Posts published in “Rainey”

Some may view the content of what I'm about to say as racist.  I assure you, in the most fundamental way, that's not the case.

But, I've been observing something that's made me look at television's vast advertising power in a different light.

First, a little background.  I don't live in a community with a large Black presence.  Aside from the military and some years in Washington D.C., I've not had a lot of experience with mixed-race living.  Or, thinking - in personal terms - of Black and White.  Until now.

Television, more than any other medium, has its difficulties from an advertiser's point of view.  But, also, it has powerful impact.  Yes, it reaches a vast audience.  Still, one of its drawbacks is the difficulty of using TV for targeted viewing.

Radio has Black-oriented stations.  And Cuban and Mexican and many others.  All aimed at specific target audiences.

While there are TV stations that try to do the same thing, they are few and far between.  My small community lies within the mass market coverage of one of the West's larger cities.  Yet, we're not served by an ethnically-oriented TV station trying to reach a single ethnic market.  Radio, yes.  TV, no.  And, that's true in most of the other parts of the continental U.S. as well.

Recently, it seems, in more and more commercials, there'll be - by design - one or more Black actors.  No matter the product.  No matter the ad campaign.  There will be a Black inclusion.  And, that inserted Black presence seems to be growing with advertisers.

If there are, say, three guys doing something together on television, one will be Black.  If the national ad depicts a baby shower, at least one woman will be Black.  If teens are the subject, same thing.  And, on and on.

I'm not sure why this is.  It may be sponsors - from Campbell's soup to Chevrolet - are trying to show their soups/cars are good for people of all races.   Kind of a crazy thought, I know.  But, that's all I can come up with.

Here in our Western states, White is, by far, the dominant race.  Look at your church - your service club - your favorite dining spot - the staff at the grocery store.  On a daily basis, most of us just never come into contact with someone who's Black.

Maybe that's why the inclusion of Blacks in so many television ads seems unreal to me.  While there may be such representations in social or business affairs in other parts of America, around here, not the case.  We have few mixed communities and, as a result, we don't usually have racial interactions.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with such interactions.  We just don't have them.

While TV ads mostly depict Whites and Blacks, another racial group is growing at a rapid rate.  Hispanics.  And, in our neighborhood, most of us can have regular interactions with members of that group.

For us, it's yard workers, for example.  Nearly all we've come in contact with.  Hard workers who do excellent work.  Starting to see some in local culinary, food service, wineries/vineyards, sales and other professions. Many bringing the flavors of their former home country to their new settings.  And, they are most welcome.

Sometimes I wish those ads were our "mirror" image.  That we did have such excellent inter-racial relationships on a regular basis.  That we did have brothers and sisters in our everyday life that brought their own heritage and style.

As I stated at the outset, I don't mean anything racist in these words.  Not a one of 'em.  And, there may be places in our world, where the racial mix of characters portrayed in those multi-racial commercials represents real life.

Just not around here.

As we age, one of life's hardest lessons to deal with is change.  Seniors can have a hell of a time with it because change often means leaving behind comfortable habits and beliefs created over many decades.  Re-education, it seems, is unlearning or leaving behind something you know - or even feel - so you can accept the new.  The different.

One example for me was when "Newsweek" magazine ended its print edition after more than 80 years of continuous publication.  I'm a former employee of the Post-Newsweek Corporation when it was in its heyday with newspapers, radio/television stations and the legendary newspaper and magazine.  The boss was Katherine Graham, a brilliant and legendary person.  When you could put "Post-Newsweek" in a byline or on a resume, you got attention.

But now, change.  Damned change!  Starting in 2013, "Newsweek" went digital - like Slate and Huffington Post. The corporate decision to go digital was probably a good one.  A necessary one.  But, I miss the ink-and-paper weekly that was.  Now the digital version is gone, too.

On another change, I'm being forced into a mental corner on a political issue.  Like the magazine change, this one may seem unimportant - even esoteric - but it's not for me.  Because it means change for all of us in the fundamental way we decide who's going to run our national government.

