Ralph Smeed on Statism

Making Statism

Unpopular

Columns

Back

Media Turns on Kennedy

By Ralph Smeed
The Nampa Times and the Idaho Free Press
January 5, 1980

A very attractive and vivacious teenage young lady said to me recently: "POLITICS, politics, politics. That's almost all one can see or hear in the news media and you conservatives seem to be almost as bad."

While she said it mostly in jest and the whole room full of people laughed, both with and at her, there's nearly always "truth in a jest."
So my response was something like, "Martha, honey, you've probably got a point, but perhaps your choice of words could have been better." I suggested next time she try this: LIFE, life, life. That's almost all you can hear ... and you folks are almost as GOOD!"

Well, more laughs ensued - more, I fear, "at" me than "with" me, but it brought to mind an interesting statement on the general subject from one of my heroes, William F. Buckley: He cursed the 20th Century for compelling him to give so much of his attention to politics.
Now then, it is true that Buckley is no libertarian, still, at least in that arena of "life" called economics, he has written and spoken ever so long and ever so eloquently against the government's intervention into the marketplace. But the Bard of Conservatism's brain chain knows full well that freedom questions are not alone economic. Although without economic freedom the other soon disappear, freedom of choice is frightfully and forever - moral.

In fact, Buckley's career actually started when, during his college years, he wrote the book that many see as conservatism's first salvo against modern socialism entitled "God and Man at Yale."

But conservatives don't read much and their intellectuals don't even write much. Consequently the movement was slow getting off the ground. Even with a book by semi "radical" Buckley they were slow. And, also, many thought that anyone with that big a vocabulary HAD to be a snob and so most of them, even today, haven't read Buckley's books, even though they're absolutely fabulous for fun lovin' conservatives.

But, boy oh boy, do the liberals ever read! They read and write and discuss and read and write and speechify and cajole and pamphleteer and write letters to the editor and, since they tend to love the story-book-world - they vote, i.e., they "politic." to their ever-lasting credit they're IDEA conscious (they read, remember?) and they work at it.

Oh sure, many say they'll read just about anything - trashy novels, fiction, pornography, The New York Times, Washington Post. Even the Idaho Statesman, the "Daily Worker" of the "responsible" liberal, gets and holds their confidence.

Presumably it's partly because of the guard-dog ferocity with which they scrutinize Congressman Steve Symms and the pussy-cat pats on the back with which they patronize Senator Frank Church.

But, though their reading leaves something to be desired, the liberals and even some libertarians also read history, literature and about the arts and the artists as well as the poets and writers of modern day. They communicate!

If they do, indeed, have difficulty distinguishing between good ideas and bad ideas one has to admire the fact that it is those of "liberal" intellectual persuasion who absolutely dominate the Literati. The world of writing, acting, teaching, cartooning, TV and radio advertising and journalism, virtually BELONGS to them and their progeny.

Nor is this to say that the liberal's socialism is bad and the conservative's fascism is good - not at all. Wonderful human beings are to be found on BOTH sides. Rather it is to say that if one gives a hoot about public policy one better READ and try to learn to articulate the case for freedom - if that's what you believe in. (Note that, so far, the hippies are way ahead of the Chamber of Commerce, using little else than big-mouth politics.)

Consider something! Only a short time ago the "drug" Senator Teddy Kennedy was "pushing" was socialized medicine. The liberal media virtually had him nominated (and many say they could actually elect him if they took a notion) for President of the United States.
Then something happened. Kennedy came out "swinging" for a new "love" - de-regulation of the air lines. It was controversial, but it worked. I couldn't believe it bore Kennedy's enthusiastic stamp of approval, but it did.

Then, he may have taken freedom one step too far. He wanted to de-regulate the massive and ever-so-over-regulated trucking industry just as he had done with the airlines. Egad, had freedom actually begun to run amuck with now TWO industries free?

Now then, some people say that the gigantic Teamsters Union could not function if the Interstate Commerce Commission did not KEEP free entry into the trucking market - illegal. It's quite logical. Logical, but not anti-free enterprise. Subsequently opposed by the Reagan administration for some strange reason.

Perhaps, Kennedy's brother Bobby knew something. His well-known hatred of the Teamster's Union may have had some influence on Teddy's crusade to de-regulate the trucks (and thereby, maybe, the Teamsters?). But, sad to say, Bobby was assassinated, remember?

Well, today we are witnessing the political assassination of his brother Ted Kennedy. And the attack is both vicious and vigorous. Seldom in history has the media done such a dramatic and sudden about-face. It's being done by the same liberal media, you'll recall, that all but had him elected president, just a few short months ago.

That, my teenage sweet, is what "politics, politics, politics" is all about, i.e., life, life, life.
It SHOULDN'T be - but it is.

Sincerity Hardly A Virtue

By Ralph Smeed
The Nampa Times and the Idaho Free Press
January 12, 1980

The governor of Idaho, John Evans, gave us his State of the State message January 7. This is becoming a tradition following in the footsteps of the political "witch-doctors" in Washington, D.C. The president of the U.S., you'll remember, gives his State of the Union address about the affairs of the world and "we-the-people," as he sees it, of course.

It's easy to see how presidents and, yes, even governors tend to get a sort of god-complex by holding public office. Big business tycoons phoning them for permission to do this or that; lobbyists pushing, pulling, wining and dining if not downright pleading and begging, all the way down to the little old lady in tennis shoes trying to say "tannk you Mr. Governor for giving my son an extra day off during the holidays. We both appreciate the job you gave him in the State Bureau of Helpful Harrys." And so it's gone for centuries.
It seems like the only thing Americans learn from history is that they don't learn anything from history.

All of which is not to say that Governor Evans is not sincere and well-meaning. In fact, it's his very sincerity which terrifies me. I think he actually believes that Alice-in-Wonderland story, or scenario, he seems to be forever advocating.

Consider this. Evans says - and he is right now asking the Legislature to pass yet ANOTHER law to make it compulsory - "We need a full fledged Department of Energy to solve our problems."

Ye gods, if there is anything we need - pass a law. Where have we heard THAT before?

Even Representative Patty McDermott, a big shot Democrat given to occasional episodes of common sense, rose to Evans' bait with, "We already have an Office of Energy so we may as well have a full fledged department and give it some muscle." If that isn't an exact quote it's close and it's clearly the theme of governments all over the world. Consider Evans' further reasoning, i.e., with an energy department of our own, "instead of having to listen to those directives from far off Washington."

Now then to some people that kind of reasoning may have a certain novelty to recommend it, but consider the Idaho chief executive's idea on Nevada's Sagebrush Rebellion and whether Idaho should join Nevada. "Well, I'm agin it," he says in almost as many words, "It's management from far off Washington, D.C. all right, but all we have to do is seek more federal, state cooperation."

Retired United States Senator Glen Taylor, (D-Idaho) was more honest. Said he, "Some may call our movement socialism" (when he ran for vice president in the early fifties, remember?) "but we called it, cooperation.:"

Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, from the elder statesman of the Democrat party, who is now promoting his new book on those days, it's called, "The Way It Was With Me" (Lyle Stuart, pub., 1979, $15). I'm not exactly a fan of Taylor, but his sincerity is not nearly so dangerous as Evans' sincerity, our sincere, if modern-day, witch doctor.

I'm reminded, again, of that gifted bard, Jerry Hill, whose poems tend toward the jugular vein of political witch-doctorism.
The title escapes memory just now, but here's his insight on energy:

We locked up all the land in sight
Then threw away the key
Then blamed producers,
Thus locked out,
For lack of energy.
All coal is dirty
All nukes unsturdy -
Dams all intervene.
We'll take you to Neanderthal
Where everything is clean.

Mirrow, Morrow on the Right . . .

By Ralph Smeed
The Nampa Times and the Idaho Free Press
January 19, 1980

Idaho's seven-year First District congressman, Steve Symms, has done it again. Almost nobody thought he could win in 1972 and, until recently, almost nobody thought he could defeat incumbent U.S. Senator Frank Church, D-Idaho in 19480.

Symms made a formal announcement from the home of his ever-so-popular parents at Sunny Slope, the apple capital of the west on Wednesday, Jan. 16.

About that long awaited and surprise-for-nobody speech a few observations:

(1) If there ever was a time when the ever-so-left-leaning (i.e., until just prior to each election) super-politician could be defeated it is this year.

Church rattled the saber just once for Idaho voters, saying the president should hold up SALT II until the Russian troops were removed from Cuba. But the eastern establishment media descended all over him for the obvious attempt to "buy" votes from Idaho voters who tend not only to be conservative, but also to be hawks, not doves, especially in matters of guns and national defense. Even the popular comic strip "Doonesbury" lampooned Church for what the artist saw as a flagrant attempt by a well-known dove to make like a hawk. Doonesbury's criticism made national headlines, believe it or not.

(2) Symms' speech made no bones about his wanting to be a well-armed dove after a striped pants dove with a super big-spending checkbook in its pocket - Uncle Sam's checkbook, of course.

(3) No one can accuse the apple grower of being misunderstood that the "apple" is on Church's head and that William Tell may not be the only one in history who can take careful aim and shoot his arrow straight enough to knock off the target. And if Symms' arrows drop enough to hit Church in the seat of the pants, well, so much the better. Heaven knows there are enough gaps in the senior senator's 23-year-old armor for a whole quiver of arrows.

(4) Mainly, challenger Symms made it clear as to who he was aiming at and why. After all, though the media and Church will claim the announcement was negative, certainly no one will vote for Symms unless there is something perceived as wrong with Church in order for them to change past voting habits.

(5) But the speech was also noteworthy for what it did NOT say, and while there simply is not time enough to say everything in a 30-minute broadcast, certainly his major competition deserved honorable mention, i.e., the news media, both local and national.
Historically the major part of the media hates Symms' political philosophy and loves Church's. Generally speaking, the Jews in the Eastern United States have been counting on the Idaho senator to go to bat for Israel for years since they are big in all sorts of U.S. media circles, it's convenient to remember their friends.

To their everlasting credit they know, too, which side they are on, usually liberal, and they send money to support it. All of which is more than one can say for knee-jerk conservatives who tend to carry their conservatism to stingy lengths, especially in the arena of ideas.
This media bit carries over into Idaho for probably other reasons, namely, knee-jerk liberalism.

For example, Boise's NBC-TV affiliate Channel 7 has a news director, Sal Celeski, who allows the senator to get away with political murder. In an interview recently Church said, "National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) is spending huge amounts of money from out of state to defeat me." (NCPAC is a team of two Boise residents who set out by themselves to defeat church. They later affiliated with the Washington, D.C. firm.)

Celeski knew full well, if he's at all worth his salt, that Church had already raised almost $500,000 for his election, most of it from New York and the far East Coast. NCPAC had at the time spent approximately $50,000 against church, $21,000 of which was raised in Idaho. But Celeski, like most of the media for 23 years, was obediently silent. And Church, again, was helped to look good.

Oh well, considering the plethora of extra-conservative "coaches" with which Symms has surrounded himself for the campaign we may be lucky if the press does keep trying to make Church look good.

After all, if quarterback Symms ever does get the ball, the conservatives are apt to send in the DEFENSE team. Thusly, no matter how brilliant the star, he's got to have an opponent that looks good in order to look good himself.
I just hope he doesn't forget how he got to be that star, back in 1972.

Mint Growers Jump Into the Web

By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
January 26, 1980

Idaho's number one industry is big news again, that is with a couple of exceptions. Almost anything that agriculture does is "big," but somehow it isn't always "news." Perhaps it's because we tend to take it for granted. And that's bad.

One of the smaller segments of Idaho's agri-business is the growing of spearmint and peppermint. It is also a very IMPORTANT segment, but it is newsworthy, if not exactly "big news," for a rather interesting reason - there seems to be "too much" of it, at least too much spearmint. This tends to make the price go down.

So some mint farmers decided to "do something," i.e., get the government to LIMIT production or limit free entry into the market. This is done by what is called a federal agricultural marketing order. Congress passed a law back in1937 making such a scheme legal.

Here's more or less how it works. The mint growers in a given area (in this case mostly: Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Northern California, Utah and Nevada) petition the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture for a vote to control their production and or marketing.

If two-thirds of that area's farmers and two-thirds of the mint acreage therein "vote for" the idea then the federal government marketing order takes over. The machinery is set up through the federal department in Washington, D.C. and the other one-third of the mint farmers, those who voted no, can go to hell - so to speak.

Or, said another way: the mint they produced, and own fair and square, is not owned by them any more. In any event, it cannot be said to be "owned" if the word ownership is to have any traditional meaning. After all, ownership is supposed to mean control. for those mint farmers who don't "see it that way" the federal government threatens to throw them in jail and/or levy big fines.

Now then, before you jump to any final conclusions that the farmers are no longer independent and conservative, and self-reliant businessmen let me hasten to add something in their defense: everybody's doing it these days, or nearly everybody.

For example, the hop growers got a marketing order a few short years ago to keep anybody else from competing with them, or at least to LIMIT their competition. The milk producers in most parts of the nation have some sort of LAW to preclude free entry into their market. The trucking industry has a law to limit free entry into their business and, until recently at least, those trucking "work permits" were worth, in many cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I say "until recently" because there has been a great deal of talk in Congress about de-regulation of the trucking industry. This has, to some extent, been brought to the public's attention by the rather dramatic success of the recent de-regulation of the air lines.

As I said, everybody's getting a law passed to keep out their competition. The banks have to get a "work permit" to loan money; the radio and television stations must get one before they can do business and to hear them tell it at least they live in a kind of mortal fear of losing their work permit (some call it a license) if they exercise their freedom of speech like the newspaper people exercise every day.
To their everlasting credit the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) tried to push some truck de-regulation in the past legislature. But that particular bill, sponsored by Democrat State Senator Kermit Kiebert was killed by Republican Representative John Sessions who is chairman of the House Transportation committee.

The PUC puts it thusly, "we think removing some anti-competitive restraints would benefit the public." Well, bless Bess - after all these years. But, perhaps better late than never.

Of course, the big trucking companies are fighting de-regulation, the labor unions are fighting it, and so will some of the small truckers, who are already "in." They fight to keep their special privilege "work permits" called a PUC license.

The big labor unions, too, have an "anti-competitive restraint" in the very nature of their effort to limit free entry into their market, i.e., compulsory unionism. And while it is understandable, considering the way so much of business has lobbied for restraint of trade for many years it is nonetheless eventual disaster. Consider the U.S. balance of trade - we're in big, big, trouble. We've priced ourselves out of the world market.

And again, no matter how understandable the spearmint grower's urge to "outlaw" their competition may seem today - just watch how the producers of synthetic mint flavors will go in under the farmer's new price control law. This is to say nothing about almost certain competition from mint farmers elsewhere in the U.S. whose free entry cannot be stopped forever.

The federal "camel" already has his well-meaning nose under the farmer's tent. Tomorrow he'll be wearing it.

Unholy Alliance to Freedom?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
February 3, 1980

A letter came in the mail last week from an old friend. I think you will find it interesting, especially if you give one "hoot in Hades" about ideas that affect you and me everyday. Let me explain.

Harry Pollard is the chief Guru of the Henry George School of Social Science at Tujunga, Calif. Henry George, you may remember, was an economist who died around the turn of the century after having twice run for mayor of New York City as the Labor Party candidate.He crusaded for a somewhat unique idea called a land tax.

George had much of that same spirit of hopeful, if somewhat Utopian, political optimism that characterized the late Hubert Humphrey. Certainly both left behind a tenacious group of idea-mongers who still pursue the ancient idea of some sort of cure-all government. They tend to remind me of the age-old alchemists who sought in vain to turn lead into gold. My guess is that many still exist in Washington, D.C. under some other label perhaps, trying to turn something into nothing. And, one supposes, having some success, certainly if one considers the recent skyrocketing price of gold.

But the Georgists are no fools. And they shouldn't be taken for granted. They are decent, honest, intelligent, and concerned citizens who should be respected and whose ideas should be responded to in a measure far in excess of that accorded them by today's intellectuals.
What today passes by the label "sight-value" taxation is somewhat similar to the idea promoted and/or taught by the henry George School. They are also called single-taxers.

I mention this by way of some little background to enable me to brag on my friend Harry Pollard, an absolutely delightful and intelligent human being with whom I do not agree. I should hasten to add that I've never attended his school and therefore readily admit that if I had taken his course perhaps I'd find a larger area of agreement than I suspect.

But Pollard's literature has an absolutely GREAT communication quality to it. This is ever so rare, indeed, in this day and age of education only for the sake of education, something of which no one can accuse Pollard's school for Georgists.

Two examples of what I mean should suffice. On, Pollard says, "One test of a mature person is the taking of actions that do not produce an immediate result." Boy, oh boy, does that ever apply to these single-taxers?

The second example shows up in an article by Paul Nix, the chairman of the board of trustees of the New York Henry George School and Mobil Oil Company executive, who spends much of his time traveling the far corners of the earth.

Says Chairman Nix: "Near the window by which I write, a great bull is tethered by a ring in his nose. Grazing round and round he has wound his rope about the stake until he now stands a close prisoner, tantalized by rich grass he cannot reach, unable even to toss his head to rid himself of the flies that cluster on his shoulders. Now and again he struggles vainly, and then, after pitiful bellowings, relapses into silent misery.

"This bull, a very type of massive strength, who, because he has not wit enough to see how he might be free, suffers want in the sight of plenty, and is helplessly preyed upon by weaker creatures, seems to me (a fit) emblem of the working masses.

"... But until a trace effect to cause, until they see how they are fettered and how they may be freed,their struggles and outcries are as vain as those of the bulll. Nay, they are vainer.

"Now then, I shall go out and drive the bull in the way that will untwist this rope. But, who shall drive men into freedom?"

Nix's timely story quite obviously compares his "great bull" with our very own America, and with a literary splendor of rare quality. But if anybody is to "drive men into freedom" it is not likely to be to giant oil industry of which Nix's Mobil is a part.

Still, if one judges by that single company's current, almost radical advertising campaign, we just might learn that neither is our giant federal government likely "to drive us into freedom." And Pollard's Georgists, bless their hearts, are no doubt in there cheering all the way. By the way, I think I'll send them a donation this year. Maybe you should, too.

Take a Stand -- Gasp -- In Public?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
February 17, 1980

Something unusual happened the other night at the annual Lincoln Day Banquet in Boise - believe it or not - so stay with me a moment and I'll try to explain.

Now then, I realize that such an unusual event is extremely unlikely if not downright impossible, because Republicans tend not to like ANYTHING unusual. Or, to paraphrase their ever so popular Secretary of State Pete Cenarrusa, "Republicans are against ANYTHING (unusual) for the first time."

Well, at least everybody loves Pete, including me, even if they don't love Republicans in general, but the main Lincoln Day speaker, U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong (R-Colorado) almost made a fibber out of Cenarrusa, i.e., he actually said something unusual.

After all the usual puffery and back-slapping and stroking that can only be expected, one supposes, at such a function, i.e., the "a man who's this" and the "a man who's that," and all the routine foolishness about the "Democrats are all bad and we Republicans are all good - therefore we will prevail" etc., etc., ad nauseaum (they'll do it every time) - Armstrong actually said something PRACTICAL.

He said, "We'll win if we, (i.e., you, out there in the audience - presumably Republicans) will actually do something unusual. Perhaps you may even be doing it for the first time in your life." Then the soft-spoken GOP Senator from Colorado let 'em have it right between the eyes.

He said, "I want you to write two letters to the editor between now and election time. Two thoughtful, well-reasoned letters that you think are intelligent."

Ye gods! He actually said that? Yes, he said it alright. To be sure, I admit he said a lot of other things, too. Things that if you threw them all at the wall - some would stick and some would ooze down the wall - but he actually asked them to do something practical.

Something on which nobody in the huge dining hall could pass the buck. Something incredibly simple was all he was asking them to do.

"Numerous surveys have shown," he said, "that letters to the editor are the second most popular section of the newspaper - right after the comic pages."

After the big laughter from that wise-crack had died down. Armstrong REALLY hit 'em with: "Now then," he asked, "let's see a show of hands of those right here in this audience who will promise to WRITE those two letters!"

Well! A sort of hush seemed to fall across the huge audience. And then a few hands began to go up, here, and there, and then a few more. Some a bit timidly, some even with a bit of enthusiasm.

But while this whole scenario actually took only several seconds, (the moderately conservative senator from Colorado showed he was a master of the timely pause) it seemed like a whole five minutes because the show of hands from the audience went up so slowly and tenderly, while the speaker waited, ever so patiently. The audience was being asked to take sides, PUBLICLY. Like the politicians of whom so many of us are so often critical whenever they are reluctant to take sides publicly, they squirmed a little.

Well, I looked around the audience pretty carefully, and I'd honestly guess that about 15 percent of that audience "promised" by raising their hands, publicly, to do something - publicly.

Armstrong thanked his audience, for just what I'm not exactly sure, but he went on to say that he was able to defeat a long time, liberal Democrat incumbent senator in his home state of Colorado. He, (Armstrong) was formerly a conservative congressman like Steve Symms, and since the two state's politics were quite similar: "You Idaho Republicans can defeat your liberal U.S. Senator, too - like I did," or words to that effect.

Of course, Armstrong had previously bragged at great length on how absolutely excellent his "great and good friend" Steve Symms was (he even sounded sincere) so it naturally followed that the audience's rousing applause was in large part an enthusiastic endorsement of Symms to defeat Idaho's liberal Senator Frank Church for the U.S. Senate in 1980.

