carlson
Chris Carlson
Carlson Chronicles

The most decent person to ever serve in the United States Senate, South Dakota’s George McGovern, has died. The 90-year-old former senator and 1972 Democratic presidential nominee passed away quietly over the weekend of October 20th.

With the 20/20 hindsight of history most folks with political memories at all willingly concede America would have been much better off to have elected McGovern rather than the ethically-challenged and ultimately disgraced Richard Nixon.

The only national political convention this writer ever covered was the Democratic convention in Miami Beach during a stretch of hot summer days in a sultry August week in 1972. I then worked as a Washington, D.C. based correspondent for the A. Robert Smith News Bureau.

We had major clients in Alaska (The Anchorage Daily News), Washington state (Tacoma News Tribune), Oregon (The Oregonian, the Eugene Register-Guard), and, Idaho (The Idaho State Journal and the Lewiston Tribune.). All were interested in receiving dispatches from their Washington, D.C. correspondent.

I can still hear, echoing in my mind¸ the rhetorical use of anastrophe, the beginning of a series of paragraphs with the call “Come home, America. . . . .” It was a wonderful speech, largely written by McGovern himself. The only trouble was most of America had gone to bed by the time the much delayed convention agenda got
around to the party nominee’s acceptance speech.

It unfortunately became a metaphor for the admittedly disorganized campaign that followed managed by future Colorado Senator Gary Hart.

One of the significant factors delaying the acceptance speech was the crass move by Alaska’s vain, egotistical and delusional Senator Mike Gravel to nominate himself as McGovern’s running mate.

It is doubtful the people of any state will ever again be so embarrassed by one of their delegation on a national stage than were almost all Alaskans. An Alaskan native had been asked by the McGovern campaign to give one of the seconding speeches. Senator Gravel somehow talked her into turning the microphone on the platform over to him in what was clearly an unscheduled and unanticipated gambit
by the second term senator.

To the shock of many and the dismay of the McGovern team, the Alaskan senator gave an impassioned plea to the delegates to make the vice presidential nominee selection from the floor and force McGovern to accept the honorable Mike Gravel.

McGovern and Hart must have been absolutely apoplectic. That McGovern
eventually named the depression prone Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton who shortly thereafter was forced by the media to admit to having undergone shock treatments and had to withdraw is beside the point.

The herd mentality of the media can be merciless and it was, portraying the entire campaign as inept, being managed by amateurs and full of free love, anti-war peaceniks who smoked dope and never bathed. McGovern went down to one of the worst defeats in American presidential history.

Only during the Watergate hearings that brought down Richard Nixon did America begin to learn about all the dirty tricks utilized by CREEP to destabilize the McGovern campaign as well as manipulate the media’s coverage.

A truly decent man had been slandered and demonized beyond belief. Especially puzzling to many was McGovern’s failure to reference or even talk about the fact that he was a legitimate and decorated war hero having piloted a B-24 through 35 dangerous missions over Europe during World War II.

Like many veterans, he’d seen war up close and understood that too often old men full of false bravado send young men off to die in the misadventures created by their bluster.

What I will most remember McGovern for though is the fine, poignant and sad book he wrote, entitled Terry, about he and Eleanor losing a beloved and talented daughter to alcoholism. It was an honest, candid, unsparing account of their ultimately unsuccessful effort to save her from her eventual premature death.

Many parents, my wife and I included, had suffered through the same struggle and at the time I read the book I was sitting on the side of a mountain above our backpacking camp site deep within the BigHorn Crags, crying my eyes out sure that our child was headed for the same fate.

If there was one over-riding message in the book it was no matter what to never ever give up on a seemingly lost child. We did not and next month the lost lamb celebrates the tenth year of sobriety.

I consider it a greater miracle than my so far having lived six and a half years beyond the six months the doctors gave me when diagnosed with a rare cancer in November of 2005.

I will always be grateful for the encouragement I drew from the Senator’s heart-breaking account. RIP, Senator.

Share on Facebook

Carlson

rainey
Barrett Rainey
Second Thoughts

The lies and damned lies of this presidential election could well damage our vaunted two-party political system beyond full recovery. At a minimum, they could change elective politics in very damaging, destructive ways.

Strong words? Yes. Mine? Yes, but not mine alone. Near-daily research of opinions of some of the best political minds in this country shows many of them saying similar and, in some cases, exactly the same thing.

That we are a badly divided nation is no overstatement. Daily transfusions of hate radio, political and social lies on all our computers spread by too-often anonymous cowards and the ignorant drivel of some in high political office combine to create the toxic atmosphere. Add prolonged uncertain national economic conditions affecting us all, a national media which seeks sensation without information, sustained high unemployment and you’ve got a breeding ground for division, mistrust, ignorance and hate.

To all this, add the now-legal ability of a couple dozen billionaires to bombard our national atmosphere with poisonous media messages – often anonymous and always uncontrolled – seeking to change the foundations of our society to conform to their own self-interests. Dividing us still further.

