And Rhoades is not the longest serving death row inmate. That “honor” goes to Gene Francis Stuart, who was sentenced 29 years ago to die for the torture death of a 3 year old boy. There are four others with current death sentences that have been waiting for their execution for more than 20 years.  While I understand that we all want to be careful making sure that executions are done to the right people, doesn’t anyone else think that 30 years of appeals for the obviously and manifestly guilty is obscene. In Stuart’s case, the wait for his execution has been nearly 10 times the short life of his victim.

It’s no wonder that prosecutors didn’t push for the death penalty in the Robert Manwill case.  If Daniel Ehrlick were sentenced to death, the odds are he would die of old age before he was executed.

Note to legislators and judges: Streamline this appeals process, so that it’s humane to the victims’ families. This forever wait for justice blunts the purpose of the death penalty which is to express society’s strongest sanction against the most heinous crimes. If we’re going to wait 30 years to carry out the execution few  even remember  why we’re doing this, then why bother with the death penalty? Do we just have a need to keep the court’s busy? Either streamline the appeals or end the thing. As it is right now, Idaho’s death row is a joke.

Update: A reminder via Don Surber that Idaho isn’t alone in this problem:

Since 1978 when California reinstated capital punishment, 54 condemned inmates have died from natural causes, 19 committed suicide, 13 were executed in California, one was executed in Missouri and six died from other causes, including murder.

When 4 times as many people are dying of natural causes as are being executed, the system is failing.

“Usually when you have a big field like this, some candidates kind of focus on Iowa, some focus on New Hampshire, and some focus on Florida or Nevada,” he said. “So there may very well be some candidates, especially some very conservative candidates, who feel New Hampshire isn’t the right venue for them, so they might actually come to Idaho. That seems like it’s possible.”

Possible, not terribly probable. I’ve never known of presidential candidates to leave campaigning in New Hampshire. to go to a non-binding straw poll. No candidate is going to be able to argue to donors. “I may have finished 7th in Iowa and 6th in New Hampshire, but I won the Idaho Straw Poll.”  Duncan Hunter did head to Wyoming last time, but there were delegates at stake there.  Unfortunately, the Idaho Straw Poll is a victim of Florida violating the rules and moving its primary to January which led to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also moving up their contests.  Had that not happened, we’d have a decent shot at getting a few candidates to come in.

I will participate, but I fully expect the Straw Poll to go to Ron Paul because not only is this the type of pay-to-play event that his supporters have done well at across the country, but Paul has a strong base in the state.

Reporters can create controversy — or the appearance of it — by reporting half the story or taking details out of context. Conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh report on the national media bias each day, but here are examples of sensationalist journalism closer to home.

Now, how the heck did Rush Limbaugh get into this story, we might ask? It seems to me that McKenzie is trying to play himself up as a victim of media bias in the hopes of gaining sympathy from Conservatives. Well, it doesn’t work, at least not for me.

McKenzie and McGee’s use of the higher rate of per diem is in the news not because they’re the two most conservative Senators in the legislator (they’re not) but because it’s a massively inappropriate use of the privilege.  Legally, they can do it.

But there’s a bigger issue here both ethically and in leadership by example. As an ethical matter, the purpose of the Per Diem for members who live within 50 miles of the Capitol is to pay for them to stay in the City of Boise. Now, McKenzie can talk legalities until he’s blue in the face, but the reason the extra per diem money is given is not to compenstate members for having to put up with living in Boise, but rather to defray the costs of staying in the city. If you’re not spending money to stay here, and are sleeping with relatives like Senator McGee, you’re gaming the system.

McKenzie goes on to make the point that our legislators don’t do the job for the money and are very modestly paid. While this may be true, to quote that great statesman Superchicken, “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.”  The low rate of pay (which McKenzie claims not to be complaining about) doesn’t justify grabbing for all the taxpayer benefits, whether they’re in accord with the Spirit of the law or not.

In a time of economic crisis, when police officers and teachers are having to do with less, it sends the wrong message for legislators to be taking thousands extra per year by gaming the per diem system.

The Statesman Editorial Board lambasted both McGee and McKenzie on this and while the Statesman is often biased, even a broken clock is right twice  a day. The criticism has been well-deserved and it seems both men could learn a thing or two about leadership.

