Barrett Rainey's Second Thoughts

Rudy Giuliani. When a “practicing” Catholic mayor of New York City, he moved his wife out of the official mayor’s residence so he could move his girlfriend in. Rudy Giuliani. Once a Democrat who couldn’t get elected to anything; now a Republican. Rudy Giuliani. Who, since his term of office expired in 2002, has consistently been rejected in runs for various offices and political appointments by his own “adopted” political party. Rudy Giuliani. A man with nothing of essence to say who won’t shut up!

His most recent worthless “contribution” to public discourse is as outrageous and irresponsible as it is flat wrong. His attempt to blame President Obama and hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators in our nation’s streets for promoting distrust and hatred of our civic police forces is contemptible. His pouring of verbal gasoline on deep societal divisions demanding long denied justice for millions of Americans belies his years as an effective federal prosecutor and further amplify that he’s a crank busybody with nothing to say worth public attention,

This ignorant empty suit is not alone in his effrontery to Americans legitimately in the streets to express their anger and frustration. New York Rep. Peter King demanded apologies from the President on down for fomenting police hatred and mistrust. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter and other usual suspects from the hate crowd piled on with equally as insulting and contemptuous vitriol.

A deranged, lifelong lawbreaker assassinated his girlfriend and two NYC officers before killing himself. Case open. Case closed. No responsible office holder and no justice-seeking crowd in the street in any American city contributed, sponsored or urged the killings. That the killer tried to justify his actions before they occurred by using social media to trumpet the names of Michael Brown and other blacks recently killed by police only confirms his estrangement from reality and the rest of us.

Giuliani, King and the shooter aside, this country has a long-simmering racial divide deeper and further across than the Grand Canyon. The only fact worse than its existence is the refusal of all of us to take it seriously enough to honestly examine and end it. All of us. If any good can come of the spate of recent killings of unarmed black men and children it would be to keep the subject of racial discrimination on the front burner and to deal with it in all of its many ugly facets until we get it behind us.

That won’t happen. Much as it’s needed to make this nation whole, that won’t happen. Giuliani, King, a New York City mad man and millions of unnamed Americans who believe such despicable trash won’t let it. At every turn, where progress can be realized, they’ll pop up and pop off for national media consumption. They’ll continue the outrageousness and lies that attract national recording and repetition – a minority refusing to affirm legitimate efforts by a majority who will work for justice. A justice we promise “for all” in our national Pledge of Allegiance.

Not since anti-war marches of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s have so many Americans taken to the streets in a national show of frustration, anger, demanding equal treatment under the law. This is not a cop-versus-citizen or cop-versus-politician outpouring any more than those earlier marches were meant to blame the military for following orders of a civilian hierarchy.

There were those who tried to make it so. A loud crazy minority then – as there is now – attempting to twist legitimate national outrage and pain into some sort of anti-American movement. Then it was the marchers “hated the military.” Now it’s marchers “hate cops.” Not true then. Not true now.

Lest we forget, recent injustices carried out against those dead black men and children don’t stop with officers and their guns. There’s a judicial system that needs re-examining. There’s a prosecutorial climate requiring a thorough review by the highest authorities. The errors of omission and co-mission run the gamut of the law enforcement world. From supreme court to traffic court. From city prosecutors to attorneys general. From national law enforcement to the local “cop shop.”

And one more thing. In each of those environs are good people – excellent, well-intentioned, honest and caring officers, prosecutors and judges. If there is to be real change in our relationships with each other – regardless of race or any other factor – those on the inside can be the most effective agents by confronting and disciplining their own ranks. Nothing would make a more meaningful statement of real progress than to have those sharing the police and peacekeeping load thinning out the racists, bigots and miscreants of all sorts that exist within their own peer groups.

The Giulianis, Kings and assorted deranged assassins on the street have always been with us. They’ll always be here to stand as the most vivid examples of arrogance, distrust, blatant hypocrisy, ignorance and cowardice. They’ll be here trying to redirect the honest energies of more learned voices who want justice and fairness.

