Barrett Rainey's Second Thoughts

Influences affecting your outlook on life can come from nearly anyplace or anyone if you keep your ear tuned. Several of mine come from that great philosopher Popeye. You know, the sailor guy. “I yam what I yam” is pretty deep stuff if you think about it.

Another of his gems of wisdom currently describes my thinking about our nation’s political struggles. “That’s all I can stands. I can stands no more.” From Main Street Douglas County and “sea to shining sea,” the irrational, the outrageous, the stupid and the ignorant “discourse” has risen in my ears to the limits expressed by that famous sage. “I can stands no more!”

I was reading an article entitled “Eight dumb things Americans believe.” Things like President Obama wasn’t born in this country, he’s really a Muslim, the Bush administration tried to cover up 9/11, etc. Recent polling shows an alarming number of people really believe some dumb stuff.

It’s only a short step from that mental vagrancy to another in my mind: some of the ridiculous rhetoric polluting our political discourse about things that ain’t gonna happen in our lifetimes. Period.

Things like abolishing the 14th and 17th amendments to our Constitution; the ones making children born here American citizens and direct election of the U.S. Senate by the people. Ain’t gonna happen.

Candidate promises to round up all seven million illegal aliens in this country and ship ‘em back to Mexico. As if there aren’t illegal Canadians, Germans, French and Botswana aliens. Millions of ‘em. How would you do it? What would it cost? Ain’t gonna happen.

Unqualified office seekers promising to abolish the federal Department of Education, get us out of the United Nations, return our economic base to the gold standard, allow us to pay our taxes with gold and silver bars, cut Medicaid and abolish Medicare. All together now: “Ain’t gonna happen.”

The most outrageous but seriously promised by some is to reduce or end Social Security or, at the very least, privatize it and invest in the stock markets. The average mind boggles to think any candidate who seriously runs on that idea owns a car and is driving on our highways.

In my extended years, we’ve had wars, economic up and down times, national struggles about this-that-and-the-other, high crime problems, protests about dozens of issues and all sorts of upheavals. But no other economic calamity has damaged the lives of so many Americans since the Great Depression as all of us are experiencing right now. No period in our last 70 years has so demanded competent leadership and experienced decision-making for each of us.

So what are we getting? What are we hearing? We’re getting far too many candidates running on empty, worthless and idiotic platforms that, if elected, would add to our national damages. We’re hearing ignorance about how our government operates under our laws and the founding documents. We’re being promised dumb things that ain’t gonna happen.

I’m a registered Independent. I’m one of those “swing voters” you hear so much about. I’m in that majority of voters that cling to no party and, most of the time, I sum up my distrust of both with the time-honored phrase “a pox on both their houses.” There is some good in each; there is some bad. But there is not enough value to attract my membership.

If national Democrats continue to be gutless and incapable of the leadership they were accorded at the polls in 2008, they don’t deserve a renewed contract. If Republicans are going to stand by while a confused, angry and scared minority runs their party off a cliff, they don’t deserve the “keys to the kingdom,” either.

If I needed an operation to save my life, I wouldn’t hand the scalpel to a guy off the street without a day’s experience in the operating room. If I were to charter an airplane, I wouldn’t ask a bus driver to “give it a try.”

So, in this time of great national requirement to have experienced, intelligent, well-grounded people making crucial decisions that will affect each of us for generations, why should we give that great responsibility to anyone who espouses or advocates any of the above? Why would any of us pollute the national dialogue and waste valuable time by electing anyone who thinks these are the solutions to our seemingly intractable issues?

In our house, it ain’t gonna happen! How about yours?

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on Some dumb things that ain’t gonna happen

Our national primary season is drawing to a close. Mercifully. After months of bombast and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, it’s left me with one thought. I am mad at … and disgusted with … both national political parties.

The gridlock and extreme partisanship defining our Congress have been infused into primary after primary where neither party fielded sufficient candidates fitting the job requirements our overwhelming issues demand. In too many cases, we weren’t offered “more of the same.” We were offered “less of the same.”

When I mark my ballot in November, some X’s will go next to names not better than the other guy but, as a friend used to say, next to the “least worst.” If there ever was a year in which we needed the option of “none of the above” we’re living it.

