Barrett Rainey's Second Thoughts

Seniors, by virtue of having lived many years, often fall into mental “traps.” One such is thinking you’ve “seen it all.” Another is “there’s nothing new under the sun.” And, of course, “because I’m older, I’m wiser.” Fact is, if you stay connected to the world while learning to let your thinking “go with the flow,” there are lots of new things to see, plenty of new things to experience and you’ve found age and wisdom are entirely unrelated.

All of this has come home in the recent days as I’ve experienced the most disgusting, racist, obscene, hate-filled and embarrassingly ignorant rhetoric of too many fellow citizens and, especially, the trash talk coming from many of the Republican candidates for president. It’s the subject of likely Syrian immigration. With the possible exception of John Kasich, that bunch has earned our contempt and outrage by engaging in behavior unfit for anyone in public life. Or, aspiring to be.

As a registered Independent in Oregon, my voting pencil swings from side to side on our election ballots. Neither major party earns blind allegiance nor acceptance of the entirety of all candidates offered. So, when I condemn the major affront to our national dignity by Trump, Huckabee, Bush, Paul, Forina et al, it’s without picking one party over the other. All are deserving of our collective contempt as individuals and by the despicable trash coming from their own campaigns. Party aside.

Maybe more than any other recent issue, this one of how to deal with accepting Syrians fleeing war and all its madness has exposed the absolute fractures and canyon-like separations found in our national consciousness. It appears all who’ve voiced their opinions from the neighborhood bar to the national Capitol are entrenched and unmoveable in support or opposition to accepting these human beings in our house.

I came across a new word in all this rhetoric as I’ve tried to see this issue from more than one viewpoint. It’s “asylee.” Not something found in everyday conversation. It means an alien at our doorway “found to be unable or unwilling to return to his/her country of nationality or to seek the protection of that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.” That “persecution or fear thereof must be based on the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”

Asylees are eligible to adjust to lawful, permanent resident status after one year of continuous presence in the United States. The number of immigrants defined by this description is limited to 10,000 per fiscal year. The same number the President has set for 2016.

This seems to be the nub of the whole immigration legal status. Oh, there are presidential executive orders, various laws and even the U.S. Constitution. But the asylee status is regarded by most immigration experts as the best definition under which the current crop of Syrian and other refugees from war and persecution fall.

My point of going into this one brief, non-political and non-emotional example is to show there really are some legal and humanitarian parameters for a realistic discussion without all the B.S. emanating from presidential campaigns and cowardly, uninformed residents of statehouses coast-to-coast. Of course, there are other legally descriptive and fitting approaches to the immigration debate. But reasoned debate has been entirely overcome by huge numbers of people with no idea what they’re talking about. Voices playing to other sick minds with unfounded fears with large helpings of racism and unfounded nationalistic hate.

As usual in subjects of national political import, the governors of Oregon, Washington and California seem to be leading voices of what the situation is, what the facts are and what actions need to be taken. Or avoided. All three have said Syrian refugees will be admitted and welcomed. The plain fact is, any citizen, governor or ignorant politician who takes the opposite stance does so with no recognition of what the laws are in such instances and what powers they have – or don’t have – to deal with immigration.

When the mayor of Roanoke, Virginia, exhibited massive ignorance for all to see in a letter to the White House, bringing up the shameful subject of internment camps for Syrians, he established the bottom of the barrel on the issue of immigration. What we did to Japanese-Americans in 1942 was the most unconscionable act of widespread degradation this nation has ever taken into the depths of racist hatred against an entire segment of our society. If hizzoner is truly serious – and that stupid – I propose his personal Virginia living room be designated “Camp One.”

This Syrian issue represents a lot more than just a new home for people trying to keep their families safe and together. It goes to our national conscience – it questions if we really mean all the words in our Pledge of Allegiance – it challenges all those high-flown images of a truly just America we all were brought up to believe in. It questions that massive statue in the waters off New York City – the one inscribed “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free … send these, the homeless, tempest tost (sic) to me.”

We have an empty house next door. A Syrian family would be as welcome to move in as any other – much more welcome than the bellicose, racist, trash-talking, mindless political hacks that fill our evening airwaves. Their kind should not be welcomed anywhere. Especially at the ballot box.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Welcome to our house

The old world war – war as we’ve known it – is over. The new world war – as we’re learning in France, India, the Philippines, South Africa, England, Nigeria and elsewhere – has begun.