Still, the suspicion lingers that if Republicans want their politicians to take sides - publicly and with enthusiasm, they might well consider doing so themselves.

Where Else But the Streets?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
February 24, 1980

The recent teachers' demonstration in front of Idaho's capitol building raised some rather pungent observations from both laymen and educators alike. But there the similarities ended.

Those comments ran all the way from "We'd better pay them more lest they form a labor union and shut down our precious children's schools," to the other extreme of something like: "Let 'em strike, because the more money we spend on education the worse it gets."
They cite, of course, the allegation one hears and reads more and more that today's kids can hardly read and write, let alone form coherent sentences or paragraphs.

Certainly no one in his or her right mind is "against education." However, listening to much of today's political rhetoric about the subject one has to work to avoid the inference that any specific criticism of public education, i.e., any that lends itself to qualitative analysis, could only come from some Neanderthal who, almost by definition, must be a bad hombre.

The teachers have their good side of course, and much has already been said in their behalf. And not all of it has been from self serving politicians seeking to build a bigger constituency among the rather politically aware and activist, if not militant, teachers.

And many teachers, to their everlasting credit, have resisted the exhortations of labor union organizers preferring instead to view themselves as professionals. But theirs is not a free market, neither is it a private one within which the master is paid more than the dullard - save those who survive long enough to gain more pay, merely for seniority. One exception, of course, is for additional degrees of schooling which may or may not add to a teacher's ability to teach.

Indeed, it is mainly for their ability to LEARN that degrees are awarded to teachers. They are not, generally speaking, awarded for their ability to TEACH, as is so often assumed. Nevertheless the base pay is generally increased if and when teachers go back again and again to college to gather yet additional degrees often-times in subject areas which have no connection whatsoever with the particular subject the teacher teaches. That's the system which no one demonstrates against.

But not to worry. Not all educators agree. A few dissent. Some quietly and some not so quietly. One of the latter, former Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of California, Dr. Max Rafferty, tackles the problem head on.

"Education is a whore," explains Rafferty, "when the church financed education they taught religion. When business financed election they taught business, and now that government finances education they teach GOVERNMENT."
Small wonder, then, that the free market and the profit motive comes in for such short shrift from most teachers.

Over simple? Of course, but a tremendous point is made which unfortunately escapes most public discussion about schooling.

There are, certainly, many sincere, dedicated, competent and intelligent teachers doing their ever so important jobs ever so competently, but one cannot address them each one by one. Nor can one evaluate them one by one. As a matter of fact the system actually PREVENTS their being treated as individuals. THIS is what the teachers should be demonstrating about, if indeed anything is to be gained by demonstrating in the streets.

"Idaho teachers care" the placards and posters read. And Governor John Evans applauded and cheered them on. But the political type slogan doesn't really cut much ice. Far better that they had been more intellectually honest by saying, instead,"Idaho teachers want more pay." (Many do deserve more pay, but some don't.)

The late, great author, C.S.Lewis, said, "The job of education is not to chop down jungles, rather it is to irrigate deserts." Well stated! Well stated indeed, but where are they to get the water?

Well a bright and innovative school administrator brought the whole matter into sharper focus for me. He said, "I don't like the demonstrating in the streets either, Ralph, but I think you'll agree that for the most part the teachers have no place else to go (for their "water)' except to the public trough."

For some reason, I'm not quite sure why, I'd never thought of it in that way. But from now on, I can assure you, I'll be much, much, less critical of teachers marching in the streets.

Are There More Mint Flavors

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
March 2, 1980

Recently I wrote about some spearmint farmers who were attempting to get the government to impose an agricultural marketing order on the mint farmers in a large area of our Northwest. My observations suggested this was a bad idea both for them and me.

While not all mint growers favor the plan some who do have formed an organization called "Oregon-Idaho Treasure Valley Proponents" to push the plan. They sent a rather well-written letter to the editor (Press-Tribune Papers, 2-21-80) arguing with nearly all the great and wise arguments I had made, i.e., they respectfully disagreed with my criticisms. But the letter, signed by Dave Christensen, a mint grower of Greenleaf, Idaho, was so typical of the so-called reasoning that has brought this country nearly to its knees that it deserves at least a brief reply.

The mint growers must admit, I think, that their underlying premise has to be that the law of supply and demand does not work and that the two-thirds majority of farmers necessary to repeal said "law" (of supply and demand) would be far smarter in their capacity as administrative committee members "allocating" the supply and demand of spearmint for both those growers who agree and those who disagree, i.e., those who voted against the government marketing order.

You'll remember that such a legal scheme requires the vote of only two-thirds of the mint growers in a given area in order to give the government the regulator power to "manage" prices and stop free entry into their market. So Christensen's letter said, "Mr. Smeed's assumption is that under no circumstances should farmers be subjected to the rule of the majority."

Not quite true, but Smeed DOES say that any farmer is a fool to suggest that anybody has a right by majority rule to COMPEL him to buy or sell mint or hay or grain or whatever material goods he may rightly possess - no exceptions.

The mint market order letter says, that the only alternative is minority rule.

No quite true, again. Their emPHASIS is on the wrong SyLAHble. The alternative is not to have the government "rule" at all. In order words the alternative is to let the free market "rule," but the market-order advocates claim the free market doesn't work. They seem to think freedom to compete is anarchy.

Perhaps they see, and quite rightly so, that giant labor unions have a law allowing them to preclude free entry into THEIR market and they reason that the farmers are "just as deserving" of a law favoring THEIR special interest.

Put in that way they are right, but since when do TWO wrongs make a right? One bad law made requires another bad law to "correct things made wrong by the first law?" Egad!

Still, I enjoyed their thoughtful letter, but much of it was ordinary nonsequitors and euphemistic footwork. One statement, however has GOT to be a thigh-slapper. Christensen said "You will not see MANY (my emphasis) new bureaucrats from Washington D.C. as a result of this government marketing order.

I laughed out loud, but the letter went on to assure their readers that they'd run this program "different" than the other government programs. Forgive me, gentle reader but I don't even think THEY believe THAT one, although whoever helped write Dave's letter may have a kind of perverted sense of humor. If so, I'd have to applaud his daring.

The mint men make one good point, however, namely that a newspaper is a poor forum to debate "all the merits of their government program." Well that's certainly true, assuming they meant to include also the de-merits of their program and both the truth and falsehoods of each of our (his and mine) good old American rights to disagree.

So I would hereby challenge Mr. Christensen to a public debate - just him and me. Or, we could each add a couple experts, if agreeable to both of us.

I'd suggest Channel 6 television at Nampa. You call the manager, Kelly Beeman, Dave. He's got a government scheme limiting his competitor's entry into his television market (though he might not be sure it's altogether right and proper), and might be on your side. In any event I'll bet he'd like to sell our debate to one of his better advertisers in agri-business - if he has one.

It might be fun, and who knows - we BOTH might learn something.

Symms Could Sluff His Independent and Lose

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
March 9, 1980

Two items come to mind which both add to and subtract from the likelihood of Congressman Steve Symms' prospects of winning his upcoming political race with Sen. Frank Church.

Both items are quotations by famous men and both, at first blush, suggest that Symms is a cinch to defeat Church.

The late, great Will Rogers said, "I can remember way back when a liberal was one who was generous with his own money."

Now then, when looked at in the context of the U.S. Senate race, that would seem to suggest that Church, one of the widest-eyed, big-spending liberals in the U.S.A., is no doubt in big trouble. That is, given the present money crunch together with the growing awareness that "wait a minute, that's OUR money he's been buying votes with for 24 years."

The other item, a quote from perhaps the greatest criminal lawyer of all times, the late Clarence Darrow. He said, "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become president; I'm beginning to believe it."

This would seem to suggest then, that "anybody," yes, even a blunt-spoken, non-establishment, free market-leaning unorthodox Republican boat-rocker like Symms might just be the gallant knight to slay the giant.

But some perceptions of the public images of both candidates are important. Church is thought to be the darling of the eastern liberal establishment who often see to it that "anybody" can become president. He's also thought to be in the pocket of the giant socialist-leaning labor unions.

Symms, on the other hand, often howls at the moon about the virtues of the free market and, with certain notable exceptions, less government. This frightens many voters since they erroneously perceive the chamber of commerce mentality (i.e. the private sector) as favoring the free market, limited government idea.

Of course it's true that church is churning both newsprint and airwaves furiously trying to be more conservative than Symms and, in the case of Cuba at least, even more hawkish. But his eastern liberal support actually backfired, thus adding to the trouble he's already in back home. Virtually all the big news magazines claim Church is in big trouble and just may be defeated.

But Symms has some problems, too. Some of the big monied corporations fear the boat-rocking congressman's free market, private ownership ideas just might undo their long and cozy relationships with government-owned land, lumber and law made to order for their own special interests. These will support Church.

While it's true that Symms' super-conservative advisors are no doubt sincere, it is an absolutely delightful paradox that they're urging him to NOT irritate the business community (who run to Boise and Insane City, D.C. for special favors) NOT to irritate that huge part of the liberal news media who hate his conservative guts; NOT to offend this and that voting block is making their nonorthodox candidate into a fish out of water.

Symms' long suit has always been a vigorous, idealistic offense packaged in a super-open (for a conservative) enthusiastic, breath-of-fresh-air charm and personality. His old free market, private ownership, limited government articulation somehow seems a little less studied, and, his advisors must hope, a little less risky in exchange for a little more orthodox, cautious and guarded Constructive Republican Alternative Proposal (CRAP) approach for "the big race."

Here's one of the latest jackass situations Symms' conventional type supporters are fond of:

"The nation's 5,000 savings and loan associations and mutual savings banks, which are, in Business Week's words, "positioning themselves for the biggest bail-out of the mortgage industry since the Depression."

"On their behalf, Senators Jacob Javits (R-N.Y.) and Alan Cranstan (D-Calif.) have offered an amendment requiring the Government National Mortgage Association to buy $4.5 billion in low-yielding thrift mortgages over the next three years. The 'thrift' institutions are looking for the bail-out because their money is tied up in mortgages written when interest rates were lower. They'd naturally like to put it into higher-yielding loans so they've made that increasingly familiar call to Washington."

While neither candidate should have it both ways this next time, if Symms does not attack this kind of "crap" from his own side AS WELL as the liberals he may lose the amazing credibility his idealism has built up.

One of his young supporters pretty well summed it up recently in response to those urging him to be pragmatic: "In politics," he said, "you're either an idealist or a whore."

Our Debt to Frank Church

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
March 16, 1980

Idaho's senior senator, Frank Church, has announced his request for yet another six years to add to those 24 years at Insane City, D.C., that he's already had.

However, we are all indebted to the sincere politician for his announcement speech itself because it sort of "sets the record straight," i.e., the way HE sees it.

It's almost incredible, but it's been said often enough that the only thing Americans learn from history is that they don't learn anything from history - and sure enough, here we go again.

Let me cite some excerpts from his announcement speech. Church attacked opponent Steve Symms for his support of the shrinking private sector of our economy as against the growing government sector. The senator's term: "Symms supports the wealthy."

"A small state like ours needs a senator who occupies a position of strength," Church said, referring to his being chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. One wonders why, given the absolute shambles in which we see the U.S. foreign policy, that Church would have the guts to even refer to it, much less brag about it.

But it's been said before, when one is in big trouble that the best defense is a vigorous offense and Idahoans tend to love a gutsy politician.

Of course the remark itself suggests that the big states are "bad" and small states are "good." Church, somehow or other, is supposed to protect us with his clout even though almost his entire philosophy has always been in sympathy with the giant eastern liberal states and their liberal senators. With his help they've dominated the U.S. Senate for decades. Still do. Another interesting contradiction.

"Preserving our western way of life against imposition of unwanted gun controls" was another promise of the almost tenured senator. But imposed by whom? And against whom? By that government the liberals have worshiped, so sincerely, for lo' these many years - that's who!

But sincere or not it most assuredly has not worked. Government has run amuck and Congressman Steve Symms has been saying exactly that ever since he was first elected.

Church claimed to have saved railroad passenger service for the betterment of Idaho by installing the money-losing, government-owned "Amtrak" rail service. But, again, he forgot to tell the people that his almost blind support of the giant eastern labor unions virtually assured the destruction of private operation and control of anything resembling an Amtrak. The latter is little less than "socialized medicine" for transportation's chronic belly-ache.

Church went on to say that Symms was ineffective because "he is so far out, so removed from the philosophical mainstream of either party as to go unheeded or ignored."

That ladies and gentlemen is not only a true statement, it is also a windfall profit - for Symms. The Fair Elections Committee (FEC) should compel Symms to pay Church's campaign committee for "value received" and laid right in the apple grower's lap.
Politics in America stinks! Some less than other perhaps, but the two-party system is intellectually dishonest, if not actually bankrupt and Idaho voters are at last beginning to see it.

Symms went to Georgia once to campaign for a maverick conservative Democrat and caught hell for it from the GOP hierarchy, but Idahoans, generally, loved him for it. He is, indeed "outside" the mainstream of either party. Too bad his orthodox advisors can't see fit to exploit it. Fortunately, however, Symms doesn't always follow instructions. He may exploit it himself, if he doesn't run out of courage.

Well, church said a lot of things, but pretty well summed up the attack on his conservative opponent with an attack on private property as against government property, i.e., wilderness lock-ups. There's lots of misunderstandings about the private sector of America because, generally speaking, the education establishment, and hence the news media, are hell bent against it.

Private ownership is the lynch-pin of liberty - against what Jefferson called the "tyranny" of too much government. With all it's abuses it is still the main difference between our system and that of the Soviet Union.

So we are indeed indebted to Church, after all these years, for setting much of the record straight. We'll see if the knee-jerk liberal media can cover-up this time - with both candidates (forgive me) telling the truth.

Proxmire's Refreshing Views

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
March 23, 1980

Last week Boise State University students were host to a new kind of speaker in the person of U.S. Sen. William Proxmire.
The big wheel Democrat from Wisconsin, you will remember, is additionally famous for his presentations of a real sheepskin fleece, which he calls his "Golden Fleece Award." It is given with public fanfare, to those people who have promoted the season's most asinine waste of the government's money. (Wait a minute, that's our money.)

His forthcoming book, "The Fleecing of America," will tell more about such schemes; for example, as a government grant to study "why people say ain't" or to study the "sex life of a frog."

Of course, the good senator neglected to mention that since government subsidies of education have produced such a surplus of college graduates that some people are saying it is therefore only fair, i.e., the government should provide leaf-raking type jobs for them since much of their studies prepare them for little else.

But in spite of a few "thin" spots in the senator's lively, timely and ever so enthusiastic and intelligent speech, he did make some great points. One of these was his observation that everywhere he goes "the people out there want this spending stopped." He said, "I've never seen anything like it before and I'm greatly pleased. These big spenders should be stamped out at the polls and not returned to Washington."

I said the BSU students hosted a "new kind" of speaker because all too often the bill-of-fare of campus speakers all over America has consisted of super humanists at home and super doves abroad. BSU, generally speaking, hasn't been all that much different. Proxmire was. And congratulations are due to some of the student directors of the speakers program.

The four term senator wanted it understood that he wanted a "strong military," but there was an incredible amount of "fat" in the military budget. The most colorful examples however, of gross, brainless and weak-headed asininity on the part of government were over-shadowed by Proxmire's articulate and candid presentation of his not so "holier-than-thou" attitude usually expected of a senator.

He was asked from the floor if a senator's long years of tenure in office was good reason to return him or her to office. "Absolutely not," he replied, "no reason at all. If he's a big spender he should be defeated." In other words, according to the long time Wisconsin senator, seniority was by itself a very poor basis for re-election.

But best of all, in my humble view, was his answer to the query from the audience as to whether the judgment, responsibility and wisdom of the Congress was in any way superior to those same qualities in the various state legislatures.

"Absolutely now," he quickly responded, "and in addition they are also closer to the people."

"Okay," came a further inquiry from the same questioner, "then what do you think about an idea proposed by some big business tycoons in Idaho who advised our governor to have the federal government's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collect Idaho's income tax? They claim it'd save a million and a half dollars per year."

Proxmire raised his arms and raised his voice: "I think it's a terrible idea." He went on to explain to the effect that the federal government was just not very capable of anything - especially where money was concerned.

Hearing what many of us interpreted as the most "pro-Steve Symms" speech we'd heard in years, another questioner, humorously asked, "the big question" from the gutsy senator: "Should Idahoans vote for Symms or Church come next November?"

"Well," Proxmire smiled, "I'm a Democrat and Frank Church is a Democrat and he's my friend and I think he should be returned to office."

Then he hastened to add, "I don't know your Congressman Symms who is challenging Frank, although I understand he's a competent young man and has a fine reputation."

Well, the late Will Rogers said that he'd rather be right than be elected. Sounds to me like today's politicians would rather be both.

Fitting, Census Was Due April 1

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
April 6, 1980

Census day has come and gone, and, so has April Fool's Day. The latter was, in olden days, called All Fool's Day.

One guesses the latter had to be charged because "one" day was not long enough to celebrate all the fools, hence the change to April fool's.

But kidding aside, more than $50 billion (repeat, billion) of federal tax money is now allocated to state and local projects based on census figures. No wonder people are willing to conform.

However, according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) the politicians and the social workers have loaded the 1980 census down with more freight than the enterprise can handle.

A whole slew of ethnic groups, for example, wanted the census to count them separately thus making it easier for them to qualify for federal aid.

Cities are scared to death of an undercount because the 1970 census overlooked an estimated 2.3 percent of the population. (Not bad I'd say.)

They think, of course, they might lose government handouts if their town is somehow undercounted. The WSJ's article goes on to say, "the cities are aided by minority groups pressing the census for special efforts to count Spanish-speakers, illegal aliens, ..." etc. all in a mad rush, no doubt, to get in under the government's gigantic cow's udder with their own bucket.

These efforts even went so far as to include a special assurance from the attorney general last week that participating in the census was not going to get illegal aliens (i.e., wet-backs) in trouble. Egad!

I talked to one of the prime movers in the illegal alien "movement" in Los Angeles recently and he told me why they prefer the term "undocumented" aliens over illegal aliens.

I had asked why, since they are clearly illegal, whether it matters if one thinks they are good or bad. He explained tome quite matter-of-factly. "Well, this part of the country was not always OWNED (my emphasis) by white Americans."

Okay, so that gives you some idea what may be in store for what the late H.L. Mencken called the "boobish-Americanus."

But back to the census.

The government wants to know how many flush toilets you have in your home, and if you have a mental condition which limits your use of public transportation.

Then if you don't mind blabbing this sort of babble to the bureaucrats you can answer their question as to what race you belong to, or what was the highest grade you reached in school (never mind whether or not they taught you to read and write).

They not only want to know if and when your building was built and/or remodeled, but how much it's worth, in increments of $2,500 to $5,000, with 24 multiple choices up to $200,000. Presumably all this is so you can be accurate, but given the high speed with which the government is printing paper money - the price information you give, no matter how sincerely you try - is guaranteed to be fleeting if not completely wrong. And given the present divorce rate, so is the answer to. "How many times have you been married?"

"Census statistics are an essential link in the chains which big government has used to bind down the American people," says Scott Royce in a recent issue of Inquiry magazine.

He also said one of the census bureau's 1970 promotional pamphlets sort of summed it all up pretty well: "Every question included in the census is asked because the information is needed by some agency of government, federal, state, or local, to guide important programs ..."
Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers defending the census put it this way: "In order to represent best the views of all the people, a member of Congress should obviously be informed as to what percentage are lunatics."

Too bad Hamilton and his colleagues didn't foresee just how absolutely enormous that percentage was destined to become.

News Meida's Distorted View of Leadership

By Ralph Smeed
News-Tribune
April 13, 1980

When anyone mentions the word "freedom," the first thing that pops into one's mind is "freedom of the press." This stems from the fact that the news media boosts the idea every chance it gets. And rightly so.

Most people wouldn't have it any other way, but it'd help a lot if the media saw fit to fight just as vigorously for OTHER people's freedoms. Not instead of, but in addition to their own.

Still, it seldom happens. One reason may be a kind of god-complex they tend to get when finding some power in their lap. The phenomenon is somewhat more visible in the arena of politics and politicians, whose raw power is sought after these days with more and more intensity - egged on, with few exceptions, by the news media.

A case in point is a recent column by Kevin Roche of the Lewiston Morning Tribune, entitled "Blame It On the Leadership." Roche is a liberal Democrat, or at least writes for a liberal Democrat paper and the recent Legislature was "run" by a Republican majority, so it's no surprise when he said, "Put simply the Legislature is in a shambles."

His column ended with, "All that was needed was some leadership." That was what he said, but what he meant, of course, was all that was needed was some leadership in that "direction" (undefined) which HE thought was proper.

For example, Roche explained that: "Those men who sit in the chairs of power either exert it too timidly (Speaker of the House Ralph Olmstead) or too violently (Senate Majority Leader James Risch) or not at all (Senate President Pro Tem Reed Budge).

What the Lewiston Tribune's columnist neglected to tell you is that the "leadership" which he claims is so badly needed comes from that opposite political philosophy to which he himself belongs, namely, conservative Republican. Seen in this context it's an altogether different story of the "govern-mentality" frustrated by the 1 percent tax limit.

All of which is not to say that Roche isn't entirely within his rights of freedom of the press. It is to say that the leadership's actions deserve to be reported in the light of their own philosophy which is vigorously at odds with his.

