Ian Fennell

Wikipedia defines preppers as “individuals or groups who are actively preparing for possible disruptions in social or political order, on scales ranging from local to international.”

When I was growing up these folks were referred to as “survivalists.”

They’re essentially preparing for the end of civilization—if not completely, at least in their neck of the woods.

For some reason, preppers seem to be gaining in numbers and there’s even a show on the National Geographic Channel about them—titled “Doomsday Preppers.” I’ve watched several episodes and I find the preppers’ different “end of world” scenarios to be interesting, if not comical.

It seems each of the preppers featured on the show has a different view of how the world’s going to rid itself of humankind. Occasionally, one of the preppers will have a plausible “end-of-world” scenario, such as a flu pandemic, but a lot of these folks have some strange—and oftentimes amusing—ideas on what’s going to bring down society.

In some cases I think preparing for a UFO invasion would be more plausible than say, thinking that the government won’t be able to afford prisons and will release all the prisoners, who in turn will target truckers to obtain the goods being hauled.

Some of the people featured on “Doomsday Preppers” clearly have mental health issues and although I find the show highly entertaining and I try to catch every episode, I wonder if capturing these folks on video is responsible.

The episode that sticks in my mind is one in which a father and his children were out in the desert shooting off their large arsenal of weapons (seems almost every prepper featured has enough firepower to arm a battalion). The dad looked at the camera and said something about how every household needs a gun. I thought for a minute and concluded that the guy might be right and heck, maybe I should invest in some assault weaponry. A moment later the dad was reeling in pain, having blown off his finger. I still don’t know how he managed this feat.

Fortunately the National Geographic film crew had a medic with them who was able to render immediate first aid.

I’m wondering just how many preppers are out there. My hunch is that they’re more numerous than any of us could fathom.

I’m fascinated by this phenomena and I must admit that although I’m no prepper, I do make it a point to watch just about every end-of-world/societal collapse TV show, movie and documentary out there.

From the TV series “Jericho” (in which a rogue government faction nukes most every city in the U.S.) to the reality series “The Colony” to the British series “Survivors,” I find the concept of “the apocalypse” to be worth my attention. Although a world taken over by the zombies is pure fantasy, the AMC series “The Walking Dead” also deserves to be in this genre and I think its writers do a superb job of capturing how people would react to the disintegration of civilization. There’s a post-apocalyptic movie called “The Road” which is next on my list to watch.

Maybe it’s the whole Mayan 2012 prophecy that has so many of us so captivated about the end of the world. During my lifetime many apocalyptic prophecies have come and gone and the Earth is no worse for the wear.

I grew up in the shadow of the Cold War, which posed a much more realistic threat of ending civilization than the stuff people seem to be scared of today. But back then preppers seemed scarce.

Nowadays, I bet we can all think of at least one person we know who is stockpiling food and guns in preparation for mankind’s day of reckoning.

At times I’ve thought about joining them—buying a bunch of canned food, a generator, an AR-15 and whatever else I’ll need to weather the apocalyptic storm.

But I must say that I’ve come to my senses. After watching all these shows, movies and documentaries on the subject, I’ve come to the wise conclusion that if the Yellowstone volcano blows and throws the planet into the equivalent of a nuclear winter, if this polar shift thing occurs and triggers a worldwide flood, or any number of these other apocalyptic scenarios play out, I want to be one of the millions taken down by the initial onslaught.

That’s right, I wouldn’t want to live in a world without civilization and I bet most of the prepper community would agree if they had to experience even a few weeks of post-apocalyptic living.

I appreciate things like electricity, running water, automobiles, heat and air conditioning, easy access to food, government services like police and fire protection, well-maintained roads and interstates, access to health care, a military to defend the nation, and all the other things civilization entails.

I imagine about 80 percent of us would have no way of surviving long-term in a world without civilization’s amenities—unless we were willing to steal stuff from those with the skills necessary to sustain themselves.

My one big knock on the Discovery Channel series “The Colony” is that the group of people assembled to fend for themselves in a post-apocalyptic world were all highly skilled—scientists, engineers, welders, contractors, mechanics, even a doctor and a nurse.

I thought the show would have been much more realistic had the group had a couple skilled individuals and a dozen unskilled folks (unskilled meaning not having any skill that would help if society collapsed—throw journalists into this mix). If the survivors had a chemical engineer, paramedic and a motley crew of call center workers, secretaries, teachers and hair stylists, I’m not sure they would have made it through the 10-weeks the series lasted. But I think such a group would be more representative of who’d be left following a worldwide calamity.

