Sunday's New York Times has another in a long series of winning columns by Oregon's own Nick Kristof, this time on the subject of health care. Kristof's work for NYT is often a feature-political hybrid, attempting to take serious and weighty matters and express them through tales of the human experience. There's certainly no shortage of such stories that can be told to express the imperative for health care reform, and Kristof finds one in Yamhill County:
John [Brodniak] is a sawmill worker from Yamhill County, Ore., where I grew up. He was a foreman at a mill, he felt strong and healthy, and he had very basic insurance coverage through his job. On April 18, he was married, at age 23, and life was looking up.
Ten days after the wedding, he was walking in his backyard carrying a neighbor’s dog — and he suddenly blacked out. That led, after rounds of CAT scans, M.R.I.’s and other tests, to the discovery that the left parietal lobe of his brain has a cavernous hemangioma. That’s an abnormal growth of blood vessels, and in John’s case it is chronically leaking blood into his brain.
John began to have trouble walking and would sometimes collapse. He developed spasms and restless leg syndrome, he began to use a cane, and his mind suffered.
John says the principal obstacle to treatment appears to be simply his lack of insurance. In August, he qualified for an Oregon Medicaid program, but he hasn’t been able to find a doctor who will accept him as a patient for surgery, apparently because the reimbursements are so low. Doctors tell him that his condition is operable — but that they can’t accept him without conventional insurance. He is increasingly frustrated as he watches his family crushed by the burden of his illness.
If a senator strolled indifferently by as John retched in pain, we would think that person pitiless. But isn’t it just as monstrous for politicians to avert their eyes, make excuses and deny coverage to innumerable Americans just like John? [emph mine]
A haunting, piercing question, to be sure--but it's the moral essence of the decades-long drive to insure Americans against health catastrophes, one that heroes like Rep. Alan Grayson recognizes and highlights so often in his speeches, but which few others seem to want to focus on. Perhaps it's because for so many in Congress, their tenure stands as an indictment for their inability to accomplish that goal sooner. I suspect many--perhaps even John Brodniak--would forgive them, however...if only they get it right this time, and soon.
We can all blame Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer for giving Betsy McCaughey, Sarah Palin and the rest of the lunatic wing of the Republican Party their fodder for the biggest and most absurd summer episode surrounding health care reform: "death panels." Were it not for his totally wrong-headed and foolhardy notion to improve the quality of care for millions of Americans as part of the reform bill, the phrase might never have entered the political lexicon as it has.
Obviously I've got tongue in cheek to "blame" Earl for any of the subsequent madness that highlighted just how deep the crazy runs in parts of the GOP right now, and how poorly the media handled the entire episode, but the man himself offers a somewhat lighthearted up-fessing in Sunday's New York Times--perhaps an ironic display of column-inch gratitude via pillory, for Blumenauer indeed finds fault within:
The news media was a particular culprit in this drama. This was not just Fox News; seemingly all the national news organizations monitored any meetings they could find between lawmakers and constituents, looking for flare-ups, for YouTube moments. The meetings that involved thoughtful exchanges or even support for the proposals would never find their way on air; coverage was given only to the most outrageous behavior, furthering distorting the true picture.
My office quickly produced testimonials from 300 respected professionals and organizations to set the record straight. Articles followed about how Republicans themselves had supported such provisions. Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org as well as national organizations like the AARP pushed back on the lies.
It didn’t matter. The “death panel” episode shows how the news media, after aiding and abetting falsehood, were unable to perform their traditional role of reporting the facts. By lavishing uncritical attention on the most exaggerated claims and extreme behavior, they unleashed something that the truth could not dispel.
I think there are some key points to highlight here that Blumenauer is savvy to catch: We all know that the media will gravitate towards controversy and conflict, but it is impossible for them to simultaneously blanket coverage with discussion of a false concept like death panels... and also try to weakly correct the record on the facts. Furthermore, it's not about Fox News specifically, although they're a prime and most ethically liberated example--all of the networks and cable news outlets operate in the same fashion.
Blumenauer also directs specific criticism at specific other Members of Congress, which seems rare in a non-campaign context:
There was a troubling new dynamic: People like Senator Chuck Grassley, a Iowa Republican, were now parroting these falsehoods in their town meetings and letting it drive their policy decisions. (Mr. Grassley: “We should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on Grandma.”) When the most extreme elements peddling false information can cow senior members of Congress into embracing their claims, it does not bode well for either policymaking or for the Republican Party.