Now then, Bill Hall, super-liberal editorial page editor of that same newspaper, is more candid. He attacks Risch openly, directly and with great gusto: "But what Risch did was no minor eruption. Before he had finished he had alienated the entire Idaho House of Representatives - wall to wall ..."

Both Hall and Roche scream for leadership and then scream to get rid of it. They attempt to suck and blow in the same breath. The leadership, about which they complain almost not at all, is "their" leader, Gov. John Evans. The latter - you guessed it - is another liberal Democrat.

Hall closes his column with: "The Legislature will be back in session Monday with this fresh reminder to the Senate Majority Leader (Risch) that neither he nor the Senate are the whole Legislature. (Most of the media resisted Risch's favoring the 1 percent tax law.)

That's leadership, gentle reader; they're damned if they lead and damned if they don't, depending whether or not the media likes the "direction" in which they lead. Unfortunately it's seldom couched in those particular terms, partly for the reason that GOPers somehow lack the guts to force the media to disclose their so-called liberal bias (which is really more "power-happy" than liberal).

There's also Boise Statesman columnist Alice Dieter, another card carrying super-liberal (in a slightly better sense of that word) who wrote a recent post-legislative criticism headlined "Idaho's Petty, Inferior Lawmakers." Lamenting the resignation of her legislative hero, State Sen. Richard High of Twin Falls, she says: "... if public office becomes too frustrating no one of High's (high) caliber will be willing to step forward to replace him." But too much government tends always to frustrate, and rightly so.

Dieter's hero, High, is high caliber, however, because he, too, is another super-liberal fellow who most assuredly tends to "love" government as does Dieter. In fairness to Alice, she does harbor some skepticism as to the government's compulsory school system - one of the most gigantic monopolies of all time.

But leadership, whether of the liberal, conservative, or freedom variety, tends to arise out of a demand, a demand brought about by a philosophy, believe it or not, in the minds of the people. Much of this, of course, is molded (no pun) by the media.

That philosophy maybe conscious or subconscious, authoritarian or free, rational or irrational - good or bad. But it's always there. You can depend on it. Leadership rises to meet philosophy - even a philosophy of what the late socialist George Orwell called "new-speak" or "double-think."

Or, he might have added: "no-think at all," which seems to be what Idaho's knee-jerk liberal news media tends to call freedom of the press. they mean, of course, their freedom to lead.

Not Too Much Competition for Ideas

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
April 20, 1980

Today's crisis in the sports arena includes more than the present boycott of the Olympics scheduled to be held in Soviet Russia this year. Indeed, the intellectual honesty vacuum among the Olympic boosters is almost as blatant as in much of today's politics.

Now that's a pretty severe criticism. I know, but when one remembers Adolph Hitler's use of the Olympics for propaganda purposes the comparison becomes all too real. And further, the rotten political treatment Taiwan (Free China) got at the hands of the Olympic "politicians" and earlier the similarly rotten treatment they handed to South Africa blacks who were all set to compete as members of that country's athletic group, puts the life to the Olympic's claim of "non-political."

But there is another "olympic" game going on continually all over the world which so very much influences us all, whether we know it or not, and that's the world competition with what goes on in sports. There's a remarkable parallel. I think, so bear with me.

Ask most any red-blooded American what section of the paper he most enjoys and seven chances out of 10 he'll answer, "the sports page."

Why? Well, maybe he likes competition. and maybe he likes competitors who know what SIDE they're on. If a team of football players has the ball, they put in the offense team and head toward a goal which is clearly in their best interest, i.e., to win. Then if they lose the ball the players all defend the same goal and pretty much for the same reasons.

Now, I'm often told that people are "no darn good," that they are greedy and tend to compete too hard for what they want, but I wonder. If the referees and the rule makers tried to tell the ball players and sports enthusiasts that they each had to have a lawyer and an accountant to help them play "legally" - how long would they sit still for it?

Yet, that's what our government regulators are telling us more and more these days. And even worse - they change the rules in the middle of the game. These referees also frequently take sides with competition.

But in most sporting events, most of the time, most everybody knows what the rules are, knows where and what the goals are and can reasonably expect the referees to refrain from taking sides. "A fair field and no favors" with principles and concepts that are understood because they're out in the open and proudly held fosters a reasonable kind of freedom.

Now then, it's also true in the arena of ideas except that in many ways we've been led to believe that the only place ideas can exist or even be changed is in the arena of politics. Maybe this isn't necessarily so, but many are led to THINK it's so. Enough, at least, to make political life in America seem to most people a game of futility, therefore ideas tend to be a game of obscure motives, obscure rules and obscure goals or, worse yet, no goals at all. Except perhaps one: "You can't fight City Hall." Small wonder people turn off at ideas.

But if ideas are ever again to compete with the sports page personalities we might take a page from their book and learn to take sides openly. Let's compete with principles and concepts and have some goals worthy of our signature in public - right out in the open arena - in front of God and everybody, with a healthy respect for our opponent's freedom before it's too late.

Now then, comparing the battle for ideas with the battle for competition in Olympic sports admittedly leaves something out. But it leaves something in also, and maybe - just maybe, we ought to consider the athlete's responsibility alongside of the responsibility of our politicians.

For example, our athletes have known for years the Russian athletes are paid professionals while we can use only amateurs. A tremendously unfair advantage, of course. Well, their decision to compete under the phony terms was definitely a political decision.
Perhaps those athletes who are understandably furious at not getting to play this year in Moscow after all their years of training should consider some severe training in the arena of freedom - namely, OTHER people's freedom, like Afghanistan's.

That's what today's world "politics" that they so rightly, if naively, downgrade is all about.

Unfortunately the competition in that arena doesn't have the usual first place, second place and third place.

All that one has is first - and last.

Good News -- 'Freedom Works'

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
April 27, 1980

Here's some GOOD news for a change: "Experience has convinced me," a tremendously bright friend of mine said recently, "that there is a thousand times more goodness, wisdom and love in the world than men imagine."

Well, it's awful hard to imagine the existence of goodness, wisdom and love when quite the opposite is being drummed into our heads day in and day out.

Television, newspapers and radio emphasize the sordid, the bizarre, the ugly. Newscasters or news-readers specialize in disaster. For one of countless examples, a DC-10 crash is headlined around the world. But who sees or hears mention of the millions of miles flown daily in perfect safety?

The preponderance of bad news has a traumatic effect on those exposed to it. Millions of people are downcast, overwhelmed by gloom, seeing nothing ahead but disaster, murder, rape, mugging, vandalism, arson, armed robbery, theft or whatever.

This atmosphere of disaster tends to make us prophets of doom, stranded without hope, unable to see or imagine how freedom would (and could) work its wonders in a newsworthy fashion.

Reflect for a moment on some of the bad news headlines about our country: rising prices and wages and interest rates, fuel and housing shortages, unemployment, unfavorable trade balances, high costs of health care, more people claiming welfare, monumental educational problems, and mounting crime rates.

What we are being told by such headlines, if we'll only stop to ponder, is that coercive governmental intervention is bad news.

Despite the good intentions of the proponents of easy money and credit, Social Security, Medicare, protectionism, subsidies to special interests, wage and price controls, more or different welfare programs - despite those good intentions the bad news is that each step of socialistic tampering leads inevitably to consequences that are undesirable. And the more burdensome and stifling the rules and regulations are, the greater the temptation to ignore or break such laws. This results in new demands upon government to cope with the consequences of the previous intervention. Bad news compounded!

Now think about that. Is it really bad news that coercive measures lead to undesirable consequences? No, not really. It would indeed be bad news if the consequences were anything else - if bad methods could be employed to yield good results.

So, behind the "bad news" headlines on the state of the economy is the good news that socialism cannot deliver on its promises of something for nothing. There is an alternative, a better way, and that better alternative is freedom. Freedom, if you will, from too much government.

The good news concerns the private ownership and control of scarce and valuable resources and the voluntary exchange of goods and services in open competition - with government limited to keeping the peace and invoking a common justice. The good news is that we'll better serve ourselves and others when each is free to act creatively as he (or she) chooses. The good news is that coercion diminishes both the resources and the productivity of everyone involved.

Recently I read of a television station in Europe specializing in reporting only the Good news. What a godsend if all of us could tune in to a "good news freedom station" - because those of us saturated with the bad news of violence and plunder are indeed hungering for the good news of freedom and its many blessings.

What a viewer market such a TV station could profitably serve.

The foregoing story I have excerpted with small variations from a recent essay by my great and good friend Leonard Read, the present "dean of freedom" in the whole world in my humble opinion. This venerable octogenarian founded the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson (FEE), New York, way back in 1946. From his ever so low key efforts at FEE has sprung all sorts of freedom "dividends" like Nobel laureate colleagues he's helped to make famous, to freedom-loving union organizers; to at least one Latin American country's revolution toward freedom - believe it or not - to all sorts of freedom-loving activists, both more and less radical than he.

This wise and lovable 82-year-old closes the above essay with: "The good news is that individuals best discover themselves and realize their potentialities when free. And thus do they contribute most to the good of their loved ones, their nation - and the world."

And if you knew "Leonardo," as he's affectionately called, like I do, you might want to add: "The good news is that Read just MIGHT live forever - at least he's made a great start."

Leonard would be happy if his ideas survive.

Public Television Deserves a Little Help

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
May 4, 1980

Of all the dyed-in-the-wool attitudes toward the "free lunch" and "what-have-you-done-for-me-lately" syndrome now growing in America by leaps and bounds these days, I thought Boisean Avery L. Peterson's recent letter to the editor was the greatest.

His protest against the government's "Free TV" (Channel 4) for their plethora of pleadings for pledges, or, in Mr. Peterson's own words: "Why we should call 385-1800 and cough up money," was poison pen polemics at its very best.

He said he was, "bloody well tired of hearing again and again AND AGAIN, and yet again" (his actual quote) why Channel 4 should get more donations from its viewers. One supposes he didn't like to hear them "beg" for donations. Apparently it disrupted his entertainment. Perhaps it was beneath his dignity. Or perhaps it somehow made him feel "guilty."

That's socially fashionable these days since feeling guilty is urged upon us by battalion after battalion of the government's social engineers-of-human-progress. Most of these "engineers" have been "educated" at government expense, their financing having come from the same place as the government's TV. The latter is sometimes called the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), but again one wonders if Mr. Peterson's "public" is the same "public" as mine.

He says he's "a supporter and long-time appreciative receiver," but if he hears their plea for pledges, he says, "one more time I will cease and desist my basic urge to contribute." Strange appreciation, I'd say. Sounds like what disgruntled people are supposed to do in the market place, i.e., when it's left alone. In that environment it's be most proper, but not in the government's growing non-market economy of today.

His letter's last line against channel 4's elongated fund-raising was best of all: "I think you get the message," he said, "Shut it off." (He meant, of course, the plea for money.)It was his best line because it was also the best reply that Channel 4 could possibly have made in response to his bitter complaint - "Shut it off."

After all, that's all one has to do - unless, of course, in addition to a free lunch and what-have-you-done-for-me-lately type of mental health, Mr. Peterson may want-his-cake-and-eat-it-too.

To sum it all up, however, I must admit that he isn't the only inconsistent viewer of Channel 4. So am I. Unlike him I fought the government's entrance into the TV business many years ago. I thought the so-called private TV stations would excel and support the free market economy and the private sector. They didn't. They still don't. And they're not free, either. In that regard they just may DESERVE the so-called competition they're getting from government TV.

For example, offsetting the many socialist programs on all the channels (including Channel 4) where else does one find William F. Buckley's "Firing Line" and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose"? You guessed it, Channel 4. But it costs real dough and apparently taxes are not enough.

No, Mr. Peterson, in my view, Boise's Channel 4 should NOT be scolded, as you did, for asking for money and asking, and asking. After all, where else can they go when their government budget peters out? They are precluded by law from selling advertising as the government-sanctioned monopoly or so-called private TV stations must, can and do. THAT'S as free as TV can get.

And finally, for whatever it may be worth, and judging from how long and how hard they pleaded for donation, I'd guess they're forced to be fiscal conservatives who've found that 2+2 equals 4 and not 22. For this they should be applauded, not scolded.

And at the risk of damaging his fine reputation for trying to put up with philosophies as widely divergent as Peterson's and mine, I say hats off to Channel 4 Manager Jack Schlaefle and his staff, generally, for their courtesy and competence. And particularly for his own helpful attitude and patience.

Perhaps some of professor Peterson's former colleagues still teaching at Boise State University could help him cope with what Milton Friedman - a great libertarian professor, by the way - has tried so far, unsuccessfully, to teach us: Namely, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" - or free TV.

Do We Know What We're Doing?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
May 11, 1980

How much junk mail have you received in the past 90 days? Enough to almost fill a bushel basket, I'll bet.

Well, so have I. But whether this is good or bad isn't so easy to measure. I keep hearing friends complain that they cannot possibly send money to all the "good causes" since there are, presumably, too many - therefore they tend to throw up their hands in despaire. Or perhaps it's just an easy cop-out a tough decision with the added benefit of saving some money.

In any event I had a house guest recently who gave me a new slant on the problem. He was Dr. Augustin Navarro, economist, lawyer, columnist and internationally known libertarian from Mexico City.

I'll spare you the long list of his many contributions to the world-wide concerns with the disappearance of human freedom, but he was here to attend a seminar on the matter at Sun Valley, and when we returned to my home a few days later the pile of "junk mail" waiting for me was as usual stacked up a foot deep. I'm afraid the suggestion that followed, i.e., that my guest examine just how awesome was the junk mail burden, was motivated more out of my search for sympathy than anything else. Nevertheless he gracefully accepted the invitation.

When I returned about an hour later Navarro exclaimed, "What an absolutely great challenge you Americans have - over half of this pile of mail consists of offers of an opportunity to help, in so very many and interesting ways, the cause of freedom and free enterprise."

He went on to say that, "Unfortunately, in my country so many of the so-called free enterprisers are not much interested in free enterprise. In face some are even against it, but here, you Americans have many, many organizations actually trying to do something positive, to speak up, and enlighten."

Okay, fella, how do you like THEM apples? Well, I like 'em - although I must admit that I was sort of surprised to get such a vigorous, enthusiastic and actually bright-side response pointing out something I tended to see as a big burden was, instead, a big opportunity.
Now then, I don't want to sound like Pollyanna. Neither, I'm sure, does Navarro. In fact, in his view, the matter of both individual freedoms and economic freedoms are fast disappearing in Mexico, partly from the vigorous Communist idea "pushers" there and partly from a general economic illiteracy prevailing in his country among otherwise well-informed and influential people.

However, a rather alarming parallel seems to exist in both Mexico and the United States among most business and professional people. They couldn't care LESS about the freedoms so vigorously cared for by the libertarian founding fathers of America. There is, on our side of the border, much ado about anti-Communism, but somehow there's even more ado about ANTI anti-Communism.

Why? Well, I'm not sure, but it may have something to do with us conservatives having a sort of pre-occupation and super concern for tradition tending to maintain the status-quo rather than a pursuit of freedom itself.

Having been a card-carrying conservative myself for years, I feel a great kinship for something in that direction, but Nobel laureate Milton Friedman's recent TV series, "Free to Choose," did a great job trying to put the matter into focus.

Still, much of our own business community seems hell-bent on a death wish, even at this late date. Instead of a "free to choose" idea they pursue tax gimmicks, tariffs and import quotas. They cluck cluck about "innovative' financial and technological resources "working together to improve production to help slay the inflationary dragon." But scarcely a word about stopping the government's printing-press money - not to mention that controversial word, freedom. Or, shades of Adam Smith, the word: capitalism. Or, shades of Bill Buckley the word, news media bias.

Well, my freedom-loving friend from Mexico City left me with yet another almost profound, if unnerving, thought-for-the-day, just before he left for home.

He said, "You Americans amaze me. You seem terribly, if also rightly, concerned about Communism in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, indeed all around the world.

"But right in your own international back yard, your neighbor, Mexico,with an oil field as large as Saudi Arabia's, you seem almost blind to the growth of Communism. And nobody in your country hardly raises their voice."

My feeble response was at least sincere: "Well, maybe the oil companies will someday begin making tax-deductible grants to some libertarian schools, colleges and centers and promote capitalism.

"Heaven knows 'big oil' has financed enough socialist ones."

The Other Guys Aren't Playing Games

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
May 18, 1980

All of a sudden, somehow, the U.S. has decided the Russian communists are actually serious and may actually mean to "do-us-in" - like Afghanistan maybe.

Well, their leaders have written books, published and distributed them, all round the world saying right out loud that communism and capitalism cannot co-exist side by side. "One or the other," they say, "must die." But we giggle and pooh-pooh it.

Even Adolf Hitler wrote in his book, "Mein Kampf," that he was going to conquer the world, but our story-book visionaries, like England's myopic politician of the 1940's, Neville Chamberlain,thought an umbrella was protection enough.

Hitler very nearly got the job done, too. Will we ever learn? And now the Soviet Union has sold its ideas right here in America. Socialism is less controversial in education circles today than capitalism.

Now, I seldom like to refer to foreign "bad guys" preferring instead to focus attention on the "good buys" here at home who torpedo freedom ideas, it seems, every time they get a chance. But, like it or not, the communist threat is also very real.

However, much of our failure to lower the threat of communism just may be our failure to understand its true nature.
Too many groups think it means too many different things, but they are usually by-products of the basic problems. Let me try a new, sort of unique angle at this game we seem so hell-bent on losing.

Many people who oppose communism would not do so if it encouraged "freedom of worship." Many others would not oppose the communists if they encouraged "free elections." Still others who oppose communism would not do so if it encouraged "civil liberties."

But none of these groups oppose communism because of what it really is - a false theory of production and exchange that cannot even attempt to function in the presence of (1) belief in God, (2) political liberty and (3) freedom of economic choice. These people, in not attacking communism as an "economic system" are not attacking the basic evil which necessitates the other evils. They want to lop off selected branches of the tree instead of killing the roots.

Another mistake is over-acceptance of the partial truth that the conflict is primarily a military struggle between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. and that if the two can learn to co-exist without war, the destructive impact of communism will disappear.

The truth is that if every country now living under communism were to disappear from the face of the earth, the real threat - the idea of utopian prosperity under government ownership (i.e., control) - would still remain.

Until the fraudulent, unworkable theory of Marxian economics is thoroughly and permanently discredited - just as thoroughly and permanently as was the theory that the world is flat - there will be no permanent protection from the seductive appeal of something for nothing.

The trouble is discouragingly simple: the economists who know the truth do not have the vocabulary to communicate with the masses of people who must know the truth before their judgement can be sound. Because of this language barrier, the great majority of people consider economics to be beyond their ability to understand.

Actually, the basic principles (all that are needed to expose the communist fraud) are simple. For example, ALL economic freedom starts with one common denominator - "freedom of choice."

This applies to where we want to work, what we want to work at, what we want to produce, what we want to buy whom we want to buy it from, where we want to live, etc., etc. These are things people cannot be permitted to do under communist economics because they interfere with government planning.

Karl Marx was right about one thing every functioning economy needs a dictator. But Marx picked the wrong one: government. Free enterprise operates under the right one; the free customer who, by merely refusing to buy, by taking his patronage elsewhere can "dictate" to any business, large or small which does not offer what he wants at the right price - if (repeat, if) the market is left free and the government doesn't "stack the deck."

The sad part of this economic illiteracy is that it is so unnecessary, even though it must be admitted that much of today's organized education, not unlike much of today's organized religion, seems to have a vested interest in obscurity, i.e., keeping simple knowledge from the people.

Simple literature which would present no problem at all to the vast majority of people, is readily available to anyone who is interested. Write the American Economic Foundation, 51 East 42nd St. New York, N.Y. 10017 where most of this unique little "angle on communism came from. You'll love their ideas.

And finally, why do you suppose America's politicians and citizens are NOT interested in the economic information that would enable them to attack communism at its source?

The answer is that they do not think of communism as economics.

Don't Vote, It Only Encourages Them

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
May 25, 1980

Last week our local Chamber of Commerce sponsored what it called a "Candidate's Forum" - at a luncheon, believe it or not. The large meeting room was almost full, too, made up of, I'd guess, about half candidates and half civilians. An excellent, big turn out.

Now then, everyone there seemed to be on their good behavior, whatever that was worth. But more than that, nearly ever attendee seemed quite sincere, both in attending and in what he or she had to contribute.

However, after the "sincere" bit the logic in the whole exercise, I'm afraid, was just about spent, i.e., if logic ever had anything to do with politics - which I doubt.

About this meeting some random observations: There may be a bit more interest in politics than usual. but this is bad as well as good. For example, I'm currently using a gummed label on my personal mailing envelopes on which appears in bright red letters: "DON'T VOTE, it only encourages them."

Now, some people will say that is unpatriotic and allege that if you don't vote then you can't criticize what the politicians do to you afterward. But, again, not everything works. I've tried it both ways, and believe me it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. And I do believe it's getting worse.

Some libertarian students of the subject offer that if you do, indeed, vote you agree, tacitly at least, to be bound by the outcome - no matter what the politicians decide. Think about it. They've got a point.

One is reminded that only a few years ago an Idaho statewide referendum showed overwhelmingly Idaho voters did not (repeat, did not) want the legislators to raise their salary. In the very next session of the legislature they did just the opposite, whereupon one eastern Idaho county recalled two of their representatives who "disobeyed" the statewide referendum.

What happened? Well, the very next time the legislators met in Boise they passed another law. This time they made it tougher, many say next to impossible, to recall one of their members.