We have a presidential contest devolving into some of those “lies and damned lies.” While the principal candidates must share some blame, the more scurrilous of the bunch come from those SuperPACs. The ones that are supposed to operate completely unattached to the candidates they support. Road apples! Two of the Obama and Romney SuperPACs are headed either by former staffers or avowed supporters very familiar with each man. Such isolation as there may be rests in the lack of emails or other direct communications but any separation stops there. They are “joined at the hip” for all practical purposes. To the extent they are, the candidates must accept a large share of the blame for the falsity of their messages.

Here are two specific examples of charges that are completely untrue. From the Obama camp, the charge Mitt Romney is “hiding” his tax returns. Not true. Romney’s returns are legally protected from publication as are those of the rest of us. Despite the false charge of “hiding,” Romney and his advisors have made a calculated political decision not to publish what he is entitled to keep private. You may argue – and I certainly do – that the decision is doing more harm than good as continued polling shows. But to claim he is “hiding” them is not true.

On the Romney ledger of lies, the charge that Obama is the “most divisive president in our history” and that his is an administration of “separation and destruction of our society.” Not true. For two reasons.

First, he’s done nothing overt to divide. But many in society have made it clear they don’t want a black man in the White House. Hateful, racist examples of that have been plentiful these last four years. Right wing media, hate radio, street demonstrations and intellectually vacant – and most often anonymous – emails by the millions. Division – if division there be – can be more accurately described as coming from outside the White House than within.

One oddity of that is that Obama is not a black man. He is an American of mixed race who has chosen to live his life as a black man. He has written of his decision based on his skin color and of his father’s Kenyan birth.

The second proof of the “divider” lie is Obama’s training and education. He has been a constitutional law professor, counselor and head of several groups which exist because of their ability to compromise, modify messages and cooperatively bring about change and attract others to their cause. Fellow Democrats have often complained of his too-easygoing political conduct because of Obama’s intense efforts to get opposing political forces to come together in conciliation and compromise. His most memorable political losses have largely been because he attempted compromise when he should have resorted to arm twisting. Not the legacy of a “divider.” The charge is false.

But these and other lies persist as the anger levels rise and the attacks become more personal. As a student of political history, I’m aware of many previous campaigns of hate and division. What differs now is the means of communications – instant and everywhere. Nearly 150 years ago, it took the news of Lincoln’s assassination nearly a month to cross the continent. Today, when a political lie is told, it reaches from Florida to Alaska in seconds. I-net, Facebook, Twitter and the rest send fact, lies and gossip all mashed up with a keystroke. No fact-checking; no editing; often no truth.

Neither presidential candidate is blameless. Both parties share guilt. SuperPAC’s – anonymous, cash-glutted, self-serving, lying – are cancers causing damage to our electoral system which may fundamentally change our nation forever. It is not overstatement. Proof is everywhere.

Whether the elections are a significant contributor to national fear and anger or are a symptom of what’s already there is a fair debate. But this fact is crystal clear. The middle class is being savaged and gradually eroded. No good can come from that. Only worsening economics and a making a weaker nation. Hate, anger, racism and unbridled spending by those who amassed their fortunes because of the historic labors of that middle class are combining to gut such democracy as we’ve historically preserved through wars and other challenges. What irony if we are undone by a court decision that gave corporations the rights of individuals. Free, unfettered speech.

Yes, it’s that serious.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

What the Seattle Times is doing in two of this fall’s campaigns is beyond unusual.

To set the norm: Editorial endorsements are standard. And it’s not too unusual for corporate newspaper executives to contribute to political campaigns. But it is highly unusual for general circulation newspapers, in this country at least, to dip into its own pocket to post advertising for a candidate or issue.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer blog today:

The Seattle Times announced Wednesday that it will develop and run ads for Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna as an “independent expenditure” that is supposed to show the value of political advertising in newspapers.

The news, three weeks before the November election — and appearance of a big Times-created McKenna ad on page B6 of the newspaper’s Wednesday editions — immediately raised two questions:

Can Seattle Times reporters and editors be trusted to fairly cover McKenna’s opponent Jay Inslee? Can the newspaper fairly report on a campaign where the Times has a vested financial interest in the outcome?

The Times described the effort as an independent expenditure, like that of a super-PAC.

If you look carefully enough in the direction of the Times building, you can probably see the mass cringing going on now in the newsroom …

Among other things, it has led to headlines like this: “The Seattle Times Is Officially a Republican Newspaper,” in the Stranger Slog, which at this point can pretty credibly say it’s no more overtly political than is in the city’s big mainstream daily.

Share on Facebook

Washington

rainey
Barrett Rainey
Second Thoughts

Despite my near total ignorance of fashion, I’ve always liked the color hot pink. It’s not for everyone. But when it’s worn by the right person at the right time – it’s dynamite! I just never figured it would help me understand candidate behavior in a presidential debate.

I’ll leave the “what did it all mean” debate details to media heavyweights more intellectually attuned to such stuff. Besides, they get paid for the job. I’ll just stick to the hot pink.

Go back to the end of the debate on Tuesday night. After all the furor was over. If you looked up in the bleachers just above the section reserved for the questioners, Ann Romney was in the first row on the right – in hot pink. Michelle Obama was in the first row on the left – in hot pink. Damn poor planning that. Each almost an equal distance from the stage. Best seats in the house.