ON Sept. 9, President Obama spoke about the health care reform plan to Congress. Although his speech was more thoughtful and less partisan than much of what I’ve seen from presidents in my years in Congress, it was greeted by the call of “You lie!” from a backbencher from South Carolina, Joe Wilson. The accusation came as President Obama was attempting to debunk the many myths about the health care bill; Mr. Wilson’s outburst was the culmination of the summer’s frenzy, of everything that my end-of-life provisions had unwittingly set in motion.
The resulting support from the right wing and the inability of Republican leadership to acknowledge Mr. Wilson’s behavior as crude, unprecedented and inappropriate is telling. The Republican Party has been taken captive by these tactics, the extremists and their own rhetoric.
Joe Wilson's an easy target and he's also in the same chamber as Blumenauer, so there's probably little risk in calling him out. Grassley is another matter, and while I have no problem with the direct aim taken at the way the Senator has conducted his official business, it's a direct challenge from one legislator to another that essentially says: this guy lied like a rug about my amendment.
And yet even so, the phrasing is curious: extreme elements of the party "cowed" Grassley into peddling fearmongering bullshit about HCR, as if he were a hungry bird. So too is Earl's conclusion oddly hopeful in the face of all past experience--even that ruefully detailed in this account: maybe somehow after all this Congress can still come together, and we can take care of the nation's problems as a united government. Ha! In a piece that might be subtitled, "Sorry for thinking the wackjob right wasn't capable of demonizing my harmless amendment," you wonder if he's actually learned the lesson.
The rubber is beginning to really hit the road when it comes to health care in Congress; recess is over and the Baucus Caucus finally came out with a bill to mark up. It appears the rest of the Finance Committee--including our own Senator Wyden--either want to mark it with a bunch of changes (Democrats) or with a big red F (Republicans, even Olympia Snowe).
Both of our Senators have elucidated serious issues with the Finance bill, not quite as directly as Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia--who essentially declared it a dead letter and ripped the "co-op" compromise to shreds in a letter to the Gang of Six--but by attacking what the Baucus Suckus plan lacks. And for each Senator the complaint is different.
Jeff Merkley, for his part, continues to be one of the more repetitively vocal members of the chamber when it comes to support for a robust public option. His insistence has not wavered throughout a long summer of angst-ridden tea-leaf reading over whether the PO would survive the deliberative process. His refusal to sit quietly on the back bench and let the seasoned pros handle things is enormously welcome, and a big poke in the ribs to doubters (like me) who thought the key word for Merkley's first term would be "languid" rather than "loud and liberal."
Yesterday he took his advocacy to the airwaves, hitting not only The Ed Show, but also CNBC. Here's the latter clip, first:
And now, chatting with Ed Schulz:
If you like, you may consider my relegation of Senator Wyden's media efforts below the fold as some kind of "punishment" or commentary on his behavior on the health care issue. That doesn't mean it would be true (but it doesn't mean it would be false, either). What it definitely means in part, at least, is that with two vid clips, the top of the fold is already pretty big....
Oregon, and Portland in particular, always seems to be a favorite topic or frequent example in articles about travel, innovation or components of a "green" society. And for the most part, the reviews are always glowing, perhaps leaving the unremitting negativity and curmudgeonism to the locals. Two more such pieces have crossed the LO editorial desk in the last couple of days...
The first is one of those "where does your city rate on X" deals, this time concerning the quest for the "least wasteful" big city in America. Nalgene, the water-bottle maker who could probably slipcover Portland with the plastic from all the bottles they've sold here, conducted a survey of the 25 biggest cities in order to rank them on their wastefulness. Methodology? But of course:
The water bottle company questioned 3,750 people in America's 25 largest cities about their transportation use, waste, sustainability efforts, shopping habits, and reuse of items. Nalgene weighted the results to give preference to behaviors with an immediate and significant impact like driving less, recycling more, and reducing trash. The survey's index is based on a scoring system with a potential individual high score of 1930 and a low individual score of 193.
The top city turned out to be San Francisco, which came out solidly in front by their particular estimation. Second was New York, perhaps surprisingly--but the dirty secret about NYC is that dense living is more sustainable living, so for things like walkability and use of private transportation, the Big Apple does well.
Number three was the Rose City, forming a mini-tier with NYC and beating out Seattle by a strong margin. That's really the only goal for most Portlanders, beating the Emeralds, so even if we'd finished 24th that'd be OK, as long as #25 was Seattle. (The worst of the group was actually Atlanta, one of those classic suburban-sprawl, weak-transit cities).