In the meanwhile, Dennis Mansfield calls for McGee’s resignation citing an action with hypocritical undertones:

 I was told today by two very reputable sources that John McGee as a part of GOP Senate Leadership last year agreed to fire a key administrative secretary in the Idaho State Senate because she had been arrested on a DUI. (I am keeping her name anonymous for her sake and for her reputation.) BTW, she did not contact me, nor did anyone connected to her.

So if you’re a legislative secretary, you get caught drunk driving, you lose your job. If however, you’re the golden boy of the GOP establishment, you don’t even a slap on the hand from leadership? It looks bad.

That said, I’m not quite into the call for him to resign camp. While I trust that Mansfield and his sources are being accurate, the information is second and third hand. Is there some aggravating circumstance that somehow made the legislative secretary’s action worse than McGee’s? For example, was she drunk with kids in the back seat of the car? Was she a serial DUI offender?  We need more facts and we need more context.

However, if after we have all the context in the world, it still looks like McGee is a hypocrite who holds underlings to a higher standard than he holds himself, he should definitely resign.

After we parked, my wife remarked the only thing that would have been less comforting would have been if the driver sat leaned back and was staring with their feet.

The incident also led me to think of the texting while driving debate. This was a good reminder of why our current law focusing on “distracted” driving makes sense. Drivers should be paying attention and that’s what law enforcement should be focused on, not micromanaging the exact use of electronic devices in the car’s cabin.

Here is how one tipster phrased it: “The only name I’ve heard is Elliot Werk. Several people I know have told me that he is considering running because of his aspirations to run for Mayor at some point in the future and plus he is pretty ineffective in the state legislature (consider the fact that he lost the minority leadership race as the straw that broke the camel’s back). You may wanna give him a call and ask him about his plans.”

Boise is the only place in the state that would be unwise enough to entrust Elliot Werk with political power. And the ineffective part is true, though most Democrats won’t admit it. Even though Werk was very pivotal in giving Democrats complete control of four boise districts for 4 years, all it got him was on the losing end of 28-7 votes. 

This would be interesting should Werk leave the Senate as Kate Kelly left last year, and Nicole LeFavour nearly returned to the State House. What this would suggest is that for Democratic politicians in Idaho, there’s a point when you hit the wall, so to speak, at the state level, where it’s not worth it anymore to spend months of your lives when you’re not going to get your ideas enacted.

As for the Boise Mayoral and Council elections, I don’t see a lot of reason for conservative optomism. One reason I’m really not tempted by this race is the results of the 2009 Council elections when insurgent campaigns had the Trolley Folly going in their favor plus the growth of the Tea Party movement and the Democrats won the seats overwhelmingly. The North End continues to dominate city politics with much higher turnout than the rest of the city and conservatives have failed to do anything to cut into this advantage. So, if Werk runs, he probably has a good shot of getting elected.

“I think there are medical explanations … that may very well exist in this case that will negate any criminal liability,” his attorney, Scott McKay, said.

DFO at Huckleberries says that 73% of our legislators are educated, which suggests that graduating high school doesn’t count as being “educated.” So apparently, we’re spending around $70,000-$80,000 or thereabouts to put kids through K-12 and we’re really turning out “uneducated people.”

Seriously,  I don’t think this is a problem and really not that interesting. The number is far less than the percentage without the degrees among the general public. Many people just don’t need 4 years of college to live their lives. I’ve been living on a 2-year degree and been doing fine.  There are many professions such as plumbers and farmers that require no college degree. and people make a good living at them and are able to run for office.

For those who think a higher degree of education will produce a better leader,  I’d point out that the people who produced our current crisis were some among the most educated and smartest people in the room.

My personal preference would have been to have been smart and enacted reforms that would have led to cost reductions and quality increases during the good times by introducing market forces into many of these antiquated government programs.

I say all this to lead up to a discussion of the Meridian School District which has had to make plans to tighten its belt after voters refused to tighten theirs. We’d expect that Democrats would appreciate cuts that avoided reducing classroom educational time.

Former Rep. Branden Durst (D-18) shows that’s not the case:

If you have a student-athlete in the Meridian School District, make sure you tell the next Tea Party Patriot you see, “THANK YOU!” Thank you, for forcing my family to pay $100 for my middle or high school student to participate in athletics. You see, thanks to the Tea Party and Austin Hill stridently opposing the recent school bond levy election, the District is being forced to adopt a Pay to Play scheme in order to maintain its school sports.

