Barrett Rainey's Second Thoughts

There was a posting on Facebook recently that caught my eye. “Remember when you could say the earth was flat and Nazis were bad and be sure everyone around you agreed?”

Yes, I do remember. I remember very well. For nearly all my extended life, you could say those things and not fear anyone disagreeing. No more.

A personal story. We’ve been thinking of selling our home and buying another locally. Commission on just the purchase would be about $12,000 to the Realtor. Plus about the same amount, likely to the same Realtor, on our sale. No small potatoes there.

We called on a place we drove by, connected with an agent, didn’t care for the inside but asked him to keep us apprised of new listings on the market. For several weeks, he did.

Then, a few weeks ago, I sent him a copy of a then current “SECOND THOUGHTS,” thinking he might like to know something about his new clients. Bad idea, it seems.

In a few minutes, he emailed, telling me in no uncertain terms to immediately take him off my list because it was “obvious we didn’t see eye-to-eye.” Of course, I complied. In these following weeks, we’ve heard nothing.

Then, I got to thinking about the some $24,000 that could have just fallen in his lap with a serendipitous phone call for which he did absolutely nothing. And some mildly political comments that caused him to walk away?

I’ve seen the guy. I’ve seen how he dresses and the age of the car he drives. He could use the money. But, I’ve also heard from him of his Evangelical church of “25,000″ attendees and listened to a bit of his own political talk. Now, he’s decided my general political writings are not acceptable.

Here’s another case. I’ve a very talented friend who’s very close. He’s different from me in about any subject you choose. Nearly nothing in common. And his political views are very close to those of Vlad, the Impaler.

Yet, we talk regularly, chat about any subject that comes from our very different thinking, have disagreements, but have never come close to a social rupture. We’re good friends. With him, “the earth is round and Nazis are bad.” That’s enough to agree on. I’d hate to ever lose his friendship.

I remember eight decades of my life when those with differing views expressed them without fear of alienating me or anyone else. As I watched my parents interact with acquaintances and, later, I with my own, I found many of the “differences” in beliefs – social, material, political – were binding, not divisive. We were open. Accepting. Learning.

Too often now, that’s not the case. To our shame. To our loss. The current “with-me-or-against-me” tribalism has ruptured many friendships. And even families. It’s torn the social fabric that traditionally made us a strong country. And it’s playing pure Hell in our national governance.

Of our national media, our President says “Don’t believe what you see and don’t believe what you hear.” He’s attempting to drive a political and societal wedge to further separate us – one from the other. His relentless lying is yet a further attempt to cloud reality by sowing confusion and hatred.

Attorneys have a saying: “When the client is innocent, try the case. When the client is guilty, try the evidence.” We’re living in just such a situation. The client – Trump – is guilty. So, he’s trying the evidence, using deceit, fraud, smoke, disinformation, lying and any other known delaying tactic to confuse.

Our erstwhile Realtor is a victim of that confusion, I think, as are many others. A minority, to be sure, but many. Only in his case, it’s costing him about $24,000 cash as well.
 

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Divisions are expensive

“Believe in something.
Even if it means sacrificing everything”

Those words come from Nike’s new advertising. They appear beneath a black-and-white picture of Colin Kaepernick who used to be an NFL quarterback. It’s the 30th anniversary of the company’s “Just Do It” slogan.

Kaepernick hasn’t played an NFL game since the end of 2016 when the San Francisco 49ers dropped him. No other team has given him a chance to continue his professional career.

His sin? Kneeling, in protest, during the playing of our National Anthem at the opening of football games. His purpose? To call national attention to this nation’s ongoing racial injustice and police brutality dealing with Black men. Just that simple. Just that profound.

But, nothing in professional sports, in my long lifetime, has been so disturbingly twisted and, in far too many cases, deliberately misunderstood. What Kaepernick did was for the reasons he stated. No more. No less. Period. Patriotism, as usually defined, had nothing to do with it. Or, did it? Real love of country could easily be applied.

He’s made an attention-grabbing “statement” to focus us all on a true national problem. That’s what protests are about. That’s what protestors do. Whether dangling from cables off a high bridge to protest environmental concerns, marching in the streets to demand an end to sexual harassment or sitting in at “Whites Only” lunch counters 55 years ago to demand equal rights for everyone. All of us.