And, even today, many legislators still insist, with "sincere" regrets of course, that the "1 percent initiative" had too many technical flaws to take it seriously and reduce government that much. Voters sometimes don't understand, you know.

Be that as it may, the overwhelming theme that nearly all the candidates seemed to echo ever-so-enthusiastically was "free enterprise, balanced budget and less government." Ho, ho, ho.

It was like the French deja vu - it seems like I've been here before.

With possible apologies to Idaho State Democrat Chairman Wayne Fuller who came to represent Idaho's super-liberal Sen. Frank Church and to Phil Reberger, number one manager for Idaho's super-conservative contestant for Church's 23-year seat, Congressman Steve Symms, nearly everyone else said over and over, "we need less government, less inflation, and a balanced budget." (In fact the politicians were so nearly unanimous on free enterprise I just may re-examine my own position.)

Seriously though, I say "with apologies" to Church and Symms' representatives for sparing us the luncheon's "less government" routine, but I should add it's probably partly because the former doesn't seem to believe it and the latter seems to be saying little else. But, like the local candidates, they say it with - conviction, concern and caring.

Perhaps I should have added: and name familiarity. That, gentle reader, is the name of the game - name-familiarity. THAT is why candidate Kidwell will probably beat candidate Craig for the GOP nomination to replace Symms for Congress. And it is certainly one of the main reasons Church is so far ahead of Symms in the Second congressional District in eastern Idaho where almost nobody ever heard, until now, of Sunny Slope or Symms' big red apples - with or without the famous "bite."

It's a sad commentary, that. Almost without exception the candidate must, and usually does, say, "I have such great confidence in the Idaho voters (or Oregon, or Oklahoma, or you-name-it) and their super-intelligence that they will vote for me on account of all the things I've GIVEN them, i.e., my record.

"But just in case they're as dumb as my opponent's platform seems to suggest, I'll buy radio spots and accuse him of getting too much money from out of state - like big oil men from Texas, or big Jews from New York."

Which, by the way, is probably just what I'd be doing if I were from Texas, or new York and gave a damn.

Flash! Symms and Church Won

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
June 1, 1980

Last week's primary election pointed up two rather colorful phenomena: (1) All sorts of peregrinations by both candidate's supporters hoping to suggest that somehow a large turnout for their hero in the primary vote would indicate he would win big, come next November's vote.

Me thinks that a rather asinine assumption, but both sides campaigned vigorously toward such an end. One could suppose, however, that their "troops" might well be inspired thereby.

And (2) the spending of considerable, if not huge, sums of money for advertising for candidates who were UNOPPOSED in their primary race.

Why? Well, it's an old truism that "nothing succeeds like success," and since politics is becoming both more superficial and more irrational each year, perhaps that's as good a strategy as any.

Let's take a look at the statewide race for Idaho's seat for the United States Senate now held by 23-year incumbent Sen. Frank Church, a liberal Democrat, and hotly pursued by Republican Congressman Steve Symms, 7-year incumbent conservative Republican.

The latter's television spots seemed, to many, to be about as exciting as holding somebody's horse. Presumably these ads were designed not only to prove that "our hero" looks like a senator, but can SOUND as dull and uninteresting as well.

In that regard, Symms' TV ads were highly successful. Oh yes, they did succeed on another front, too. He managed to win his uncontested primary.

Church's ads, however, were altogether something else. Knowing full well that Idaho voters are rather like voters everywhere, the master politician knew they'd want to know, "What have you done for me lately?" So, he told 'em. He laid it on with a trowel, too, especially to the senior citizens.

The seniors have long been generally thought to be totally the private political property of church, i.e., bought and paid for. "Why not?" he seemed to be saying, "They deserve my help - they're a big voting block. And besides, they don't ask a lot of embarrassing questions."

But church's negative ads seemed to be telling yet another story, namely,that he might be in big, big trouble. This is the first time in his entire political history when he's had an immensely popular freedom-fighter opponent. An opponent, if you will, whose popularity has not been based, generally speaking, on "What have you done for me lately/" And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is political dynamite - or it can be. At least it has been for Symms. And he's still strangely popular.

But Carl burke, wealthy Boise lawyer and long-time close advisor to Church, knows this. Maybe he knows this even better than Symms' advisors know it, i.e., if one judges by the absolute negative zeal with which he has loaded Church's anti-Symms ads.

Their strategy is clearly indicated by a recent mass of quarter-page ads showing a giant oil field derrick asking the voter: "Does Idaho Need a Senator from Exxon?"

As a matter of fact, one church confidant says with a grin: "By November the Idaho voter will think Symms' name is spelled with two Xs (as in Exxon). You just watch when Frank opens up."

Well, one guesses Church is beginning to do just that. Another barrage of the long-time super-liberal senator whose storm of ads for HIS uncontested primary race charges the apple growing super-conservative with not passing anywhere near enough laws in the seven years he's been in Congress. "In fact he hasn't passed any new laws," Church charges.

Well, Church knows better. But the word "lie" in politics has gone the way of high-button shoes. Nobody would know how to put them on even if they wanted to and Heaven knows nobody in the news media would suggest it, especially to a liberal.

But more than the fact that Church and his liberal Democrat pals have "owned" the Congress lock, stock and barrel for a quarter century is the fact that Symms has always campaigned, generally speaking, to give the people back their freedoms. In other words, NOT to pass more laws. But the political and news media witch-doctors have sold many voters that the name of the game is to - pass lots of laws. It's a sign of power and muscle.

So, if Church and company can sell THAT against Symms, i.e., socialist ownership of the means of production together with more laws instead of less laws, Idahoans deserve another six years of Church's liberalism.

All of which is not to say that there is not plenty for which Church could criticize Symms. For example, why did he vote for the House Bill No. 4930, a kind of pork-barrel bill with $4 billion for the Department of the Interior, $3.4 billion for that gawdawful Department of Energy that Symms hates, plus $5 billion for some other programs?

Church could also ask Symms why he has steadfastly refused to attack the Senate's intellectually dishonest and rotten scheme of attaching non-germane amendments to bills in order to mislead the voters. (Such a scheme is not allowed in the House.)

He could also ask Symms why, in peacetime, freedom of speech for the generals and admirals, he loves so much, is not so important as it is for the high level bureaucrats and politicians.

Yes, Church COULD ask some mighty embarrassing and interesting questions, but for two reasons: (1) How can the pot call the kettle black? And (2) Who would print it? If it made sense - nobody would believe it.

Take This -- News Media Hacks

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
June 8, 1980

There is an old saying that for every problem there's a solution which is simple, neat and wrong. Unfortunately, it might also apply, in part, to my theory that the news media tends to be bad, brash, biased and boisterous and, perhaps worst of all, on a power kick. But now I'm not so sure.

A case in print appeared on this very newspaper's editorial page, recently, as two stories on how to "reform" the current election mess. Both were by local writers which I consider to be reasonably intelligent, reasonably honest, and, at risk of overstating my case, fairly responsible. Three qualities that few realistic observers of U.S. politics would consistently ascribe to that famous entity, the "average American voter."

Oversimply, as I see it, one of these writers, editor Rick Coffman tends to favor Congressman Steve Symms' ideas toward "less" government and the other, Press-Tribune columnist Ralph Nichols, tends to favor Sen. Frank Church's ideas toward "more" government.

Both these writers seem to think there's something wrong with the election system, i.e., if indeed anything connected with politics can be said to resemble a system. Coffman wants to solve our problems by limiting the time a politician can serve, not to mention whether he or she serves well or poorly, purchases votes by spending large sums of taxpayers money or small sums, favors socialism or capitalism, favors conservatism, liberalism or freedom.

The sincere editor goes on to suggest, "The only time a president is truly free of political re-election pressure is during his second term." Well, bless Bess, and here I thought that was the name of the game, i.e., to make 'em do what you want. And how else, if not by pressure?

"Unless," he says, "we find ourselves with a glut of politicians who vote for the good of the country instead of getting elected." Well, that's odd, most people think that's what "democracy" is all about - voting for the collective good and thereby getting re-elected.
Too simple? Okay, that may well be. It also may be some kind of joke, since both Coffman and Nichols do have a rather clever, if at times sort of warped, sense of humor.

The editor almost redeemed himself near the end of his editorial, however, when he said, "Making a career out of serving in Congress is bad for the health of the taxpayer." But then he blew it, finally, saying, "... tax reform is impossible unless the electoral system lends itself to it."

Hogwash! The system does lend itself to tax reform. Elections are a form of eating for reformers. That's why we're in such a mess now. What is needed is a political "non-system" that knows how to mind its own damn business and whose incentives are in that direction - like old Thomas Jefferson tried to tell us. But, free market alternatives seldom attract modern day newsmen.

Columnist Nichols' piece took a different kind of tack to say much the same thing, i.e., what we need is to "increase voter turnout."

Perhaps it was summed up best by his quote from newsman David Brinkley when the latter suggested: "a single national primary election day, so that no state or region is influenced by primaries in other states or regions." (He neglected to mention: how else would the simple-minded know how to vote?)

But Nichols' crowning achievement just may have set some sort of record for trying to run "political water" uphill when he said, in part: "Political activity ... can pay off ... if enough ordinary citizens get involved ... in voter interest, and in a majority, and not a minority of voters ... electing those who are to represent all (repeat, all) of us." Unfortunately, that's a contradiction in terms, in politics.

I agree with Nichols' expressed sadness, however, that we do get lousy politics after a 35 percent voter turn out. I do not agree, though, that multiplying that stupidity by two, or by 22, would do anything but encourage the politicians.

Now back to my theory. My two news media friends, Coffman and Nichols, although from more or less opposite sides of the political spectrum, are neither bad nor boisterous, nor even on much of a power kick. In fact, they're both pretty nice guys.

Still, look how each tends to mislead the public by suggesting; as if by magic, that by rearranging the politicians or the elections, or increasing the voter turnout we could somehow vote ourselves into the promised land. Maybe it's an occupational disease.

In any event, I'm reminded of former Deputy Secretary of State Jerry Hill who, upon being asked by some election officials how many ballot forms they should order, answered:

"As long as we can vote for a living instead of work for a living - you'd best order plenty of ballots."

Remember Pre-Hitler Germany?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
June 15, 1980

The Great Inflation after World War I in Germany was one of the most significant events of this century, especially since it was one of the main factors, and possibly "the" principal factor, that led the rise of Adolph Hitler.

How then, when one merely mentions the word Hitler one runs the risk of offending many well-meaning Americans. This is because the word tends to sound unpatriotic and unpleasant and most of us do not want to hear unpleasant and unpatriotic messages, especially, when it's our own government's fault.

But it's here, ladies and gentlemen, it's here! Inflation is no longer "somewhere" down the road in never-never land. So at risk of sounding unpatriotic let me remind you that in 1913 German voters paid 12 marks for a pair of shoes that only 10 years later sold for 32 trillion marks.

That's 32,000,000,000,000. Does that scare you? Well it should, especially since that was in a country centuries older, and many say smarter, and more industrious than ours. Certainly it was smaller and easier to manager by their "super-efficient" government. And if THEY couldn't run a socialist type "free lunch" economy, how in the world can we in the USA expect to run one?

Still, there is a never-ending stream of new "free lunch" advocacy groups like the recently formed Save Our Public lands, Inc., who seem to think "that government governs best that governs farthest away from home." At least they favor federal control of government-owned land rather than state-control as advocated. I think intelligently, by the Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc.

But there are a couple other groups that make State Senator Ken Robinson's and environmentalist Ted Trueblood's socialist ownership (of the "sagebrush") crusade look weak and pale by comparison. (Robison and Trueblood are the prime movers in the above Save Our Public Lands, Inc.)

The two groups I refer to are the higher education community and the American business community.

While not all elements within each of these two groups favor inflating big-brother government, most do, and certainly each is guilty for not condemning their colleagues for their gung-ho support for big spending. (Could this, too; be reminiscent of Hitler's big spending Germany?)

Two examples should suffice. The University of Detroit's Public Management Institute has just published a pamphlet entitled "How to Get More Grants." Its sub-title is: "$26 Million in Grants Are Given Away Every Hour. Are You Getting Your Fair Share?"

Sound unbelievable? Let me quote. "Non-profit organizations in the U.S. are in acute financial crisis. According to a recent $2.2 million study of philanthropy, they're falling further behind every year. They need a 33 percent jump in income and then 11 percent more each year just to keep up with inflation."

Now get this from the university's flyer: "In 1978 $2.16 billion came from foundations, $2 billion came from corporations and over $45 billion (repeat, $45 billion) came from the federal government."

Here's the punch line from the school's advertisement: "Sign up for our seminar to help you tap into this reservoir of grant funds." (Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch?)

The flyer goes on for three pages to extol the virtues of their course in "grantsmanship" - all for the small sum of $195 tuition. Nothing in the pamphlet on how to produce a damn thing, of course, just get in on the goodies while they last. Oh, yes, and "make your checks payable to the University of Detroit." Wouldn't you know?

In some ways the second example is even more infuriating, because of a "business" organization that has taken up the world's oldest profession: Prostitution. Let me quote from their pamphlet.

It's entitled "National Institute for Continuing Professional Development" (NICPI) together with the "American Alliance of Small Businesses (AASB) Presents Comprehensive Workshops." The workshop seminars are entitled, "Government Loan and Loan Guarantee Programs."

The subtitle to this free lunch pamphlet is labeled, "New Opportunities In Today's Economy." An interesting headline adds: "Prosperity or Bankruptcy? A 3 percent Government Loan Could Make the Difference." Oh, yes, their programs, the flyer tells us, are being "presented in 43 cities all across the nation.' (In Germany it was not so far across, nor so many cities to police.)

Now get this. This should bring tears, even perhaps to your own Chamber of Commerce manager. Bear with me, as I quote again.
"The American Alliance of Small Business is a non-profit organization engaged in preserving the system of free, competitive and private American enterprise.

"The AASB is co-sponsoring the NICPD seminars to further their ideal of educating small businesses about current and relevant issues and to help the small businessperson prosper.

"The AASB recommends the NICPD seminars as enlightening, educational and practical workshops."

What's all this got to do with Hitler and Germany's inflation? Just this ... The polls say most Americans favor wage and price controls against inflation, but it will take another fanatic like Hitler to make them work. Even then controls won't work, of course, but too many university professors don't know that. And apparently not many business organizations seem to care.

Try a Little Kindness -- It's Free

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
June 22, 1980

Something nice happened to me in Boise the other day. As I was about to enter the street door of the Hoff Building just after a rather attractive young lady who noticed my close proximity out of the corner of her eye - she held the door open as I approached.

A simple act of courtesy; nothing more, nothing less. I never saw her before nor do I ever expect to see her again, but how utterly refreshing was that small gesture. Alas, a genuinely liberated woman. I just hope my rather enthusiastic "thank you" and genuine "smile" in my voice came through sufficiently as she trotted on into the Serendipity Fashion Shop there on the first floor.

Now then, that wasn't the only time a female has made a small gesture to me in a similar situation, nor do I expect it to be the last, but it is so very rare as to merit, I think, more than just honorable mention.

In fact, given the number of people in Boise entering and leaving the many public doors it just may very well deserve the Boise Chamber of Commerce's attention. Yea even, perhaps, Mayor Dick Eardley could see his way clear to start a campaign entitled something like "Courtesy Pays - Clip one of our Courtesy Coupons: Visit Downtown Boise."

Who knows - maybe it might even give them a moment's vacation from running to the Legislature or the Congress in search of a law to "save downtown Boise." I chide them here, of course, with some tongue in cheek, but a smile and a tiny bit of courtesy can do real wonders for a town especially if it gets to be fashionable.

Furthermore, if courtesy is indeed contagious, as the slogan goes, the idea might even catch on to Boise's automobile drivers.
Of course, some of the larger cities are even worse than Boise. But so many of us have somehow come to delegate to "city hall" the responsibility to get our "fair share" of and our "right to" everything that we seem to have forgotten how to be responsible for ourselves.

Mayor Eardley and the Boise Chamber of Commerce are no doubt doing their sincere best to give downtown Boise a lift. But my own guess is that the Hoff Building Corporation and the courtesy and good taste expressed last week by the nice lady in the red suit are doing something extra special, and under-noticed, for downtown Boise. And by the way, at their own expense.

Still, the lady's modern-day female courtesy and the downtown private renewal take more social guts and deserve more public acclaim than many of us seem to have realized.

My Kind of Small Businessman

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
June 29, 1980

A wealthy and important businessman in Nampa said to me recently, "Ralph, you're pretty critical of the businessmen, it seems to me. Maybe, too critical. Why don't you write something complimentary about them in your column?"

I said I would, but so many of them (but by no means all) were so busy trying to "buy" friends, "buy" college professors and "buy" good public relations, instead of standing up for the PRINCIPLE of anything, that it wasn't easy to find a businessman that was both newsworthy and deserving.

He replied with, "How about my friend John Fery, president of Boise Cascade? Have you ever called him up and tried?" I had to admit I had not, but I responded: "Neither has Fery called me. It's his big business that's under attack, you know, not mine." And further, I'm one of the few persons in the media, openly pro free enterprise. Most are anti-business, but I'm not.

My friend said he'd try to set up an interview with the big business tycoon and me, toward such an end, but surprise - surprise (so far at least) it's never come to pass.

Meantime, "I Found It." I found a SMALL business "tycoon" (wouldn't you guess?) both newsworthy and deserving - if you will, gutsy. He's Vern Hinkle, president of Idaho Sand and Gravel in Caldwell. He's written a letter which is so timely, so gutsy, so clean, so intellectually honest and so unusual as to be almost a classic. The fact I'm reprinting it here as a "compliment to a businessman" is a first class understatement. It's addressed to:

Mrs. Glady Esquibel, Idaho Citizen's for Minority Affairs, Inc. Box 835, Burley, Idaho.

Hinkle's letter responded to her statement: "It is a fact that the minorities in the Boise district of the Small Business Administration (SBA) have been discriminated against." That's all. (Believe it or not.) The letter should be self-explanatory.

"Dear Mrs. Equibel,

"Enclosed is the complete questionnaire you sent me a few weeks ago regarding the alleged discrimination being practiced (in) the Boise District of SBA. As you can see from my answers, I have availed myself of the services of the SBA, and, yes, it has been profitable for me.

"You can also see from my answers that I am being self-contradictory to a ridiculous degree. This situation has been brought about by several years of exposure and education regarding the free enterprise system and what enhances and detracts from its successful operation.

"I have no intention of committing economic suicide by abruptly severing my relationship with SBA, but I will accomplish this as soon as market forces will allow a sensible severance.

"You can bet that loans from and guaranteed by the government have played a major role in my ability to conduct business, but, no matter how hard I try, I have had to learn that being a better prostitute simply will not make me more virtuous. I will leave the program just as soon as I can.

"Your cover letter states, 'this questionnaire is vital in all our efforts for ECONOMIC FREEDOM.' I am not out to offend you or anyone else and I certainly will not accomplish anything by creating a hostile atmosphere in this matter, but I would ask that you give very serious consideration to the above quoted statement by you as regards ECONOMIC FREEDOM.

"It has been my experience that for each ounce of protection and government assistance I receive, it costs me a pound of freedom.
"I am not angry with groups such as yours, (or) the people in SBA or anyone else who, through ignorance pursue goals and activities which undermine the very foundations of the economic success of our society.

"We unjustified takers of monies and assistance outside the market place have an obligation to educate ourselves as to the destructiveness of our actions if in fact we are to succeed as a free society.

"I thank you for your patience and mature understanding. (signed) Vernon W. Hinkle, president."

The salty sand, gravel and asphalt paving merchant seems to resent the presumptuous questionnaire's suggestion. It seemed to say: "Since others in SBA have discriminated against minorities and since you, too, are in SBA it may be likely you, too, may be a racist. So, fill out our questionnaire."

For which, thanks to the government's SBA for making public their list of "customers" to interested busy-bodies.

My hat's off, and I hope yours is too, to "a businessman" who's trying hard to look past the end of this nose - publicly.

The GOP -- Dullsville, U. S. A.

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
July 6, 1980

Last weekend the Idaho Republican (GOP) convention was held in Boise. But wait! "Don't turn that dial - stay tuned." There was actually something of interest, in spite of the Republicans, perhaps more than because of them.Oh sure, it was dull all right. It was a Republican meeting. Remember? That's almost an article of faith for GOPers, i.e., to be dull.
One supposes that's partly because it's "safer" to be dull. And Heaven knows most politicos do indeed love to be safe - and re-elected, of course.

All of which is not to say "being dull" includes all Republicans all of the time, but the generality is hauntingly consistent. In fact that's what gives substance to the Democrats being said to have all the fun.

If you haven't heard the old saying it goes something like this: "Why do the Democrats have more fun than Republicans/ Well, because there's more of them than Republicans. Okay, but then why are there so many Democrats? Well, that's easy - it's because they have more fun than Republicans."

Now back to the Republicans in Boise. For the most part it was, as usual, an exercise in modern day tribalism. This is where the political witch-doctors contest with one another to see who can make the LEAST meaningful statement(s) with the MOST enthusiasm. And in this regard the meeting was a resounding success.

Congressman John Rhodes, minority leader of the House of Representatives, was the keynote speaker. If a trophy were awarded for dull speeches he would surely have won permanent possession of it by now. Just why the Idaho group keeps inviting him back is a bigger mystery than Watergate or Chappaquiddick and almost as overblown by a media as intellectually constipated as they are.

