Barrett Rainey’s Second Thoughts

Demonstrations in Washington, D.C. seem far removed from our Southern Oregon neighborhood. Somebody else supporting … or protesting … something or other. Some images on television, then back to finish the crossword puzzle.

But, in my life, they were “up close and personal” for a number of years. I wasn’t there as a proud or angry citizen. I was a broadcast reporter and that meant getting in the middle of them, getting the flavor and telling a large, sometimes national audience what was going on. Live.

I’m not talking Beck’s lawn party of 70,000 to 80,000. My time was 1969 through 1971 and crowds were 200,000 to 700,000. So large speakers could not be heard by most attendees no matter the electronics. So many people, so many flags, so many ethnic groups forming a patchwork of America that, at ground level, it seemed like every American had come to participate.

Most events were peaceful. Most were conducted by experienced leaders with volunteer staff workers keeping things going. While some programs simply came to an end, most either climaxed with a concert by some of the biggest headliners of the time or drifted into a huge line-of-march to walk Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues before heading for home.

A few had problems. My personal experience is that often when things turned nasty it was an over-reaction by one of the law enforcement agencies in attendance that set things off. I’ve been ridden down by mounted park police, tear gassed by D.C. Police and arrested while broadcasting. I was hit in the head with a nightstick once though a large orange and black DC Police-issued press tag hung around my neck. Made a great target and I soon learned to work without it.

One scene, especially, haunts me even today. The DC Transit system was owned by a rabid Nixon supporter named O. Roy Chauk. Back then, he owned every bus in town. Most were not in terribly good shape but they got you from place to place in a city where weird streets and erratic traffic posed constant challenges to drivers.

Before one large Vietnam protest rally, the Secret Service used many of Chauk’s buses to totally isolate the White House. Hundreds of them ringed the entire area up Constitution and back down Pennsylvania. Bumper to bumper. On top or inside about every fourth bus was a sharpshooter with a rifle or shotgun. Atop the White House, more snipers behind the ledges.

I radioed in a report. Then those damned buses caught my eye. I just stared at them for a few minutes. And I thought to myself, standing among hundreds of thousands of people, “sharpshooters taking cover inside a fortress made of buses to keep the president safe from the people.” At that moment, I was more ashamed for my country than I had ever been. When I think of it now, 40 years later, it’s the same emotion.

There was no more need for that armed affront to liberty in 1970 than there would have been when Beck’s bunch gathered there a few days back. Both rallies had messages of rights and liberty and country. Both attracted Americans believing their presence there meant something.

There was one sharp difference, though. The recurring theme at Beck’s event was “taking our country back” as though someone had taken it away. No one has.

But 40 years ago, someone … many someones … had really taken the country away and sent it down the wrong deadly road. Public anger over that war at that time was palpable and became overwhelming. Polling proved it. There was little support for continuing the killing.

My sense is that scenario is being played out again. No matter who conducts the polls now, Americans are walking away from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All polls show a distinct majority wants out of both. Iraq is our longest war ever and no one militarily or politically has been able to enunciate a clear and convincing goal.

Looking back on those ‘60s and ‘70s national rallies, I don’t hear the singing as loudly. I don’t see the seemingly endless crowds of people as clearly. But I can still smell the tear gas and feel the pain of that police baton.

And those buses. Those damned buses with the sharpshooters. We must not let any national argument go that far again.

Posted in Uncategorized |  | No Comments »

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 |  | No Comments »

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 |  | No Comments »

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 |  | No Comments »

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 |  | No Comments »

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 |  | No Comments »

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 |  | No Comments »

In our ever-changing world, a major political anachronism of our time is the candidate debate. Most often, incumbents don’t want ‘em; challengers can’t get enough. Unfortunately, knowledge gained from most is usually minimal.

There are several reasons for this. Given the power of incumbency, office holders normally have about an 80% re-election edge via campaign dollars and name recognition. In our current “throw-the-bastard’s-out” climate, that may fall a bit. Still, the guy inside starts with an advantage over the guy outside.

Then there’s the chance the incumbent … starting ahead … may stumble or commit some sort of public gaffe and lose some ground. The challenger can make a similar fatal mistake. Richard Nixon debating John Kennedy comes to mind. Jerry Ford, too.

There’s also the incumbent reluctance to give the opponent free advertising to become better known through debates. Unless, as in the case with John Kitzhaber, your opponent has a high profile from previous public life, an incumbent is almost always better known.

Oregon has a longtime congressional hired hand, Mr. DeFazio, who knows all that. Which is why opponent Art Robinson has an uphill battle to get on the same stage in the Southeast part of our state. Any stage. DeFazio normally loses in six of his district’s counties, making up the winning margin in heavily Democrat Lane County.