Protests mean nothing if they don’t get attention. Attention and action. Few of us haven’t protested something. Something we felt was unjust, demeaning, illegal, criminal or just plain wrong. We’re a nation of protestors and, like it or not, our governing laws allow us to do so. Urge us to do so.

When Kaepernick decided to take a stand – or a knee, in this case – he said “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish, on my part, to look the other way.” Sounds reasonable. He used his success in football to try to accomplish his goal, while grabbing our national attention doing so. Also sounds smart.

But, there’s an often seemingly deliberate ignorance expressed over the kneeling business. Our egregious president weighted in with one of his infamous, ill-informed tweets: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of those NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say ‘Get that son-of-a-bitch off the field now?’” No. No, I wouldn’t.

When those kinds of words are used, the term “deliberate ignorance” is fitting. “Flag disrespect” has nothing to do with it. But, Trump’s not alone. In our little cactus-covered neighborhood, many folks are coming unglued, spewing hate and venom all over our local Facebook columns. Some are posting pictures of their burning Nike gear and bragging of how they’re “protesting” Kapernick and Nike’s stand. They do so without a touch of irony for the fact they, too, are “protesting” a perceived wrong.

Nike management knows all that. Yet, the company has staked its considerable success on a cause that management believes is just and right. We’ll see.

The NFL has, as usual, bungled what varied responses it’s made to all this. It created a “policy” forbidding kneeling. Those wishing to protest were to stay in the locker room until after playing of the Anthem. But, that was put “on hold” in July. So, there really is no “policy.”

It’s been my experience, many who protest the loudest about “disrespect of flag and country” or find other imagined “travesties” in this legitimate protest, can’t explain why such expressions have occurred. They’re too wrapped in hate and feigned “patriotism”to actually understand the issue(s).

Possibly the most “adult” response I’ve heard has come from many veterans. While some claim outrage, others have a more thoughtful – and to my mind – accurate reaction. “What he’s doing is exactly why I did three tours in Afghanistan,” said one. “To see to it he has the right to protest and that no one can take that right away.”

It’s possible to argue the form of protest Kaepernick has chosen. But, it’s impossible to dispute the reasoning. And the necessity. To a nation’s shame.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Taking a knee

As usual, our national media folks are running around, chasing their tails again. The herd mentality permeating today’s print and broadcast practitioners is at a fever pitch as they try to find out who wrote that anonymous New York Times op-ed.

In their frenzy, nearly all are missing the real issue. It’s not WHO wrote it but WHAT was said.

For the record, I believe the writer should have identified him/herself which would have strengthened the credibility of the piece. I also think The Times should have demanded the op-ed be by-lined. As others are. Or refused publication. As others are.

Also, for the record, I believe the writer was National Intelligence Chief Dan Coates. Gut hunch. But, that’s another story for another time.

As a stand-alone piece, the op-ed seems closer to gossip than new facts. Yes, it has some juicy tidbits like keeping Trump in the dark about certain things, staff agreeing to follow an order, then ignoring it, stealing documents from Trump’s desk. All grist for the “I-told-you-so” crowd. But, without authorship ID, pretty much gossip.

The plain fact is, we already knew most of this from publication of three books on the market in recent months. My pick of them is Bob Woodward’s “FEAR” which is due out tomorrow but which has been in the headlines for the last two weeks, thanks to a broken publication release date.

Woodward, whose investigative journalism career goes back to Watergate with Carl Bernstein, is one of the best in the business. He’s a taskmaster for accuracy, probity, intimate detail and documentation. He routinely records almost all interviews and conversations, gathering supporting documents when available. I’ve never heard of a reporter more difficult to challenge than Woodward.

His book is filled with named sources, saying their pieces into a digital recorder. Several have denied saying what they said. But, it’s on his record. Woodward is not backing down. And, he won’t. The irony here is some voices quoted and documented by Woodward spoke truth then and are lying in denials now. Or, their denials are incomplete. If the op-ed is accurate, and it really was written by someone high up in the administration, someone is lying there, too, since all cabinet and senior staff have submitted their denials.

The writer of the op-ed will eventually be identified. Just as Watergate’s “Deepthroat” finally surfaced – after 35-years – the current anonymous source will be known. In a shorter time, likely, but it’ll happen. Which makes media focus more on WHO than WHAT even more ridiculous.