A more regular endorsement has also come from the New York Times, which in addition to columnist Nicholas Kristof's hometown references also features the city every once in a while via their Travel section. This time it's the Frugal Traveler column, providing three pages of suggestions for Stumptown on the cheap. The reporter takes you to the Ace Hotel, Widmer, some cool Southeast eateries, the food carts downtown, the vacuum cleaner museum at Stark's, Pok Pok, Powell's of course--even the Acropolis strip joint that serves the cheap and tasty steak! (When was the last time you read a travel review with a strip club featured as a good thing?) A flavor:
Weirdly enough, these busy nights would end early, and I'd be in bed shortly after midnight. In retrospect, this made perfect sense. Good living takes its toll on the body if not on the wallet, and we all need energy to face the next day's agenda of food, friends and frugality. And every evening, as I drifted off in my soft Ace Hotel bed, under the reassuring weight of that wool blanket, I would try to figure out how to answer a question I heard almost daily, from strangers and from old pals who saw how smoothly I'd settled into my Portland routine. "So," they'd ask, "when are you moving here?"
I still don't know what to tell them.
I do: tell them you won't be coming until you already have a job!
I read several interesting and seemingly unrelated stories this week. First was an assessment-in-hard-times of Portland {free sub reqd} by the old Grey Lady, which through Nick Kristof's home-state well of references and Portland's apparent status as a bellwether city of new liberalism to them seems to earn us lots of NYT ink.
Bojack of course immediately leapt on it to highlight just how horrible his existence environment is, but it struck me how much like everywhere else in the country Portland is, with housing price retrenchment (14% compared to the 30%+ in places the opposite of Portland like Vegas and Florida), foreclosures (duh), hesitant credit stifling and scaring business (double duh) and slowdowns in durable goods like cars (as if Portland's folly was to have a major port for vehicles from Asia). Wow, we're not so strange and unique after all!
Nonetheless, it was a bit of looking down the nose at the city that thinks itself different somehow, and detractors crowed. But I found what I think is a more important difference. There's an election in NY-20 next Tuesday, for Kirstin Gillibrand's old seat now that she's been appointed Senator. (It looks like the Dems might actually hold the seat!) I came across a law-news piece that defended her against another NYT article, digging into her law career and finding her representation of tobacco giant Phillip Morris among the files. Here's the essence:
For most people who understand how law is practiced at the top firms in the country, the interesting part of the NYT article pretty much ends there. As an associate, especially a "superstar" associate as Gillibrand appears to have been, you work for the partners and represent the clients they tell you to represent. It's really not that complicated.
The writer goes on to say that many firms have an opt-out clause, ostensibly--but that you'd be a career-killing fool to actually exercise it. After all, you want to make partner and pull down the serious jing, right? That's what you're there for! Hey, it's the New York--and apparently anyone else in the legal world who wants to be bigtime--way.
(As an interesting aside, look who's speaking for Senator Gillibrand--and similarly excusing her representation of PM while cancelling a scheduled meeting with the NYT editors--it's our old friend Matt Canter, imported flack last seen in Oregon running Jeff Merkley's campaign! Remember what a Palestinian woman said Merkley told her? "I don't know if it's right or wrong, I just want to win.")
The last article was in Thursday's Trib, about my friend and State Rep Jefferson Smith, making his way as a freshman in Salem this year. Here's the part that caught my eye, that I guess I've probably heard before but which now came clearly into focus:
Jefferson became intent on law school, following the path of his father and grandfather. He finished at University of Oregon and got into Harvard Law School, finishing in the top 5 percent of his class.
Smith accepted a post with a top Manhattan law firm, which waited while he studied for New York’s bar exam. But his second day on the job, Smith balked when asked to take a case representing tobacco companies.
“He walked away from $180,000 a year before bonuses,” recalled his dad, “because he decided his conscience wouldn’t let him.”
One person is already a Senator, and looks on her way to a routine political career. The other is younger and further behind in terms of elected office, but if you had to lay even odds now stands a pretty good chance of being governor some day, and has already done more to impact state politics than anybody ever will as governor. I don't know if Gillibrand makes the same excuses that her defender does, and truthfully I don't know what I myself would do in the same situation. I've never been in it. But if you're wondering about someone's conviction of character, this ain't a bad proxy. If personal accountability is on the wane in New York, in Oregon--at least in District 47--the stock seems look a pretty solid buy.