Not to be a downer when it comes to the end of the world, and like I said I am a fan of all the television programming about the topic, but one other thing that preppers might want to consider is when in the history of mankind has an entire society abruptly collapsed? Even the fall of the Roman Empire happened over a number of years and was anything but abrupt. Sure, there are natural disasters and wars that throw a town or city into chaos temporarily. But these large-scale world turned upside down visions that preppers have just seem so unrealistic.

What are the chances of say the United States being suddenly thrown into anarchy—or even thrown into anarchy over the course of a decade?

I’d say slim to none.

So my advice to preppers—despite the fact I find them and their disaster scenarios to be an engaging subject—is to reconsider spending all that money, thought and effort preparing for the end.

When it comes to the apocalypse, none of us would want to be the last man or woman standing.

PS: Don’t give me the last word. What do you think of preppers? Let’s have a discussion.

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

For much of the last two years, President Obama has been incessantly vilified by Republicans in the Senate, House and just about everywhere else.
Everything from his citizenship to patriotism has been questioned, and his intentions and motives put in the worst possible light.
Now, as the midway point of his presidency quickly approaches, Obama’s catching flak from those on the left side of the aisle—those from his own party.
Many congressional Democrats, especially those in the U.S. House, are screaming mad at the commander-in-chief for striking a deal with Republicans to continue the Bush tax cuts for the next two years—just in time to make them a political issue in the 2012 election. In exchange for that concession, GOP leadership in Congress has agreed to extend the unemployment benefits that were set to expire for many Americans.
The deal was viewed with such disdain by Democrats that neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attended the legislation’s signing ceremony. Pelosi refused to even vote on it.
Obama did score a political victory this weekend with the Senate’s vote to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy banning openly gay people from military service. With the House having previously voted to repeal the policy, Obama is expected to sign the bill into law this week, and one wonders if that will help quell feelings among Democrats that the beleaguered president is selling out to the GOP.
But perhaps the ill feelings toward the president by those in his own party shows, most of all, his untenable position.
Obama ran for the presidency promising a new style of politics that would usher in more inclusiveness and compromise, and feature far less of the partisan bickering that has divided our nation to alarming levels. But for the vast majority of his first two years, Obama’s new kind of politics has proven to be simply more of the same divisiveness that Americans know all too well.
That is, until last week’s dealmaking.
The agreement Obama cut with the GOP on the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits shows that he is able to compromise. Who knows, more of such cooperation with his political adversaries could start reversing the trend of Obama’s plummeting approval ratings and give us the impression that the nation’s first black president isn’t destined to be a one-termer.
But the price of the compromise many Americans say they want from their leaders in Washington is backlash from the president’s own party.
Considering how negatively Obama is viewed by Republicans, the fact that he was able to broker any kind of deal with them is a bit of a surprise.
And considering how negatively both sides in Congress view their political opposition, it’s perhaps not shocking that many Democrats are ticked at Obama’s efforts to find any kind of common ground with the dreaded GOP.
Those Democrats who expected Obama to follow through with campaign promises to curtail U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to close Gitmo, probably viewed the president as at best disingenuous even before his compromise with Republicans.
Now liberal Democrats—at least some of them—are probably hoping and praying he has a primary opponent.
The bottom line, unfortunately, is that no matter what Obama does he seems destined to attract a great deal of criticism.
Could anyone navigate such a political landscape?
It will be interesting to see how the president intends to please enough people in the next two years to win another term in office.
He might be better off simply hoping that somehow the economy improves. That would make everyone happy.

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

Local media met with Pocatello police last Wednesday to air complaints about the department’s sometimes slow release of news, especially regarding some recent serious crimes.

There have been some cases lately in which city police were inexplicably reluctant to issue press releases, and there had been enough of a hue and cry from local media that Police Chief J.R. Miller decided a meeting was necessary.

For that, the chief deserves credit and lots of it.

Oftentimes, when a police department fails to release information and the media gets upset about it, police blow off the criticism and get angry that they’re being scrutinized.

But Chief Miller heard the criticism and responded in the right way. The Pocatello Police Department will soon have an appointed officer to deal with the media, ensuring that correct information is released in a timely manner, especially when something as serious as a murder happens.

There have been some serious blunders lately in terms of letting us folks in the media know what’s going on—so we can in turn inform the public. The addition of a designated media liaison should hopefully eliminate these informational missteps.