If we’re to affect real national racial and economic change – achieve honest discourse – reach a point where justice is achieved – it’ll be because we who seek those ends are willing to work and, if necessary, sacrifice to achieve them. Along the way to those goals, we must not be distracted by the siren lies of the Rudy Giulianis and the Peter Kings. Their mindless drivel is fit only as grist for the sewer.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on A distraction of lies

We “punditry” types rely on words to praise or condemn when dealing with political, economic or related issues. The words and opinions come easier than facts and, too often, we throw the nouns and adjectives out there and walk away with few facts to support the opining.

But statistics – especially those compiled by people with a dedication to neutrality and letting the numbers speak for themselves – have garnered my respect over the years. While I don’t really understand how they do what they do, I’ve learned to appreciate those who work with numbers. Especially when their findings tend to support what many of us have said for a long, long time. These do.

Idaho is going to Hell in a handbasket.

Those are just my words again. But they’re based squarely on the findings of the Idaho Center For Fiscal Policy. A “gang that can shoot straight.”

Rather than go into all the messy numbers, here are just the headlines from the Center’s latest report.

“Idaho collects less in taxes than all but two other states.”

“Idaho’s per capita income is lower than all but one state – Mississippi.”

Those are their clinical, statistical findings. And they form the factual basis for the words “Idaho: Hell in a handbasket”

To my mind, those six headlines tie together in an endless circle. You can enter the circle at any point and exit randomly. But the pattern of disintegration in Idaho’s economic conditions just goes on and on. Down and down.

Native young Idahoans now graduating from the state’s universities have lived in a political environment of one-party politics all their years. And that single political domination is a big reason for these disastrous findings – and headlines, the findings and headlines that show why their education cost them as much as it did. When it shouldn’t have.

It’s possible, had the party in power all those years been Democrats, conditions could have been the same. I doubt it but let’s say it’s possible. The issue isn’t so much that it’s Republicans who have their fingerprints over this economic disaster as it is more the absence of a competing political voice for so many years. There’s been no strong, effective dissent from bad taxing policies and other lousy, self-serving, basic economic decisions – those created and enacted by unchallenged people making bad decisions after bad decisions. The spiral has kept gaining in downward intensity.

In this case, solidly Republican. And, for the most part, solidly rural Republicans ignoring the shifts in people moving to the cities and the racial and age demographics that were left out of the basic calculations necessary for good public policy. For decades! Without meaningful opposition.

And one more important point. While urban residents far outnumber rural, dominant elected Republican party and, thus, legislative leadership comes from small counties with declining populations. In a one-party state, decision-makers don’t represent the majority of the population. Which affects how tax laws are written, exemptions granted and to whom.

The Idaho business sector could give lessons to the Koch brothers on how to dominate a state government and to make that domination so effective in serving its own interests. The Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy doesn’t make that case in this report. But it has in others. The shifts of taxes from corporations to individuals and the outrageous exemptions given to large businesses and farmers have been going on for many, many years.

School districts – faced with increasing enrollment demands coupled with decreasing state support – have had to plead/beg with local constituencies to pass bond issues to keep the doors open. Not to update and do the best for children. No! Just to keep operating. As legislators went home – proudly boasting about the “tax cuts” they’d sponsored – taxpayers found themselves paying more because the “tax cuts” for business came at the expense of highways, water projects – and all of education.

It would be comforting if the Center’s report could be the basis for voter upheaval and give legislative and statewide offices a housecleaning. But that won’t happen. Those findings will wind up on another bookshelf to gather dust alongside others that found – in pure statistics – that Idaho is going to Hell.

Forget the handbasket.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Hell in a handbasket

The Hell raising by most Republicans in Congress over publication of the Senate torture report is as off-base as it is loud. Not unexpected. Certainly true-to-form. And – as has so often been the case with them – dead wrong.