But – within half a minute of the moderator’s last words to the camera – Ann Romney was on the stage. The candidates had not had time to even turn to formally acknowledge each other with small talk. As is customary. Not that these two guys were going to do that. Fat chance. And it appeared to me Ann Romney made sure it wasn’t going to happen if she could help it.

She quickly climbed the few steps and placed herself on Mitt’s right side – smack between him and the President. About eight feet away. If Mitt had turned to acknowledge Obama, he would have had to go around – or through – Ann. If the President had turned to his left to speak to Romney, he would have had to go around – or through – Ann.

Within seconds, she consciously nudged Mitt to his left and the small group of his supporters standing there. No further acknowledgment between the debaters was going to occur if she could help it. Obama looked left, saw the situation and – about that time – Michelle reached his side. His left side. Shoulder to shoulder, about four feet from Ann – with no glance or other recognition between the two women.

The moment hit me like a brick. Two well-dressed women – in nearly identical hot pink – separating their husbands from each other and assisting both in avoiding what would have been tough and perfunctory – if not totally meaningless – small talk. Two lionesses protecting the family.

Within three or four minutes, the Romney’s and their entourage were gone. But the Obamas hung around for some 40 minutes, shaking hands, signing autographs and posing for pictures with members of the audience. Suddenly, just one woman. Just one hot pink dress.

I immediately flashed back to the end of the earlier Biden-Ryan debate – after all the talking was done. Within a couple of minutes – and after the obligatory handshake with smiles yet – wives, kids and grandkids circled both men. Then, in a minute or two, both families mashed together into one hugging, smiling and chatty crowd. Adult Ryans were kissing each other – and adult Bidens. Adult Bidens were kissing each other – and adult Ryans. Kids in both families talking and running around the stage. It was just one of those very, very good moments in our national politics you don’t often experience. A good end to a good experience.

But the Romney and Obama slugfest? Well, if you wanted to determine the winner, all you had to do was watch the hot pink. Really made the whole winner-loser decision easy for me. Wonder what the coordinated color is for next week in Florida.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

peterson
Martin Peterson
From Idaho

Today we’re adding a new column by Martin Peterson, co-author of the Idaho 100: The People Who Most Influenced the Gem State. He has decades of experience (more than could even be summarized here) in Idaho politics, government and social history. Welcome!

Fifty years ago, in October 1962, I was stationed at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, attending a communications school. Ft. Sill was home to the U.S. Army’s Artillery and Missile School. I was the ranking enlisted person in our class and, as such, was in charge of my platoon. On the afternoon of October 22 I was instructed to have my platoon gather in our unit’s dayroom that evening to watch a televised speech by President Kennedy. The purpose of the speech was to inform the nation that the Soviet Union had installed intermediate range ballistic missiles in Cuba aimed at the United States.

We were then notified that the entire U.S. military had been placed on a DEFCON 3 alert. DEFCON stands for defense readiness condition and the highest level of alert is DEFCON 1. By way of example, after the September 11, 2001attacks, the military was placed on a DEFCON 3 alert.

The next morning, we moved out into the field to participate in maneuvers with other Ft. Sill units. We ended up encamped near an Honest John missile unit. The Honest John was the country’s first U.S. nuclear surface-to-surface missile. That morning, the Strategic Air Command was placed on a DEFCON 2 alert, the only time our country has ever faced that level of alert.

Usually you will hear a lot of rumors floating around a military unit at a time like this. But not this time. Everyone seemed to know that this was a matter between President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khrushchev. And there was also a general awareness that the U.S. and Russia were remarkably close to going to war. Not a comfortable feeling sitting in a tent in Oklahoma in the midst of the Army’s primary missile training facility.

Following around-the-clock intense negotiations, on October 28, after a pledge by President Kennedy that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the missiles were withdrawn, Khrushchev announced that they were pulling their missiles from Cuba. On October 29, all returned to normal at Ft. Sill.

Fast forward to February 13, 2007. I am at one of my favorite locations in the world. Sitting on the outdoor plaza of the Hotel Nacional in Havana, Cuba, with a glass of Havana Club rum and a Montecristo No. 2 cigar, looking out over Havana Bay with a Cuban musical combo playing background music. I had done this before on previous trips to Cuba and it is always a highlight of the trip. It is also a long ways away, both geographically and time wise, from sitting in a tent at Ft. Sill Oklahoma. But maybe not so far away as it would seem.

The grounds of the Hotel Nacional slope down to a spectacular view of Havana Bay and the Malecon, the highway that runs along the bay. If you had been standing there on February 15, 1898, you would have had a grandstand seat to watch the sinking of the battleship Maine.

On previous visits I had noticed a door leading underground and some rock lined trenches on the hotel’s grounds. I assumed it had something to do with the infrastructure that supports the hotel and its grounds.

This time I found myself talking to an elderly Cuban man who spoke pretty good English. I asked him about the doorway and the trenches. He asked if I would like a tour. As we walked toward the door, he told me that he had served in the Cuban Army in 1962 and, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, known as the October Crisis in Cuba, he was assigned to a surface-to-air missile unit. During the crisis they had dug the trenches on the hotel grounds and placed a missile installation in them to protect Havana from any U.S. air attack.