Going back to September’s Mocha Madness shooting, the police were slow to release the fact they had a suspect in custody. This caused many in the community to believe that the shooter was still on the loose and perhaps eying other random targets. I live near Mocha Madness and must say when something like that happens in your neighborhood and you believe the suspect’s still on the loose, you start considering that a serial sniper might be the culprit. Pocatello police could have stopped such speculation by simply letting the community know they had the gunman in custody.

Traditionally in Southeast Idaho and nationwide, law enforcers are quick to point out when they make an arrest. It made no sense back in September for the Pocatello police to wait a full day before releasing the news that they had the Mocha Madness shooter in custody.

But Pocatello police did the same thing with an even scarier incident—last month’s attempted abduction of a young girl from her Pocatello home. All police would initially say was that the crime happened in south Pocatello. For several days that’s all they would say and in doing so they ran the risk of delaying witnesses from coming forward with important information—people who saw something but had no idea the crime happened close by. The police definitely caused an unnecessary surge in speculation about where the crime actually occurred. Eventually police provided a more specific location.

The crime remains unsolved and I have to think that had Pocatello police better informed the media, that might not be the case.

Just a couple weeks ago the Pocatello police again needlessly delayed the release of news when they waited about 24 hours before informing the media, and by extension the community, that a man had been arrested for a murder committed at a South Third Avenue apartment house.

For a full day, everyone in town was left to believe that a murderer was on the loose—not the most comforting mindset for our city’s residents to have.

On the day the police arrested the suspect—but declined to inform the media—the Journal went with a story in which South Third residents expressed doubt about the police department’s investigative techniques. Obviously, had police let the press know the suspect had been collared, our story would have been different.

South Third residents and everyone in Pocatello would have known that their police force had done its job by locating and arresting an accused murderer.

In lieu of knowing the police made an arrest, most members of the media knocked on the doors of those who live on South Third in an effort to turn up information. Pocatello police complained about the media approaching these residents, saying those on South Third provided reporters with incorrect statements.

My response was that if police had alerted the media to the fact that several hours prior to the reporters knocking on doors they had arrested a murder suspect, that arrest would have been the story every newspaper and TV station shared with the public.

What’s odd about the behavior of the Pocatello Police Department as of late is that its slow in releasing information about bad guys getting caught. Usually, police in any community take great pride in immediately letting the media know that they have a suspect behind bars. Those stories make all of us feel like we have a competent police force that solves crimes and arrests criminals.

When you look at how other law enforcement agencies handle the media in Southeast Idaho, there are plenty of examples of good relations where law enforcement gets important news to the media only a couple hours after a crime occurs.

Sure it’s extra work for the cops, but they realize it’s important.

Take the city of Chubbuck for example. Although it’s a much smaller department than Pocatello’s force, Chubbuck police had a press release and security camera footage out to the media only a couple hours after the Wells Fargo bank robbery two weeks back. Just a couple days ago Chubbuck police issued a press release about a foot chase they had that led to an arrest. The press release came only a few hours after the incident.

Other local counties that use to be slow or inconsistent with getting information to the media have changed their ways. The sheriff’s offices in Bingham and Power counties have become skilled at getting important news to the media sooner rather than later, especially at night and on weekends.

The Bannock County Sheriff’s Office has always been a glowing example of how to work with the media. Sheriff Lorin Nielsen could hold a clinic on how law enforcement and the media can help each other. The Idaho State Police could do the same. I’m amazed at how helpful Idaho State Police troopers and dispatchers are with the media.

What makes the Pocatello Police Department’s delay in relaying information to the public even more of an oddity is how the small town police departments in Southeast Idaho handle similar incidents. I can tell you that if a murder happened in Montpelier, Idaho, and the police caught the killer, they would have that information out to the public in minutes.

The same could be said for police in Blackfoot and American Falls.

Fortunately, Pocatello Police Chief J.R. Miller is handling things and I believe the days of Pocatellans having to wait 24 hours to find out if a murder suspect is in custody are over.

To be fair, I must point out that although Pocatello police have been less than forthcoming with recent high profile cases, the department’s patrol division does an excellent job of providing information about motor-vehicle accidents and other emergencies to the media.

Most media calls to Pocatello police are not about murders and attempted abductions. We’re mostly calling about wrecks, fires and other news bits we hear over the scanner. In answering these inquiries, the sergeants and lieutenants of the Pocatello police patrol division get very high marks.

They obviously don’t see the media as a threat or adversary.

But you have to wonder about others within the department. At the press conference regarding the attempted abduction, a police spokesman said the department was not going to release a specific location as to where the crime occurred because it didn’t want the media impeding the investigation.