Let’s look at some. In Oregon’s statehouse race, we can choose between a former governor who said in frustration the state “was ungovernable” as he walked out the door last time, or a guy who has openly lied, ducked issues and, without a day’s political experience, would face some of the most difficult economic times we’ve ever had. Either one make you want to jump for a ballot?

In Connecticut, the next U.S. Senator will be a woman without a day’s political background who made millions in professional wrestling and who has vowed to personally spend $50 million to win, or a guy with a long distinguished political pedigree who has repeatedly lied about his Viet Nam service. In the U.S. Senate? Clear choice?

In Arizona, John McCain has shape-shifted and backed water on so many issues he stands for nothing. His effectiveness is over. That state will also likely send an inexperienced newcomer to the House who ran ads calling Barak Obama “the worst president in the nation’s history” and depicted his “family values” by letting voters think children in his ads were his. They weren’t. Is he going to be effective?

A leaderless national Republican party has become captive of a few loud know-nothings demanding ideological purity and, without leadership, it’s headed toward the edge of their square globe. Responsible GOP voices like Colin Powell, Warren Rudman and other respected, experienced gray hairs have remained silent when they should have been using their considerable influence to say “enough” and center the party’s course.

Democrats, with a congressional majority, have proven incapable of using that clout to govern. They’ve been cowed by blustery Republicans while their own Congressional leadership has tried hopelessly to stay out of fights. They should have been solving nuts and bolts problems instead of trying to launch a “new era.”

Democrats are also being led by someone in the White House who prides himself on being a mediator and a consensus builder. That may look good on the biography out of law school but that’s not all of the president’s job description. Sometimes, the exercise of brute, one-sided political force is required. Anyone remember LBJ, FDR, HST or RMN? They got ‘er done.

Alligator-sized problems in our congressional swamp are many. They’ll only be solved by common sense, bipartisan cooperation demanded on a scale seldom seen and with hands that can use a scalpel and, when necessary, a hammer.

Ideological purity in politicians always leads to downfall. Always. When the ability to compromise is lost in the name of purity, the practitioner won’t be effective. And won’t survive. History’s highways are littered with bodies of the pure left behind by the impure who learned to negotiate and move on.

One basic problem with our political system is we can’t get the right people to run for the jobs. We get too many opportunists looking for good pay and a retirement plan. The “best-and-brightest” don’t see it as honest work or won’t let themselves in for the public punishment often attached. Not nearly enough bright, capable men and women are drawn to public service anymore. Add to that the people who’re walking away from Washington because they see too much infighting and can’t be effective.

I believe what passes for national leadership in both parties doesn’t represent folks at home; you and me. We’ve developed a class of people separate and apart from us. They live in an unreal world and look at things through a different prism. Once filled with Potomac water, the Umpqua, Snake and Columbia varieties don’t seem to matter.

“A pox on both their houses” makes for a lousy atmosphere in which to cast a meaningful vote.

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on Sometimes our politics can be just plain disgusting

Much has been written about “voter backlash” at the polls in Oregon and elsewhere. There’ll be some. But I believe those who say they’re so terribly mad at government should calm down, take many deep breaths and count to a very high number.

Aside from the “decisions-made-in anger-are-usually-bad-decisions” advice, there are some very serious political implications to blindly casting ballots of retribution against one party or the other that should be considered very, very carefully. Then considered again.

There’ll be a lot of new names on our ballots this year. We won’t recognize some. While there appears to be some very good, serious rabbits in the running, there are also some that could be more aptly described as March Hares. Voters will be more pressed than usual to cut the bad ones out of the herd to find those to take seriously.

It’s not likely Republicans will take over both houses of Congress. Maybe one. Maybe neither. They’ll make some gains. That’s fine. Winds of our democracy alternatively blow left and right which is why it works over the long haul. But whichever way it goes, the Northwest has some very big stakes.

One of our congressional hired hands is Mr. DeFazio. If asked, he’d be first to tell you I’m probably the least likely person to be his campaign manager. The least. But his situation precisely makes my point. We know his politics. His Republican opponent is Art Robinson whose distinctly conservative statements may match yours. Again, that’s fine. I’m not trying to pick a rabbit here; just illustrate a point.