Opening the door revealed a stairway connecting to the trenches. We went down the stairway and he took me on a tour of the entire missile complex, which had been abandoned many years earlier. It turned out to be a complete underground military complex, even if it was somewhat primitive by even 1962 standards. It was an incredible step back into the past for me. Now I was experiencing first-hand what the Cubans had experienced while I was on DEFCON 3 alert at Ft. Sill. The similarities were remarkable. The Cubans had been just as convinced that the U.S. was preparing to attack them as we had been convinced of the potential of a Soviet missile attack from their Cuban installations and they were prepared to defend their country at all costs.

Fortunately, not only for the U.S., Cuba and the Soviets, but for the entire world, calm heads and diplomacy finally prevailed and all sides came out ahead. But for seven days in October, 1962, both sides sat on the brink of what might well have become World War III. It is an anniversary that shouldn’t be forgotten.

Marty Peterson is an Idaho native. He is retired and lives in Boise.

Share on Facebook

Peterson

rainey
Barrett Rainey
Second Thoughts

With all the political garbage talk going on these days about tax cuts, we voters – the people who pay those taxes – are being promised impossible things while hard facts are being ignored. The kindest, most gentle way of putting it is we are being led to tax slaughter while being lied to. Even if your favorite politician sounds so reasonable and factual, there are things he’s not telling you. So, I’ll take up two of the major omissions right here. Believe me, the list doesn’t end with just these two.

When politicians talk about “rewriting the tax code” or “eliminating deductions” or “reworking tax rules” or “prioritizing tax breaks” you should be scared. Very, very scared. The last time a major tinkering of our federal tax laws was done, it was overseen by Oregon GOPer Sen. Bob Packwood. He of the “lady problems” who soon thereafter was told to go home by his peers.

Here’s the first landmine. During the 1980′s process, we middle-income taxpayers got screwed and the big guys made out just fine, thank you very much. No matter who wins this election – from president on down – you can bet the farm it’ll happen again. The reason is simple. When tax rewriting begins, you and I are way under-represented at the table. Almost ignored. But the big guys – the ones with the well-paid lobby folks ever-present on Capitol Hill – those guys have front row seats and unlimited expense accounts with which to peddle some well-compensated Gucci influence.

Since you and I won’t be attending, who’ll speak for us? Who’ll make the case that our precious homeowner exemption is more important than some international company not having to pay taxes on a corporate jet? Who’ll speak up for you when the cutting turns to second home exemptions for RVs against someone’s luxury tax exemption for a 60 foot yacht? And that child tax credit. Will that survive a “K” Street onslaught by the briefcasers when they want to eliminate it in favor of another tax goodie for the international jet set?

If you don’t think that kind of horse-trading campaign contributor pressure is not exerted to the maximum against individual citizen interest, you must think Little Big Horn was just “a failure to communicate.” The big guys have an army – a well-paid army – to speak for them. Since you won’t be there, who’ll speak for you?

Then, there’s omitted tax cut fact number two. Let’s suppose – just for giggles – we all get the 20% federal income tax reductions being promised to we middle-classers. Whoopee! Yowser!!! Way to go!!! We’re off to the BMW dealer, check in hand.

Better wait up there, “ultimate driving machine breath.” You haven’t heard from your friends in the state capitol who set budgets and write the laws regarding levies and collecting taxes. You haven’t heard from your friendly county commission that shares the same legal responsibility.

If your state legislators and your county commissioners find themselves not receiving those absolutely necessary federal dollars – the ones you don’t pay anymore – what do you think the next step is? Can you say “tax increase?” Maybe “BIG tax increase?” Because your legislature and your county commission have responsibilities required by law to provide certain public services. It’s not a matter of “IF they’ve got the money.” No. It’s a matter of they HAVE to and they have absolute authority to reach into your pocket to do so. And, believe me, they will. I don’t care what you’re being told between now and election day. In many ways, they have no choice.

Oh, and don’t forget those other taxing folks in your neighborhood. The sewer districts, road districts, school districts, water districts, mosquito abatement districts, etc.. The ones getting fewer federal dollars, too.

Take the county, state and federal taxes you and I pay right now. Put them all in a big purple bag. Every dollar in the bag has been paid because each governmental level has lawful responsibilities or budgeted demands it must cover. So, let’s say, the feds put in 20% less – that 20% tax credit you’re being promised. Well, what has to be paid for by law still has to be paid for. By law. Who’s going to make up that missing 20%? You know. The 20% you didn’t pay?

Yep. Since the demands are still there, it’s us. You and me.
“But wait,” you say. “The answer is to knock off some of the things we pay for – those things that aren’t necessary. We just get ‘em to cut out those unnecessary things until income and outgo are the same. Ha! Gotcha, Rainey.”

Oh yeah? Go back up the column and reread reopening the tax code. Then think about this. Are you going to cut my “necessary” program or your “necessary” program? What if our “necessaries” aren’t the same? What about the other guys “necessaries?” And more important, who’s going to speak for you?