Astonishing—you probably couldn’t come up with a better example of a case in which the media could have helped the investigation than an attempted abduction.

Good cops realize the benefits of keeping the media in the loop, especially on high profile cases that are causing widespread alarm in the community.

I have no doubt that Chief Miller gets it. I know for a fact that the department’s patrol division gets it.

But obviously there are some on the force who don’t.

Let’s hope that changes soon in the interest of the community’s peace of mind. When it comes to crimes that happen in our city, no news is not good news.

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

The conservative icon’s take on the federal government remains a hit with many Americans—perhaps more so now than when he was president.

Many Americans have a lack trust and faith in their government, but not just on the federal level.

Even locally, there are no shortage of residents who assign the worst motives to their government representatives on city councils, county commissions and school boards, not to mention the government officials at the various government agencies in Southeast Idaho.

At its base, I have to think this distrust is fueled by the many and often monumental missteps of the federal government, especially since the end of World War II. The errors of our leaders in Washington provide the foundation for many Americans’ feelings that the government only makes matters worse. That’s understandable. Since World War II, our government, at its worst, has made decisions that have cost tens of thousands of American lives.

A government as big as ours can’t help but make mistakes on occasion, but events like the Vietnam War and to a lesser extent our current conflicts have made many Americans think our leaders are at best incompetent.

On the local level, the missteps of our government officials are typically less lethal. Take for example the overpaying of the land for the new Pocatello transit center.

The perception (and I’m relatively certain this is the reality) is the city paid over a million dollars for a parcel worth less than half that.

The city government had followed all the necessary steps to make this purchase perfectly legal by the standards set by government at higher levels, and city officials seemed content that they were not getting ripped off.

Unfortunately, the perception that the city was wasting money as well as the city’s defensive attitude toward critics resulted in the transit center land purchase becoming an example of another costly government blunder.

Now, the city leaders have passed a resolution with no teeth stating that the community values open space. In Idaho, a state with a rich history of outdoor activities, one would think such a resolution would be welcomed.

But that hasn’t happened. A growing number of locals oppose the resolution. They don’t trust their government—not even in Pocatello, where you can run into the mayor or city council president at the supermarket.

Another issue being discussed locally is the using of eminent domain to obtain additional land for the greenway along the Portneuf River. We’re talking small slivers of land that the city might confiscate to build a riverside trail that will be a benefit for the community. In many cases, property owners cannot build anything on these small parcels anyhow because they’re part of an Army Corps of Engineers easement along the river’s levees.

Still, the outpouring of negativity toward this greenway expansion is growing.

Many Pocatellans see it as the big, bad government threatening their land. In my opinion that’s a stretch.

But when factoring in the overflowing mistrust Americans have for the government, it becomes easier to see why locals believe their elected officials are up to absolutely no good when it comes to both the open space resolution and greenway.

This growing distrust poses big problems for our country.

If Americans have no faith in their government’s ability to do the right thing, it goes to reason that government’s every decision will be looked at with the utmost in skepticism.

How can that be healthy for our nation’s future?

Government officials in many cases have good intentions. But if the American people believe otherwise, even things like a resolution with no power behind it supporting the preservation of open space will be viewed as something sinister.

The only way out of this mess is for our government officials, on all levels, to realize the reality—that many Americans have a pretty low opinion of them—and to use that as motivation to make government better than it’s been in the past. Increased communication with the public, transparency at all levels and not just taking input from the American people but implementing that input must be the goals of government at all levels. Government officials must start paying attention and responding to the perceptions of their constituents. If something looks bad to the public, our government would be wise to heed that appearance of impropriety and proceed with utmost caution.

Our government officials need to realize that one bad decision—whether it be paying too much for a piece of land or getting us involved in a war under false pretenses—will destroy the good will of thousands of good decisions.

Government has got to figure out a way to improve its image—to prove Ronald Reagan wrong.

I’ve always found it interesting how after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, entering the U.S. into World War II, our nation’s leaders asked Americans to put their lives on hold and enlist in the military. That plea—to essentially put yourself in harm’s way because that’s what the government requested—was met by millions heeding the nation’s call to duty.

I have to wonder what would happen today under similar circumstances.

Would millions of Americans enlist? Some would. But many of us would question the government’s true intentions.

Times have certainly changed.

But if our nation is to thrive, or perhaps survive, our government must figure out a way to be of and for the people.

It doesn’t bode well for our country if every day more and more Americans take a dim view of those in the White House, at the state Capitol in Boise, at Pocatello City Hall.