That issue is term limits, which I oppose.  For very sound reasons.  Former Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus - a friend and former employer whose political judgments I had great faith in - put his position this way: "It may be necessary to break the rules of incumbency that allow politicians to reward themselves with privileges no other citizen receives.  Job security."

Another political pro, whose counsel I value - Dr. Norm Ornstein of American University.  He noted gridlock, unbridled anger and stalemate in congress when he said "Political euthanasia may be the only way to end it."

In other words, everybody out!  Over a period of two or three elections. Under term limits, replace 'em all.  The good and the bad.  Cleanse the place from wall-to-wall and gradually seat 535 new ones.  Stagger terms so there is continuity and some institutional memory.  But do it!  Guarantee fresh blood and new ideas coming from the people at each election.  No more career politicians.

It sounds good.  You can make a workable model on paper.  But the hurdles to make such a basic change in our national and state governance are many.

The most difficult to overcome would be a change in our federal constitution.  Congress - made up entirely of the people you are trying to replace - would have to approve it.  You'd need a two-thirds majority of states to adopt it.  Next,  the same sort of administrative/political steps in approving changes to the 50 state constitutions.  Or, conversely, you could start in the 50 states, then tackle the federal document.  Nearly impossible either direction.

All of that would take years.  Maybe so many years no one now alive would live to see it completed.  No easy task.  You'd have to get an overwhelming show of national public support, create many new entities to carry the message and assure the proper changes are made, then find office seekers willing to participate in their own demise.

Hardest of all would be dealing with the politicians who would have to put a gun to their own heads.  And an end to their own careers.  Many years ago, the wise, late Rep. "Mo" Udall (D-AZ) told me "You've got to keep in mind everybody back here got here by learning the rules and winning by them.  Don't look for winners to change the rules."

And, therein may lie the Achilles heel to this whole term limits business.  Much as a lot of people - right and left - would like to implement it, they may be just barking at the moon because of the legal requirements it would take to chance the Constitution.  I've never forgotten Udall's words.  Those who would make term limits their passion should remember them, too.

While admitting the system needs change - and even agreeing in principle term limits could lead to something positive - I think of the good works of a guy like Andrus as four-term Idaho governor and the Carter Administration's Secretary of the Interior.  When you term limit a Marjorie Taylor-Green, you also lose a legacy-creator like Andrus.  And the "Mo" Udall's.

Facing the huge task and costs of changing the electoral system - and with the certainty that you'd probably shut out some new and very bright minds with much to contribute to our national gain - I'm still hearing the idea of change.  But, maybe we're just not quite up to making the trade-offs.

What will we be like - what will this nation be like - on the other side?

One day, this COVID-19 business will be over.  One day, thousands and thousands of dead will have been mourned.  The sick will be well.  Hospital operations will return to normal.  Doctors and nurses will work usual schedules.  The feelings of fear will be calmed.  What will it be like?

One day, the Congress of these fractious states will return to the business of legislating for the people instead of the current divided, do-nothing, look-the-other-way creature we have now.  The needs of the citizens of the 50 states will, again, become the substance of hearings that result in answers rather than stonewalling.  What will it be like?

Truth is, no one - not one - can answer the question of what this nation will look like in 2025 and thereafter.  The recent years of uncertain governance - coupled with a worldwide pandemic - have twisted, pulled, strangled, tortured and severely injured our Republic.

Corporate, ultra-conservative front organizations like ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council - have flooded state legislatures with carbon-copy bills authored by - and dedicated to the benefit of - big business and the ultra-right.

Citizen needs have been ignored in attempts to legislate morality and citizenship as promulgated by evangelical groups and others who believe it's their right to determine how this nation should live.  When their loud, fanatical, divisive voices are stilled, what will this country become?

The plain fact is those promoting division - with racist, jingoistic, lying - have been more successful separating us, one-from-the-other, than the virtues of patriotism and inclusion that usually have kept us together.  When we needed to reach out to our brothers and sisters, we were warned "They can't be trusted because they don't look like us." "They speak foreign languages," or "They'll take our jobs" or "...threaten to undermine what has always been the majority" - read "White Christian majority."