The outcry over the black and white evidence this $40 million report lays bare about the “official” actions the Bush administration conducted – then lied about – is baseless B.S.. Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Meyers, three of Meyers’ predecessors at CIA and the hundreds of Americans who conducted, who knew and who lied, over and over and over. Those should be your targets for condemnation.

The self-serving, political lying continues with hourly, ill-aimed blasts at the media and/or at Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller and all Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. “Kill the damned messenger!!!”

What these liars, deniers and political justifiers ignore is fact. Had there been no torture – illegal, inhuman torture with this nation’s sponsorship – there would’ve been no report. Nothing to investigate. Nothing!

My strong personal “thank you’s” go out to each member of the Committee who voted to conduct the lengthy investigation, then publish the findings. Had the decision to put these grisly facts on the public record not been made by this week, the new Republican majority in the Senate would’ve buried it – every nationally embarrassing, humiliating, loathsome truth would have disappeared from any outside knowledge. Bet the farm!

In recent years, I’ve found it hard to say anything positive about the public utterances of John McCain – leading Senate militarist – who seems to have gone “round-the-bend” on many subjects. Following his usual urging, we’d be at war about everyplace in the world except maybe Kansas. But, this time, using his terrible life experience as the only member of Congress to undergo protracted torture at the hands of an enemy in wartime, McCain became an eloquent defender of both the public’s right to know and the facts that should be known. Alone in his party’s upper ranks, he stood on the floor of the Senate and soundly condemned those who tortured and those who covered it up. He was right!

Then, there’s the Bush-Cheney axis. The 500+ page executive summary seemed to say the President was not told what the CIA was doing. Maybe. Maybe not. But, you damned well can bet Cheney knew. And approved.

You see, there’s this tidbit – not part of the damning document. In the hours after release this week, CNN unearthed a piece of video from 2007 in which Bush-the-Junior said flat out “This nation does not torture anybody!” Direct quote. Yet the report says Bush was briefed on what the CIA was doing in 2005. Even gives the exact date. And by whom. Eighteen months before his televised press conference denial.

There’s an interesting Northwest side note. Faced with the possibility the report would not be published, Oregon’s Sen. Wyden loudly pledged to use every power available to him to get the document on the record. Then, when the document hit the table, Idaho’s Sen. Risch – himself an experienced attorney – twisted both fact and logic condemning all Senate Democrats – and their firstborns – for publishing. He publically screwed up in his own description of what’s in the report. My experience with him is that Jim’s often got a problem with candor. And truth.

Finally, the torture report makes a somewhat overlooked note about the Bush administration and who knew what. Seems, according to those who briefed the White House on what the CIA was doing all those years, one important official was left out. Secretary of State Colin Powell. He was named specifically as the one senior Cabinet member not told.

That fact needs more airing. If there’s anyone left in the Beltway media with any sense of curiosity and journalistic integrity, every attempt should be made to contact Powell and ask him two questions: was he told and, if the answer is what the report says, why does he think not? The Committee has documented a full 25% of all the countries in the world participated in our shameful torture program. So, why was the nation’s top diplomat – who was in continual communication with those nations – not told?

Given that fact – and additionally how badly Powell was used in the Iraq “chemical weapons” lie to the world – he might have some interesting insights to share. About both instances. He’s been speaking more candidly lately on lots of things. I’d like to hear his thought on this.

To those who became the messenger, providing the extensive and undeniable truth of our government’s cancer, we owe gratitude and deep appreciation for making us face the facts as they are – not as some sick political minds have covered up and lied to us about far too long.

To those who would kill that messenger – and, in doing so, continue the tragic betrayal we should’ve known long ago – shut up and sit down!

You too, Jimmy.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Shut up and sit down

An old debate among journalists – and some who think they are – has begun again. Wherever some of the more serious media types are gathered in more social surroundings these days, the discussion can be heard.

“Must the media present all people or issues to its audience/readers if the media knows the person/issue is wrong or false?” Or words to that effect.

