas and others famous for wide open lifestyles one can only speculate what the future holds for the likes of the new Libertarian Party and "None of the Above," but each offers a real and refreshing addition to the old Republican and Democrat dog and pony show.
After Idaho's Gov. John Evans' almost arrogant suggestion to substitute his own tax reform for one of the most popular tax limit initiatives (the now-famous 1 percent) in the state's history, Idaho voters may want to add something new to the bottom of their next election ballot.
Just for openers "None of the Above" just might become as popular as the recent 1 percent tax initiative - unless, of course, the increasing talk of impeachment petitions for Evans should tweek the tax revolter's sense of humor.
Jones' Promises Sounded Familiar
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
December 2, 1978
That bizarre tragedy of the mass suicide in the new South American country of Guyana is of such awesome size and proportions as to boggle the mind, and an attempt to comment intelligently upon it embodies considerable risk of being misunderstood.
Still, to do otherwise brings to mind that those who refuse to heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, so here goes.
A headline on an editorial in the Dec. 4 issue of U.S. News and World Report suggests we might need "A Rein on Lunatic Leaders."
The magazine is no extremist publication, but the implications are both scary and worth consideration.
Quoting a popular writer, Pat Buchanan, the editorial said, "The success of the so-called People's Temple testifies to a failure of modern society, a failure of traditional religion.
"Clearly those hundreds of dead could not find in their own churches or in the coziness of the welfare state a fulfillment of their spiritual hunger.
"When we announce the death of God we do not necessarily announce the birth of reason. (instead) We send off millions in search of a substitute for God."
I talked to a person who had interviewed in California one of the Rev. Jim Jones' followers. The nice looking and intelligent appearing girl in her twenties openly admitted she actually thought Jones was indeed "God."
I quote this in order to inject the reality that we are talking about real like people - Americans - not aborigines in some far off land.
But aside from the emotional upheaval, which is so very understandable, consider something often overlooked in the present commentary.
The media somehow gives more attention to Flavor-aide, the vehicle for the mass suicide, than it has to socialism - the idea for which the whole People's Temple crusade existed in the first place and for which Jones promised so much to his flock.
While it may offend some, whose faith in government-style problem solving still waxes enthusiastic, Jones' promises bear a remarkable familiarity to America's political witch-doctor's promises of Utopia and free lunches if only they will "vote the party line."
This isn't to say all politicians are like Jones -not at all, but neither is it to suggest that they are more sincere than he was.
Consider this from Jones, "It is good to die. It will beautify our struggle. It is a fitting tribute to socialism."
Jones may have been a lunatic, but he was dead right on that last sentence. It's just too danged bad that his competitors, the capitalists, are not half so dedicated. They seem only to happy to bellyache when the preachers and churches in America want to talk from the pulpit about money, profit, exploitation and hunger.
Much as I disagree with these preachers, I've heard for too many years conservatives who bellyache something about "separating church and state" when all they really mean is that the preachers should stop the "liberal" social gospel.
If those same preachers would somehow see the light and start preaching the "conservative" political gospel most of the bellyaches would be replaced with belly-laughs, or at least smiles of satisfaction.I mean no disrespect to millions of well-meaning church goers, but too many of them seem to care not at all about other people's freedoms, even other church's freedoms.
Like those in the Church of Scientology, for example, 11 of whose officials will be tried on conspiracy next month right here in America, the story is in that same Dec. 4 issue of U.S. News and World Report.
The indictments grew out of a long battle over the Internal Revenue Service's largely unsuccessful attempts to eliminate Scientology's tax exemptions on the grounds that it fails to qualify as a non-profit church. Just wait until the government decides just what is a valid church.
Next time your conservative friend complains about separation of church and state ask him if he'd also like to separate his church's tax exemption from that same state.
I can guarantee that the question will "beautify our struggle," as Jones put it, and who knows - it might even be a "fitting tribute" to our own brand of socialism having transcended our own traditional religions.