The last couple of decades - especially the last four years - there've been strains on our nation and its governance.  What we've witnessed - what we're living through - has been a time of internal national struggle, involving all our fundamental institutions and beliefs.

The process of a return to stability, re-establishing trust in our institutions and re-creating a functioning government does not start at the top.  It starts at the bottom.  It starts with us.  Everyone.  No matter the skin color.  No matter the nation of birth.  No matter the religious practices.  No matter who.

Some of us won't be around to see how it all works out.  The nature of things - the process - is to hand over responsibilities to the next generation.  After the Civil War  - after two world wars - that process included expansion.  Expansion of territory.  Expansion of housing.  Expansion of rights.  Expansion of all the things those wars had been fought to protect.

The difference now is expansion must be accompanied by inclusion.  Inclusion of race and nationality.  Everywhere.  Inclusion of a new direction for government and institutions, accepting differing religions and other human practices so we may proceed as a unified nation.

Voices of division and mistrust must be stilled.  Voices of building, of getting together - of everyone sharing in what comes next - should be amplified in commerce, in politics, in religion and in changing national institutions.

What will it look like?  No one knows.  But, we need to get started.

Our President says his administration "can't guarantee the final counting of our November votes or that the transfer of power between administrations in January "will be peaceful."

Read that again.  Slowly.  Then, let it sink in.

We are likely facing - for the first time in our nation's 248 years - challenges to two of the most important definitions of our Republic:  voting and welcoming a new administration chosen by the governed.

We're being warned - by our sitting President - the exercise of both could be fraught with danger.  And, it seems he may be right.

What in hell has happened to us?

I clearly remember going to Highland Grade School in Boise to vote many years ago.  A gymnasium still smelling of student sweat.  Elderly ladies at the registration desk.  Small, limp flags draped around the tables.  Me, marking a ballot while trying to hold the small table steady so I wouldn't mark a wrong space.  Folding my ballot as instructed.  The lady announcing loudly "Barrett Rainey has voted."

That was what voting was supposed to be.  Then.

But, now there are some who plan to challenge that exercise of our franchise, no matter the outcome.  Some polling places resorted to armed guards inside and out last November.  Some voting locales moved to places where access could be more tightly controlled.

This is not what electing citizens to high office should be like.  This is not our America.

But, here we are.

I'd like to place the blame for this unsettling change in our democracy at the feet of one Donald J. Trump.  I'd like to point directly at his face and loudly say "THIS is YOUR fault."

But, of course, it's not.  Not entirely.  He's simply the catalyst for hatred and divisions that existed long before he was a player.  The most he can be charged with is effectively gathering up the disparate parts and making them into an unwelcome political movement.  The most blame to be heaped upon him is he's packaged that hatred and those divisions of some 45-million people into a dangerous political force that follows his demagogic and divisive rhetoric.

Then, there's this.

FEMA workers trying to deliver aid to residents of North Carolina following hurricanes Helene and Milton being met by armed militias roaming the damaged areas in pickups.  Telling relief drivers to turn around.  "No federal help needed," they said.

What has this nation become?  From here, in the somewhat remote Pacific Northwest, a goodly portion of our country seems to be going "off the rails."

This country, today, is not the same one we grew up in.  Many of the old rules don't seem to apply anymore.  And, the new rules - such as they are - seem to keep changing so quickly.

We'll see.

What will we be like - what will this nation be like - on the other side?

One day, this COVID-19 business will be over.  One day, thousands and thousands of dead will have been mourned.  The sick will be well.  Hospital operations will return to normal.  Doctors and nurses will work usual schedules.  The feelings of fear will be calmed.  What will it be like?

One day, the Congress of these fractious states will return to the business of legislating for the people instead of the current divided, do-nothing, look-the-other-way creature we have now.  The needs of the citizens of the 50 states will, again, become the substance of hearings that result in answers rather than stonewalling.  What will it be like?