Remember, those corporations and those billionaires have that well-shod army of lobbyists. The ones with the healthy expense accounts who have nothing more to do with their well-paid time than represent the big guys. The situation here is exactly like the first scenario. Who speaks loudest? Where do all those major political contributions come from? Where is the most influence? Who speaks for you against the horde of professional political influence peddlers? And who decides the “necessaries?”

The answer is they get the beefsteak and we get the bones. And we pay for that beefsteak they get. Happened just that way in the 80′s.
So, in case number one, the problem is when you open the tax code for changes, which changes and for whom? And, in case number two, the problem with tax cuts or increases is how big and for whom? In both cases, it’s Pandora’s box all over again.

Oh. And one more thing. Fees. Now, there are legal definitions of fees and taxes. One is not the other. But to we who pay the bills, it makes damned little difference because it’s dollars. Either way. We pay. And – in addition to the above on taxes – you can expect to pay more and larger fees on many things. You can take that to the bank. When a taxing entity has hit the roof on its legal limit to raise taxes, the next alternative is fees.

So when someone tells you their magic math can produce huge tax cuts while still paying the bills, it’s snake oil of the worst kind, my friend. The government giveth and the government taketh away. When you put your hand in your pocket to feel that wonderful tax cut saving – IF you get it – yours won’t be the only hand in there. That’s a promise!

Share on Facebook

Rainey

idahocolumnn

The most frequent specific reaction to the book Martin Peterson and I just released, Idaho 100: The people who most influenced the Gem State, is this: Only five women out of 100 people? Really?

The same thought occurred to us as we populated the list. Were we, for some reason, just missing a lot of women who really ought to be on the list? We concluded we weren’t, at least not by the criteria we had set for the book. The reasons say something about the actual past and actual present of Idaho.

We weren’t saying women collectively didn’t influence the course of Idaho. Idaho became civilized as the female population increased; in politics, women were the main backers of prohibition, education and temperance, among other things. Many of the men on our list were strongly influenced by women, one way or another, and many women had a lot of specific, individual effect.

But individual leaders among women, especially early in Idaho’s history, are harder to find.

This is the history. Men led the original expeditions into what’s now Idaho. They scouted the trails, started the trading camps, found the precious metals, built the mining camps and boom towns and mapped their locations. In the early agricultural developments, women were more likely to be present, but men (like Charles Rich, Thomas Ricks, William Budge and William McConnell) were the leaders and founders of the early farm communities. Men designated the early roadways, specified boundaries on maps, designed and built the early water and transport systems on which the core of Idaho’s settled civilization was built. Men founded the major businesses – mining, timber, agricultural, communications and transportation – that formed the economic basis of Idaho in its early decades and beyond. The people who did these things account for many of the spots on the 100.

Idaho today has many prominent women in its business community, but that was not always the case, and in the context of two centuries of history, it’s a recent development. You’ll search in vain for the women who founded or controlled major Idaho businesses in the 19th century, or even the early 20th. (This isn’t necessarily true elsewhere, but it was in Idaho.) The first major female entrepreneur in Idaho with major reach and influence was Georgia Davidson, the key founder of Idaho’s television (and to a degree radio) industry, and she is on our list, but her greatest influence didn’t begin until 1940s and 50s.

It’s more stark on the government side. Idaho never has had a female governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general or U.S, senator, and just two representatives in all these years to the U.S. House. Idaho territory elected no women at all (so far as I can tell) to any territory-wide or legislative office. The Idaho state legislature was all-male well into the 20th century; the first female Idaho state senator took office in 1937, and the numbers did not rise substantially for more decades. Idaho did start electing women as superintendent of public instruction in 1898 (with Permeal French, listed in the 100), but decades passed before they reached any other statewide office.

When more recently women have argued that they long have been underrepresented in the state’s support political, economic and social ranks, they have been right – and that has changed, to some degree at least, in recent decades. But what has preceded this last generation or two is much of Idaho’s formative history. We didn’t argue that’s the way it should have been, or should be in the future. But we’d be dishonest to argue it’s not the way it actually was.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column

carlson
NW Reading

From the Federal Register, October 11.

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and a present-day Indian tribe. Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains may contact the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Repatriation of the human remains to the Indian tribe stated below may occur if no additional claimants come forward.

Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes it has a cultural affiliation with the human remains should contact the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission at the address below by November 13.

The human remains were removed from three different locations in Pacific County.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Reservation, Washington, and the Chinook Nation, Washington (a non-Federally recognized Indian group). The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Washington, were contacted by mail and telephone but declined formal consultation unless neither of the aforementioned groups made a claim.

Sometime prior to 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site located in the town of Ilwaco, in Pacific County, WA. The human remains consist of a mandible and mandibular dentition. Dr. W. Iles discovered the remains and donated them to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, at Fort Columbia State Park. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Sometime prior to 2001, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a site believed to be located in or near Fort Columbia, in Pacific County, WA. The human remains consist of one nearly complete cranium. As the remains were located in the Fort Columbia State Park collections and were undocumented, they are believed to have originated either from Fort Columbia or from one of three nearby sites. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Following examination by a physical anthropologist, the human remains described above were determined to be consistent with Native American heritage based cranial and dental morphological characteristics. All of the remains were removed from locations near Fort Columbia State Park, in Chinook, Pacific County, WA. Fort Columbia was built as a U.S. military installation at Chinook Point beginning in 1896, was completed in 1904, and became a state park in 1950. During its construction, an undocumented number of Native American burials were discovered. Since that time, additional burials have been located in documented sites surrounding the park boundaries.