Capitalism: Still a Dirty Word?
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
December 10, 1978
President Richard Gibb, the new chief of the University of Idaho at Moscow is heading up a new effort at his school to endow a permanent chair of Free Enterprise. The cost of such an undertaking is estimated to be at least $500,000.
While I do not know the details of this effort I'm told that the funds are being solicited out of the private sector, i.e., not out of tax money.Now then, one has to applaud Gibb for trying to do something - even if it's wrong. Education, generally speaking, is said by many to have an overwhelming anti-capitalistic bias and somebody ought to take a good long look at it at least.
Well, way back in 1971 when then civilian (now Congressman) Steve Symms and this writer were publishing the Idaho Compass we reprinted some comments on that matter by Jeffrey St. John, an unusual eastern writer. They are even more timely now seven years later, especially in the light of our own university president's efforts. Here are St. John's remarks as they appeared in the 1971 Idaho Compass:
"Who is John Galt?" is a question being asked by those joining one of the most remarkable and growing cultural revolutions among America's young.
John Galt is the idealized man and the dynamic hero in the best-selling novel "Atlas Shrugged," which nine years after its publication continues to sell between 100,000 and 200,000 copies annually for its creator, been so widely discussed and debated among young people both at home and abroad.
This development, largely unreported by the press, is in sharp contrast to the belief that the political left has the loyalty and allegiance of most young Americans. In fact, by all indications this columnist can discern, the "Objectivist" movement (as Ayn Rand titles it) among young Americans is a serious intellectual, philosophical challenge to the political left. And her new book, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," is one of the few intellectual works available to young people that presents the moral meaning and hope of capitalism in the modern age.
Ayn Rand's appeal to young people was vividly brought home during a rare personal appearance at Boston's famed Ford Hall Forum this past spring. I counted only 50 obviously over the age of 35 in the audience of 3,000. The majority were neatly turned out, intelligent-looking young people who gave Ayn Rand a standing and sustained ovation when she came on-stage.
In an exclusive, lengthy interview at her Manhattan apartment, where she works and lives with her husband, Frank O'Connor, a talented artist, Ayn Rand ranged over a wide area of problems that affect young people.
Rejecting the label, "conservative," she prefers to be called "procapitalist." She maintains that young people today have no idea what capitalism is, what was its history, or its record of remarkable achievement. She charges that capitalism and businessmen have been the willing victims of smears and distortions that have part of their origins in the classrooms of the nation's colleges and universities.
"College students," she remarked, "who stand for capitalism and have accepted it are still a minority. But when a proper case is presented for capitalism - not amiddle-of-the-road, Republican-apologetic case - when a proper case is given for laissez-faire capitalism, young people are enormously receptive."
She indicts American education as the major cause for undercutting the confidence and contributing to the uncertainly of young people today. "If they are taught," she remarked, "that man's mind is not valid, is not competent to grasp the facts of reality, and that certainly is impossible to man, and they are taught that in every class, they certainly lack confidence in themselves and are left in a state of intellectual helplessness."
Executives who are concerned with the crisis of corporate recruitment on the campus should consider two questions:
Does the rejection of business as a career by some students stem from the unbalanced, often biased, blew they received in the classroom on the moral meaning of capitalism?
Does not such a climate call for a reappraisal of the business community's financial support of major U.S. educational institutions?
Perhaps what is urgently needed is the creation of a fund for the establishment of a chair of economics at leading universities that would present to the students a proper and consistent case of capitalism.
As Ayn Rand wrote in :Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal":
" ... it is capitalism's alleged champions who are responsible for the fact that capitalism is being destroyed without a hearing, without a trial, without any public knowledge of its principles, its nature, or its moral meaning."
Well, Symms, who at about that time was president of the U of I Alumni association proposed a "chair of capitalism" for the university.