In most cases, I believe government is well-intentioned. It’s unfortunate so many Americans would dispute that.

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

While there’s been much talk lately about the threat posed by North Korean’s nuclear ambitions, there are similar fears about another American-hating regime acquiring atomic weaponry.
Iran’s leadership has perhaps made itself seem like it would be even less responsible with nukes than North Korea, if that’s possible.
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is well known for his rants, which range from promising that Iran will destroy Israel and the U.S. to his feeling that the Holocaust is pure fiction.
To think that a country led by such a man would ever acquire nuclear weapons is frightening to anyone even remotely interested in a peaceful world.
In order to reach a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, a meeting has been set up in Geneva, Switzerland, this week between Iran and six world powers, including the U.S.
But even before the meeting started, Iran was saying the two-day event was aimed at providing the U.S. and its allies with “a graceful solution” to extricating themselves from the impasse.
If that didn’t make most experts feel that the talks will be utterly useless, Iran’s announcement Sunday removed any uncertainty. Iran’s government said it had produced enough uranium to get its nuclear program under way, despite U.N. sanctions.
U.S. officials said the announcement is alarming because Iran’s uranium mines cannot conceivably produce enough uranium for the country to generate nuclear energy. But the mines could yield the necessary uranium for the country to start producing nuclear weapons.
“This calls into further question Iran’s intentions and raises additional concerns,” National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told USA Today.
If you listen to the words of Iran’s leaders, the country’s intentions are pretty clear. And that’s what’s really scary.
During the past 30 years, Iran, without the help of nuclear weapons, has provided constant support to those terrorist organizations that want to kill Americans. Iran helps fund and arm our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan and by doing so has without a doubt been responsible for wounding and killing members of our military.
Would a nuclear-capable Iran export nukes to those countries and terrorist groups that want to do us harm?
Does a dog bark?
The fact that Israel has not moved to take out Iran’s nuclear research facilities is surprising. But that restraint cannot be expected to last forever, especially with the kind of rhetoric being spewed by Iran’s leaders.
Like with North Korea, the situation with Iran seems destined for a military showdown.
Still, diplomacy, though perhaps just a delay of the inevitable, must be given a chance.
Let’s just hope that our leaders know when brinksmanship has run its course

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

A task force appointed by Gov. Otter says the state needs to start spending an additional $543 million annually on highways and bridges.

The 15-member group, however, threw in the caveat that until the economy rebounds the state should delay funding the work it admits is needed to ensure public safety.

Much has been said in recent years about our nation’s deteriorating infrastructure, and the situation in Idaho seems no different. Roads and especially bridges need upkeep and if they don’t get it, tragedy can strike.

That’s what happened in Minneapolis in 2007, when an eight-lane highway bridge across the Mississippi River collapsed, killing 13 people and injuring nearly 150 others. At the time the corroded span was one of 75,000 U.S. bridges listed as “structurally deficient.”

Unless the U.S. starts properly funding its infrastructure, we can unfortunately expect more such tragedies.

Otter’s Task Force on Modernizing Transportation found that Idaho’s infrastructure clearly needs some help, to the tune of an additional half billion dollars-plus each year.

But delaying that needed work until Idaho emerges from the recession means it could be a while—a long, long while—before anything gets done. Considering the state is looking at a $340 million budget shortfall this year, one has to wonder if the needed road and bridge maintenance could be years if not decades away.

The task force suggested funding options such as increasing the fuel tax and/or vehicle registration fees, creating a rental car excise tax, or exploring non-traditional revenue sources.

For each cent of a fuel tax increase, $8.2 million would be generated. However, the task force pointed out that with the increase in electric and more fuel efficient vehicles, the gas tax is not going to generate as much revenue in the future and Idaho should start developing “more modern methods of transportation funding.”

The task force came up with several conclusions about Idaho’s infrastructure, the most notable being that “Idaho’s future economic prosperity is directly tied to an efficient and modern transportation system.”

If our prosperity is tied to our transportation system but needed improvements to that system won’t be made until our economy regains its prosperity, it seems that we’re stuck in a vicious cycle that will not only hold us back economically. It will do nothing to prevent the kind of catastrophes that occurred in Minneapolis in 2007.

Other task force conclusions were that without an infusion of revenue, “only critical safety and maintenance projects will be completed, leaving no funds for capacity improvements,” followed by the expected line about how delaying such work “will result in higher costs in the future.”