What we used to call “world war” really wasn’t. Many countries weren’t involved. Whole parts of the world remained peaceful during “world wars.” But, we called it “world war” as in WWI and WWII. Now, as the massacre of 130 or so civilians in France has joined massacres of thousands of others in dozens of countries, all of us are involved. We’re truly engaged in a first-ever, real “world war.”

War has evolved from a relative few on the battle field to the entirety of the world’s population. War has gone from the geographic isolation of army facing army to the new war – terrorist killings striking anyone, anywhere at anytime. The battlefront is now our world, our nation, our state, our street.

With the powerful exception of 9/11, America has been pretty much unscathed in this war thing. Oh, we’ve made our contributions of material, treasure and the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people over the years – all considerable contributions. Each, of course, affected many in our country. But, the nation as a whole – the entirety of our population – has never experienced the reality of being on the front lines – of being under fire – of participating in the battle. Of being the next casualty. Now, we are.

When I was eight or nine, I used to lie in front of my granddad’s old Sears Silvertone console radio and soak up news of where our various military services were fighting. I made little cardboard maps to keep track of where some of our naval fleets were involved – where the Sixth Army or the Eighth Air Force or other units were in Europe or North Africa or the Pacific- and their daily progress. Or the beatings they took. Looking back, it was probably that prolonged activity that led to my own military service and a long career in broadcast news.

But, one of the things I learned then – without really thinking about it – was that “world wars” were always fought “over there.” Somewhere else. Never within our nation’s borders. Never near me. So there was always this sense of detachment – a sense that, if I didn’t enlist or get drafted to go to battle, I wouldn’t be involved. I wouldn’t be harmed. Life would go on peacefully. I’d go to school tomorrow and never feel the horrors of war.

That sense of being a third party – of being only an observer and never a participant – that detachment and that false sense of security are over. For all of us.

Watching events unfold in France, several very personal thoughts came to mind. Like how many concerts I’d attended over the last 50 years or so – how many restaurants I’d been in for a fine meal or just pizza and a beer – how many large crowds I’d mingled with in various countries. All of those experiences uninterrupted by gunfire, hand grenades or a suicide bomber.

Then, like the settling fog blanket outside our living room windows here on Oregon’s central coast, something more realistic – more personally terrifying – filled my thoughts. The terrorists have won this new world war.

Saying something like that in a bar in one of the Northwest’s timber towns could get a guy killed. Some burly boozer would immediately be in your face to tell you “America has NEVER lost a war and NEVER will!” He’d be wrong, of course, but that happens a lot these days when it comes to people talking U.S. history with all the factual “education” of Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly, Coulter or Faux Neus.

What’s made terrorism such an effective tool for thousands of years is this: terrorists almost always succeed. Some guy tried to set his socks afire on a commercial jet in Michigan about 10 years ago but failed to get a flame. Still, for those last 10 years, millions of us have had to stand in our stocking feet in airport terminals all around the world. He won. Terrorists crashed three commercial jetliners on 9/11, killed nearly 3,000 people and millions of us haven’t set foot in an aircraft since then while our government immediately spent hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to revamp airline security which will never stop the attacks. Terrorism won.

Shopping centers have been the target of terrorists. Public buildings, big box stores, office towers, parking lots, churches and public schools, too. All have been struck and all have changed how they deal with the public. Ever notice those cement posts in front of the doors at Staples or Best Buy? Ever look at the cement planters and concrete-and-steel barriers around statehouses, in front of court houses or your city hall? How about the hydraulic barriers designed to flatten tires that surround the U.S. Capitol building? Tried to walk unchallenged into a college football game lately?

All a few terrorists have to do is set off some explosions in unsuspecting public places or use automatic weapons to kill a few dozen people at laundromats, drug stores, a bank, a car dealership or in an expensive bistro. Preferably in some little burg in middle America. Maybe blow a San Francisco cable car off its tracks or bomb a cruise ship. A little murder – a little devastation – goes a long way. Terrorists – really committed folk not afraid to die – have changed our world completely.

The night of the Paris massacre, President Obama said “this country will stand with all other countries to bring terrorists to justice.” Sounds good. Sounds proper. Sounds like what you’d expect the head of a country to say. But it’s absolutely impossible. All but one of the murderers in Paris blew themselves up with suicide belts. Cops killed one.