Another factor making at least televised debates less worth watching is the general media’s lack of understanding of both its role and of the workings of government. Debates are not time for “gotcha” questions. There are too many legitimate issues that need straight-up inquiries and responses. But if the questioner lacks an understanding of the political process, phony answers go unchallenged by someone who doesn’t know when he/she’s been “had.”

I’ve been on debate panels and sat through more than the average voter. As a political wonk, I keep a mental scorecard of not only content of answers but also quality. Same for questioners.

To be fair to media folks, most debate formats put them in an untenable position at the git-go. If follow-up questions aren’t allowed, debate participants can say anything that pops into his/her head and not be called on it. Happens all the time. The candidate “skates” and the voter is the loser.

I haven’t given up on debates; only how they’re conducted. If asked to organize one, I’d start by eliminating media. I’d opt for a strong, single questioner … unknown to either participant … who would know when to talk. And when not to.

The format would be head-to-head with questions and answers coming from the folks we’re there to see: candidates. We’ve currently got a national crop of challengers with some pretty far out ideas and more volume than reasoned thought. On many issues. So rules about sticking to subject matter and observing common courtesy would have to be unhesitatingly enforced. That’s why the strong, unfamiliar moderator.

Take DeFazio-Robinson. DeFazio likes to think of himself as an “independent” Democrat, whatever that is. Robinson takes positions to the right of Ivan the Terrible, many he couldn’t possibly get through any U.S. Congress. I don’t think the two of ‘em could agree on the time of day. Or whose clock to use. With minimal outside interference, you’d find a spirited “discussion” on many things. Might not get a lot of healthy mental red meat but you wouldn’t go away hungry and you’d know a lot more about the makeup of each man.

There’s another problem with debates. Too few people watch them or take time to attend the local venue. So, information from a spirited set-to doesn’t always get to the people who need to know because of apathy or ignorance. Or both.

I’ve heard many folks complain about the sorry state of politics these days. Plain fact is, what we have didn’t happen overnight. But it did happen without you. That’s a fact. Someone showed up at the polls. Someone voted for these people. If things aren’t being run the way you want, where were you when the contract was being signed? You may not like … or even care about … things political but we didn’t get here in a vacuum. We just got here while you were doing something else.

Nowhere in our Northwest neighborhood is there a clearer divide and thus a clearer choice between candidates of differing views than the DeFazio-Robinson contest.

They both need to stop posturing and “belly up to the bar.” And we all need to be there. Listening.

Posted in Uncategorized |  | No Comments »

Once in awhile, something in the day’s news catches my attention, makes me so mad my teeth ache and … POW … the next “Second Thoughts” is born on the spot. This is one such time.

You’d hardly expect someplace like the little Mormon community of Hyrum, Utah, to rile your consciousness. But such is the site and cause of my anger.

The good folk in Hyrum have their little Fourth of July celebration each year. Normally, it’s a festive affair resulting in good patriotic feelings and lots of fun. And, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s dubious decision removing prayer from most public ceremony’s, the program in Hyrum this year and every year starts off with … a prayer. Not just any prayer this year. This time it was in Spanish. The resulting fracas put the city’s fireworks display to shame.

Local Pastor Maria Montalvo was invited by the city council to open the festivities with a blessing. Though bilingual, fearing her English was not up to the occasion, she asked, in advance, if she could pray in Spanish with instant translation. Just fine, she was told.

She prayed. It was instantly translated. And much of the population of little Hyrum, Utah, came unglued. The newspaper was inundated with letters of outrage. One guy, calling himself a veteran, wrote “the city council should be impeached and sent to Mexico.” The council caved, apologized, and claimed members “would never disrespect veterans.”

And therein lies the source of my angst. If any apology is due anyone it is from the city council to the Rev. Montalvo. She did what she was asked to do the way she was permitted to do it. In advance. Whatever wrongdoing occurred in Hyrum, she was not part of it. In fact, even during the Mormon “high holy time” known as “Pioneer Days” in Utah, you’ll see many Spanish-speaking participants. And their flags. Very inclusive.

I’ll admit. I’m rankled when buying products with bilingual labels and instructions. I get angry when told “press 1 for English” when using the phone. And I believe, as a matter of general safety, all states should offer driver’s license exams in English because that’s the language used on signs and printed instructions for abiding by our driving and other laws.

In a moment of extreme honesty, I sincerely believe people living in this country should be able to basically converse - if for nothing more than necessity and courtesy - in English. While no one should be required to give up a second language, native or not, respect for our laws and for the opportunities others come here seeking, should demand at least an understanding of the common language. Were I to go to any other country where English is not the primary language, I would expect the same.

