Who will be the Democratic nominee for Idaho governor in 2010? I've been giving that question some thought for the past few days. Jerry Brady has been an outstanding candidate for the past two elections, but I wonder if he'll be up to a third run in 2010.

Governor Otter has taken some good stances for Idaho, but I feel he may be too compromised by his own party to truly make a difference. Otter says he's anti-tax, but vetoed legislation to increase the grocery tax credit. Otter says he's pro-education, but gutted an early childhood education program started by his Republican predecessor. I believe Governor Otter is fundamentally a good man, but given his struggles thus far I wonder if he'll be able to truly be an effective governor.

So who else is out there?

Then I thought, what about me? I'll be 37 in 2010. I’m a successful businessman, a published author and a community activist. I've run for major public office before, which at the very least gives me a good sense of what not to do. I believe I can bring a great deal of substance to the 2010 election which frankly I don’t see coming from Governor Otter or the Republicans.

I'm interested to know what you think.

Cross-posted to 43rd State Blues.

OK, here's something to shake out the cobwebs.

Here in the land of 2T plates we're vaguely aware of a certain Brandi Swindell. It's my understanding that Brandi has taken it upon herself to "to represent the voiceless, the preborn - that we represent our (post-Roe v. Wade) generation."

Well, that's all fine and good, but I rather resent the implication that the aforementioned post-Roe v. Wade generation is necessarily of the Religious Right ilk.

Consider me, for example. I was born in July 1973, six months after Roe v. Wade. I'm adopted. I'm very solidly pro-choice and always have been.

As for the "voiceless preborn," I very well could have been an abortion (my birth mother was 16), so it goes without saying that I've given the matter a lot of thought for a long time. I believe was born because I believe that's what was intended. Had I not been, I feel it would have been because it wasn't my time, and that sort of thing one shouldn't trifle with. Therefore, I support the Clintonian "safe, legal and rare" standpoint on abortion, combined with means to make adoption easier for worthy parents.

So do we stamp out reproductive rights - and necessarily my beliefs - by government statute? That's not very neighborly, Brandi. It's not very conservative, either.

Supporters of the Iraq situation, which in my humble opinion is the single worst foreign policy blunder committed by the United States since ... probably the XYZ Affair or something like that, like to point out that many people in Muslim countries support terrorist "jihad" and its goals.

I dispute how prevalent that really is, but even if it is true, I wonder how much of that is genuine faith, and how much of it is their way of "sticking it to the man."

There's no question the military presence in Iraq is resented by the average Iraqi who just wants to live a normal, peaceful life. I should stress in the strongest possible terms that this is not the fault of the troops there in any sense. For example, I personally know of one Iraq veteran who tried to interact with the Iraqis and find some common ground, but he was basically ordered not to do that. I suspect there's a lot of that going around.

Today's situation in the Middle East is largely a result of Western foreign policy stupidity over the past 75 years, from the British blundering of the Balfour Declaration, to the CIA overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government with 1953's "Operation Ajax." In fairness, it's also caused by a strident reluctance throughout the Muslim world to liberalize their governments and societies. Until both of these issues are addressed, no serious progress can be made.

What's past is past, and now we're left with several inescapable conclusions:

-Israel has the right to exist as an independent state. Deal.

-Palestine has the right to exist as an independent state, too. Deal.

-No action by any entity within the United States Government, military or otherwise, can solve this problem.

-The Muslim world has to get serious about fixing itself. This has nothing to do with terrorism, it's a general standard of living issue. I assure you al-Qaeda wouldn't be near as popular if more Muslims enjoyed comfortable lifestyles.

The world does a pretty good job with the first point, but attention to the others is, um, lacking. Meanwhile, the average worker in Iraq or Syria or Saudi Arabia sees the United States interfering (or perhaps more correctly, perceives them as interfering) in their own lives and understandably gets grumpy. Reactions range from the aforementioned desire to "stick it to the man" to suicide bombings.