What happened? Believe it or not he was KICKED OFF, as president of his alumni, for rocking the boat, presumably with the blessings of the University heirarchy.
Good luck, president Gibb, unless the atmosphere at your school has been radically changed in the past few years - you'll NEED it.
Maybe Pete Rose Is Worth More
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
December 17, 1978
The Idaho Statesman's editorial columns are not exactly my idea of the FIRST place to go for huge drafts of profundity and wisdom. I should hasten to add, perhaps, that, if forced, I would admit there has been at least some improvement in recent months, i.e., they're not ALL bad.
But theirs on Dec. 11 was not one of the better examples. They said that professional baseball's famous Pete Rose's salary of $800,000 per year was "Just another sad example of the rising cost of escapism."
The editorial complained that this was a "misplaced priority" in our headlong pursuit of entertainment, and that salaries for athletes and other entertainers "have gotten out of hand." One wonders: WHOSE hand?
Well, most of us would agree that does seem like a huge sum of money for an athlete, but the huge newspaper goes farther: "No athlete ought to be paid $800,000 per year.
"Heads of giant corporations do not make $800,000 a year. The president doesn't make $800,000 a year."
Well now, some heads of giant corporations DO make more money than that, at least they have, but what on earth does that have to do with the price of peach fuzz in China, or anything else for that matter?
If the baseball giant's employer's opinion says Rose is worth $800,000, he IS worth $800,000 - by definition. Never mind whether it's entertainment or making nuts and bolts.
Today's do-gooders and reformers protesteth too much in their zeal against the private sector's excesses, or what they see as excesses.
While it is true the editorial did admit that: "Rose, from a purely economic standpoint, is, probably worth $800,000 a year," they also admitted that attendance is up and increasing.
I should hasten to add that the Statesman's cry about the "rising cost of escapism" is indeed alarming, but they seem absolutely hung up on the prices in the PRIVATE market place.
To their credit the big newspaper decries the excessive sums of money the public wastes on sports and entertainment. No doubt their concern, at least in this case, is sincere.
But get the closing line in the editorial - it reveals the soft underbelly of their philosophy (forgive me); "There is nothing wrong with escapism. A little, in proper perspective, is beneficial."
Okay, so far not too bad, but get this for the editorial's unbelievable punch line: "But when we pay a ball player four times as much as we pay our president, something is wrong."
Now then, it's true something IS wrong, but the giant newspaper seems forever blind to it.
Do you have ANY idea at all what that $800,000 they pay to Rose looks like after the Internal Revenue Service takes their tax bite out of it? Do you know why the tax laws are so complicated that the Philadelphia Phillie's salary is exceeded only by Philadelphia lawyers?
Something IS wrong, Mr. Editor, when according to figures put out recently by the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) in Washington, D.C., our public debt is $701,000,000,000. Undelivered orders $266,000,000,000. Government guarantees $190,000,000,000. Insurance commitments $1,629,000,000,000 (that's trillion) annuity programs including Social Security (4,650,000,000,000 (trillion again).
I won't bore you with the rest, but the NTU's total is $7,583,000,000,000 (yes, that's trillion, too). Your personal share is over $150,000. That's up by a staggering $20,000 from last year. Pretty high prices escapism too, don't you agree?
Write to them! Don't take my word for it. Their address if 325 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Washington D.C., 20003. Their president, Jim Davidson has been on the Johnny Carson show three or four times - you may have seen him.
The editor of the Statesman is RIGHT: something IS wrong when as he said, "we pay a ball player four times as much as we pay our president."
Maybe we should pay Pete Rose TEN times as much. At least his big figures make more sense than Carter's.
Mirrow, Mirrow on the Wall, Tell Me
By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
December 23, 1978
One of the most dangerous diseases which the government does nothing to help cure, indeed seems only to make worse and worse with each passing year, is called Potomac fever.
It is more dangerous, in fact, than is generally realized. Not so much is it risky for those who have it as it is for those who come in contact with those who have it.