Truth is, no one - not one - can answer the question of what this nation will look like in 2025 and thereafter.  The recent years of failed governance - coupled with a worldwide pandemic - have twisted, pulled, strangled, tortured and severely injured our Republic.

Corporate, ultra-conservative front organizations like ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council - have flooded state legislatures with carbon-copy bills authored by - and dedicated to the benefit of - big business and the ultra-right.

Citizen needs have been ignored by attempts to legislate morality and citizenship as promulgated by evangelical groups and others who believe it's their right to determine how this nation should live.  When their loud, fanatical, divisive voices are stilled, what will this country become?

The plain fact is those promoting division - with racist, jingoistic, lying - have been more successful separating us, one-from-the-other, than the virtues of patriotism and inclusion that usually have kept us together.  When we needed to reach out to our brothers and sisters, we were warned "they can't be trusted because they don't look like us." "They speak foreign languages," or "They'll take our jobs" or "threaten to undermine what has always been the majority" - read "White Christian majority."

The last couple of decades - especially the last four years - there've been strains on our nation and its governance.  What we've witnessed - what we're living through - has been a time of internal national struggle, involving all our fundamental institutions and beliefs.

The process of a return to stability, re-establishing trust in our institutions and re-creating a functioning government does not start at the top.  It starts at the bottom.  It starts with us.  Everyone.  No matter the skin color.  No matter the nation of birth.  No matter the religious practices.  No matter who.

Some of us won't be around to see how it all works out.  The nature of things - the process - is to hand over responsibilities to the next generation.  After the Civil War  - after two world wars - that process included expansion.  Expansion of territory.  Expansion of housing.  Expansion of rights.  Expansion of all the things those wars had been fought to protect.

The difference now is expansion must be accompanied by inclusion.  Inclusion of race and nationality.  Everywhere.  Inclusion of a new direction for government and institutions, accepting differing religions and other human practices so we may proceed as a unified nation.

Voices of division and mistrust must be stilled.  Voices of building, of getting together - of everyone sharing in what comes next - should be amplified in commerce, in politics, in religion and in changing national institutions.

What will it look like?  No one knows.  But, we need to get started.

Those three letters have recently become shorthand for stories defining some of the Trump administration's cabinet wannabees.

Hedseth at DOD.   McMahon at DOE.  Gaetz at DOJ.

All have been caught up in stories involving s-e-x activities, of one sort or another, somewhere in their backgrounds.  The details of which are emerging as all have been put in the spotlight to join a future Trump cabinet.

One has withdrawn, while more stories have proliferated.

Somewhere along the line, I seem to remember a Trump video wherein he said he would be appointing "only the best people."  If these three are the best that he can do, we're in more trouble than previously thought.

These three - Hedseth, McMahon and Gaetz - have risen to political and/or business prominence and all seem to have a personal or business relationship with DJT.

Will they - or he - withdraw the nominations, knowing they face public Senate confirmation hearings?  Doubtful.  Will Trump back off and pull the names?  Probably not.

It would seem there's a question to be asked about these folks.  And, that is, "Out of more than three hundred million citizens in this country, are these three the best we can do?"

There's a theme running through this particular nomination process.  All of the candidates, so far, are people Trump knows.  People he likes.  Their names haven't been put forward because they have the requisite educational backgrounds or appropriate skills for these positions.  They've been selected because Trump is familiar with them and he likes them.  Period.

Putting civilians into government positions is not new.  It occurs all the time.  Everywhere.  What's different with these three is they all are just flat inappropriate for the jobs that need filling.  They bring no professional or political skills to the appointments.

If they stay in the running, there's those Senate confirmation hearings in the weeks ahead.  Each of the three will have to decide whether the appointments are worth the public scrutiny and the extensive public examinations that lie ahead.

Sen Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) co-chairs the committee that will do the examining and he's promised that process will be thorough.

We're gonna have to send out for more popcorn.