With these conclusions in mind, withdrawing our troops and revisiting this area with a politically-based agenda based on these inescapable conclusions can only serve to help our standing in this part of the world (not to mention it stops American kids getting killed out there). This is _NOT_ a concession to terrorism in any sense. It's common sense.

Radical wingnuts will still be out there, and they still should be tracked down and brought to justice. Like 99.99% of the free world, I want Osama hunted down, taken in, and his operation shut down permanently. Let's be crystal clear on that. Too bad the administration isn't.

We can't fix this, but we can stop it from becoming worse by not being "the man" so much.

You know, it should stand to reason that anyone serious about a free market economy would abhor the idea of state-run industries. Even so, several "small government" states have exactly that: state-run liquor stores. Here's an example of such lunacy in Idaho.

According to the state, in 2006 the Idaho Legislature appropriated around $15.2 million to the Idaho State Liquor Dispensary (ISLD) (1). The ISLD in turn generated nearly $110 million in sales in 2006. They spent around $58 million on product and around $14 million in operating expenses for a total net income of a little over $37 million (2). Not bad.

Of that $37 million, about $33 million of that went back to the state fund. After existing fund equity and warehouse remodeling were taken into account, they ended the year with a little under $12 million in the bank.

In 2007 the ISLD projects sales of $122 million (3). The Legislature gave them $16.6 million (4) and the process begins anew with the ISLD nearly $30 million in the black.

Now, you may say that over 200 percent return on investment in a year is a great deal. I don't disagree. However, I submit we can do even better. Consider what they do in Nebraska, which has a similar population to Idaho but doesn't have a state-run liquor monopoly. Nebraska spends around $850,000 on its liquor control board (5), but generates $26 million in liquor taxes (6). That's a 3,058 percent return on investment. That's what I'm talking about.

So will privatized booze increase drunk driving? Government studies indicate otherwise. A 2000 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed a smaller percentage of traffic fatalities in Nebraska involved alcohol than they did in Idaho (7). As of 2004, Nebraska also had the lowest pedestrian fatality rate due to automobile accidents in the country (8).

In other words, we can continue to appropriate $16 million a year to a state-run industry to get $33 million, or we can privatize the industry, appropriate a fraction of that ($1 million at most) for a much smaller state liquor regulatory agency, still expect at least $25 million in liquor taxes, not have any ill effects with respect to drunk driving, and at the same time create at least a $10 million net profit industry in Idaho's private sector overnight. All this by repealing a few laws and rewriting others? Brilliant.

How come the "smaller government" Republican Legislature didn't do this?

SOURCES (all accessed 27 April 2007)

(1) FY 2008 Idaho Legislative Budget Book
(2) Idaho State Liquor Dispensary 2006 Annual Report
(3) ibid
(4) Senate Bill No. 1199, 2007 Idaho Legislature
(5) Nebraska Legislature (click on Appropriations Committee FY2007-08/FY2008-09 Budget Recommendations)
(6) Nebraska Liquor Control Commission - Historical Revenue
(7) NTSA - Transitioning to Multiple Imputation, p. 24
(8) U.S. Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Facts 2004, p. 155

You wouldn't drive a nail with a screwdriver, so why would you promote morality with government?

As we all know, a common complaint the Religious Right has against people like us who dare to oppose their attempts at theocracy is that we're anti-Christian, amoral, irresponsible, etc. Some on the left respond by basically calling them ignorant and stupid. This sort of argument goes nowhere.

I have no problem with religion. I don't even have a problem with fundamentalist religion, per se. In fact I have a strong belief in God myself. I believe churches, synagogues, mosques and other such bodies have a fundamental right to teach what they want to as long as it doesn't harm the rights of those who choose not to associate with them. If the "Bible-believing" churches want to insist that the Bible is literally true (and the King James Version is the only credible one), so be it. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to keep women out of their preisthood, forbid abortions among their members and excommunicate those who break the rules, it's their call.

What I don't believe, however, is that religions have a right to dictate their version of morality in a government setting.