It’s nice the task force stated that “public transportation is a necessary component to transportation efficiency,” but considering public transportation cannot occur without heavy government subsidies, improvements there are very unlikely, to put it mildly.

Seems that without more money in state coffers, Idaho’s roads and bridges, not to mention what little public transportation exists here, will not improve and might get worse before they get better.

More money in state coffers typically means higher taxes, something most politicians have been trained by voters to avoid at all costs.

Hopefully in this case the costs won’t be too high.

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

Make no mistake about it, North Korea’s artillery barrage against a South Korean island was an act of aggression that has escalated tensions between the longtime adversaries to levels not seen since the Korean War.

Washington has responded by deploying to the scene a battlegroup of U.S. warships led by the supercarrier USS George Washington. The South Korean military is itching for a fight, with the head of that country’s Marines promising a “thousand-fold” retaliation for last week’s shelling by the North of the Yellow Sea island of Yeonpyeong. South Korean military veterans have held protests, demanding their government give their neighbors to the north some payback. Thousands of South Korean troops are being deployed to Yeonpyeong and other Yellow Sea islands to thwart what should be considered unthinkable—a North Korean invasion.

But North Korea’s past proves the unthinkable is always possible. Our leaders in Washington hopefully realize this.

North Korea’s shelling killed two South Korean Marines and two civilians, which is tragic but perhaps does not tell the full story of the total destruction caused on the island. The massive artillery attack largely destroyed the island’s fishing villages, causing most of Yeonpyeong’s civilian population to flee to the South Korean mainland.

It’s expected that it will take up to two years to repair and rebuild the shell-cratered communities on the island, which is located just 7 miles from North Korean shores. What’s amazing is the attack only killed four people.

It’s unclear exactly what prompted the North Koreans to bombard Yeonpyeong. The shelling came about eight months after the North torpedoed a South Korean warship, sinking it and killing 46 sailors aboard.

The North Korean government is claiming that the U.S. provoked if not orchestrated both attacks. That’s crazy, but that’s North Korea, a country whose population is taught from an early age to worship North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il as God and to view all things American as pure evil.

Washington believes that an expected change in leadership within the North Korean regime, from Kim to his son, could have factored into the artillery bombardment. Or, Pyongyang could be upset that the U.S. won’t resume talks on North Korean nuclear disarmament in exchange for international aid that an impoverished North badly needs to keep many of its citizens from starving.

The North’s only major ally, China, is uneasy about a U.S. Navy battlegroup cruising a little too close for comfort in the Yellow Sea. The U.S. wants China to make a move to reel in North Korea, a country whose aggression is perhaps only outpaced by its desire for a nuclear arsenal.

On the domestic side of things, North Korea’s economic situation is desperate—with food and medical shortages that can only be described as dire. If they obtained nukes, that desperation could lead to a war that could easily reach outside the Korean peninsula.

Sadly, a U.S./South Korea showdown with the North is becoming a matter of when, not if.

North Korea has the world’s fourth largest army and leaves no doubt that it sees the South and the U.S. as its mortal enemies. All the diplomacy in the world likely won’t change that.

Unfortunately, the situation in a region that already saw a war that killed more than 35,000 Americans will get worse before it gets better.

Our leaders in Washington are hopefully wise to the powder keg they have on their hands and will deal with this clear and present danger sooner rather than later.

To do otherwise is to take an unwise gamble with American lives—and lots of them.

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

In an opinion article printed in the Coeur d’Alene Press, writer Mike Ruskovich makes a pretty good case that Idaho is an anti-education state.

That sounds odd—how can anyone be anti-education?

But Ruskovich, a northern Idaho resident, puts forth a convincing argument.

He points out the plethora of candidates with strong educational credentials who were defeated last Tuesday by folks with little education. Such outcomes were clearly not the exception.

An education should not guarantee anyone of election victory, but Ruskovich makes a strong case there’s a trend among Gem State voters to look negatively on college-educated candidates. It almost seems that the more academic accolades a candidate has, the weaker his or her chances are of victory at the polls.

That’s a sad statement.

Ruskovich thanks the Albertson Foundation for its ad campaign urging Idaho students to go to college but he says with the state’s adults constantly voting not only for candidates who have no education beyond high school, but even for those responsible for cutting education budgets to shreds, the message is likely one of hypocrisy.

Here’s an excerpt from Ruskovich’s article: “The ugly truth is that there is not only a disregard for education in Idaho but also a disdain for it. The Idaho Education Association is portrayed by those who desire the death of public education as a dangerous union that must be kept at bay by brave legislators willing to stand up to the juggernaut. And voters regularly reward the politicians who paint this picture; an endorsement from the IEA is almost as great a liability to a candidate in Idaho as the letter ‘D’ beside a name on a ballot.”