But I hasten to admit, at least the media has more fun. Reason? The media is overwhelmingly Democrat (read, liberal Democrat). Still, they do enjoy themselves, partly too, of course, because they have nothing to lose, have no "voting record," afterward.

And speaking of the lack of humor and lack of a good offense, there are some notable exceptions. There are a few others, but certainly these three stole the show: Lt. Gov. Phil Batt, whose wide-cracks were devastating and who dubbed the convention a "love fest";

Congressman Steve Symms whose address was so enthusiastic its lack of his typical gutsy content was noticed by almost nobody and bragged on by almost everybody; and by the obscenely handsome candidate for governor, Butch Otter, whose "Revolution Resolution" brought down the house. Several delegates even clapped.

Since it was without a doubt the most meaningful, if humorous, and untypical thing offered for the GOP convention's consideration, I reprint it here just for you:

WHEREAS Sen. Kennedy has driven Americans over one too many bridges; AND

WHEREAS, Sen. Church has driven Americans over one too many canals; AND

WHEREAS the liberal Democratic Knee-Jerk Leadership of the past 24 years has constantly zigged when it should have zagged; AND

WHEREAS, the current Frank Church-led Democratic coalition guards the United States Treasury like a pack of wolves guards the hen house; AND

WHEREAS, Frank Church and his Rubber Stamp media is proof positive that not all the fertilizer is in the bull pen; AND

WHEREAS, we now agree with Miss Lillian, Billy is the smartest; AND

WHEREAS, the Foreign Policy of the Nation should not be taken from Amy's 5th grade papers. Even though that policy is better than the Frank Church-led Foreign Relation Committee policies; AND

WHEREAS, the stallions of liberal left wing philosophy are whipped blindly along the tract of Socialist Demogoguery by the hysterical journalistic jockies of mass media; AND

WHEREAS, a free man's honest thirst for truth can never be quenched by the stale, clouded, ink stained, foul waters of murky innuendoes and slanted conclusions poured (out) constantly by New York-based Gannett Newspapers (et al); AND

WHEREAS, the disgusting results of run-away inflation and welfare state mentality achieved by the current Carter administration is revolting to all honest, free thinking men.

NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the delegates of this convention that we invite all Americans to join us in a freedom revolution and march to the polls all across America to elect Republicans on November 4, 19480.

Oh yes, they would have had to suspend the rules in order to take sides (i.e., vote) on Otter's masterpiece - they didn't.

It was a Republican convention - remember?

Symms and Church Both Wrong

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
July 13, 1980

The fine art of name-calling has reached a new high. Or, depending on how one's value judgements on inflation stack up - a new low. In either event, name-calling would be much preferred to the ever-so-fine art of using half-truths to "shoot" at one's political enemy even when they use "silver bullets."

Unfortunately, the Boise Statesman newspaper's political vendetta against Congressman Steve Symms has taken on the lowest of the two popular political techniques of human discourse, I.E., half-truths. They are much tougher to deal with.

The current phase of the Statesman's defense of their hero (and Symms' adversary) U.S. Sen. Frank Church, who's currently in big trouble according to the poll-takers, is an attack on Symms' position relative to silver trading.

First of all, let's acknowledge the newspaper's right to criticize Symms and, too, the fact that space is limited. But let's also recognize that the hotly-contested Senate race between the super-liberal Church and super-conservative Symms is seen as terribly confusing by most of the undecided voters (and when voters are confused they tend to vote for the status quo, i.e., the Statesman's hero - Church).

Let's recognize, too, that there is an off-hand chance that the Statesmen just may be sincere. It's not likely, perhaps, but a chance. Not something they ascribe to Symms, either, but hold your nose and let us take a sincere look ourselves.

In their lead editorial July 6, the giant newspaper says: "The names Steve Symms and NelsonBunker Hunt keep popping up (in the news) together." of course. The Statesman keeps the issue "popping up." They can, and they do.

It's a complicated issue that confuses many voters and, unfortunately, the giant newspaper only tells us one side - their side. It is, of course, a very legitimate issue. That is, it would be if they would tell BOTH sides, but they don't.

The Statesman accuses Symms and other congressmen of "... playing key roles in blocking the sale of 67 million ounces of silver by the federal government." Sounds sinister, doesn't it? But here's the part of the story the New York-owned newspaper does not tell you.
Others, too, including this writer, have urged Symms for years to try to block the damn fool federal government from pooping away the government's silver reserves. Quite conveniently, it seems, the Statesman omits the "why" of all this. Instead they suggest that because Bunker Hunt owns lots of silver, therefore, some conspiracy exists between him and Symms.

But, again, nothing in their paper as to WHY Hunt bought so much silver in the first place. Indeed, by far the biggest news story in this century - monetary inflation - just cries out to be told, but a veritable blackout of this story still exists.

In fact, so many times did I myself virtually scream at the top of my lungs at Symms year after year because he seemingly refused to scream at the top of his lungs in an effort to stop the government from pooping away the gold reserves, that I wondered if he, too, might not be part of some conspiracy.

My reasoning to Symms went this way: "If you do see a real threat of war and hence tend to give the military budget a 'rubber stamp,' then how can they run a war without gold? We are certainly dependent on foreign trade, especially in the event of war. What would we buy war materials from foreign nations with then - paper money?" Egad!

Symms agreed, but somehow steadfastly refused to attack the military big shots for not attacking the treasury big shots for pooping away our most important resource in the event of war - "real" money. That's the story the Statesman should be attacking both Symms and Church about, not about some Mickey Mouse conspiracy among hard money advocates like Hunt.

But Hunt's no dummy. He knows the government is at war now - with him - literally, with printing press money. The only way he can protect himself was - is now - to buy silver or gold the same way it has been done for centuries. (When seen in this light Hunt's "welfare" is the same as the middle class Americans' welfare.)

It's too bad that Symms' image makers, whose understandable goal is to make him look like a senator, can't forego that goal long enough for him to explain the other half of his story.

The "other half," that is, of the half-truth that the Statesman won't tell.

Reagan-Bush Ticket Not That Bad

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
July 20, 1980

To anyone watching the "boobis-Americanis" performing at the Detroit "zoo" on any of the three major TV networks last week it is no wonder nobody believes any of the crazy ideas coming from most Washington, D.C., politicians.

But as Walter Cronkite says "That's the way it is," and so goes the fate of the great United States of America - with or without their leader having been wisely chosen for the coming presidential election.

Just how perfectly irrational the whole party process is was typified by some recent opinion polls which showed a large percentage of American boob-tube-watching voters actually wanted Walter Cronkite to run for vice president of the U.S. Egad!

Said polls purport to show news-reader Cronkite to be "the most trusted" man in America. Why? The other news-readers never ask. In fact their absolute awe for one another has reached such god-like proportions that they are now interviewing EACH OTHER on the boob-tube every week.

But so long as the average "Joe Sixpack" is only interested in his own, narrow, short-term interests and so long as that same government continues to own, control and subsidize the school system, it will not improve much.

Meantime the Republican convention confirmed their hero Ronald Reagan as their standard-bearer candidate for president of the U.S. Goodness knows he earned the honor - fair and square (no pun) over the objections of the liberal and eastern news media who implied that Reagan had little else to offer, i.e., other than being "square," if not Neanderthal.

One supposes that the great negotiator and ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who reportedly led Gerald Ford's team to horse-trade the ex-president's "bid" for vice president, found Reagan wasn't such a pushover after all. The ex-governor of the nations' largest and, in many respects, most productive state of California decided he'd rather have George Bush for a running mate for vice president.

Ford would have no doubt pleased many a GOP regular and, presumably, many an undecided status-quo type voter. Despite his denials that he would consider the number two spot, he did indeed consider it. He had a lot to offer Reagan's ticket. Both knew it. Apparently negotiation was straight-forward and touch. But for the final decision - too tough.

Ford's "strings attached" seemed too high a price to pay for an old guard, even an ex-president old guard, and even when presented by the world champion negotiator, Kissinger. Reagan finally said, "Thanks, but no thanks. I think I'll let George do it. George Bush, with MY strings, will be my vice-presidential running mate." And so the long hot summer night suspense ended. The Bush had been cleared, the Reagan had more guts than we thought.

Now then, this writer was not for Bush. I was for Congressman Jack Kemp, after Phil Crane's campaign sunk into the sunset, and I thought Bush, who was endorsed by some important eastern liberal forces, was just another "Fourth of July lady-finger" and U.S. apologist. But now that it's all over, and I reflect a bit, it just may be that - Bush is best.

After all, Spiro Agnew was, before he became vice president, a Rockefeller liberal. And never mind what the news media tells us and tells, and tells us, Agnew may yet go down in history (unless the media writes the history books, TOO) has having performed the most important "hatchet-job" in the post WWII era. He exposed the "nattering nabobs of negativism," the U.S. media and the left-wing intellectuals.

Both Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher and Nobel laureate Alexandr Solzhnitsyn must surely have Agnew's autographed photo on their office wall. The famous Russian warned us, you'll remember: The news media actually runs your country, so beware.
Well, the deed is done. Bush is Reagan's choice. No doubt Reagan had monumental pressures in support of Bush, too, to which we'll never be privy. But let's keep an open mind - we might be pleasantly surprised with Bush.

As I was surprised when Reagan's chief of staff, Ed Meese, gave such a fine and intelligent account of himself on "Meet the Press" last Sunday. He was cool, confident and cultured. And, was I ever flabbergasted - the GOP chief wore a necktie bearing a likeness of the great moral philosopher, Adam Smith. I'm positive it was a Mont Pelerin Society necktie,too.

Whoever heard of a GOP chief whoever heard of the mont Pelerin Society? Or Milton Friedman?

'News' Torture Rack Is a Lot Better

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
July 27, 1980

"In ancient times men had the rack. Now they have the press. And that certainly is an improvement." At least that's what the late, great Oscar Wilde said back in 1891.

The rack, you'll remember, is an old instrument of torture used way back in the Middle Ages to force men to confess to "crimes" such as: "When did you stop beating your wife?" It worked, too. If you didn't confess they'd pull your arms right out of their sockets.
But there are modern improvements that even Wilde did not foresee, some more sophisticated, more subtle and, in many cases, more devastating, especially when they have no apparent malicious intent.

The special supplement in last Sunday's Idaho Statesman on the coming Church vs. Symms race for the U.S. Senate is a case in point. That newspaper advertised the stories on Symms-Church to be a complete and unbiased as possible.

About that "special section," a few observations:

I took a poll among several of Congressman Steve Symms' supporters as to how they evaluated the big newspaper's article. Each one said, "Considering the Statesman is a long-time supporter of Sen. Frank Church and a political enemy of Symms I thought the article would be a hatchet-job on Steve, but it was not. I don't think it was all bad.

"There were virtually no exceptions to that line. It reminded me of U.S. foreign policy for the past many years - "The Soviets are not all bad. The Soviets want to take over TWO more countries. The U.S. diplomats object with vigor. So the Soviets only take over ONE more country. The U.S. diplomats leap with joy and are applauded by the media for getting 'equal time' from the Russian bear who just be mellowing, after all."

Well, the article's author, Rod Gramer, isn't all bad. but like his peer, John Corlett, former political writer for their paper, however, he makes frequent use of the term "right-wing" in front of anything he wants to sort of "damn in faint ways." It's doubtful either of them know what the term right-wing means, though they use it all the time, but the message comes through: i.e., less than complimentary to Symms and his associates.

But the REAL message lies in that neither of them ever use the term left-wing (not to mention, ultra left-wing) in front of Church's name or those of HIS associates. It's as if the only wings in existence were "right" ones. In fact, Gramer, who probably feels in his heart of hearats that he leaned over backwards to be "fair" to Symms, and I think HE thinks he did, too, calls Church "cerebral, superior, brilliant to some and cold, misguided, inconsistent (isn't that gentle?) to others." That's the headline on Church's half of Gramer's report.

Now then, note the headline on Symms' half. "Apple of Republican ULTRA-conservative's eye (my emphasis)."

During my interview with Gramer, as one of Symms' long-time pre-Congress friends, I explained to Gramer how Symms shook up the University of Idaho Alumni Association by suggesting (believe it or not) a Chair of Capitalism. Whereupon, with urgings from the then U of I hierarchy, Symms was fired as Alumni president.

Now then, that may have been only "moderately" newsworthy, but certainly it is ever-so-newsworthy that the new U of I president, Richard Gibb, is out raising $600,000 to endow a similar chair - only 10 years later. The apple grower was not only a boat-rocker, but virtually a prophet before his time. Still, like his early day rantings about Social Security's pending bankruptcy and his early day ideas on capitalism and education, Symms' free market and private ideas (as opposed to collectivist ones) seem to escape Gramer's penetrating and sincere analysis.

Not unlike the newsman's oversight, no doubt, in not analyzing Church's trip to Castro's Cuba, and the senator's: "I feel like I left a good friend there" in the person of the Communist dictator, of course.

But I doubt there was malicious intent on the part of the New York-based newspaper's local author - which is why I write this necessarily sketchy observation. I want to make two key points in all this media monkey-business about Symms-Church.
(1) No, the Statesman has not "mellowed." We can not expect balanced treatment from them now until election day via-vis Rod Gramer's sincerity.

(2) Here's why. This cub reporter (Gramer), now turned pretty darned good young writer, in all probability tried to be fair to both Symms and Church (and still hold his job). But he does not speak BOTH politician's "language" - only Church's. He and his media peers almost always miss the "freedom" side of the Symms story (when there is one), even when they're sincere.

This is accomplished by a merciless everyday practice of using a bigoted cliche: the word liberal, for example, without prefixes like "left-wing, ultra, extreme," etc., means intellectually and morally superior.

Use of language in such a way enables writers and editors to dismiss non-liberal views - not as opposing, but as inferior. So far, there's almost no defense against that type of sincerity.

When Defending Rights, Be Consistent

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
August 3, 1980

The recent riot of the prisoners at the Idaho State Pen cost several million dollars (estimates are already rising) but, fortunately no one was killed. Unfortunately, however, it was largely a media event. About that event some observations.

By way of background, it had been my intention to comment today upon my fellow columnist, Father Nathaniel Pierce, who wrote recently that the state government's ownership and control of Idaho liquor stores clearly amounted to communism, but his point was so striking I thought that it might suggest a kind of key to the penitentiary mess. So bear with me - see if you agree.

Following the above column Pierce wrote again about "government ownership." This time it was ownership of land. It concerned the "Sagebrush Rebellion," a rather popular crusade to get Idaho's federal ownership changed to state ownership. The feds own approximately two-thirds of the land in Idaho.

Curiously enough the good Father this time couldn't see anything communistic about "government ownership" - of land. Something in many folk's mind infinitely more important than "ownership" of booze. A rather staggering inconsistency, I thought, since in the minds of most scholars the principal difference between our system and Soviet Russia's system is just that- private ownership.

But not in the fertile mind of the gutsy and articulate clergyman. He just blurts his ideas right out in front of God and everybody, i.e., balm for the booze merchants and bomb for the land merchants. A position not uncommon for most modern missionaries of the ministry these days. Here may be one source of our trouble.

All of which brings us, in my opinion, right back to the prisoners, the prison and the fact that "they burned the mother down," and the facts that the media didn't see fit to cover.

To their credit they did cover some aspects of the holocaust pretty well, i.e., the prisoners' grievances. For example, one of the prisoner spokesmen was interviewed on TV saying "Things around here are so bad - why the prisoners don't have ANYTHING to say about what goes on in here."

But one of the facts the media didn't seem to cover, in any depth at least, was that the convicts had threatened to kill two hostages. Oh sure, they covered it all right. They covered the fact that the hostages' lives were in danger and also that they were rescued. But the shallow tone of the media attitude toward the whole affair seemed to be more or less summed up by one of the editors of the New York-based Idaho Statesman who'd witnessed the riot.

His column was headlined, rather propitiously I thought: "Prison riot was worth leaving the office to watch." and the column ended with the following lines describing the inmate's final roundup:

"The haggard look on their faces as the sun climbed in the sky showed nothing of the high time they'd had during the long night.
"The stood silent, like drunks paying for a binge with a nasty hangover.

"A few minutes later, the inmates were herded to the other end of the yard, where they were told to lie face down in the scrub grass. They were to spend the rest of that day and many others on the field.

"A little after 7 a.m. I left the prison. The party was over for me, too."

Now then, I don't want to impugn the motives of the Statesman editor-columnist (seriously, I don't) nor much less the clergy-columnist Father Pierce. In fact, the latter's candor, perception, openness and sense of humor are something of a credit to a society at once so indulgent of pleasure and fearful of criticism that their unwillingness to take sides often rivals for contrast only the black and white stuff on the floor of the chicken coop.

But there's something wrong as hell going on here. the media and the ministers of the gospel BOTH seem ever so gung-ho for civil liberties and so almost blind to economic liberties like a wholesome respect for other people's ownership of property. they forget that there are no human rights without property rights.

The gigantic double-standard has become standard bill-of-fare for entertainment at any cost. Even kidnapping, holding hostages and violence evoke precious little outrage, likewise the giant labor union of coal miners holding U.S. citizens "hostage" during a recent super-cold winter while their "negotiators" got what they wanted - and it worked, too, while the media and the clergy spectated in silence.

Aside from most of the media's double-standard of almost fanatic defense for THEIR freedom alongside their seeming disregard for the freedom of others, they've another thing in common with much of today's clergy - "indiscriminate compassion."

The usual moral distinctions are simply drowned in a weekly and effusively sentimental emotion in which they frequently have more feeling for the murderer than for the one who's been murdered.

Breaking the Professional Monopolies

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
August 10, 1980

The extreme leftist Tom Hayden said recently, "Capitalism is dead." This was during a recent talk show on a Los Angeles radio station.
Hayden, you'll remember, is the second husband of the beautiful movie actress Jane Fonda, anti-business darling of the far left and pal of the North Vietnam Communists.

The bottom line of Hayden's anti-capitalism radio remark was, "The depression of 1929 proved that the free market cannot function." Now then, a free market must prevail, of course, in order for capitalism to function. but in spite of Hayden's hatred of capitalism he does have a point. Too often we won't let it function.

Why? How? Well, libertarian scholars have shown for years that the 1929 depression was caused by government interference with the free market. But that huge fact aside, there is another seemingly innocuous scheme that were it not for its tending to give credibility to big government's meddling it wouldn't be so bad.

But it does. The scheme is called occupational licensure. It's a big word for what the Russians call a "work permit." However, over here, in addition to those who profit from restricting their competition, it's often pushed by the bleeding heart do-gooders. It's "to protect people from themselves," of course, and requires - wouldn't you guess - more government.

the idea is not new. In fact, Nobel laureate Dr. Milton Friedman devotes an entire chapter of his book "Capitalism and Freedom" to unlicensing the professions and especially to that most difficult of all to challenge - the medical professions. (See his "Free to Choose" series presently being shown on the government's TV Channel 4 at 9 p.m. each Saturday night. It's made in order for fun people who like to think.)

Comes now James Dale Davidson, a fascinating young friend of mine (I'm proud to say) who's head of the National Taxpayer's Union. Jim's new book, "The Squeeze", (Summit Books pp. 270, $11.95) has a great section called "Break the Professional Monopolies." It's a must reading, for both liberals and conservatives.

Let me hasten to add that most doctors are fine, sincere professionals dedicated to their customer's welfare, just like most professional educators. But, as with the latter, "most" don't run the establishment - the activists run it. The rest just rub along as best they can without losing their social status, which is easy to do, of course, when one rocks the boat.

And speaking of boat rocking, one supposes that's why Jim got on the super-liberal Johnny Carson show so many times. Also, like Friedman, his wit and charm and brains are immediately obvious.

Here's a few of Davidson's gems: "Only a thorough uprooting of the medical monopoly would enable people to see what medical services are actually worth." After citing no less an authority than John Stuart Mill, who warned that: "Such certificates should confer no advantage over com

Davidson's book tells why:

"Because the subjective content in healing is a large measure of the enterprise, even treatments based upon absurd theories would prove successful in some cases in which orthodox treatments would fail ... what the patients are paying for, after all, is the hope of healing and regeneration. These are definitely associated with pleasant sensations."

The bright young author's great wit is everywhere evident:

"This would be only one effect of shattering the physician's monopoly. Another would be the proliferation of treatments that accomplished nothing or perhaps even inflicted harm." For example he notes: "There would be new versions of "nature's Vitalizer" - an electric belt to strengthen the sexual organs and magnetic mittens to cure arthritis, psychedelic mushrooms, and the hairs of Castro's beard."

It's obvious according to Davidson that, "Quackery, old and new, would flourish."

But he explains, "A public which was gullible enough in the past to believe that a cure for asthma was to have one's hair nailed to an ash tree under the full moon at midnight then cut off would fine new ways to get fleeced."

Davidson acknowledges, "Almost every quack would know this." He even defines the term for us: "The quack is the man who continues through times to please his customers, but not his colleagues." For that reason he explains, "... even self-consciously fraudulent medicine is likely to be no more than a waste of time and money."

Jim's writing style is a refreshing and delightful change from much typical right-wing (whatever that is) literature, but has an even added bonus.

He explains how "political" quackery works and has a scheme to cure THAT, too. Get the book, now, before it's too late.

Hansberger Is For Hansberger

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
August 17, 1980

The Symms-Church race for the U.S. Senate heats up as election day gets ever closer. I say "Symms-Church" because the Idaho Statesman usually says, "Church-Symms," thus giving their man benefit of the doubt.