It’s fair to say Robinson sees through a very, very conservative lens. Few in Congress have the same views and the election is not going to change that outlook to a majority. So the platform on which he would stand would be a minority regardless of party. Minority members are notoriously unsuccessful legislators in our system of longevity.

DeFazio, on the other hand, is now, and likely will be, in the majority with 28 years seniority giving him access to prime committees. If he wants to shake the money tree for O&C funding, for example, he stands high enough near the top of the ladder to shake the tree further up. Where the money is. If he wants to introduce legislation benefitting his neighborhood … that’s us … he’s got assistance where those decisions are made. Power of incumbency and majority. He’d have clout in a minority, too. Longevity.

Again, I’m not advocating one rabbit over the other. You choose. For whatever reasons work for you. My thesis is electing someone to higher office this time around is more than a matter of name recognition or how you felt about his last vote. It’s more than whether you or I are unhappy with the day’s news. Selecting someone to office 2010 style … whether congressional, legislative or local … will require more than the usual, casual approach to voting.

“Politics is the art of the possible.” That’s the truest political statement ever made. All of us have fine ideas about how this and that should be. Some of us may be right and some of us dead wrong. But to accomplish what we need now to get us out of our huge economic pit, we must face the reality that the problem is larger than any other source of possible rescue except government. The engine may be the private sector but the only fuel source large enough to keep that engine fired up right now is government.

We’re running up record deficits. We’re borrowing ahead. We may be sending bills to our kids. But what kind of world will those kids have if we don’t get it working now with whatever tools we need to do the job?

It’s not hard to make decisions in good times when lives are stable. But in today’s conditions, we need careful, more informed thought leading to more deliberate choices whether that means going without some things around the house or sending somebody into the political swamps to battle alligators. It’s hard choice time.

Northwest unemployment is very high. How to fix that … how to deal with just that … should weigh more heavily on our voting choices than blind party affiliation or someone’s idea of fringe political utopia.

It may mean swallowing hard and marking a ballot differently than we would in better economic times. Bitter medicine. But necessary.

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on Informed economic voting better than blind ideology

Our little community of about 21,000 has suffered through … or simply ignored … the lengthy and often heated debate regarding a new store in town: Costco. Which emotion depends on how you look at this cosmic shopper event.

Location for the Roseburg outlet of the very successful Seattle area warehouse discounter has been the subject of many public struggles in our neighborhood for several years. Zoning issues, wetland issues, federal flight safety issues and increased traffic issues have been debated – drunk and sober – since the name “Costco” was first whispered locally.

But now … now all the hurdles have been hurdled and we have daily access to rows and rows and stacks and stacks of things we need. Or think we do. If you want to buy your bar of bath soap in 12 count packages, go for it!

Barb and I have stood silently on the sidelines during this community debate. With just the two of us for a family unit, Costco hasn’t been a big deal. We’ve gone to Eugene or Medford a few times to shop Costco but only if we had other needs that took us there and justified half a tank of gas at $3.00 a gallon. Our shopping needs are pretty plebeian. When we need a bar or two of soap, we pick ‘em up with groceries during the weekly shopping. Same with tissue: a box or two rather than a sealed pack of eight.

It isn’t that we don’t like Costco. We do. Their meats and much of their bakery goods are about the best we’ve found. When smaller stores shop there, then take the big packages home, split up the contents and repackage them for resale, other people must like the quality, too. If you like the oatmeal raisin cookies as much as I do, you’ll recognize them in some of the little coastal groceries.

Costco has built its success doing business in a way that fits other people’s shopping needs more than ours. Bulk quantities and large package buying is more suited to people with families still at home. The company has also been wise in what sorts of merchandise to stock. And not. You can shop a good selection of televisions but need to go somewhere else for sound systems to make a complete home theater. Good selection of computers but fancy peripherals not so much.

Costco seems to survive if not dominate similar outlets in large and small communities. Not many merchandisers do that using basically the same store design. Walmart and similar chains tend to size their stores to the community served: some super; some smaller. Costco is more “one size fits all.”