Three consecutive books on the “Titanic” atmosphere in our White House were written separately but resulted in a lot of overlap and repetition of the chaos. As citizens – and as voters – we know all we need to know about this dysfunctional administration. And, daily, we are slathered in new detail about our disastrous and dangerous President. With or without the op-ed, we know enough.

The media drumbeat about the Times op-ed is distracting and useless. Without attribution, there are really only two ways to look at it. One, nearly all of it simply confirms what we already know, thereby reducing its relevance. And, two, with no authorship, it’s basically gossip.

And here’s a final theory – improbable, but fun to think about. Suppose the op-ed was a “plant” by the administration to take attention off the Kavanaugh hearings. What’s happening in that Senate hearing room is the wreckage of decorum, precedent and undermining of what that hearing should really be about. But, Kavanaugh, on the U.S. Supreme Court, is thought to be a Trump-saver when push-comes-to-shove. Which is likely.

I’m just sayin’.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Not who but what

With all the garbage coming out of the West Wing theses days, you’d be forgiven if you weren’t aware of a piece of pure trash resting in a U.S. Senate committee.

It’s euphemistically called the “Restoring American Immigration for Strong Employment Act” or “RAISE.” It’s the handiwork of Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who, more than occasionally, reminds us of his racist tendencies. Only one other Senator – Purdue of Georgia – has signed on.

Here are the highlights (?) for you to decide if my word “trash” is appropriate. Should RAISE become law, it would create a point system to approve/disapprove applications for entry into the U.S.. Perfect score is 30+. If you want in and have a high-paying job waiting, that’s worth up to 13 points. If you’re close to 25-years-old – or either side of that arbitrary number – you can get 10 points which decline with the age difference. College degrees – especially in STEM – can “earn” 13 points.

If you’re coming to invest $1.35 million in the States, a maximum of 12 points. Extraordinary achievement – Nobel Prize or some such – or if you’re an Olympic athlete can get you 25 points. Speaking English gets 15 points.

So it would seem a 25-year-old English-speaking Olympian with a doctorate and a couple of million bucks would be a shoo-in. But, a high school graduate with a family of five, trying to escape death at home, would be turned away. Not enough points.

But, back to RAISE. Each year, those with the most cumulative points could apply for a green card. Those not scoring high enough could try again next year. Nearly all other employment or country-of-origin caps would be eliminated. H-1B visas – normally associated with high tech skills – India and China – and those with the most students already here – China, India, Saudi Arabia and South Korea – would likely have the most points.

There’s more. RAISE would cut green card issuance in half. It eliminates pathways for siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens and legal temporary residents to apply for permanent lawful residency status, limiting the family path to spouses and minor children. It also would end the visa diversity lottery.

Nearly all economists aware of RAISE say it’s pure trouble. They conclude such a law would likely cause the average American worker to lose wages and other gains.

Opponents say RAISE is a “nativist and xenophobic” attempt to keep out foreigners, including many who would benefit the U.S. and our economy.

It’s interesting to note nothing in RAISE mentions farm workers, a major draw for people coming for work. And, “past may be prologue” here. In 1964, a similar bill was enacted affecting farming. Conservative economist Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute wrote “Instead of hiring more American workers or raising wages, farmers turned to machines and altered crops to take account of the new dearth of workers. Instead of planting crops requiring labor-intensive harvesting or care, they planted crops requiring fewer workers.” Sort of “more potatoes and less radishes.”

Research also strongly indicates RAISE would not only negatively affect the status of millions of legal immigrants and harm the entire national economy, it would also change our entire demographic structure. Sort of like building “the wall” without building “the wall.”

Those supporting RAISE are notably anti-immigration folk. Stephen Miller – White House resident racist – and Steve Bannon – Trump’s political “Captain Destructo”- are lobbying for passage.

All of that – and more – leads me to call RAISE anti-immigrant trash. I suspect most Senators ascribe to that nomenclature since Cotton’s handiwork has languished in committee since a year ago January. He now has a second version which has attracted no other sponsors, either.

Will RAISE get to the floor for a vote? I doubt it. Too vile even for the gutless majority. But, it’s there, like a benign cancer. Now, at least you’ve heard about it.

I’m sticking with the “T” word. What say you?

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on Taking out the trash