Comes now another blow to conservative Congressman Steve Symms' challenge to Idaho's liberal Sen. Frank Church. This time it's from the big business side of the political fence.

Robert V. Hansberger, owner of the American Broadcasting Corporation(ABC) TV affiliate in Nampa and Pocatello (Channel 6) has announced he will head up an "Idaho Business for Frank Church Steering Committee."

If this makes you wonder if Symms is losing the support of big business - don't. He's never had their support. At least he's never had it in the way his enemies would have you think he does. It is true some big tycoons do support him, especially those few who hate big government. But many multi-nationals and giant corporations owe their existence to big government.

Unfortunately the role that big government plays in big labor and big business has only recently come to light. It is partly due to libertarian scholars like Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek, both Novel Laureates of the 1970s. But it is also coming to the surface through American dissident movements against what they see as imperialism abroad and the corporate state at home. Unfortunately, too often, they have a point.

There is a connection of sorts right here in Boise River City. If not a connection, then at least a kind of loose parallel which is rather noteworthy, especially to westerners.

Idaho political watchers remember back in 1964 when Hansberger, then president of the huge Boise-Cascade Corporation, came out forsquare for liberal Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) for president against conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater.

They remember, too, Hansberger's decisive role during the 1960s in securing big government's Urban Renewal program for downtown Boise. The Boise-Cascade chief had envisioned his company to be the urban renewaler for big cities all around the world. One could hardly tolerate their own corporate world-headquarters in a city which had turned down one of big daddy's biggest boondoggles. He secured it, too, through Idaho's politicians, without even so much as a city wide vote of Boiseans who were virtually a cinch to have defeated it had they been allowed the customary vote.

It's true, Hansberger claims to be a Republican, albeit an eastern one, but my sources claim his influence, if not his name, is much more familiar with "Republicans" for (Democrats) such as Cecil Andrus and George McGovern. In other words big liberals are also in big business, often times because that's where the big money is. And the current Boise downtown mall controversy is a case in point. Guess who owns one of the Boise government's downtown renewal contracting companies. You guessed it - R.V. Hansberger.

Hansberger's big liberals for Church, even with his two ABC-TV stations, may not be enough to pull church's political fat out of the Democrat's big liberal fire, but don't forget their pals in the other media. Most are liberal as heck and they work well together.

Remember, too, the huge Gannett Corporation, New York-based, owner of Boise's Idaho Statesman. They're really big. They make even more money on their investment than the big oil corporations (whom they hate) and the Symms Fruit Ranch put together.

But more than that, Hansberger's big liberals tend also to be big "believers." They believe mostly in classical fascist, sometimes socialist ideas, I admit, but don't sell them short. Some of them are, even in my opinion, sincere. They're very communicative and well tied in with liberal national media in addition to the giant Gannett Corporation's Idaho Statesman. They're easterners, good at manipulating political public opinion (thanks to "Demopublicans" in both political parties) and they're headed west.

It's alarmingly parallel to a current article in the libertarian magazine, "Inquiry," on the same subject:

"The media, while well interlocked with the dominant corporations and banks - IBM, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Ford, Mobil Oil, Coca-Cola, Bankers Trust, U.S. Steel, Bristol-Myers, citicorp, Atlantic Richfield, and many others - are also interested in goals loftier (sic) than mere commercial success.

"They seek to shape the political ideas and world view of their readers and listeners toward accepting the (liberal) political and economic status quo. This makes the establishment controlled media, which strongly influences other media, a key part of America's (and now Idaho's) political apparatus."

Hansberger's Helpers Need Church

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
August 24, 1980

Last week this column stirred up a larger fuss than I had anticipated. It concerned a big business tycoon's announcement in support of Idaho's liberal U.S. Sen. Frank Church. About his steering committee a little background.

The big businessman is, you'll remember, R.V. Hansberger, former president of the giant Boise-Cascade Corporation. For what it's worth their present president, John Fery, also of Boise, is supporting conservative Congressman Steve Symms.

Hansberger's Helpers include: Mrs. Velma Morrison, of the huge, and no doubt grateful (to Uncle Sam) construction firm Morrison-Knudsen Corporation, the world's largest dam builders, most of whose dams and projects are "paid" for by the U.S. taxpayer, directly or indirectly, both in this country and all around the world. The bon vivant and charming Robert Pederson, retired chairman of the Ore-Ida Foods Corporation, who was chosen by Sen. Church to accompany him on a trip to Red China a year or so ago, and Cy Chase, big Democrat senator and chairman of Idahoans for Ted Kennedy for President.

The anti-Symms committee lists, of course, many others - all (repeat, all) liberals who claim their "Idaho Business for Frank Church" steering committee is "not against Symms but, FOR Church."

Now then, that's an obvious play on words, i.e., to be "for" Symms is likewise to be "against" Church, and vice-versa, but liberals like to be called positive and so they're careful to phrase it that way.

Though the word "positive" has become almost synonymous with the term government grant or any one of literally tens of thousands of Uncle Sap's give-away programs, there is another word which may help bring the situation into much sharper focus.

If one adds the word "grateful" to the liberal's words "positive and sincere" it all begins to take more understandable shape. For example, another one of the "Hansberger Helpers" is the super-wealthy Arthur Oppenheimer, co-owner and joint venturer of downtown Boise's multi-million dollar building development made possible by Hansberger's federal urban renewal program for the capital city.

Both gentlemen are indeed grateful - super-rich and super-grateful; super-positive and, of course, super-sincere. I fear that last, super-sincere, might sound a bit too snide, but I don't mean it to. It's just super-true, that's all. And who can fault men who are both sincere and super-grateful - eh?

As an interesting aside, I once visited a wealthy Roman businessman's villa in the Italian city of Pompeii. It had been buried for centuries under the ash of exploding Mt. Vesuvius. Uncovered there was a gigantic champagne glass, six feet in diameter, exquisitely carved from beautiful marble, and inlaid with a copper inscription. Translated, it read: "In grateful and sincere appreciation for helping with my political election."

Hansberger-Oppenheimer-Morrison (et al) are no doubt understandably grateful to "their" politician-senator, Frank Church. Witness the following unbelievable quote from Mr. Hansberger (Idaho Statesman, Aug. 15,19480, page B1, Col. 5): "Church got (us) a $6.1 million federal grant to fund public parking facilities (for Boise). That kind of clout and influence is not easily achieved," said Hansberger. "Let's not throw it away."

And the New York-based Idaho Statesman has the audacity to make "big new" with their anti-capitalistic claim that Steve Symms is somehow improperly serving billionaire Bunker Hunt's welfare when he trades in the silver market, all the while (Symms) viewing with alarm our idiot U.S. government pooping away the silver backing for our printing-press paper money. This last is, of course, the only way Sen. Church and his liberal pals in Insane City, D.C., can "pay" for what Hansberger called, "that kind of clout and influence." There is absolutely no other way to pay for it.

Germany's inflation of the printed-money supply led to Adolf Hitler; and the same kind of printing-press madness during the French Revolution led to the chopping off of the heads of Marie Antoinette, King Louis and many politicians just before Napoleon Bonaparte. This is not to mention the beheading of a great many civilians who tried in vain to smuggle their money, coins and precious gems out of France to avoid paper money chaos. It is going on right now in America, Great Britain and other countries. STILL we cannot seem to "see" it's here.

But the political clout background required for much of this super-insanity comes not only from grateful recipients (see above) getting rich from government programs. Oddly enough it comes from most of the churches all across America. With the possible exception of the Mormon Church, their concern for the poor, though sincere, seems to motivate their religious super-activists in virulent anti-capitalist directions in order "to pay" for their often misguided compassion for federal handouts. Programs such as urban renewal, busing school children, federal housing, food stamps, below-cost education from cradle to grave, etc., etc., ad infinitum, almost always result in some anti-market scheme to fatten the rich.

If the primary purposes of federal programs ARE to improve the lot of the poor, then why does this goal not require the church's support rather than the condemnation of capitalism and the free market? These have certainly out-distanced any other economic system in raising the standard of living for the poor - when left to free competitive enterprise.

Unfortunately, not many modern churchmen believe in free competitive capitalistic enterprise.

Maybe ONE of the reasons they don't is Hansberger's Helpers don't seem to believe it either.

Larry Fullmer -- A Choice or an Echo?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
August 31, 1980

On July 1 Ed Clark formally opened his full-time Libertarian campaign for president of the United States.

His news conference in Washington, D.C., drew considerable publicity across the country - including major stories in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. That's a big switch from four years ago when the media saw as "newsworthy" only the libertarian's position(s) on legalizing whorehouses and marijuana.

The New York Times (all the news that fits - we print_, the paper reporters and knee-jerk liberals read to find out what's news, ran three long, favorable pieces on the Clark campaign and the Libertarian movement.

The times' syndicated columnist Tom Wicker called Ed Clark "an alternative if there ever was one." "Although not right-wingers" he said, "they certainly aren't left-wingers ..."

"They are serious political thinkers who challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual - a stance long and honorably grounded in American history but disastrously abandoned, Libertarians say, by both major parties." An understatement if I ever heard one.

Clark was in Boise recently, partly to help publicize his fellow Libertarian candidate Larry Fullmer of Pocatello who's running in the U.S. Senate race against incumbent liberal Sen. Frank Church (D-Ida.) and conservative Congressman Steve Symms (R-Ida.)

Fullmer's candidacy as a Libertarian has been given added credibility lately by Clark's seemingly uncanny believability in his national TV ads. You should watch him, he's great.

Wednesday's formal announcement in Boise by Fullmer, 36, was marked by a TV interview and news conference attacking both his adversaries. He did a pretty good job, too, for the most part.

"Church," he said, "shares responsibility for the wild growth of the welfare state with nearly half the nation's personal income going to the federal government."

The Democrat senator, "is always ready with a handout ..." presumably to buy votes with middle-class taxpayer's money. "Bankrupt economic policies," says Fullmer.

He gave Church and Symms equally bad marks in defense and foreign policy. He called Symms a "dangerous and expensive militant" and accused Church of deception in his (Church's) Boise press conference last year on the Soviet troops in Cuba.

It is not clear whether Fullmer will take most of his tiny percentage of votes from Symms or Church, but many of his statements sound mighty welcome indeed to Symms' old Libertarian-leaning pals from the 1972 campaign. In a close race, however, he could kill either candidate, so he shouldn't be taken lightly.

For example, Fullmer says, "Government has gone wild ... and has become the enemy of the people." He said, "America no longer has a free market economy, and has instead become a corporate state."

He adds, too, that "the middle class today is the exploited class." "The haves," he says, "get it and keep it with political power while the have nots are kept quiet with food stamps."

I knew Symms before he surrounded himself with almost entirely knee-jerk conservatives. Time was when Steve could be expected to attack the Chamber of Commerce's fascist-type tendencies to solicit government handouts with nerve, candor and charm. Now, however, he seems strangely hell-bent on restraint, particularly with the news media's super-obvious and rotten slant favoring his opponent. They've somehow blunted Symms' old familiar standby defense of his "freedom is the issue" stance, i.e., a timely and vigorous OFFENSE.

Perhaps a bumper sticker should appear with this needle: "If freedom's still the issue, vote for Fulmer." Symms, if he hasn't lost his million dollar sense of humor, would laugh at this jab. He should. But he should laugh - and take heed.
Somethings missing in his campaign - so far.

But Fullmer and Clark can afford to take chances. They don't intend to win. Indeed, they know and readily admit they cannot; so they can afford to "be honest." And bless their hearts for their yeoman efforts for freedom and common sense.

Still, Symms might want to challenge Fullmer on a few of his stands - like favoring the left-leaning Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). (Interestingly, the collectivists never brag about the quite a few women individualists who HAVE made it big in the male chauvinist world - witness: Dixie Lee Ray, Clare Booth Luce, Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Barbara Walters with her million dollar salary.

Now then, all three Idaho senatorial candidates want freedom for women. But a LAW to make it COMPULSORY? Wake up, Larry!

Wake up, Steve!

The Skeletons of Cecil Andrus

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
September 7, 1980

Former governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus, appeared last week on the government's TV station (Ch. 4) in Boise. Presently U.s. Secretary of Interior, Andrus was interviewed as to his future if his present plans to return to Idaho do not change.

The once-popular Idaho politician seemed especially eager to get back into Idaho politics either as governor or in the Senate seat now held by U.S. Sen. Jim McClure when he comes up for re-election.

But a lot has surfaced since Andrus was such a popular governor a few years back. Given the personality cult in politics, a nice smile and a smooth manner often cover up many unpopular ideas.

One of these ideas destined to haunt Andrus' political future is his penchant for more government ownership rather than less. His enthusiastic repeal of the 160-acre limit for privately-owned farms getting water through government reclamation dams or irrigation projects was BAD news for farmers. Anyone outside the fantasy world of politics knows 160 acres is too small for a modern farm - unless its owner plows with oxen and fertilizes with a honey-bucket.

But not to worry, Andrus' political crusade is the sole property of the environmentalists, and they don't WANT production.
The energy producers, the mineral producers, the loggers, sheepherders and the cowboys, etc., all put together, pack a lot less wallop than the long hairs and snail darter utopians. Never mind they nearly torpedoed the Alaskan oil pipeline and added years of delay and hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost - for nothing. Well, nothing, save some good background.

I visited in Alaska a few years ago where it was explained to me that the federal government welched on their promise in the Alaska statehood agreement. The state was to get FIRST choice of 80 million acres, the balance to go to the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. It used to be called state's rights, now it's called protection. It should be called what it is; socialism. Unfortunately the Alaskans are STILL unable to get their land.

Somehow, through clever use of semantics, the classic difference between our system and that of Soviet Russia, which is private ownership, has become almost totally obscured by the anti-capitalist mentality, thus paving the way for Alaska's problem.
But in the state of Nevada, at least, "Hope springs eternal in the human breast." They decided to do something about too much government ownership. They started the very popular Sagebrush Rebellion, an effort by the state of Nevada to drive the federal land-socialists out of the state. However, something seems to have happened to let some of the steam out of the Sagebrushers, i.e., the socialists have got their reaction act together - thanks to the news media's ever present anti-private help.

Some key to all this may lie in Alaska's problem-ridden search for oil and mineral resources. the August issue of Accuracy in Media (AIM), an excellent newsletter devoted to an effort to get the media to be honest, seems to suggest Andrus and the media are not leveling with us.

It seems that interior wanted to lock up a potentially oil rich area in Alaska called the Arctic Wildlife Range. Some influential senators asked for a study first. Interior produced a study which showed the good news of a "possible" new super-giant oil field like nearby Prudhoe Bay.

But the good news was not hailed in the press, according to AIM. "A UPI story on the report played down the good news." Further check revealed, "UPI's story simply followed the Department of Interior's press release, which quoted Secretary of Interior Andrus as advising those looking for oil to go west, not east."

AIM raised some questions about all this with the Department of Interior. "We learned that the Interior Department had been less than honest in its handling of this study." A rather obvious ploy, according to AIM, to support Interior's downplaying of the "good news" potential for new oil in Alaska. Thus another notch in the lock-upper's belt.

"The Government Accounting Office (GAO) was called in to evaluate the study. They concluded: 'Overall, we feel the data developed do not support a decision to close the Arctic Wildlife Range to oil and gas exploration.'

"This was," according to AIM, "a searing indictment of the Interior Department for manipulating and misrepresenting data on a matter of grave national interest. It seems to have been virtually ignored by the media outside Alaska."

Do you suppose the media has had anything to do with some of the "sage" having disappeared from the Sagebrush Rebellion in Nevada or Idaho?

Ideas on Limiting Government

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
September 14, 1980

An event took place last week about which you won't hear much through your local news media. I have tried to get them to cover such events in the past. They won't do it, so let's take a small look and see why.

The event is the annual meeting of the international Mont pelerin society, a group of scholars, intellectuals from several walks of life and even a handful of businessmen of a rather unusual persuasion, i.e., all are devoted to individualism instead of collectivism as the emphasis for proper public policy.

They meet in the western hemisphere in even years and the eastern hemisphere in odd years. Last year they met in Hong Kong.
The organization was formed shortly after World War II by some men who were alarmed by the trend toward what they call state-ism. They mean interventionism by government (usually national) as a way of solving people problems and-or allocating scarce resources.
This involves both economic liberties as well as individual liberties and rests, to a large extent, on a major premise that the latter cannot long survive without the former.

Two of the original founders of the prestigious group are still living and active. Both received Nobel prizes in the 1970s for their work in economics. Professor Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago and professor Fredrich Hayek of Austria both are very active members and both consider themselves libertarians.

Friedman is now senior research fellow at the Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace located at Stanford University in California. That institute was host to this year's Mont Pelerin conference.

virtually all the members express varying degrees of alarm at the fantastic growth of governments all around the world, but not all agree on just how to go about remedying the situation.

During one particularly grueling session on various ways for "Constraints on Government" which was the theme of the conference, one exasperated African guest, speaking from one of the floor microphones, said, "I am absolutely amazed at this group. The world is practically in chains and here we sit debating whether a ball and chain should be fastened to our leg or to our arm."

The guest list, by the way, usually reads like a who's who from behind the scenes all over the world. For example, William Simon, former U.S. Secretary of The Treasury, was the first speaker. His paper was entitled, "Do Conservative Governments Make a Difference in Monetary Policy?"

The conclusion seemed to be "yes, but ..." in other words political expediency always gets in the way. "As a result," Simon said, "governments focus on the realities of the election process and economic policies are manipulated to meet short-term political goals."
From not quite so behind the scenes in Great Britain came Sir Keith Joseph, secretary of state for industry under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Several questioners from the audience held Joseph's "less government feet" to the fire asking why he did not sell the ailing steel industry which is owned by the government.

The unusually sharp and congenial Britain responded: "Good idea, but how does one go about selling a steel factory that's losing $2 or $3 million a day?" Needless to say, after that the discussions became very lively and very stimulating.

Members and guests came from Norway, Sweden, Japan, Taiwan, Africa, Mexico, El Salvador, Argentina, Italy, Germany and many other countries. But it was heartwarming indeed to see so many bright, young scholars and economists from some American universities (believe it or not) gaining credibility for free market, private ownership and limited government ideas from - are you ready for this? - even some American businessmen.

What was said at Stanford and who said it are the leaders around the world of limited government, marketplace economic thought. But I'm positive you didn't read about it or see it on TV - and not because you missed something in the newspaper or on TV.
It wasn't there. The media has bigger things to worry about, after all, than whether or not government should control our every move, our every breath.

Let's see. There's the burning issue of Jimmy Carter parting his hair on the left instead of the right, or is it right instead of left? If red dye can cause cancer will Ronald Reagan soon be struck with cancer of the hair? What can we do to boost the chances of someone named John Anderson?

I called one member of the media to inquire about arranging for coverage of the Stanford conference and was told he was out to lunch. Heck, I knew that before I called. I wanted to know about covering the conference.

Weighing the Candidates Before Voting

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
September 21, 1980

What follows is an irritating nut to crack in terms of writing a newspaper column. It shouldn't be, but it is. How can one be honest, candid, intelligent and not lose one's credibility?

Here's the problem: I have been a life-long Republican, but last election I supported two Democrats running for local and state offices. While it is not often the case, I was able to vote FOR somebody rather than AGAINST their opponent. But many of my political friends were furious.

I respect those who do otherwise, but most of us are seldom offered much of a meaningful choice. Furthermore, when the power-seeking news media gets through with most candidates the choices are so emasculated as to render freedom of choice almost meaningless.

Politicians know this, hence most try to avoid taking sides at all, if indeed they ever wanted to. So it's hard to tell "who's on first."

Still, when all paties are reasonably sincere (whatever that means) the problem is extreme. Now to my case in point. Two good friends of mine are opposing each other for the Idaho State Senate. One, a cattle buyer and incumbent Senator Dean Abrahams (R-Canyon) is a sincere Republican and, though pretty much one of the "good ole boys," is also typical and conservative.

The other, my next door neighbor and challenger Robert Jarboe, a Democrat, manages Western Idaho Training Center (trains handicapped persons), but like most non-incumbents, he does not have a voting record. So upon what basis should columnists, or others for that matter, judge whom to support?

Well, my simplified course in political philosophy tells me that if a candidate will use both his vote and his influence for LESS government than his opponent - then vote for him. The less government he wants the more support he deserves. (Watch out if he only wants to make it "efficient".)

The likelihood of our ever getting "too little" government, given the intellectual constipation of today, is about the same as the likelihood that congressman Steve Symms will get a congratulatory kiss from Senator Frank Church come the day after election.

So, as you might guess, I've analyzed both Abrahams and Jarboe, on this basis. Of course, I very well may be wrong - this is no exact science, you know, but my guess is that Jarboe may be likely to give us less government. Why? Because he seems to "glorify" government less than my friend Abrahams tends to glorify it.

Two cases in point: (1) The incumbent's opposition to part-time county commissioners, like we used to have, as proposed by ex-commissioner of Canyon County, Bill Anderson. It was also recommended by the then-Governmental Affairs Committee of the Caldwell Chamber of Commerce. Abrahams thought the suggestion "ridiculous" and rejected it out of hand.

The second case in point was his vigorous opposition to de-regulation. Abrahams is chairman of the Idaho Senate Transportation committee where he fought the truck de-regulation bill with all his might during both years I testified and "lobbied" there for its passage.
The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill which was sponsored by Democrat State Senator Kermit Kiebert, but it was killed in the House.