When people wrap themselves in explosives and are fanatically dedicated to their mission, life, as we know it, means nothing to them. They want to die. They’re dedicated to their own deaths. Their sense of justice is death for a cause greater than themselves. Even if caught, death – to them – is nothing to fear. We are powerless to administer “justice.” That’s why terrorism is so effective. Historically, it always has been.

War as we’ve known it – war “over there” – has ended. The war we face now – world war – is as close as your nearest WalMart.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on The real world war

Alright. Here’s the deal. Don’t read another word if (a) you’re a Democrat and can’t put that aside or (b) if you’re a Republican and can’t do the same. I’m gonna say some kind – and some unkind – things here and I don’t want a lot of hate mail saying what’s being written is biased in either direction.

Now do it! Or quit right here.

At our house, we sat through what have euphemistically been called Republican “debates” and we’ve now watched the one joint appearance of Democratic presidential candidates. The former was a waste of time – theirs and ours. The latter was both engaging and informative – for all.

The difference wasn’t in the candidates or their political party affiliation. It was in the presentation. It was in the format. It was in the substance. Ignore who sponsored what or who asked what question or who attacked whom or any other extraneous B.S.. The experiences were very, very dissimilar. For good reason.

Fact: there hasn’t been a political “debate” on TV since William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal savaged each other in the ‘60’s. Not one. The closest to that term might have been the Kennedy-Nixon appearances in 1960 but, even then, what little “debate” there was, seemed overshadowed by the personalities. The media needs to get over this “debate” label and find something more descriptive. (Mud wrestling comes quickly to mind.)

The Republican appearances – regardless of sponsor – have been colossal failures. No issues addressed. No inkling of any participant’s thought processes revealed. No presidential qualifications discussed or displayed. Lots of carping. Some useless bantering. Nonsense questions. No meaningful follow ups. Junk. So far.

Now, the Democrats. Separate one-on-one questions – more like conversations – each person talking with a single host/moderator. Each made his/her points without interruption. Each responded to questions and situations designed to bring out some knowledge of their character or where they stood on foreign aid, immigration, budgeting, cross-party relationships, wars this nation is involved in, voter discrimination and other subjects. There was substance, real information and a more personal view of candidates thinking “on their feet.” While sitting.

Now, some Republican partisan is going to quickly and loudly claim you can’t do that with 15 candidates. Yes, you can! You could do it just as well and produce the same realistic, personal appearance by each one. Can do!

The MSNBC show ran 90 minutes. Each candidate got about 20 minutes with timeouts for commercials, scene-setting, open and close. If you recall, the first GOP “debate” ran three hours. Twice 90 minutes. A couple of the participants – two who won’t be on any Republican Party general election ballot in 2016 – complained three hours was too long and they wouldn’t “play” anymore if future appearances ran longer than two hours. So, the broadcast networks caved.

But, let’s consider this. Three hours or 180 minutes, with commercials and other network business deducted, would leave some 140 minutes open. Now, if you use the current polling percentage qualification, you’d have probably nine people. If you want to lessen the field – as it will be eventually – raise the polling qualification bar to 8-9%. That would likely give you six candidates and more time for each.

But, even with nine participants, each would have 15 uninterrupted minutes with one person asking questions. That would give each person a lengthy period to answer, make statements, work in campaign positions and take the time necessary to make their points. No interference or side-tracking. If they wanted to wander off into the swamps of bitching, complaining about their fellow candidates or make wild charges, that would come out of their allotted time. With that format, each would have total control of what he/she said, what he/she thought was important and be able to literally make their own case. Uninterrupted. Direct. And you could rotate moderators for each period if desired. (Six candidates would have 20+ minutes. Each.)

The GOP “debates” so far, have given us – the voters – nothing! The candidates are unhappy. The viewers are both unhappy and poorly served The Republican National Committee is complaining. We’ve had lots of excuses from all involved but nothing proposed to get it right.

I think MSNBC did it right. We follow politics more than the average bear(s) at our house. And even we learned some new things from each of the Democrats using this different approach to dealing with candidates.

This is not a Republican thing nor a Democrat thing. It is a production thing. A process thing. Staging. Making the most of limited time for each candidate while giving viewers better insight to thought processes, individual knowledge of the job being sought and a better look at each one.