Teaching right from wrong to my two-year-old daughter is fundamentally _MY_ job as a parent, not the government's. I agree with even the most strident fundamentalist in the sense that faith and morality are extremely important subjects for one to learn. However, I strongly disagree with them that obligation by government statute is the way to do it. Forcing morality by law implies that neither I nor anyone else is competent enough to live their lives as good people, that no one is qualified enough to raise their own children, that all of the above is by definition the government's job.

Put simply, legislated morality is a form of socialism, and one that all free people have a moral obligation to oppose. I submit we'd have far fewer issues in this realm if more religious activists actually pursued agendas of morality, responsibility and clean living within their own faiths, which they have a right and in many ways an obligation to do, rather than take the lazy route and try to legislate it.

Although some blatantly revisionist "historians" among the Religious Right would have you believe otherwise, the United States was clearly founded by people with a deep sense of faith, but not by people with the intent of forming a government based on Christian doctrine. Separation of church and state not only protects the general population from oppressive theocracy, but also protects faiths from each other. It is the best way to ensure true religious freedom. It's simple, yet when applied correctly extremely effective. It's a beautiful thing, dare I say divinely inspired?

TWIN FALLS, Idaho - W. Lane Startin, Idaho chair of the Democratic Freedom Caucus, announced today that paperwork was submitted to the Idaho Secretary of State to form the Idaho Democratic Freedom Caucus (IDFC).

"The IDFC will promote pro-freedom Democrats and further the pro-freedom message throughout Idaho," Startin said. "I believe this state will be quite receptive to our message. Hopefully we can help to revitalize the Democratic Party in general here."

The IDFC's first project will be Operation Strikethrough, an initiative to identify 50 unnecessary Idaho statutes and propose their repeal in Boise to the 2008 Legislature.

"The Republican Idaho Legislature passed over 350 bills just this year, yet failed to address serious property and sales tax issues. Operation Strikethrough is intended to demonstrate our rock-solid commitment to truly smaller government."

Startin also filed paperwork to form a campaign committee for a possible 2010 candidacy in Idaho.

For more information on the IDFC or Operation Strikethrough, e-mail lane at lanestartin dot org or write to the address below:

Idaho Democratic Freedom Caucus
282 Dubois Avenue
Twin Falls, ID 83301-4611

Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, basically a consortium of right-wing busybodies, recently wrote the following, "Gay couples increasingly are not taking advantage of civil union options, even though such unions grant them virtually all the rights and privileges of marriage, and are marriages in everything but name. The most likely explanation is that homosexuals, who have a notoriously adventurous and promiscuous lifestyle, realize that entering into a civil union, just like entering into a marriage, means giving up rights more than gaining rights." (link)

Hrm. The fact that some states are granting civil unions is a positive step towards true liberty, but Fischer seems to forget that just because one CAN get married doesn't mean one SHOULD. That's not even a gay/lesbian concern; it's universal. Like a ton of people in the Western world, I didn't marry the first person I had a relationship with. Or even the second. Or the third. What's more, I'm straight as they come.

As for a "notoriously adventurous and promiscuous lifestyle," methinks Fischer should get out more. It stands to reason that gays and lesbians living somewhere like South Beach in Miami are indeed somewhat likely to be promiscuous, but wouldn't that also be true of straight folks out there? Conversely, are gays and lesbians who live in small towns in Vermont sleeping with everything that moves? For the most part, I'd say no more or less than their straight counterparts.

We already know a state-directed command economy doesn't work, why assume a state-directed command society would? The Religious Right has a lot more in common with Marxist activists than they dare comprehend: both may be well-intentioned, but both propose solutions that are inherently anti-freedom. Consequently, free people have a moral obligation to oppose both. How's that for a testimony of faith?

Observed while logging into Myspace:

Nothing like ending the day with some good, old-fashioned surrealism.

Rep. Bill Sali is probably doing the best possible thing he could do for himself as a new Congressman: he's keeping quiet.