Again, we can only judge from challenger Jarboe's "talk" (he says he'd vote for de-regulation), but what else is there except talk when you don't have a record? Well, there's cross-examination and debate. But the media somehow tends to discourage debate as not particularly newsworthy - (for shame).

Then there's those who tend to know the candidates intimately and which candidate theyrecommend. But that's risky too, since most tend to judge purely on basis of personality, particularly when issues tend not to affect voters the same.

So what's left? Well, one can vote on the basis of a candidate's political party affiliation. If one likes the tendencies of the Democrats one would vote for Jarboe. Voters preferring GOP tendencies would thereby choose Abrahams. On this basis, if one wanted less government, the latter would ordinarily deserve the vote, since the GOP supposedly stands for less government, but here is where I've been getting some real flask, much of it from Boise.

Since I have had a long and well known affiliation with the party of Lincoln, served two terms on the GOP state executive committee and was a delegate to the GOP national convention that nominated the most famous government-reducer of all for President of the United States, Barry Goldwater, the party faithful and the lobbyists remember me.

Respecting my great wisdom of "selective" party deviation they plead: "But Ralph, at least Abrahams will be a 'safe' vote for organizing the committee chairmanships in favor of the GOP, whereas Jarboe will be obligated to vote for Democrat chairmen." Well, they do indeed have a point.

But with one possible exception, it was those Republican committee chairmen in the House that killed the bill for trucker's freedom to compete.

It's called de-regulation. And so far at least, even the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (mostly Democrat) has made more noise favoring it than the Republicans have.

Steve Symms Is Worth Praying For . . .

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
September 28, 1980

A big name politician just flew onto the Idaho political scene in the person of ex-President of the United States, Gerald Ford. Want to guess what for? To help his old Republican friend Congressman Steve Symms to win against his old Democrat enemy, Sen. Frank Church, of course.

I had intended to go over to Boise to hear what the great white ex-father of the GOP had to say, but then I got to thinking (this gets me into all sorts of trouble, lately) that not too long ago Ford was helping Church, i.e., to give away, forgive me, to "pay" away the Panama Canal. So I decided not to go. After all, I might ask a question that'd suggest "educating" the public.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, both terrifies and infuriates Symms' new poll-worshipping press aide who comes to us 23 years fresh-from-the-manger in the holy land of New York. This pragmatic young easterner says it's political suicide to try to "Educate" (inject philosophy) during a campaign and he'll not sit still for any such attempt, either.

Well the poll "expert" just may have something: Given Symms' anti-Panama Canal treaty position and Ford's "give-it-away" position and Church's "pay-it-away" leadership, it just may very well be that trying any education at all during THIS campaign is indeed a no-no. In fact, given the super, and understandable reliance on the canal treaty by the Symms camp, one might hope that not too many who hear Ford, can even read or write.

But not to worry, their competition is much, much worse. Both born-again Democrats, Church and Carter, ought to be no match for Symms and Ford if their stories match on most everything else. If the news media hype, hopefully brought about by Ford's touch-down in Boise, gets any headlines at all it should pay off.

Both Ford and Symms are all American boys (no kidding now) whose political morality needs only to be seen to be believed, i.e., they both tell the same story at home and in Washington, D.C. Especially this is important with the advent of the fantastic rise of the Moral Majority's new Christian political crusade for morality (read, conservation). It may be that all us Symms' boosters need "incidentally I am still a gung-ho version of one) is a GOP "prayer." Who knows? Maybe the Boise Republican-Ford rally ended with one. If it did it probably ended something like this:

"May the good Ford shine his face upon our Steve, may he win over election come next November. And help us, oh Ford, to expose the errors of our opponent Church because he's a Democrat, not because he's WRONG or talks one way in Idaho and the other way in Washington - that'd take some education and we don't have time to do that - we need to get elected.

"And help us too, oh Ford, to be worthy of thy blessings and political wonders. (Show us how better to drown our libertarian pals.)

"And please, dear Ford, help the voters understand that although Steve's not perfect, he is sincere, and has lots of expert advisors.
"And please forgive him when he said and I quote, 'Frank Church's motivations are honest and I would not impugn his integrity.' Forgive me, but - a Ford 'wonder' could really help here."

Still, Gerald Ford is a forgiving "father" (he forgave Nixon, didn't he?) and further than that he isn't all bad either - after all he sent in the Marines after our ship the Mayaguez, and got our then hostages back off it. Didn't he?

And if that didn't satisfy, the GOP could have ended the Ford-Symms affair with: "Forgive us, oh Ford, if Steve went a little too far in praise of Church.After all, the liberal media has needed some blood, and the political ABC of it all is - where else can the conservatives go? And we MUST broaden our base, mustn't we?

"And help us be thankful too, oh Ford, for Steve's every-so-many fine political virtues and loyalties no doubt yet to come.

"And if he does succeed in separating Church from this state - as we pray that he will - please help him in their upcoming debate to get Poland on the RIGHT side of the Iron curtain."

New Media's Double Standard

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
October 5, 1980

Much to my chagrin I'm afraid it's true that liberals are turned on by ideas and conservatives are turned off by them.

Of course, most of both are not interested in either - rather they are only interested in getting their candidate elected.

But this year's campaign is more particularly characterized by an arrogant double-standard made even moreso by the "news" media.
For example, the media has been near-frantic in its more than year-long demand that Congressman Steve Symms denounce the Boise-based "Anyone but Church" (ABC) Committee. Symms, however, steadfastly held out - refusing to denounce anyone, but Church (no pun intended).

ABC, by the way, later joined up with the Virginia based National Conservative Political Action Committee. The latter is engaged in a national effort to defeat four other knee-jerk liberals like Idaho's Sen. Frank Church, including the famous liberal U.S. senator, George McGovern.

Symms' resistance to the Idaho media was in the best tradition of that most famous conservative of all, Arizona's Barry Goldwater, who in 1964 refused the national liberal's near-frantic demands to repudiate the John Birch Society.

At least Symms resisted until recently when his advisors, no doubt caving in at a last ditch effort to get some uncommitted voters off their duff, succeeded in getting the Johnny Appleseed of Idaho to scold the Church-fighting ABC.

All of which is probably understandable, given the "heat" of campaign battle, but Symms' praise of Church's "honesty and integrity" was, perhaps, a little much (Church's "gratitude" was another attack on Symms, calling it all a ploy and questioning his sincerity).

Still, given a hostile "news" media through which he is forced to tell his story, Symms could be expected to feel the need to over-state his point in order to make it plain, but it gave the liberal-worshipping media all it ever wanted, i.e., something, anything, from Symms with which they could beat him and the anti-Church ABE over the head. Their anti anti-Church crusade had finally paid off.

Still, bad as all this might be, it is not so serious as the media's flagrant use of the double-standard. For example, they must have beaten Symms over the head with ABC as a straw man a hundred times during interview after interview. But nowhere can one discover where the media has even inquired of Church about "his" AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education (COPE).

For years the press and COPE have done for Church exactly what the liberals have so steadfastly accused ABC of doing for Symms. This is not to mention the absolutely huge sums of money and in-kind contributions COPE has given to Church over the years - all without even so much as a modest press harassment of the "government worshipping" senior senator to denounce anybody. Shame, shame on the "news" media.

Just why the Symms' camp refused to attack them for this remains a mystery. It sort of reminds one of the liberal peacenik's attitude toward Communist Russia: "Make love, not war."

I still like Symms. I still respect his efforts toward what he signs off his letters with, namely, "for a free society." I just cannot understand keeping silent while an obviously hostile mediaknifes you in the back, time after time after time.

There are a few exceptions in the media, of course, a pitiful few. But they, too, are strangely modest and usually strangely silent when their comrade "pots" call the kettles black.

For example, Democrat candidate for First District, Glenn Nichols, has his pal Mark Roby accuse their GOP competitor of a "double standard." Roby is the Ada County Democrat Party chairman who thusly charged Republican Larry Craig for using a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan, then later campaigning against "government solutions," i.e., a double-standard.

While Roby may have had a valid, if small, point he was careful to include his main point, i.e., that the business in which Craig was a stockholder took bankruptcy. I say Roby's "main point" because otherwise why would he have mentioned the word bankruptcy at all? Why does the media not dwell on this? Well, one reason is that the whole dang gang of conservative Republicans are intimidated by the liberal media and will not publicly let the public know.

It's interesting, too, to note something else the media has so far neglected to tell the public about the Nichols-Roby charge. Craig's company took out bankruptcy of $122,000, but beginning July 11, 1978, Craig himself has paid off $87,000 which he was not obligated to pay - legally.

So far, about the only "real" point candidate Nichols has made is that he and Church have the "news" media's double-standard all sewed up.

Idaho Politics, Billboard-Style

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
October 12, 1980

Have you noticed the highway billboards of the politicians? Maybe you should, for there are some rather fun observations one can find there.

For example, Sen. Frank Church, who is fighting for the knee-jerk liberal political life he has led for 24 years, has some real doozies. As you might imagine some are more noteworthy for what they don't say rather than what they do - like which party he belongs to even.

Get this billboard on gun control: "Who has fought gun control legislation for the last 24 years?" Answer: "Frank Church." Well, bless Bess! After fighting FOR almost every form of government control known to man he is finally against one. Why? The media never asks.

Church sees guns as a "sacred" right for sportsman to hunt and fish (yes, fish - because that's how you catch suckers). The Founding Fathers put in the Constitution our"right to keep and bear arms" due to a profound fear of the abuse of government power.

That's NOT so the pilgrims could shoot a turkey for Thanksgiving. It is sometimes called a "healthy skepticism" against a potentially arrogant government like more and more of us "turkeys" think we have today. That's definitely not a skepticism that Church holds in very high priority against the "govern-mentality" he's done so much to promote during those long 24 years in the Senate he brags about.

Another doozie on Church's billboard reads: "Frank Church has ONE special interest - Idaho's." One wonders if that is the reason so much money comes to Church from New York and Miami.

Idaho's super-liberal senator has a much better record of out-of-state donations from fewer states than either his opponent, Congressman Steve Symms, or his "hair shirt" Anybody But Church (ABC) committee.

Both of the latter have been badgered by both the media and Church for out-of-state money and out-of-state influence. This allegation is a fish story to end all fish stories. Any reporter with a 10th grade mentality and first grade integrity could and should make an on-going story about church's political support of the Israelis for many, many years. Somehow they refuse.

There's no more wrong in his support for Israel than it is for U.S. Sen. James McClure to call for more support for the Arabs. But it is wrong to distort almost to the point of lying about these efforts by telling HALF truths.

Such a ploy is, of course, only successful when the main body of the news media covers up for one politician and virtually rides on the back of another.

This is exactly what is happening, of course, with Church and Symms. It is aided and abetted unfortunately by a valley billboard company. The company refused to allow Symms' supporters to rent one of the billboards to counter the above situation with a Boise newspaper.

Here's one of the billboards it refused: "Let's give the Idaho Statesman APPLE-plexy - vote for Steve Symms." Maybe it was the humor they didn't like.

Who'll Capture the 'Cute' Cote?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
October 19, 1980

A delightful and charming waitress whom we'll call Dawn said to me last week she was going to vote for a certain, I thought bad, candidate. To which I replied, "For Heaven's sake why? He's almost a socialist."

Her response was a blank look and a pleasant smile. A conservative friend of mine nearby, hearing the exchange, offered: "My goodness, young lady, you should base your vote for a candidate on his philosophy, not because of his smile or his personality."

Dawn's response was swift and sure. It went right to the heart, too, if not the solar-plexes of the conservative's dilemma. "Oh," she said, after a thoughtful pause and with a kind of twinkle in her eye. "Oh, gosh, then you mean I can't vote for Steve Symms?"

Well, needless to say, her quickwitted query nearly brought the house down. We all laughed at the goodnatured exchange, but it really highlighted, for me at least, just how entrapped are those political candidates and their supporters who see fiscal responsibility and restraint as the salvation of our country. They see, too, that the do-gooders, hippies, liberals such as the George McGoverns and well-meaning peace-niks and bureaucrats have done Hallmark Greeting Card Company one better.

They have "cared enough - to send the very best" to every hungry nation all around the world. All at somebody else's expense - not theirs. Of that you can be sure.

Even to sending funds to Communist Poland and Yugoslavia in Europe. We gush for compassion's sake to Communists in Nicaragua, Red Russia and, now, Red China. The list almost never ends. Certainly our multi-billion dollar defense budget is not because we fear our anti-Communist friends around the world. But to gush now for both sides? It now includes both sides of the religious war between the Arabs and the Jews. We can hardly tell friend from foe, and where will it end?

You might well ask what's all this got to do with a friendly and no doubt more than a little perceptive waitress who asks: "Why can't I vote for a politician because I like his smile?"

Okay, it's just this. Maybe the waitress has more going for her political philosophy (call it emotional dart-throwing if you like) than we'd like to admit.

People like people. Especially if they think those people care. And how can they tell if they care or not? Well, they certainly cannot tell by what the candidates say or what their eastern establishment image-makers tell them to say.

And last, but not least, how can they tell by what the news media in general and the Idaho Statesman in particular tell us? The latter made front page headlines out of a "question" they claim that congressman Symms "planted" for U.S. Sen. James McClure to answer about our Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

It made the media's hero, Sen. Frank Church, look bad because it is now obvious that our government's "intelligence" agency has become a shambles thanks in part to Church's attacks on it, and thus contributed to our having 52 hostages kidnapped and still being held in the foreign country of Iran.

And here at home it's much the same. Last winter during the bitter cold the coal miner's labor union held millions of coal users hostage. The U.S. had to shiver and suffer in the cold while the unions "negotiated" for their unconscionable demands for more pay for less work. And it succeeded, too.

Now we wonder why Dawn wants to vote for her political leaders based on a politician's smile.

Well now, "Comes the Dawn." She just may not have been joking, after all.

'Planted' Church-Carter Letter

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
October 26, 1980

Well it finally came off - "The Great Debate," I mean. No it wasn't C.S. Lewis' famous book by that name, although the "religious" overtones were there sure enough.

The Symms versus' Church debate actually went rather well: that is, both the circuit riding political "wrestlers" came out into the "ring" put there by the League of Women Voters and the news media's Idaho Press Club and "fought the fair fight."

About that so-called fight a few rambling observations. Church's political career was launched by his winning a prize for high school debate sponsored by the American Legion. School debate is that great fiction by which students are taught to say something without having to take sides. Or, let's see, maybe they're taught to take sides without saying anything.

In any event, school debate has always been a good springboard for politics and probably for just that reason. Still, that is why most observers guessed that Church's long-time seniority in politics (24 years in addition to his debate experience) suggested that he'd defeat Symms, in all likelihood.

He did not. Much to the chagrin, no doubt, of their knee-jerk liberal co-hosts. But both Church and Symms gave a fair account of themselves and their political pasts.

Indeed, I said to Randy Stapilus, the political writer for the Pocatello newspaper, during his interview with me a few weeks ago concerning my early days with Symms that he (Symms) tended to be a sincere Adam Smith capitalist and Church tended to be a sincere Karl Marx socialist. As a matter of fact I told the skeptical and quite perceptive young Stapilus that if the Idaho public were to discover just how much real truth there actually was to those two "labels" there would likely be a political rebellion here, against both.

Let me hasten to add that labels are how civilized and literate people communicate. There simply is no other way. since words are merely labels we must use them - hopefully in a responsible manner. Some of this is learned in school debate as evidenced by the fact that more fuss and fanfare is made there about form and style than substance and virtue - unfortunately.

But I want to hasten to add also that it's the word "sincere" that I want to emphasize more about the Church and Symms debate than their respective tendencies toward the philosophers Smith or Marx.

Now, those who saw the debate on the government television (Channel 4) Thursday night and who already had taken sides were not likely to change. My partisan pals, the conservatives, will be furious (again) when I don't "report" Symms a big winner in the debate and rubber stamp his every word, but the lone fact that he met the champ debater, Church, and fought him to a draw is in itself a big accomplishment.

Still, there was Church. All smiles. All things to all people, in all his 24 years of glory - all at somebody else's expense. But, he's never been otherwise. As I said - sincere. And I'm sincere too, when I say that. It actually terrifies me that he is indeed effective in that direction, but it's true.

On the other hand, there was Symms. All our troubles were mostly the fault of "too much government." He's been saying that since 1972 and thank God. Indeed, his trademark was a bright red apple with a bit missing. He said "Send me to Washington to take a bite out of government." He did - at least he's really trying. As I said - sincere! And the media criticizes: "Symms doesn't pass enough laws."

Of course, both candidates include what they think makes them look good and attempt to cover up what they think might do otherwise. Who wouldn't? The main difference is that Church has the news media liberals, all trained in the government's compulsory, non-profit, anti-capitalist school system, covering up for his side of the story (which by the way, is beginning to leak).

Case in point, and in my view the high point of the campaign. Symms once "planted" a question with a friend to ask Church about the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A good question by the way. But the news media screamed like a mashed cat. "Bad ethics," they said.

Now then, during the TV debate Church answered a news journalist's question on nuclear energy. The senior senator promptly pulled a letter from President Carter out of his pocket.

The letter he said exonerated both him and Carter on being for breeder reactors and nuclear power - a long time thin spot, indeed, for both Democrats.

It looked as if Church had pulled a rabbit out of his hat. It did, that is, until the questioners turned to Symms who immediately asked his opponent:

"What's the date on that letter?" Church, looking like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, replied, "October 23," the same day as the debate.

I'll bet you won't find that question as a headline on the New York-based Idaho Statesman, claiming a "planted" question.

A Word by Any Other Name . . .

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
November 2, 1980

Somehow or another words do not seem to be something that "turn people on." In fact, words in and of themselves, tend rather more to turn people off.

This is especially true if one offers to explain his or her words in terms of a definition. It may have something to do with the government's school system being compulsory, I'm not sure. In any event words can also be a lot of fun and at the same time even say something. So bear with me for a moment, and I'll try to show you what I mean.

Webster's defines the term this way, "(1) word: talk, discourse, putting one's feelings into (2) the text of a vocal musical composition ..." etc. this term musical, I thought must be what most politicians hope their promises-to-get-votes will sound like to voters.

But an assembly of words can indeed sound like music especially if they are assembled and spoken in a certain configuration. Even when they are assembled in jest they sometimes give forth a kind of "music" the tune of which rings in our ears in any even more meaningful way than at first intended. The following little piece of dogerel, for example:

"A PROFESSOR is said to be a man who knows a great deal about very little and who goes along knowing more and more about less and less until finally he knows practically everything about nothing;

"Whereas a NEWS COMMENTATOR, on the other hand, is a man who knows a very little about a great deal and keeps on knowing less and less about more and more until he practically nothing about everything.

"A POLITICIAN starts out knowing practically everything about everything, but ends up knowing nothing about anything, due (no doubt) to his association with professors and news commentators."

But the peak in polemics, at least in recent memory, just may be the ever so "musical" word composition I received recently explaining why a customer said it was almost impossible for him to pay his bills:

"My shattered financial condition is due to Federal laws, State laws, corporation laws, liquor laws, mother-in-laws, brother-in-laws, sister-in-laws, and outlaws. Through these laws I am expected to pay a business tax, amusement tax, school tax, gas tax, sales tax, liquor tax, carpet tax, income tax, food tax, furniture tax and excise tax. Even my brain is taxed.

"I am required to get a business license, car license, hunting license, fishing license, marriage license, and dog license. I am also required to contribute to the relief of those who have an unemployment license.

"Then there are such charitable organizations in the city, including the Red Cross, the Blue Cross, the Purple Cross and the Double Cross.

"For my own safety, I am required to carry life insurance, property insurance, earthquake insurance, flood-plain insurance, mortgage insurance, unemployment, old age and fire insurance.

"My business is so governed that it is no easy matter for me to find out who owns it. I am inspected, expected, disrespected, rejected, dejected, examined, re-examined, informed, required, summoned, commanded and compelled until I provide an inexhaustible supply of money for every known want of the human race.

"Simply because i refuse to donate something or other, I am boycotted, talked about, lied about, held up, held down and robbed until I'm almost ruined."

Fortunately I was able to reply to that customer with a note of optimism: This year's political campaign is over come next Tuesday, election day. Thank Heaven.

And if you, too, are exasperated, my advice is: "Don't vote - it only encourages them."

The Empire Strikes Back!

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
November 9, 1980

Possibly an appropriate "bumper sticker" for Senator-elect Steve Symms' humor-loving fans might be simply: "The Empire Strikes Back."

But John Corlett, long-time political editor of the Boise Statesman newspaper, would no doubt object to that sort of humor. An obvious play on words with the movie sequel to the most popular science-fiction drama in motion picture history - "Star Wars," just might cause John some sleepless nights.

But can't you just see the pundit possibilities of a political Darth Vader scheming furiously and fiendishly to stave off the white knight, Johnny Appleseed, from that newly discovered planet the Red Apple?Never mind the no doubt scientific gene-splicing it must have taken the inter-planetary doctors to get the famous "bite" restored back into the apple planet. No more difficult probably, than it was to get that harsh, red hue changed into a safer configuration resembling the more reassuring and more orthodox three stars, three stripes and the red, white and blue. Still retaining, of course, the silhouette shape of an apple, but emblazoned, instead with the standard, smooth, outline more traditional and identifiable with inter-galaxy headquarters.

After all, the Luke Skywalker of the 80s should have a more scientifically proven base from which to launch his new rockets-red-glare missiles.