Fort Columbia State Park is located on the north bank of the Columbia River, along the eastern leg of Baker Bay, east of Chinook Point and at the base of Scarborough Hill. The lands around Baker Bay and along Chinook Point were the aboriginal lands of the lower-river Chinook Indians. Scarborough Hill, along with Chinook Point, has figured prominently in lower-river Chinook Indian legends and served as one of many burial grounds in the area for the Indians. Early explorers Captain Robert Gray (1792), Captain George Vancouver (1792), and Captains Meriwether Lewis and James Clark (1805) documented the lower-river Chinookan Indians, including their traditional habitation of the north bank of the Columbia River during spring and summer months.

Throughout the next two centuries, additional documentation of the lower-river Chinook people was produced by explorers, pioneers, anthropologists, and visitors to the region. Based on the location of the remains, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has determined that the Chinook Indians, a non-Federally recognized Indian group, maintains the closest cultural and ancestral connection to these By the end of the nineteenth century, lower-river Chinook society had been all but decimated, and by 1900, some of the remaining Chinook Indians merged with Indians to their north, in the Shoalwater Bay region (now named Willapa Bay). Based on this history, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has determined that the Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Reservation, Washington, is the Indian tribe having the closest shared group identity with the human remains.

Officials of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission have determined that: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.

Share on Facebook

Reading

rainey
Barrett Rainey
Second Thoughts

To our national and individual shame, the nation’s protracted presidential campaign has been short on dealing with many major concerns. Billionaires have been getting more than their deserved share of attention. So, too, have lying politicians and elected crackpots spewing ignorance and hate. Even one of the signature stars of “Sesame Street” has embarrassingly become a major talking point. But what of this nation’s moral core? What of our shared responsibilities one to the other? What about the commitment that flows to each of us via our birthright of citizenship? The commitment to care for “the least of these?”

I’m a confirmed protestant whose had several personal and somewhat difficult encounters with Catholicism. It would be accurate to say my relationship with most things Vatican-sponsored is a strained one. But I have recently been introduced to an aged face of the Catholic Church that is refreshing and exciting. Her name is Sister Simone Campbell. The wise and very intelligent leader of “Nuns on the Bus.”

In April, the Vatican’s doctrinal office made both a strategic – and doctrinal – mistake. A big one. Rather than speak its criticism through normal church channels, it went vary public and loudly charged nuns – especially American nuns – have been outspoken on issues of social justice, but silent on other matters the Church considers crucial: abortion and gay marriage.

The nuns, led by Sister Campbell, had an immediate and equally public response: “Nuns on the Bus.” They hit half a dozen states with a full contingent of international media in tow. They stopped at soup kitchens, service centers for protestant as well as Catholic churches, toured low rent housing, visited homeless shelters, stopped on skid rows and did interviews about what they were doing and seeing. Lots and lots of interviews. It was “in-your-face” time for the Vatican. And for many American bishops who were actively stirring up opposition to what they believe have been President Obama’s efforts to “violate religious freedoms.” The ladies with the wheels one-upped them. And they still are.

Sister Simone, an attorney by education, responded “We’re doing this because these are life issues. And by lifting up the work of Catholic sisters, we’ll demonstrate the real need of the very programs and services that would be decimated by (Paul Ryan’s) budget.”

She noted financing for Catholic social services increased “significantly” under the Obama administration, adding “We’re celebrating the religious freedoms we have.” And she roundly rebuked the Ryan budget – near and dear to the hearts of congressional Republicans – because it would eliminate nearly all government programs for the poor at a time when the economy is hurting the most Americans in decades.

She cited a study by “Bread for the World” – an acknowledged nonpartisan group advocating on hunger issues. To make up for just food stamp cuts in the Ryan budget, the group found every church in America – again, EVERY church in America – “would have to come up with $50,000 dedicated to feeding people.” And do so every single year for the next 10 years!

Asked the Sister, “Can government walk away like this? Can we realistically expect our houses of worship to pick up such a tab?

Have the nuns been effective? Have they gotten a nation’s attention? By any measure, yes! And they got at least Cardinal Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn to speak up. And publically support them.

It appears the nuns and most of the bishops have found common ground on proposed budget slashing directly affecting the poor. Along the bus route, Sister Simone and the others are publicizing letters the bishops have sent to Congress protesting the Ryan plan. Bishops in dioceses along the way are showing up when the bus stops. Not all bishops. But an awful lot of ‘em. Lay leaders, too. Lots of ‘em. And many, many Jews and Protestants. And Hindu’s and Muslim’s. And the unchurched.