I was frankly surprised when the decision was made to build a store in Roseburg; 65 miles from an existing outlet north and 90 miles south. In terms of distance, most regional communities outside Douglas County are closer to the other stores. But you can be sure the marketing department did all the necessary homework and I’d bet sales will be close to projections.

Based on my recent reading, our little family may make more of the larger Costco purchases. New research shows expiration dates on some products can be safely ignored. At least for awhile. What changes are there inside a tube of toothpaste, for example, two months after the printed date? Same thing for a pound of butter or margarine if kept properly refrigerated. The expiration date on products is required by federal regulation. But lab tests seem to show some end dates aren’t necessarily so.

Barb is the shopper at our house. I go into a store, quickly find the pants in my size and check out. She, on the other hand, will find several pair and closely examine.. if not try on … each one. And maybe won’t by any! How can people do that? She’s also a “taster.” Costco food samples can be her lunch. Not me. Mom taught me not to take food from strangers. I’ll have one of those good hotdogs. From an employee stranger.

The Costco experience is upon us at last. Like beauty, the import of that is in the eye of the beholder. There is no down side, it seems. Only benefits in varying degrees. To those that see the dawning of a new era, congratulations. To those just welcoming an alternative place to shop, our best wishes.

For those of us who still buy bars of soap or our boxes of tissue one or two at a time, what’s the big deal?

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on The Costco experience: earth shaking or no big deal

Periodically, a bad idea is foist upon the electorate. In Oregon, it appears we’re going to be faced with one such when we mark our November ballots.

The misguided and unnecessary initiative is No.13. It’s being called “The Oregon Crime Fighting Act.” A lot of hyperbole for something that would make bad law.

If passed, it would remove judicial discretion when certain felony sex crime and Class C DUI cases are ready for sentencing. The law would mandate those sentences, tying judges hands. They’d have no options regardless of circumstance. That’s wrong.

These kinds of “mandatory sentencing” ideas can usually be traced to someone … or several someone’s … unhappy with the outcome of a case involving them. Dig deeper and you often find one or more individual sponsors previously involved in a personal losing court decision wherein they think the wrongdoer got off too lightly because of some “liberal judge.” Sometimes true; sometimes not.

We elect judges. We make them stand for election and go from chicken dinner to chicken dinner like other “politicians.” I’ve never liked the idea but that’s how we do it. So saying, I admit not all judges we elect do the job. If that’s the case, we can fire ‘em and run in a new one even though that process is flawed.

Judges have education and adequate legal training to do their work. Years of it. But when you create mandatory sentencing, you take away that education and all that experience to decide a fair punishment. Then the whole process could be done by a German Shepard. That’s not the system I want.

Consider a hypothetical. Your teen wants to go to Diamond Lake with friends. You approve. But your instruction is the kid must be home by 9 p.m. Failure will mean a month’s grounding.

Remembering your words, the kids leave the lake in plenty of time to get home on schedule. But, on the road, a major wreck blocks the highway in both directions for hours. Because of the isolated terrain, no cell phone service.

The deadline comes. And goes. And goes some more. You’re wearing a path in the carpet from pacing and the dog is hiding under the bed because of your loud and repeated threats. Finally, just after midnight, your transient teen is home. Your first words: “You’re grounded for life!” Discipline promised. Promise kept. Period.

Or is it? Do you have the full story of the tardy teen? Were there mitigating facts? Do you know why you didn’t get a phone call? When you pronounced “sentence,” did you know your kid tried to honor your “law” but got caught in circumstances that kept him/her from complying? Of course not. So you review all the facts, give your kid a big hug, offer to make a quick snack and everybody goes to bed.

If you had been forced to stick to your promise (the law) when you were really mad, justice (proper sentencing) wouldn’t have happened. Required punishment would have overruled common sense and you’d have injustice.

Tardiness and repeated major crimes aren’t exactly the same. But you get the point. If No. 13 becomes law, mitigating factors be damned. Oregon’s judiciary would have no choice. Extenuating circumstances … if any … would have to be ignored. The law’s the law.