Sali, the true believer right-wing firebrand who tore through the Idaho House of Representatives in a 16-year itch of ideology, iconoclasm and often plain idiocy, has so far turned out to be just another reliable yet dull voice of the ultra-right in Washington. I'm disappointed. I was expecting one of the best sideshows in politics, nothing less than the second coming of "B-1 Bob" Dornan.

Where's the Bill Sali who claimed abortions cause breast cancer?

Where's the Bill Sali whose combative style once caused former Republican state house speaker Bruce Newcomb to call him an "idiot" in public, and once compelled Mike Simpson, now Sali's Idaho Republican counterpart in the House, to threaten to throw him out a window?

Sure, in jest Sali proposed the "Obesity Reduction and Health Promotion Act" to protest raising the minimum wage. Slightly amusing, but it's not canned salmon by any stretch of the imagination.

The thing is, Sali is keeping quiet because he knows that a dull status quo candidate will be favored for reelection over what's he's been in the past, which means he's not completely stupid. As a result, that means Larry Grant has to take his game to the next level in 2008 if he wants to unseat him. The fireworks will have to come from the D side next time.

In the meantime, I feel cheated. If Idaho has to be stuck with a scion of the Knuckle-Dragging Troglodyte School of Moral Socialism for the next 18 months or so, at least we could get a decent show out of it.

There's a story on the Fox News web site about former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who ditched the Republican Party to join the Libertarian Party. You may remember Barr as the firebrand who led the House of Representatives during the infamous Clinton impeachment hearings, but it appears he's had a change of heart on several key issues, such as civil liberties and the drug war. I believe Barr's renewed sense of liberty is representative of a larger movement in both parties away from big government mentality, be it of an economic or theocratic nature.

I just hope for his sake Barr doesn't make the same mistake I did a few years ago: run for public office on a third-party ticket.

I've been involved in politics in some fashion since I was 16. I've also always had a healthy libertarian streak. In those heady days of post-adolescent idealism, I dove headfirst into the process, first becoming president of the Young Democrats at Idaho State University, and then ultimately president of Young Democrats for the state of Idaho and a voting member on the state party executive committee. I was a true believer.

But as the 1990s progressed, I became disillusioned with American politics, how it became hopelessly focused on the trite and immaterial (such as the Clinton impeachment), and its brain-dead repetition of "talking points" on both sides. By 2000 I was living in Center City Philadelphia and pretty much done with the whole process. My voter registration had been messed up, but I never got around to fixing it. What would have been a reluctant vote for Gore was actually no vote at all. I spoke with some LP members while I was there and expressed an interest, but I never really saw a real desire on their part to become more than a debating society.

Late in 2000 I moved to Las Vegas. I became involved with the Green Party there. The Greens were just coming off a pretty good run with Ralph Nader and seemed to be more in tune with what a political party should do (i.e. elect candidates), and I figured there would be room for a relatively libertarian candidate. The local group was fairly receptive and I was nominated the US House candidate for the Nevada 1st District in 2002.

In November 2001 I issued a news release reluctantly supporting military action in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, but opposing military operations elsewhere, such as in Iraq. Judging by the reaction of the Green community in general you'd think I just filleted a puppy. I was called a "warmonger," told I needed to be "educated" in Green Party doctrine. The most strident Bush loyalist or Religious Right iconoclast had nothing on these people when it came to fundamentalist indoctrination. I came in to bring a diverse voice to a party that seemed to be on the upswing, not to become another automoton. Clearly, the Green Party was no place for a serious candidate, and certainly not one with libertarian leanings.

Needless to say, I withdrew from the process again, took my token one percent of the vote and went on with my life. As soon as that debacle was over I became a Democrat again, this time for good. I feel much better now.

I still believe a third party could work in America if they weren't all so bloody fanatical, be they on the left or right. We all know that the LP has their fair share of intolerants, and woe unto any candidate that may dare to cross them. If Barr can pull it off, then he may do something that no one has done since Lincoln: truly legitimize a previously marginal American political party. I'm not holding my breath, though.