So saying, the fact is Spanish-speaking minorities within our borders are the fastest growing population segment. Leaving federal immigration failures for another discussion, there is nothing wrong with the legal immigrant’s participation in that growth. But, as we who are native move our chairs over to accommodate those who want to sit beside us to share our blessings, I believe we should be met with an corresponding accommodation: learn at least the rudiments of the host language.

To inject racism into any discussion of this sort … as was done in Hyrum and most other times this subject comes up … is wrong. Racial diversity is a hallmark of this country and we used to consider it a strength. Christian, Jew, Hindu, Croat, agnostic and all sorts of others from all manner of countries formed this mongrel republic and brought with them every conceivable language and custom.

To me, one major trait that has kept all that diversity going the same direction since those early times has been a common language. No one should be asked to … and no one should be expected to … give up native language, custom, dress or practices. That would be racist.

But if a nation is to be greater than the sum of its parts, there must be commonality of more than mere residence. Especially now, when we are so rooted in opposition to so many areas, we need even more strength in those things that connect us one to the other. Some of the basics that have traditionally bound us are being frayed by opportunists, outliers, obstructionists and outright liars. Our common language can and should be our common strength.

My apologies to Rev. Montalvo. As for the Hyrum city council, shame on you!

Posted in Uncategorized |  | No Comments »

You, me, the media, our national political institution and the world-at-large received an excellent but painful education this week regarding something I’ve warned about repeatedly: exploitation of and by an unqualified media to reach an angry public ready to believe the worst.

Of course that lesson involved the shameful treatment of Shirley Sherrod, an employee of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture who was fired by Secretary Tom Vilsack before he had all the facts. Innocent of wrongdoing, it turns out, Ms. Sherrod was crucified by a media too ready to exploit rather than report and vilified by some in the public without the whole story.

The instigator of this tragic episode was a right wing blogger who edited video of an inspirational speech by Ms. Sherrod into a deliberate lie to make his racist point. And where did he take his piece of hateful handiwork? He took it to the national media outlet most likely to use it: Fox News.

I’ve never liked Fox because of its deliberate “news” tilt in which all things Republican are good and Democrat are bad. On examination, it is peopled with pretty faces lacking journalistic “chops.” I know one of their anchors well and he doesn’t have the depth of experience or training to be there. But he, like the rest of them, looks good.

I’m skeptical of MSNBC as well for some of the same reasons. But at least Mathews has a law degree, years as a senior staffer on Capitol Hill and two decades of media experience. Olbermann has a master’s from Cornell and 26 years of reporting. Maddow is a Rhodes scholar with a doctorate and longtime radio talk show host. None of them hold themselves out to be “working reporters” as do those at Fox. Still, recognizing their commentary tilt, it’s not my source for national news coverage.

There is much blame to go around in the Sherrod story. Most of it rests with the right wing zealot … not conservative … who doctored the speech tape. He deliberately deceived everyone. More blame goes to the kids at Fox for not doing a reporter’s due diligence by seeking multiple sources for what could have been killed right there if all the facts were known.

Some of that blame rests with us … a public so divided and so angry we are willing to believe the worst or at least believe something that has been foisted on us by our “trusted” media. Therein lies a problem that affects too many people, regardless of political persuasion.

My experience is many viewers gravitate to media that reinforces their viewpoint without challenging their comfort. It can be TV, talk radio or, in major markets, one of multiple daily newspapers. I absolutely guarantee if you watch only Fox or MSNBC, for example, or listen only to Limbaugh or Bill Press on talk radio, you will NOT be accurately informed. You will NOT have sufficient facts on any issue to say you really understand. They aren’t there to inform. They’re there to persuade.

For the most part, I ignore talk radio and watch little of Fox or MSNBC. I may find political solace with one or the other but I know I won’t be really getting the news. So, my daily routine usually starts with an Internet site like newslink.com or refdesk.com. From either of those locations you can read almost any newspaper in the world. One of the informative things you’ll find is reading about America as seen in newspapers from England, France, India or Japan.

A sample of my daily national reading may be the Denver Post, LA Times, Washington Post, or the Oregonian. I’ll try some others periodically. Point is, the news is coming from several trusted sources and it’s up to me to sort out the facts.

“Takes too much time I don’t have,” you might say. Yes, it takes some time. But sites are available 24-7 and it takes no longer to scan news in one paper than the other. You can hit two in 10 minutes.

The major reason for the Sherrod incident is it was created by someone with a single point of view, sensationalized by a media outlet with a single point of view, staffed with people who report that point of view because they’re paid to report that point of view. In other words, in a vacuum with no other offsetting truths. And everybody bought it!

Shirley Sherrod was shafted. And we all share a bit of the blame.

Posted in Uncategorized |  | No Comments »