It is a disease to which politicians are especially prone. In fact, very few escape it entirely although the symptoms vary, sometimes widely, from one politician to another.
Heretofore it's been generally accepted that a politician must come into prolonged exposure to the Potomac River where it flows through Washington, D.C. in order to get the disease, i.e., at least a severe case of it.
But that's just recently been proven to be wrong. A case in point is the incumbent attorney general of Idaho, Wayne Kidwell. Seldom in the rather diverse history of the Gem State has a politician suffered such an agonizing attack of Potomac fever, though never holding office in Washington.
According to an Associated Press story released Dec. 19 Kidwell announced that he "would relish taking on Rep. Steve Symms for the GOP's 1980 U.s. Senate nomination." The winner to run against incumbent Sen. Frank Church.
Political watchers remember the 1972 campaign wherein Kidwell, who had gone through all the "chairs" of the Republican club, ran all the errands expected for years and years by the establishment, kissed all the babies as well as the other anatomical locations expected, if not required, to prove up one's claim to national office, and ran against a young apple farmer Steve Symms. He lost - hard.
Symms was almost completely unknown to Idaho politics and came from out of nowhere with an unusual boatrocking to the old establishment GOP free wheeling, candid and forthright campaign for less government and more individual freedom.
Symms had done his homework, at least by conventional standards of party politics and it paid off. He won.
But poor Kidwell, so like the traditional emblem of his party, the elephant, strained mightily and brought forth a mouse. The young apple grower and his "take a bite out of government" slogan illustrated by his apple with a bite out of it caught the imagination of the voters who even back in 1972 wanted less government.
Even today the GOP establishment, including Kidwell, finds Symms hard to believe, but he won - so they like him.
Kidwell has never forgiven Symms nor many of his close confidants. He is bitter. He is vindictive and not unlike ex-president Richard Nixon seems to pout and act like the latter did once when he said to the press "you won't have me to kick around nay more."
Although Kidwell threatened to get out of politics for good, nobody who knew him really believed it. To his credit he later successfully ran for attorney general and some thought he'd recovered from his "rotten apple" syndrome and would perhaps take his own place back in Idaho politics, without the bitterness.
But again, Attorney General-elect David Leroy won such a big election victory to fill the shoes left empty by Kidwell's decision not to run for re-election and no groundswell materialized for his often talked about run for governor he apparently lapsed back into yet another attack of Potomac fever.
Or maybe it was the withdrawal pain symptoms at the thoughts of not being in power in any kind of office - for real, not just threatened. Perhaps the fever alarmed his doctor. Who knows?
In the meantime, the press and many of Symms' friends have been speculating long and loud as to whether Symms should make the race for Frank Church's job in 19480, for the U.S. Senate. But Kidwell no doubt harbours latent visions of restoring himself and coming out ahead of the apple growing super-candidate after all by taking on the liberal Democrat's super-politician and U.S. Senator.
Against Church, even Kidwell's brand of orthodox Republicanism might seem conservative enough to win. It's true, Church has led the fight on the Senate floor to give the Panama Canal away and even now he applauds Carter's recognition of Red China and kicking Free China (Taiwan) in the teeth. Church surely might be ripe to defeat. It might work. What a plum if Kidwell could pull it off.
So what does Kidwell do? Why, he announces his intentions to run against Church in 1980 by attacking Symms in a most unkind, demeaning and ungentlemanly way, saying Symms, as a politician, is, well, a no-goodnik.
Well, Kidwell had at least one good crack in his public denunciation of his old competitor when he decried Symms' now famous attacks on politicians and politics. He says Symms has become a politician, too, therefore someone should "give Symms a mirror."
Good point, maybe, but no one need give Kidwell a mirror. He already has one.
But when he looks into it all he can see is - Steve Symms.
|
| |
|
|
The Pragmatic Side of Principle in Pursuit of Public Policy
|
|