Saw this on the way back from my interview with Jeremy Wright of the MLS-to-PDX effort; in the wake of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer failure and deep cuts at all of the major Portland papers, it may offer a clue as to why the traditional dead-tree media are having trouble--and it isn't falling ad revenue. I snapped it at First and Yamhill in downtown Portland:
The Oregonian documented every pivot and dunk and referred to parts of the Aug. 4 workout as “awe-inspiring.”
“I’ve got tingles,” Tom Penn, the Trail Blazers’ assistant general manager, told the newspaper.
Oden’s every step has been closely watched in the Pacific Northwest, where expectations have only grown in his absence. The young Blazers surprised the league by going 41-41 last season without him. Oden will join a lineup flush with budding talent, including the All-Star guard Brandon Roy, forwards LaMarcus Aldridge and Travis Outlaw and the sharpshooter Martell Webster.
Oden’s return should push the Trail Blazers into playoff contention for the first time since 2003, and perhaps into title contention in the near future. Coming out of Ohio State, Oden was viewed as a once-in-a-generation center, a skilled, powerful big man who could dominate the paint for the next decade. A year spent in the training room has hardly diminished those hopes.
“Once we selected Greg Oden, expectations just went out the roof,” Coach Nate McMillan said. “You immediately start thinking championship when you think about Greg Oden. One day you should be winning one. So expectations are very high, even though he hasn’t played one game. You can’t control that.”
That's a two year old picture by the way, from his Ohio State days--it just happened to be the one that came up first and most interestingly in my search for an accompanying image. I'm sure all the girls he dances with now wear pants. :) But folks in Oregon are definitely feeling about Oden and the Blazers like a pantsless sorority girl; only about 100 season tickets remain, with around 300 11-game packages left. The days just two short years ago, when people literally gave away tickets in the 200s just before gametime (I know, I got a pair) are over. Walk up tickets? Feh! Better craigslist it, my brotha. But it's gonna be sweet.
I've been a bit remiss in failing to note that my favorite New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof, who grew up on a sheep and cherry farm near Yamhill, Ore., has recently returned to his column after an extended book leave.
Kristof has often been a solitary light in the mainstream media consistently trying to draw attention to the tragic genocide taking place in Darfur.
And you'll remember that he was one of the loudest voices in the MSM willing to question the accuracy of Bush Administration claims that Iraq posed an "imminent threat." It's certainly good to have him back. That's especially true when he writes about things nobody else wants to seriously discuss. His Jan. 31 column "The Dynastic Question" is a great example.
We Americans snicker patronizingly as "democratic" Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Singapore, India and Argentina hand over power to a wife or child of a former leader. Yet I can’t find any example of even the most rinky-dink "democracy" confining power continuously for seven terms over 28 years to four people from two families. (And that’s not counting George H.W. Bush’s eight years as vice president.)
Perhaps there is some such "democracy" somewhere: If you know of one, report it on my blog, and I’ll support you for president in eight years time ... and then your spouse ... and then your eldest child.
...We remember John Quincy Adams as intelligent and diligent, but his presidency is diminished by the hint of dynastic succession and is seen as emblematic of a parochial time when America was ruled by an incestuous elite. Some day, I suspect we may detect the same narrowness in the rise of the Bush Dynasty and, if there is one, in the Clinton Dynasty.
...Certainly, it’s easy to see why voters nostalgic for peace and prosperity might yearn for a Clinton Restoration. Maybe we want another political dynasty, but we shouldn’t back into one without discussion — again.
In a country of several hundred million people, the idea that two families are put in charge for nearly three decades really flies in the face of a populist democracy. And it doesn't speak well for the imagination of our populace or its leaders.
Maybe we ought to start calling this government a "nepocracy" and change the National Anthem to the theme from Sanford & Son.
The New York Times took notice of the Portland cycling scene again today with a feature story about how the city is acting to protect cyclists.
..."bike boxes" will be laid out on the roadway to provide a clearly designated place for cyclists, in front of and in full view of drivers, to wait for traffic lights to change. The boxes will be marked with signs and wide stripes alerting drivers to stop behind them at red lights.
More publicity for Portland on the heels of last month's Wall Street Journal article about Rep. Earl "Bikeman" Blumenauer.
And although Portland's reputation as a bike mecca continues to grow, I have to question the wisdom of some of these latest "taffic control" moves.
As the story notes, the bike boxes are intended chiefly to reduce the risk of “right hook” collisions, the kind most frequently reported in Portland, in which a driver makes a right turn without seeing a cyclist who often approaches from behind and moves into the driver’s path as the driver slows or waits to turn.
Drivers will not be allowed to pass through the bike box to turn right on a red light, although many right hooks now occur after the light has turned green.