The Vatican had previously criticized the nuns for challenging bishops it referred to as “the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.” Well, seems some of the bishops have read that ol’ letter, reconsidered what terrible impacts the Ryan budget would have, totaled up how much more resources their churches would have to pony up to offset the loss of government support, repeatedly looked at the bus on their television sets and watched the overwhelmingly positive public reaction to the nuns and their message. Even for a bishop, that can make Vatican criticism seem much smaller and awfully far away.

Sister Simone does not wear a nun’s habit publically. She dresses in civvies. Aside from a small, tasteful cross, she looks like most other professional women in their 60′s. But her appearance is very disarming. Because, when she talks in any forum, she does so with a mastery of fact, figures, a bit of theology, excellent logic and sentences laced with the word “love.” She makes her case in every situation I’ve watched. And she includes charm and wit in her arsenal.

Though Sister Simone and her entourage represent the Catholic Church in their mission, it’s not possible for me to think of her as just a socially active person in one faith being effective in serving others. If you read the responses from all over the world that appear on the website, “Nuns on the Bus,” that mission has crossed all traditional lines separating religious thought. Colors and languages, too.

Though “Nuns on a Bus” are traveling only a few miles in only a few states, the phenomena has produced an ecumenical outreach worldwide. Makes me remember Christ’s travels were less than a hundred miles. But his message was world-changing.

Caring for the poor. Being keepers for our brothers and sisters. Respect. Love. The messages do seem very, very similar.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

carlson
Chris Carlson
Carlson Chronicles

There’s an interesting political experiment underway in Idaho’s new, sprawling 7th Legislative District that encompasses all of Idaho, Clearwater, and Shoshone counties and a slice of southeastern Bonner county.

The “incumbent” in the state senate race is Sheryl Nuxoll, an accountant and farmer/rancher who hails from Cottonwood. As the Republican she has to be considered the favorite even though some consider her to be a single issue candidate. She has long been active in Idaho’s “Life” movement.

Given how conservative Idaho County is, and how Catholic the Cottonwood/Greencreek area is her strong stance is a decided, perhaps even decisive, plus.

Her opposition is a popular and talented three term Shoshone County commissioner, Jon Cantamessa, who runs a family grocery business in Wallace. What makes this race a political experiment is Cantamessa is running as an Independent. According to Idaho’s chief election officer, Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, an independent has never been elected to the Idaho Legislature.

When the personable 60-year-old Idaho native first ran for the county commission he did run as an Independent. In his case, then, there is a precedent for such a move. In his two subsequent races though he ran as a “business Democrat” and deliberately identified himself with Benewah County’s long-serving conservative Democrat commissioner, Jack Buell, who is also a good friend.

Cantamessa recognizes that there is a significant challenge to running as an Independent inasmuch as it invites suspicions from partisans of both parties and ensures there is no party organization of any kind to provide support. Nonetheless, he candidly concedes that in trying to introduce himself to folks in Clearwater, Idaho and Bonner counties who have never heard of him, if there were a “D” behind his name, many voters would go no further.

Cantamessa is clearly what former four-term Idaho Governor Cecil D. Andrus would call a “lunch-bucket” Democrat, one who knows the importance of having an economy that creates jobs and keeps growing. He also knows resource conversion, turning minerals into metals for use in computers, trees into lumber for houses, and wheat into flour for bread is what brings new dollars into an economy.

Thus his candidacy is built around economic issues in contradistinction to Nuxoll who he correctly characterizes as being more involved with the social issue of abortion than the economic challenges facing the constituency.

He knows though that in today’s Idaho too many voters associate the word “Democrat” with liberalism and environmentalism.
Explaining why he is neither would constantly have him off message in regards to why he seeks the senate seat.

So, he made a carefully calculated strategic decision to run as an independent hoping such a designation would give him a better chance to make the case for his candidacy to the many voters in Idaho and Clearwater counties who are unfamiliar with him.
This is a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party in Idaho, but even former Senate Democratic Minority Leader Marguerite McLaughlin, from Orofino, told Cantamessa she thought he was doing the correct thing. Yes, she would have preferred he run as a D, but she understood and could not fault his reasoning.

The numbers alone also make Cantamessa an underdog. Idaho County has 25 percent more people than Shoshone (16, 267 vs. 12, 765—2010 census), and 8230 voted in the 2008 presidential election as opposed to 5,666 in Shoshone County. Even more significantly, in Idaho county in 2008 5,895 of those votes were for John McCain’s presidential bid.

By any measure Jon Cantamessa is the kind of candidate Idaho voters have historically supported. He has earned his spurs by long and competent service not just as a commissioner but as an active community leader serving on the local Chamber board, the Wallace school board, the EDC board, the Panhandle Health District board and he heads the public lands subcommittee of the Association of Idaho counties.

A graduate of the University of Washington, he and Iris, his wife of 46 years, have three adult children two of whom are Vandals. A thoughtful, articulate person with a reputation for diligence and doing his homework, in any other race he would be a clear favorite.

He is running his campaign on a shoe-string budget of $10,000 and is relying on the personal contacts he makes going door to door in towns like Grangeville and Orofino. If anyone can pull off being the first Independent, he’s the one.

Questions like who will he caucus with and how will committee assignments be made are all premature. Precedents will be established, but he has to get to Boise first. We’ll know in less than a month.