On second thought Corlett might not object after all. Such a modern scenario would be anything but simple and if there's anything John hates it's simple things - especially simple solutions. Complex solutions, that's the hallmark of the 80s and, by the way, the 70s and the 60s and so forth, ad infinitum. It just might work, too. After all a Skywalker should always have the media on his side, shouldn't he? Especially if he's a tight-rope skywalker.

I just hope Bill Hall, editor of the liberal Lewiston Morning Tribune's editorial page, doesn't get hold of this "Star Wars" scenario of scientific politics. Bill, as many of you know, is a long-time pal and compatriot of Idaho's own Sen. Church and now black )forgive me) Knight-of-the-Paper on the planet "Greenback." Some of the early astronauts using ordinary telescopes thought the above planet's silhouette resembled a printing press.

But later and more scientific members of the galaxy's media have assured us that it is only an illusion - like UFOs (unidentified flying objects) you know. Nothing in the modern days of science-fiction politics ever, ever, ever resembles a printing press. Not even on that old planet Greenback was there anything even remotely resembling a printing press; yes, not even a silhouette of one.

such are the illusions of a people with scientifically untrained eyes using their own old-fashioned telescopes and doing their own old fashioned reasoning. Sort of reminds one of the old days when we were being told that the moon was made of green cheese, doesn't it?

Well, Hall and Corlett both have been telling us for years about our political moons and their politician's green cheese. These political astrology professors have now witnesses the apocalypse they saw in our horoscope - "the end of Western civilization as we've known it, no doubt. Reagan and Symms. Egad!"

Notwithstanding the unfortunate fact that Hall is easily the cleverest writer (even has a sense of humor - or did) in the whole state, Corlett just may have had the dubious honor of writing the Statesman's post-election sour grape's editorial of Nov. 6.

It said, in part, "it must be said that he (Symms) performed less than graciously when he charged the Statesman with bias on Tuesday night after urging its editorial board on Friday to endorse him." Believe it or not, they actually said that.

Well, I say at least Symms tried. The giant newspaper did their damndest to torpedo him during the campaign and he seized a beautiful opportunity to cite one of the paper's delivery boys who declared himself to be for Symms "in spite of my paper's bias."

He quoted the paper boy live on TV and it was a delightfullysweet and devastating sort of revenge. It was more important for another reason, however, because the Statesman had it coming. A crowning andhumorous climax to their power struggle.

As to the New York-based newspapers' claim that the congressman "urged" (read, begged) for their endorsement that same week, I'd say hooray for him. That's what politics is all about - unfortunately.

It all reminds me of Randolph, the brown-nosed reindeer, and brother of Rudolph of the red nose. He ran just as fast as Rudolph, he just couldn't stop as fast. Sort of sums it all up, doesn't it?

And like Gary Loyd's bumper stickers, which just may have elected Symms, said, "The Statesman made him do it."

Lord Works in Strange Ways

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
November 16, 1980

Among the mountain of publications I receive is a religious tabloid called "Western Messenger." It comes from Yakima, Wash. A recent headline story read: "Moral-Majority - fundamentalist christians are flexing their political muscles for the first time.

Likewise the Idaho Press-Tribune has carried two rather lively commentaries, both quite critical of this rising political movement. One was by Nicholas Von Hoffman and one by Ralph Nichols. Both these liberal gentlemen write well and both, to their everlasting credit, hold individual freedom quite high on their priority list for public concern. But both these columnists see the new moralists as a serious threat on the U.S. political scene.

I'm both amused and amazed at these two gentlemen's seeming inconsistency. The liberal interventionists took the morals of humanism into their own hands years and years ago. So fervently did they believe their moral crusade was right that they grabbed control of the government to give their ideas force and effect.

And force and effect it has been, i.e., more and more "force" from government, at all levels by the way, and more and more effects. All of this has resulted in the most gigantic expansion of big brother type of super-government the world has ever known. Admittedly, of course, with some good results. But some bad. Unfortunately, the "good" results are often plain and the "bad" ones obscure.

And herein lies the problem. These things all have a cost in terms of someone's freedom, or blood, or treasure. Most of us don't see that as any particular threat (to us) -until it strikes "home." then it's usually too late. Often, way too late. It very well may be too late now, but if we're to get out of this swamp we must find out how we got into it. And the sooner the better.

Now then, in that direction an interesting phenomenon has appeared. It's called "The Moral Majority" (of conservatives) and they're mad as a bunch of hornets headed straight down that primrose path that the liberals led us years ago. Namely, to use the government to DO GOOD. It's a bit frightening to some of us when we remember that that is about all the communists claim they want, i.e., to do good via government force.

But all those considerations aside most people are just not much interested. Most people, that is, except the liberal activists and, forgive me, most of the news media. Their sudden concern for freedom, or some call it the "fate of Western civilization," is not only nearly fanatic it's almost hysterical. They say to me in all sincerity and sometimes between emotional gasps: "Why Ralph, have you heard what those Moral Majority preachers are about to do?" I usually say, "No, please tell me."

"Well," they quickly respond, "those moralizers are out after political power - no less. Ye gods! Just think of it. Separation of church and state gone forever."

Boy, oh boy! I just wonder why and how people's political memory is so short. They seem almost to have completely forgotten the World Council of Churches and Eugene Carson Blake. Where were they when the National Council of Churches, rightly or wrongly, led the nation's popular religious groups to massive political attacks on anti-communists throughout the world, not to mention here at home?
Where were they when the Rev. Martin Luther King was advocating political activity far beyond most any.

There are, of course many others including Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Catholic Berican brothers and Congressman Father Robert Drinan. Indeed the latter became so vigorous an advocate of political interventionism that it took the Catholic Church's Pope himself, or at least a papal order, to get the guy's feet back down on the ground. (In defense of the guy most politicians, even some from Idaho, sooner or later get a God-complex.)

But these well-meaning political liberals of today, when I throw such little scenarios up to them, are quick to say: "Oh those preachers were just trying to liberalize freedom for others."

"Oh is that it?" I tend to respond. "I wonder then, where they were when Rev. Billy James Hargis and Rev. Carl MacIntyre were run off the air waves by our government and had their tax exempt status attacked?" Maybe the liberals just didn't want their "liberalizing freedom" to include politically conservative and fundamentalist preachers. Furthermore, even if Hargis and MacIntyre were somehow wrong, both in their politics and in their religion - since when is freedom of the press or freedom of expression only reserved for those who agree with us?

Isn't it simply when they want to use the GOVERNMENT to cram their particular freedom (read, morality) down our throats that we should scream?

Well, clear your throats everybody because just now BOTH sides are about to do - just that.

Responsibility or Tribalism?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
November 23, 1980

What follows is intended to be an appeal to my fellow conservatives. An appeal, if I may, and an explanation of sorts.

Public affairs have pretty much come to be a contest mainly for power. Indeed, our consuming preoccupation with one-man, one-vote, as compared with our former emphasis as a democratic republic, could hardly have led us elsewhere.

For decades now we've been beaten over the head with "you conservatives think property rights are more important than human rights." Our liberal competition, both philosophically as well as politically, have tended to give us a kind of inferiority complex because they appeared to "care" for the poor more than we did.

One reason this happened is because America's affluence has been so spectacular and downright obvious to anyone who took the trouble to look. The increase in a standard of living never before dreamed of has virtually elevated the poor of this country by their very own bootstraps. But it somehow made us feel guilty.

What is not so obvious, however, is what brought this all about. Was it because our system has been more socialistic than capitalistic, or was it the other way around? Was it because we were religious and our European ancestors were pagans? Or was it still something else yet that has eliminated more poverty and starvation for the poor than any other country in history?

We won't reach an answer acceptable to everyone in the short space of this column, of course, but one or two observations might help.

One of the most important and fundamental differences between our system and that of the Soviet Union is - private ownership. Their system is - government ownership. It is sometimes called "public ownership." Many people take great pride and note that a huge percentage of the food the Soviets produce is grown on the tiny number of one acre plots in Russia which are privately owned and upon which the owners are allowed the freedom to control what they grow. It is something like 40 percent of their entire food production - without which they'd starve. That phenomenon, unfortunately, is seldom seen to be newsworthy of 90 percent of the media and about that same percentage of our educators. It is here that I'd like to suggest something to my conservative friends who have recently been elevated to a new, and to some degree, higher political power.

Our country is to an alarming degree on a supreme power kick. Indeed, much of the middle class determine their social orbits within that small group who could "do them some good." All of this is, of course, both understandable and not likely to change much. But what isn't always obvious to conservatives is that it is largely THEIR responsibility to show the rest of the world that there is,for sure, a connection and a vital one at that between property rights and human rights.

It could be said that the "connection" is that a property right IS a human right. Or, said yet another way: what is a human right worth without a property right? Again, it's becoming clearer and clearer that human freedom cannot long endure without the freedom to own property.

Too many of us conservatives have, I'm afraid, allowed the explanation and promotion of this concept to go by default. Maybe, even, to the extent we don't entirely understand it ourselves, i.e., we just take it for granted.

For example, during the last two elections I supported two Democrats. Being a long-time Republican I was assailed by ever-so-many politically conservative GOP friends as though I'd lost my political mind. It was very nearly tribalistic, I'm sorry to say, but I'm sure they were sincere.

Here's the suggestion for my New Right friends recently come to new power. Maybe, just maybe, the liberal Democrats, admittedly heretofore insufferably preoccupied with what they saw as "human rights," were ALSO sincere.

If this assumption be true (let me hasten to add that, of course, we shouldn't get carried away with such an assumption) then does it not also follow that maybe, just maybe, we have not done our homework on the connections between private freedom and private ownership?

And one small reminder to our GOP legislators. Since "we" in Idaho have for decades dominated the government's compulsory school system perhaps our zeal to communicate our "virtue" via political power should be examined for - you guessed it - tribalism.

Inflation Like Being on Drugs

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
December 7, 1980

America may well be the most educated country in all of history. Perhaps the most super-educated, over-educated, child educated, adult educated,continuing educated, cradle-to-grave educated group ever concocted by the mind of man.

If this is true it is just absolutely GREAT - no apologies. But the possibility exists that we have been merely "schooled" instead of educated.

Let's take, for example, the subject of inflation. many of our leaders today claim, with all the gusto at their command, that our inflation is caused by the OPEC oil producing nation's greedy price-gouging. But proclaiming high oil prices cause inflation is like believing wet sidewalks cause rain. A closer look at the anatomy of inflation will demonstrate why high oil prices are the symptom and not the cause.
Forgive me for a moment, but Webster's dictionary defines inflation as "an increase in the supply of money and or money substitutes usually followed by a rise in the general price level."

Okay? Well, unless Webster's is lying that can only be done by, you guessed it - government. Nobody else. Unless of course those "more honest" hoodlums, the ordinary counterfeiters who print $20 bills in somebody's basement.

Why, then, is the money supply increased? Answer: to finance government expenditures.

When is this done? When tapayers resist further increases indirect taxes.

How is the money supply increased? By printing paper money, issuing base coins. It's done also by clipping coins, but mostly by creating (credit) and lending demand deposits. (A complex system but a simple idea.)

What is the result of inflation? It transfers wealth such as savings, property, insurance, pensions, purchasing power, etc., from producers, savers, lenders and owners over to the government or those to whom they "give" it.

Here are some of the symptoms of an inflating money supply (inflation) which cause devaluation of purchasing power of your money.
(1) Government needs more money than it is able to collect through taxes (the voters scream like mashed cats) so it inflates the money supply.

(2) When the government spends this new money, business picks up.

(3) As the increased supply of money percolates down through the society it forces prices to rise and business begins to slump.
(4) To counteract the slump, the government issues more money.

(5) Business picks up again, but prices begin to rise, so business slumps again.

(6) People begin to distrust paper currency and begin to hoard gold and silver and other commodities or "hard" goods.

(7) Government (read, politicians) points the finger of blame at hoarders and passes laws to stop hoarding (often confiscating gold and sometimes silver).

(8) More inflation: Prices begin to rise even more steeply. People demand action and so government passes price and wage control laws.

(9) Shortages appear. so rationing begins and black markets take over instead of regular markets.

(10) Speculation begins to replace prudent investing as capital markets fluctuate up and down in concert with real and imagined business cycles, buffeted by ever more government controls.

(11) Hard work falls into disrepute. People get rich (or poor) speculating. The thrifty savers lose to inflated prices. More and more people go on relief as jobs and production fall and inflation forces the prices out of the reach of the elderly and marginal producers.

(12) As more people go on relief, government must tax the remaining producers more heavily, until they (the producers) decide to stop producing, and the situation begins to compound itself.

(13) Stock markets fluctuate widely up and down and finally drop. Marginal businesses fail. Prices fall to natural levels, currency becomes devalued to reach real levels. Debts are repudiated and - maybe - the country begins again under some (oft-times, radical) form of "govern-mentality."

This is precisely what brought Adolf Hitler to power over one of the best "educated" nations in the world's history - Germany.

You see, it's like being hooked on junk drugs. it takes bigger and bigger doses (fixes). Each "fix" thereby making matters worse.

Now then, if a senator or congressman says high oil prices or any other high price "causes inflation" he either (1) is attempting to divert attention from the truth, or (2) he doesn't understand how inflation is caused and how it spirals.

If the first is true, he should be thrown out as a scoundrel and a fraud. If the second is true, he should be removed at once for gross incompetence.

Priorities Fall Wide of Target

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
December 14, 1980

Last week Caldwell really got on the map in a big way. A restaurant-bar called Bozwell-Tweeds made the front page with this headline: "Women go Wild Over Male Strippers at Caldwell Bar."

The Pres-Tribune newspapers sent one of their top writers, Marie Galyean, to get the story, "because it was news - what else?" They sent a female reporter, of course, since men customers were not allowed. And what a "report" that talented and gifted little lady came back with.

Get a load of some of her quotes: "The youthful and not-so-young spectators are vocal, ecstatic and insatiable. One of the bartenders commented in a cowed voice, 'You can't imagine what it's like waiting on 200 - screaming women.'"

Well a whole flock of local, and hostile ministers COULD imagine it - and did. In fact, so vivid was Galyean's newspaper account of the male strip tease "art" that the group of protesting preachers claimed the story should have been buried back in the middle of the paper. Presumably, in that way so many potential sinners wouldn't have been tempted.

Now then, it wasn't exactly clear whether the well-meaning and concerned ministers were more angered at the male strippers or at the free publicity they got. But so many meaningful bare bones comments were stirred up I thought some observations were long overdue.

In fact I'd already planned to scream like a mashed cat about the government's own form of "pornography," since, forgive me, our nation's involuntary "sex act," i.e., inflation of the money supply, bodes far worse for this country than Bozwel-Tweeds voluntary foolishness.

Men stripping down to their skimpy bathing suits at a women's-only night club, admittedly shouldn't be ignored, but somehow our priorities have fallen pretty wide of the target, so let's take a look at this Duke's mixture.

(1) No one compelled any of these adult ladies to pay the two dollar or five dollar cover charge to see the men do their sexy gyrations.

(2) The ministers, to their everlasting credit, did not ask government to pass yet another law. I'm told they merely had their rights, too, and vigorously expressed them at city hall with Mayor Al McCluskey apparently cheering them on, i.e., real community action.

(3) Perhaps the religious leaders and their brother's keepers secretly do believe that people should be "protected from themselves," but every day more people suggest turning something called morality over to an even more immoral government. It is beyond even my pretty lively imagination.

In fact if I thought I could get the Press-Tribune's Galyean to write with that much clarity, vigor and perception about moral philosophy I'd recommend her for the University of Idaho's Chair of Free Enterprise. But she can't. Why? Because the women aren't so Bozwell-Tweed "wild" about freedom. (OK, free enterprise) and neither are the preachers, i.e., for the most part When I say freedom, I mean OTHER people's freedom. Therein lies our problem.

I would probably not have commented on this bit of asininity, but for a comment of a conservative friend of mine. An otherwise decent, intelligent, responsible, God-fearing citizen and good friend of mine, an important businessman, said about the male strippers: "those blankety blanks ought to be castrated."

Gosh! I thought that suggested violence called for some hopefully intelligent comment. But if the word freedom is to have any meaning at all it just MUST mean freedom (or liberty) for others to do what you and I do not approve of. Otherwise there can be no meaning or use for the word. Think about it. Only when we disagree is freedom at issue.

Until I heard my friend's cranky comment I had slapped my knee and laughed long and loud at the women's antics and the men-stripper's foolishness. Now, I'm not so sure. We just must find a way to disagree among ourselves - peacefully.

Liberals claim it is only they who are for freedom while conservatives are only for conformity, THEIR kind of conformity. Furthermore, claim the liberals, the conservatives are quick to run to the government to hand over responsibility for our morals. Is "legal" therefore the same as "moral?" Apparently in the liberal's view it is only if and when it has to do with economic matters where it is THEY who are quick to run to the government.

Since I'm not so sure about the morality of all this as I was at first I consulted my old friend Francis Schaeffer, one of the few really great theologians. One of the few worth his salt, in my opinion.

Of morals and the silent majority (hats off to the preachers, with guts not to be "silent") he said, "Will men not give up their liberties step by step, inch by inch, as long as their own personal peace and prosperity is sustained and not challenged, and as long as the goods are delivered?

"The lifestyles of the young and the old generations are different. There are tensions between long hair and short, drugs and non-drugs, whatever the outward distinctions of the moment. But they support each other sociologically, for both embrace the values of personal peace and affluence.

"Much of the church is no help here either, because for so long a large section of the church has only been teaching a relativistic humanism using religious terminology."

So to me, the thought in St. Matthew Chapter 23, verse 24 may help us target our moral protest priorities: "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel."

'How Come' C of I Didn't Listen?

By Ralph Smeed
Idaho Press-Tribune
December 28, 1980

Last week this column promised to repeat the message, a friendly warning of sorts, made 10 years ago to trustees of the College of Idaho. That institution has since come upon some rather hard times much the same as many similar small colleges throughout the old U.S.A. About all this some recollections.

Said message consisted of a pamphlet of some 20 pages under the masthead of "The Idaho Compass." It was entitled "How Come?" [It] was sent by Steve symms and myself, co-editors, with a covering letter to each and every one of the then trustees of the C of I.

The Compass was the publication which brought about the "dismissal" of Symms, then one of the most popular presidents ever of the University of Idaho Alumni Association. He was "bounced" because he and the Compass were saying education had become a "sacred cow" and they advocated a chair of capitalism for the U of I. Ironically, a new president of the university, Dr. Richard Gibb, was to make a $600,000 proposal for a similar chair not 10 years later.

Now then, a digest of even a pamphlet of 20 pages must of necessity contain significant omissions, but if you'll bear with me I think you'll agree it's worth a try for several reasons, not the least of which that it'd be a shame for the C of I to fall upon too hard of times.

It is worthy of note, too, that "liberal" college professors get most of the flak for free market or anti-capitalist bias on campus, yet it is usually trustees and alumni who have the ultimate, if intellectually constipated, clout.

The "How Come" publication centered around an unusually candid and perceptive essay by Dr. John Howard, a super-sharp president of Rockford College, a small, private, liberal arts school in Rockford, Ill. His essay was entitled, "The Subtle Suicide of Private Enterprise." It's tone is somewhat epitomized by an early paragraph:

"If only one side of an issue is presented, and if it is hammered home daily by committed partisans, eventually the public will accept that view, even if it runs counter to lifelong assumptions and contradicts deeply-held commitments.

"I want to register with you a concern that the private enterprise system, and the conditions which sustain it, have been the subject of the same kind of persistant, pervasive attack.

"They have been interpreted with an almost unrelieved hostility, sometimes veiled and sometimes candid, by the opinion-making forces in this country. And this is particularly true of the section of that opinion-making body which is American education.

"For years and years, much of the academic and intellectual community has been condescending about, suspicious of, or even directly hostile to, the private enterprise system."

After suggesting that Howard's "remarks" might - just might - create a mild sensation among thoughtful persons concerned with education in Idaho, we offered:

"How Come ... the overwhelming majority of professional educators seem to have a profound distrust (wittingly or unwittingly) of private enterprise?

"How Come ... the number of graduates who plan to go into business for themselves compared with the number of those planning to be government workers, politicians or social workers, doesn't wake up even the most dull-witted trustee?
"How Come ... the profit motive is thought to be incompatible with formal education?

"How Come ... the same people who distrust governmental agencies seem to overlook the fact that public education is just that - an enormous governmental agency?

"How Come ... the University of Idaho has over 130 separate courses in education? One professor, formerly there, views this as 'sowing delusions on a grand scale.'"

Remember now, this was published 10 years ago. "How Come ... many people think the private college may be on the way out?"

We said in that same publication that "if the present practice of dumping huge sums of tax money into the government education system continues (and it has, of course) the private college will soon be driven out of the education market or will be forced to become part of the government system."

Well, there was more to the decade-old "How Come?" pamphlet - too much more to discuss here (it was to popular off campus, we published a second edition). But among the story's "laughable results" were the only three letters we received from the C of I board (out of something like 35 trustees we wrote to).

One member, enthusiastic in praise of our efforts, wished us well and good luck.

A second, although somewhat less enthusiastic, encouraged us to "keep on."

The third trustee respondent was, well, polite, and tended to respectfully disagree, although he wasn't exactly sure why.

But the laugh? Our two "supporters" BOTH asked that we please not quote them or use their names.

Symms threw in the towel and later went into another line of, forgive me, educational work. In many ways - unfortunately - the same kind of "educational work" as the trustees.

rts, wished us well and good luck.

The Pragmatic Side of Principle in Pursuit of Public Policy