There is nothing more patriotic then telling the poor kid he can’t play middle school football because his mom and/or dad can’t afford to fork out the dough. After all, elitism and exclusivity is the American Way! Just think, if you have a family with four students between 6th and 12th grade and each of your students play a sport in the fall and in the spring, you’ll be lucky enough to pay $800! That’s a bargain compared to the $25 the levy would have cost!

All Branden needs is  a Charlton Heston impersonator to do a planet of the Apes-style scream.

Under Branden’s scenario with the family with four kids in sports, everybody in the Meridian School District is paying for these parents to get their kids into athletics. And what if your kid doesn’t play a traditional high school sport, but is into Karate or rock climbing? Apparently, in Branden’s world, you should take a Karate chop to your family budget to pay for other kids to play football.

While I can see some civic value in us paying for education, paying 100 percent for High School football? Not so much.

And don’t other leagues charge money to participate? You’ll find that kids have to pay participate in many recreational leagues and their parents pay.

There are, of course, many free or very cheap ways to play sports: church leagues, open gyms, Boys and Girls Clubs. When I was a kid, I played baseball and basketball in several states, just not in a league usually. I played in backyards in sandlots. I had a fun and got excercise. I didn’t have a professional career in sports, but I was never going to do that anyway, and neither are most kids. So no one is saying kids can’t play sports, just that if they can’t find the money, they can’t play in the Merdian School District.

Beyond this, Branden’s arguments pose two big problems. First, is the inability to seperate needs from wants and the important from the trivial.

Second point, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of parents. 

The state should protect children from abuse and neglect. However, beyond that  function, God, in His wisdom, gave children to parents. Ultimately, it is the job of parents to provide things for children: food and shelter, the necessities of life, and little extras like fees for sports leagues.

In my childhood, we didn’t have much. We lived often in low rent places and we got a lot of inexpensive food. But somehow or another, my family managed to scrape together money for the long road trips that were needed for the trips my brother and I for our athletic and academic competitions. That was sacrifice on the part of my parents. That’s the job of parents: to lay down their lives for their kids.

The idea that the world owes your kids a High School sports career is insane when you have people really hurting in this economy with high gas prices, and an uncertain economic future for our country.

The way the Democrats have responded to this economic crisis is through crass demagoguery to scare everyone about Putting Students First  and now  Branden’s post makes it clear that the Idaho Democrats are proud to be the party of bread and circuses.

I think so. To get elected as a Democrat in Idaho, you’ll have to tell different people different things on what you believe and govern. And Ms. Duke already has experience playing two people as once, she has to be considered a frontrunner.

The entire ranking is a farce.

Representatives were not evaluated on the same criteria as Senators, so both reports are meaningless.

Case in point: Representatives were ranked on how they voted on the guns on campus legislation. Senators were not – which is odd because the guns on campus bill was killed in the Senate, and the Republican Senators who voted against it (particularly McGee) got favorable conservative rankings anyway.

This disparity, in addition to the intrinsic inanity of the rankings, blows the rankings completely apart and highlights how meaningless they are.

However, it’s not surprising – the “ranker” is not known for consistency, clarity and logic anyway.

The commenter is entitlted to his opinion. However, there’s a big problem in his logic. The one vote he cites as an example was not killed on the Senate floor, it was killed in committee, so the whole Senate never got a chance to vote on it, thus it didn’t end up on the scorecard because the senate did not vote on it. No legislative scorecard can effectively score a vote in committee as opposed to votes on the floor. That’s comparing apples and oranges. 80% of the Senate didn’t vote on the bill because they weren’t part of the committee that killed it.

And there’s a big logical problem with this argument against the scorecard as well. If we were comparing House members to Senators, it would be necessary that the House and Senate have the exact same issues. However, the scorecards compare House Members to House members and Senators to Senators. The only thing that’s needed is for each member of a given house to be judged on the same bills. I based the idea for these rankings on the American Conservative Union rankings. If you compare the votes the ACU used in the Senate and the votes used in the House, you will find entirely different sets of issues, based on what was actually voted upon on the floor.

This is the case with every scorecard for any group.  Because people who write scorecards have no control over what bills make their way to the floor. Scorecards are not perfect tools, but they are tools that provide voters with actual information on how legislators voted and that’s what we’re trying to do.

I want to highlight the four State Senators who had a 100 percent score in the past session. They were:

We salute these lions of conservativism for their strong stance for conservative values.

They were:

Steve Vick (R-3)
Sheryl Nuxoll (R-8)
Monty Pearce (R-9)
Dean Mortimer (R-32)

We salute these lions of conservativism for their strong stance for conservative values