CHRIS CARLSON is a former journalist who served as press secretary to Gov. Cecil Andrus. He lives at Medimont.

Share on Facebook

Carlson Idaho

westcascades

The Oregonian, somewhat piling on itself, asked in an article this morning whether Portland mayoral candidate Jefferson Smith has reached a point at which he no longer can win the job of mayor.

It came to no definitive conclusions, noting that while the negatives – articles about frequent driving problems and now about punching a woman some years back – have been accumulating, it’s also true that Portland voters often are a forgiving bunch.

The sense here is that forgiveness has its limits, too, and they may well have been breached at this point. Fresh polling could change the picture, but the norm is that voters become wary when they see too steady a dripping of unexpected bad news about a candidate they don’t know so well. This is the time, many voters reasonably assume, that a candidate should look at their best: Still fresh, with shiny new ideas and no harsh collisions yet with the realities of governing.

Smith doesn’t look that way now, and what’s really hurt has been controversies over not complex policies but basic subjects most people encounter and deal with on a regular basis: Driving around while street legal, and staying out of fist fights. The narrative that seems to be developing about Smith is that he’s an interesting person, maybe even a brilliant person, but that he has trouble managing the ordinary and everyday. The idea of sending someone like that into the mayor’s office is likely to seem a little disquieting.

Former Council member Charlie Hales has to have the edge at this point.

Share on Facebook

Oregon

carlson
Chris Carlson
Carlson Chronicles

Idaho is one of the few states in the nation where a
significant number of people can sing the state’s song. This
is due in part to people like veteran political journalist Randy
Stapilus and his co-author, Marty Peterson, the long-time
director of the University of Idaho’s governmental affairs.
Together they have produced an entertaining book listing
the 100 most influential people in the 150 years since Idaho
became a territory.

The list is fascinating both because of the diversity of
characters, the famous (J.R. Simplot #11, Frank Church #14,
Joe Albertson #19, Ezra Taft Benson #27, William E. Borah
#69)as well as a few infamous (“Big Bill” Haywood #52,
Richard Butler #88), and the well-known (Robert Smylie
#18, Jim McClure #23, C. Ben Ross #47) as well as the truly
obscure(Wetxuwiis #10, Lafayette Cartee #25, Pinckney
Lugenbeel #34). It reinforces an old notion that it is people
who make and shape history, not external forces or tipping-
point trends. The book should be required reading as a
supplement to any Idaho history textbook.

Their main criteria for placing people on the top 100 list was
a requirement that in some way those listed were to have
had a transformative impact on the state. Many devotees of
Idaho history are going to quibble, and rightly so, about the
rankings. Indeed, the authors appear to have intentionally
selected for its shock value Lloyd Adams, a lobbyist, power
broker and fix-it type who served as the long-time chair of
the Idaho Republican party during the first half of the 20th century as the number one most influential figure.

Most of Idaho’s current political cognoscenti will ask, “Lloyd
who?” That he was a venal, ethically-challenged influence
peddler operating out of his law office in Rexburg and
thought nothing of providing favors to friends seems not to
have mattered to the authors.

Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal columnist and former
speech-writer for Ronald Reagan once wrote a book about
the Gipper entitled When Character was King.

Her point was character should still be taken into account
when judging those in the political ring. A secondary point
is that those who enter the ring, who subject themselves to
public scrutiny, place their name on the ballot and serve in
the fish bowl that is modern high public office should always
rank ahead of those who operate behind the scenes.

By any reasonable standard former four-term Idaho
Governor and one term Interior Secretary Cecil D. Andrus
should have been number one on the list both for his
transformative impact as well as truly beneficial impact on
Idaho. From obtaining funding for Idaho kindergartens,
to obtaining local land-use planning laws, to senior citizen
property tax relief, to creation of the Hells Canyon and
Sawtooth National Recreation areas, to expansion of the
Birds of Prey Natural Area as well as support for Idaho
wilderness areas while Jimmy Carter’s Interior secretary,
Andrus will stand the test of time as the most influential
person to ever trod the state’s landscape. The authors should
have counted the numerous references throughout the
book to Andrus, who they rated as the 16th most influential
(and the first governor on their list) and it would have been
obvious to them who should have been designated number
one.

In general, their recitation of the history of this array of
fascinating people is also pretty accurate though there is an
occasional lapse such as overlooking the fact that one of
Idaho’s truly transformative governors, C.A. “Doc” Robins
(#26)in fact did try for the U.S. Senate in the last year (1950)
of his incredibly productive term rather than quietly retire.
These are minor nits, however, that don’t begin to take away
anything from the fine achievement this book is.

The reason this reviewer gives the book 4 and 1/2 stars,
however, relates exclusively to the failure to give Andrus his
due. As his press secretary for almost nine years I concede
bias.

Bias aside, Stapilus and Peterson have performed a wonderful
service to the many Idahoans who take pride in the great state
and can sing the words to the state song—words which are
reinforced substantially by this book.

“And here we have Idaho/Winning her way to fame/Silver
and gold in the sunlight blaze/And romance lies in her
name. . .”

Read it, whether an Idahoan or not. You’ll be glad you did.

Share on Facebook

Carlson Idaho