The Republican Party is in a total mess by its own making. Wounds on the GOP body politic were self-inflicted. The predominance of totally unqualified presidential candidates is the result. At the moment, two of the “unfittest” are drowning out a couple who should be more prominent and given an unfettered chance to make their cases. One more travesty like the CNBC fiasco and people will begin tuning out big time. That’s not fair to the qualified candidates or the voter. Not when it can be fixed!

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on There is a better way

We older folk tend to compare our society these days to what we grew up with and experiences of years ago. Most of the time, the younger population thinks those changes are “no big deal.” “Just how things are,” they tell us.

Well, some of them ARE big deals. And just ‘cause that’s “how things are” doesn’t mean we have to accept them. Or, that they’re right.

One such change that rankles me is the ever-present attitude of too many folk who’ve come to believe they’re right – despite all facts to the contrary. Rather than accept losing an argument or an election, they cling to their case, ignore reality and reason, keep espousing their B.S. and, in many cases, actively work against their fellow citizens.

While this societal “change” is found in just about everything we do these days, it’s most prevalent in politics. It shows up after elections when one side prevailed and one side lost. Rather than honoring the outcome and putting away the campaign paraphernalia until next time, the new attitude is to hold fast to losing arguments – even fact-less propaganda – and become obstructionists. Congress is Exhibit “A” for this type of behavior. Many legislatures, too. And just some people.

I remember my small town Republican parents doing their part for Tom Dewey when he ran against President Truman. They distributed yard signs and flyers for Dewey and Deschutes County GOP candidates. Mom often served on election day as a volunteer. But I also clearly recall, when the election was over and Truman was back in the White House, they helped pick up all the yard signs, closed out the election paperwork and accepted the results. That’s what you did. Until next time. Until 1952.

That’s not true today in too many elections. Instead, the losing side circles the wagons, reloads the ammunition and becomes an entrenched opposition trying to gut the winners and the obvious decision of the majority of voters.

The latest “winner” who’s going to face land mines from losers is Paul Ryan. And, they’ll come from within his own Republican party. The losers who’ll keep on fighting. Even with their own kind.

Ryan was elected Speaker of the House 238-9. But the plain fact is some of those 238 ballots were cast with clenched teeth. The day before, 45 Repubs voted for someone else besides Ryan during a closed-door caucus vote. Ryan had held out agreeing to be Speaker as he sought a more unanimous vote. You can bet the phones were busy overnight.

Ryan’s opponents within his own caucus are hardcore GOP zealots. Count Idaho’s Rep. Raul Labrador among them. Their driving political sense is that of the Kamikaze pilot who believed not in the facts of the day – Japan had lost the war – but of the eventual “rightness” of the cause. Where the two differ is Labrador and cohorts have no “cause,” damned little facts and a determination to just destroy the opposition regardless of political party.

They don’t give a damn if government is already run by Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. Those of their party in control don’t “represent” the zealots outlook on things. Their leaders are often seen as part of the problem. Just like those damned Democrats. Purity of cause is the mother’s milk of these people. One instance of “collaboration” and Ryan will be deemed “impure.”

The best and most successful politicians know you don’t get everything you want on every issue. So, they determine what’s possible by compromise and inclusion to get the job done. To Labrador and his ilk, that’s treason.

This you can take to the bank. Early on, Ryan will decide on something – anything – he wants to achieve. Something he’ll go to the mat for. Something the zealots oppose. When that happens – and it will – the knives will come out. Ryan may convince a majority of his caucus to support him then. But that support won’t total 238. It’ll be something closer to 190.

Which means Ryan – if he truly wants to carry the day – will have to turn to House Democrats to be successful. When that happens, the target will be removed from the corpse of John Boehner and pinned on Ryan’s back.

We’re told Ryan wants to be president someday. Good for him. Every one should aspire to something. Even president. But, if – like Boehner – he’s drawn and quartered politically by the crazies in his own party, he’ll have to shift his presidential hopes a bit lower. Like president of the Janesville Rotary Club.

Yep, times have changed. Our vaunted electoral system has become home for too many zealots who don’t understand why their political ancestors accepted negative election results – why they put away the signs and worked with the winners until the next go-round. Why they didn’t keep their swords drawn and charge up one political hill after another to defeat what the majority of voters had said they wanted.

Me? I prefer the old ways. So Dewey lost in ‘48. Now, was Harry all that bad? Really?

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Losers who won’t shut up