It’s not as goofy – or as arrogant – as it sounds. It’s an issue more common these days with political and philosophical divisions within media sources. It’s also more relevant because of the slide in national politics to the right.

We older media types tried to operate under a rule that, when talking strictly news events or stories, the interviewees words were the news and the media served only as messenger – not to judge or critique or interpret. Simply the conduit – unless you’re talking editorials, byline columns or opinion pieces. Let the subject/facts talk. That’s the news. You report the news.

As our nation has become more politically divided, so has the media. Rather than simply report, major networks have slowly integrated points of view – either by the reporter or anchor or in the way the story is presented.

By any traditional standard, Fox News is the worst offender. CNN does a bit of its own. And for those who constantly remind me that MSNBC is the liberal offset for Fox, remember this: MSNBC has never – never – referred to itself as a “news” organization. Fox does constantly. Even in it’s name.

Here’s an issue that fits the problem perfectly: global warming. By nearly all scientific evidence presented by legitimate research organizations, global warming is a fact. You can argue cause. You can argue effect. You can argue how much. But the basic fact is, global warming exists and its effects are too overwhelming for thinking minds to ignore.

Here’s another fact. The two committees in Congress charged with dealing with this subject – one in the House and one in the Senate – are chaired by two men who’re vocal, absolute denyers of the evidence. All of it. And it’s these two who have the absolute power to refuse to let either committee – and thus the full Congress – do anything in our national interest to deal with our warming world.

So, go back to the question stated before: “Must the media present people or issues to its audience/readers if the media knows the person/issue is wrong or false?” If Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) continues leading the denyers from his powerful pulpit, is the media acting properly by giving his distinctly minority voice a platform to proclaim his distinctly minority and distinctly untrue view? When poll after poll shows some 80% of us believe global warming not only exists but is a serious problem, is the media doing a service – or a disservice – by giving Sen. Inhofe a platform when he’s factually wrong? After all, it’s not the media’s job to go find someone to speak for the majority side of the global warming issue every time a minority denyer pops off just to keep things balanced. Should the media give him a platform?

Another example you see far too often. Say the vote on a particular bill in the U.S. Senate was 97-3. The media will always – always – identify the three but not the 97. Why? Why identify three loser votes when the overwhelming 97 “ayes” won? It’s not practical – in time or space – to name all 97 though they were, after all, the victors. Why name the three losers?

Until Ronald Reagan, broadcast media operated under the “Fairness Doctrine” which required – by law – fairness/access in reporting both sides. He threw that out the window so now Faux Neus – among others – can operate with impunity by selecting only the view it wants to. Other outlets do some of the same at times, but Faux is the habitual offender. Its very foundation is one of lopsided coverage and twisted “fact.” Ain’t it, Rupert?

Survey after survey has shown Faux Neus viewers are less informed, more poorly informed and more inaccurately informed. The only variance is by how much. There is ample empirical evidence Faux viewers score much lower when asked to compare what they’ve seen on Faux versus what the facts really are. But Faux Neus keeps cranking out the propaganda.

So, the question becomes what is the media’s responsibility when it knows the newsmaker’s position – or the media itself – disregards fact – ignores valid scientific evidence – and is contrary to overwhelming proof?

But suppose, on another issue, that minority expression is eventually proven the right one? Suppose the newsmaker in 2001 opposed our intervention in Iraq when that was a very minority view. At that time the minority was called “wrong” by the majority before the minority view of non-intervention became the majority opinion. What if the media ignored them then?

There’s no easy answer to this conundrum. Maybe no answer at all. We used to know when fact was fact. We did our best to operate within that parameter. But divisions of media to appeal only to those holding similar views has resulted in distorted “facts.” Slanted “facts.” Too often, phony “facts.” If you don’t believe that, spend a week reading or watching a source you don’t normally see or agree with. You’ll be surprised.

So, what’s your answer? What’s the obligation? What’s the media responsibility? The honest answers ain’t all that easy to come by.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on A question without answer