When I want a job done that requires a professional, I look for a good one, agree on terms and get out of the way. Painter, plumber, carpenter, mechanic. Get the best you can find and let ‘em work. Don’t tell ‘em how to do the job. Don’t kibbitz. If I had known how to do those things I wouldn’t have needed ‘em.

Same for the judiciary. Many times, making law by referendum results in bad law. Especially when dealing with the courts. Or taxes. While the original idea may have sounded good, required implementation can sometimes result in unintended consequences. Once you’ve fired up the crowd to vote your way on what seemed like a good idea, it’s nearly impossible to bring it back for adjustment.

Our lawmaking system is slow, torturous and exasperating. No question. But those same characteristics are often why bad ideas don’t become law. Mandatory sentencing for despicable crimes may seem worthy but it removes the judicial human from the human equation.

That’s never a good idea.

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on For the best quality justice, allow judges to judge

Much has been written about “voter backlash” at the polls in Oregon and elsewhere. There’ll be some. But I believe those who say they’re so terribly mad at government should calm down, take many deep breaths and count to a very high number.

Aside from the “decisions-made-in anger-are-usually-bad-decisions” advice, there are some very serious political implications to blindly casting ballots of retribution against one party or the other that should be considered very, very carefully.

There’ll be a lot of new names on our ballots this year. We won’t recognize some. While there appears to be some very good, serious rabbits in the running, there are also some that could be more aptly described as March Hares. Voters will be more pressed than usual to cut the bad ones out of the herd to find those to take seriously.

It’s not likely Republicans will take over both houses of Congress. Maybe one. Maybe neither. They’ll make some gains. That’s fine. Winds of our democracy alternatively blow left and right which is why it works over the long haul. Whichever way it goes, the Northwest has some very big stakes.

One of our congressional hired hands is Mr. DeFazio. If asked, he’d be first to tell you I’m probably the least likely person to be his campaign manager. The least. But his situation precisely makes my point. We know his politics. His Republican opponent is Art Robinson whose distinctly conservative statements may match yours. Again, that’s fine. I’m not trying to pick a rabbit here; just illustrate a point.

It’s fair to say Robinson sees through a very, very conservative lens. Few in Congress have the same views and the election is not going to change that outlook to a majority. So the platform on which he would stand would be a minority regardless of party. Minority members are notoriously unsuccessful legislators in our system of longevity.

DeFazio, on the other hand, is now and likely will be, in the majority with 28 years seniority giving him access to prime committees. If he wants to shake the money tree for the O&C funding, for example, he stands high enough near the top of the ladder to shake the tree further up. Where the money is. If he wants to introduce legislation benefitting his neighborhood … that’s us … he’s got assistance where those decisions are made. Power of incumbency and majority. He’d have clout in a minority, too.

Again, I’m not advocating one hare over the other. You choose. For whatever reasons work for you. My thesis is electing someone to higher office this time around is more than a matter of name recognition or how you felt about his last speech. It’s more than whether you or I are unhappy with the day’s news. Selecting someone to office 2010 style … whether congressional, legislative or local … will require more than the usual casual approach to voting.

“Politics is the art of the possible.” That’s the truest political statement ever made. All of us have fine ideas about how this and that should be. Some of us may be right and some of us dead wrong. But to accomplish what we need now to get us out of our huge economic pit, we must face the reality that the problem is larger than any other source of possible rescue except government. The engine may be the private sector but the only fuel source large enough to keep that engine fired up right now is government.

We’re running up record deficits. We’re borrowing ahead. We may be sending bills to our kids. But what kind of world will those kids have if we don’t get it working now with whatever tools we need to do the job?

It’s not hard to make decisions in good times when lives are stable. But in today’s conditions, we need careful, more informed thought leading to more deliberate choices whether that means going without some things around the house or sending somebody into the political swamps to battle alligators. It’s hard choice time.

Northwest unemployment is very high. How to fix that alone … how to deal with just that … should weigh more heavily on our voting choices than blind party affiliation or someone’s idea of fringe political utopia.

It may mean swallowing hard and marking a ballot differently than we would in better economic times. Bitter medicine. But necessary.

Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off on Informed economic voting is better than blind ideology