The state’s anti-education feelings were apparent in the gubernatorial race, where Democrat Keith Allred’s background as a former Harvard professor was touted as a negative by supporters of Gov. Otter.

Harvard is seen as one of the best schools in the nation. It seems unthinkable that teaching there would be a reason to vote against someone.

Want more proof that Idaho is anti-education? Our starting teacher salaries are actually on the decline. The Idaho Falls Post Register ran a story Friday about how our state is losing teachers to Wyoming, where the pay in some districts is almost double and school teachers don’t have to purchase their own classroom supplies.

Idaho is second worst in the nation in terms of per pupil spending. Utah is the worst, but it only chopped its schools budget for this year by $9 million. Idaho’s leaders, including our newly re-elected governor and superintendent of public instruction, hacked off $128 million from education here.

Idaho is also among the very worst states in terms of students heading off to college after high school. The majority of Idaho students believe that all they’ll need in life is a high school degree, despite the more than ample evidence to the contrary.

But perhaps the students are simply mimicking the attitudes of Idaho adults, many of whom see education as nothing more than a tax culprit.

Anyone who’s friends with an Idaho educator knows that the job is tough, regardless of whether it’s teaching K-12 or college students.

It’s a profession with a high wash out rate because not everyone can handle the stress. And yes, dealing with dozens of students day in, day out can be stressful. Teaching requires a skill set that most people do not possess.

Coupled with the disdain for the profession in the Gem state and the need to spend your own money for paper, pencils and other necessities, it’s a wonder anyone would want to teach here.

In other states teachers are not only respected, but they are well paid for doing a job that is vital to the success of our society, our nation. But not in Idaho.

Here educators are called whiners, lazy, overpaid and are seen by some as more of a liability than prisons.

At the state Republican convention earlier this year some folks actually talked about shutting down public schools.

Holding education in such a low regard cannot be good for our state now and it will prove to be even more of a handicap in the future.

Sure, our school districts and teachers should never be given a blank check.

But obviously the status quo—with educational spending almost seen as wasted money—needs to be shattered in favor of something closer to reality.

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

It must be tough to be an Idaho Democrat. It seems that even when you run a candidate like Walt Minnick, who’s more conservative than some Republicans, you can’t end up on the winning side.

I know that this election saw a massive pro-Republican (or more accurately, anti-Obama) tide, but I expected Democratic candidates for statewide office to do a bit better. I’m still astonished that Republican Gov. Otter so convincingly thumped Democrat Keith Allred.

My reason for thinking that Allred had a chance was that his supporters seemed highly motivated while those I knew who were voting for Otter appeared to be doing so simply out of habit of voting for the R.

I’ve found that a candidate’s ability to energize his/her supporters is like magic in a bottle. Think about the 2008 president campaign—Barack Obama’s supporters couldn’t wait for election day while McCain’s crowd was pretty milktoast by comparison (much like those voting for Otter).

But it seems that two or three weeks before Tuesday’s election that Allred’s campaign lost steam. I had Democrats telling me last week that he was toast.

They expected Stan Olson, the Democratic candidate for state superintendent of public instruction, to have better chances. They were wrong there too.

Idaho seems to be a place where Democrats are having increasingly more difficulty even putting up a respectable fight against the GOP, especially when it comes to statewide races.

And it doesn’t seem to matter much if a Democrat is more to the right than some Republicans.

All this means that the GOP will continue to dominate until Idahoans decide otherwise.

When I interviewed State Legislature candidates prior to the election, I brought up the state’s Republican supermajority and the GOP candidates pointed out that Idahoans have a choice in who they vote for and they are consistently voting for the R.

It’s true.

But having such a weak Democratic Party obviously does nothing for checks and balances in our state government.

That’s not healthy.

I get the feeling that some of those Democratic lawmakers who decided against running for re-election this time around were more than a bit frustrated by the lack of power their party has in governing the state.

I can’t blame them. It’s got to be frustrating to go to Boise every winter and struggle to move any legislation simply because the Republicans rule the roost.

There are some negatives that come along with having a state run by one party, the big one being the possibility of corruption. Legislators and bureaucrats from the same party are a lot less likely to blow the whistle on each other. That goes regardless of what party’s in charge.

There are places that are run by Democrats, places where Republicans have a very difficult time getting elected.