Although the boxes are a nice try, the reality is that as long as the government continues to give cyclists the common-sense-defying message that it is safe to pass on the right a vehicle that is turning right, people are going to continue to get hurt no matter how many lines Sam Adams paints on the ground or how many colors he uses.
The person best equipped to avoid the “right hook” situation is the bicyclist.
Everything that cyclist needs to know to avoid the collision is literally right in front of him or right next to him, and the cyclist has the most unobstructed view. When Portland office of Transportation Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller tells the Times that the bike boxes will be in place because “we want (drivers) to have that visual cue to take a look over their shoulder,” he’s basically admitting that fact.
Yet the law puts the burden on the driver, who has to use his mirror or crane his neck through numerous blind spots. It defies reason, and because of that, if the government keeps sending people into that "right hook" maelstrom under the ruse that it's OK because it's painted lines on the road and told drivers to look out, well, people are going to continue to get smacked.
No matter how careful drivers are, every once in a while someone's going to make a mistake. And because you've taken responsibility out of the hands of the cyclist -- the person in the best position to avoid the crash -- and put it in the hands of the person in the worst position, accidents are going to happen.
Years ago when I was a bike messenger (some of my cohorts are still “on the job”) before there were bike lanes and before cycling was a political movement, we avoided the “right hook” situation like the plague. I wouldn't even put myself in that position at an intersection with a car that wasn't signaling a turn. Yet it takes place everyday now in Portland -- under government orders.
As long as that’s the case, every once in awhile people are going to be hurt in collisions they could have avoided.
So please stop telling people it is a good idea to approach and pass a vehicle in an intersection where that vehicle has the opportunity to turn into their path!
One more thing: If you expect the government to guarantee your safety in an environment where you are on a 20-pound bike among 3,000-pound vehicles, you ought to hang up your pedals right now, 'cause "Uncle Sam" simply cannot deliver that. You need to undersatand this fact before you ever head out the door.
The New York Times has partnered up with monster.com to offer access to information about jobs and best practices in human resource management.
Today I found this link at NYT.com. "Hire Great People: 10 Simple Rules."
I decided to take a look at it and see whether these rules might help the Democratic voters of Oregon choose between the two leading applicants for the very important job that will be filled in May: our nominee to oppose faux-moderate Senator Gordon Smith.
Earlier this year, Senator Ron Wyden got a bit of ink -- including a mention in Jane Mayer's article on the Central Intelligence Agency's black sites in The New Yorker -- for putting a hold on the nomination of John Rizzo as general counsel of the CIA. As a result of the hold, the Bush administration withdrew the nomination.
But as articles in the International Herald Tribune and elsewhere pointed out, by the time Wyden placed his hold, Rizzo had already served as acting general counsel for most of the past six years.
In August, I wrote a letter to Wyden, asking him whether his hold on Rizzo's nomination to permanent status would have "any effect on his status as de facto general counsel at the CIA."
Yesterday, of course, news came out that the CIA had destroyed "at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency's custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program."
According to the article from The New York Times:
The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said.
As the general counsel to the CIA, there's a vanishingly small possibility that John Rizzo was not involved in any decisions about what did or did not "expose agency officials to legal risks" or whether the existence of the videotapes should be shared with the various committees investigating both the 9/11 attacks and CIA detention programs.
In his response to me -- coincidentally dated Halloween -- Wyden says he placed his hold on Rizzo because of his demonstrated willingness to "let major programs go forward without a firm legal foundation in place", referring specifically to the 2002 Justice Department legal opinion on what constitutes torture.
At Wyden's August town hall, I asked him whether he trusted the Bush administration. My interpretation of his "trust but verify" comment then was that deep down Wyden did trust the administration to do the right thing, despite years of obvious lying to Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world. Maybe even to themselves. After I posted about his remark, one of his aides reportedly told torridjoe from Loaded Oyrgun that "Wyden does NOT trust the President on Iraq, Iran and civil liberties."
Wyden's Halloween letter to me ends this way:
I am pleased the the President has withdrawn Mr. Rizzo's nomination, and I am hopeful that the President will now pick somebody who will ensure that our national counterterrorism programs have the solid legal foundation they need.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
The Oregonian documented every pivot and dunk and referred to parts of the Aug. 4 workout as “awe-inspiring.”
As the story notes, the bike boxes are intended chiefly to reduce the risk of “right hook” collisions, the kind most frequently reported in Portland, in which a driver makes a right turn without seeing a cyclist who often approaches from behind and moves into the driver’s path as the driver slows or waits to turn.