California comes to mind.

It seems most states have more balance—”purple” is what such a mix is often called by the pundits.

Idaho is one of the reddest of our nation’s red states, and that’s the way most Idahoans want it.

Will it ever change?

Probably.

Until then Democrats need to do their best to point out when the Republicans are taking us down the wrong road and come up with better solutions to the state’s problems.

Sooner or later the voters will take notice.

(Stay tuned for my next post. I’m hoping to do something on whether Idaho’s anti-education stereotype is accurate.)

This past election night was the most arduous I’ve encountered at the Journal. The problem, according to a story that we’ll run in tomorrow’s paper, is that the Bannock County vote-counting equipment is so high-tech that it actually slowed the vote counting process. Bonneville County has older equipment that apparently counts votes a lot faster than what we have here in Bannock. I think Bonneville’s vote totals were released at least two hours before Bannock’s. We didn’t receive final Bannock County results until 1:30 a.m.

I have to give credit to all the rural counties in our coverage area—Bingham, Franklin, Power, Oneida, Bear Lake and Caribou. Their vote totals were in before our deadline and that’s why their results appeared in our print edition.

It’s odd that Bannock County’s high-tech voting equipment added so much time to the process. You’d think better equipment would be faster, but apparently Bannock’s vote scanners stop if they hit any “irregularity” on a particular ballot. Irregularity can apparently mean someone not marking their vote for a particular race, something many Bannock County voters did when it came to the confusing constitutional amendment questions on the ballot.

Aside from waiting forever for the Bannock County totals, this election was interesting.

I’m astonished that Obama’s star has fallen so much in two years that the GOP, a party that seemed on the ropes during his 2008 campaign, is now resurgent. And to think that the Republican Party is so divided by the Tea Party elements in its midst, it’s impressive that they were able to take control of the U.S. House. If the Republicans were a little more united, I think they’d have the Senate in their hands too.

Remember how so many people were so ardently supportive of Obama when he was running for president? He came into office with most of the country firmly behind him. Now he’s in trouble and if he continues to lose favor, I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a contested primary in 2012. I’ve heard a lot of Democrats express buyer’s remorse. In retrospect they feel they should have supported Hillary. I’m guessing that if Obama’s approval rating is in the low 30s come re-election time, Hillary and perhaps other Democrats will try running against him. I think under that scenario Hillary has pretty good chances—at least in the primary.

Locally, the Republicans picked up a State House seat (Jim Guthrie) and took total control of the county commission and assessor’s office, thanks to Howard Manwaring (commission) and Dave Packer (assessor) being elected.

Those two races were a bit surprising because to win both candidates had to get some Democratic support. I knew a few Democrats who were going to vote against Ghan but I thought Ranere’s support among Democrats was more of a sure thing. I guess not.

Ghan’s been a familiar face at the county courthouse for years. It’s hard to imagine he’ll no longer be in the mix over there. I actually thought there was a chance that Commission Chairman Steve Hadley’s column last weekend calling for Ghan’s ouster might have helped Larry. One would also have thought that many voters would have supported Ghan so that there would be some balance on the commission. With the election of Manwaring, all three commissioners will be Republicans come January.

I have to think that Ghan will still be active on the local political scene, at least within the Democratic Party. I’d bet that this won’t be the last time his name appears on an election ballot.

Aside from some odd political signage, I must say that I was impressed with all the Republican candidates for state Legislature. Unlike previous years, they all seemed to have a really good handle on the issues and had some compelling ideas. But they all lost except for Guthrie and the incumbent Ken Andrus. I think we haven’t heard the last from some of them, especially this Lance Kolbet. The better quality of the Republican legislative candidates this time around shows that the GOP’s bench is getting deeper in these parts and that could spell trouble for the Democrats. The Bannock Dems still seem to be able to draw from a better list of candidates overall, but the gap is clearly narrowing.

Some of the Democratic candidates have pretty good name recognition locally and even with the election tide going against anyone with a D after their name, Diane Bilyeu, Edgar Malepeai and Elaine Smith all won their races. They’ll be joined by another well-known local Democrat, Roy Lacey, who will be a great addition to the State House.

But overall the Bannock Republicans have to be feeling a little bit happier than the Dems after election night. The GOP appears to be chipping away at the Democratic stronghold that Bannock County (mainly Pocatello) has traditionally been. Tomorrow, if I don’t get swamped at the office, I’ll post something on the plight of Idaho’s Democrats, many of whom are rightfully irked at Tuesday’s results.

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.