Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts

Thursday, July 14, 2011

They Call Him 'Chainsaw'



When I was a child, my parents took my brother and me on several summer road trips through the eastern United States.

I think that statement requires a little context.

In the years before my brother and I came along, my parents were missionaries in Africa. While they were there, they became close friends with their colleagues. I don't know if their friends returned to America before or after my parents did, but it turned out that all their friends were in the eastern half of the continent — so, for a time, vacations meant planning trips based on who lived where.

In those days, it was entertaining simply to watch my parents unfold maps on the dining room table and plot the routes from one friend's home to another with felt–tip pens. Our starting point was our home in Conway, Ark. Our destination was Vermont, where a couple of my parents' closest friends lived. We saved money by spending the nights with friends all the way to Vermont and all the way back.

(It was a rare treat in those days for us to stay in a motel. For my brother and me, it meant being able to swim in a motel swimming pool.)

I guess I don't need to tell you that our route was never a straight line — and we must have made that trip three or four times when I was a child.

The itinerary was never the same, but this might give you an idea of what our trips were like. One year, I recall, we took kind of a northerly approach, stopping in Kentucky, then Pennsylvania, then New York, on our way to Vermont, then we took a southerly route home, stopping in Virginia, then North Carolina, then Tennessee. Each time we stayed with friends (well, the stop in New York was to visit my father's sister and her family).

I thought it was kind of cool, actually. Because of those road trips, I figured I had visited more states than just about anyone in my class at school. And, because I was born overseas, I figured it was a sure thing that I had been to more countries than any of my classmates.

To put it in Charlie Sheen lingo, I felt I was winning.

But, if I haven't already surrendered my crown (and I may have — who knows how many states my former classmates have visited since we graduated from high school?), I would probably have to turn it over to a fellow who was actually a year behind me in school — but, before 2011 is over, he may have visited more states than I have ... and he's been doing it the hard way.

His name is Jeff. He teaches physical education in Fayetteville, Ark., the town where I earned my B.A., but he grew up with me in Conway. We knew each other as children. I don't remember if we attended the same elementary school, but I know we were in Cub Scouts together.

In high school, we kind of ran in separate crowds. I was always more interested in writing, working for the school newspaper, that kind of thing. Jeff was always part of the circle of athletes, the guys who could always be seen wearing their letterman jackets or their football jerseys.

Jeff acquired a nickname when we were in school. Because of his ferocious tenacity, he earned the name Chainsaw. No matter what might stand in his way, folks said, he would rip into it like a chainsaw. No holds barred. "Straight ahead" was his attitude about, well, everything.

Our families were acquainted as well. His father and my father were colleagues at a small private college. My father taught religion and philosophy there. Jeff's father was a coach, specializing in swimming. He built a successful program that included using the college's pool to teach children in the community to swim.

Jeff was one of the youngest in a rather large family, and he was always close to his father. I remember attending the high school graduation ceremony the year Jeff graduated. His father was a member of the local school board (the middle school in my hometown now bears his name), and, that evening, he was handing the diplomas to the graduates after someone else called their names.

He shook their hands, they smiled at each other, they might exchange brief pleasantries, then it was time to give the diploma to the next one. Pretty innocuous stuff.

When Jeff's name was called and he strode across the stage, father and son embraced to a thundering, spontaneous ovation. No one in that gymnasium that night could help but be moved by the sight.

Sadly, Jeff's father passed away in 1997. I don't know the details, but I believe he suffered from some kind of respiratory disease — an ironic way for an athletic life to end.

As I say, Jeff also is involved in physical education. I have no doubt he was strongly influenced by his father's example — as he was a year ago when he was diagnosed with cancer.

Jeff's admiration for his father is evident on his Facebook page, where he attributes (falsely) his favorite quotation to his father: "Be kind to everyone because everyone you meet is fighting a battle."

(I'm sure Jeff's father said that many times — it's the kind of thing I would have expected him to say to his children — but he probably never told them that it was really Plato who was responsible for it.

(That's OK, though. I don't think Plato would have objected if Jeff's father took credit for it.)

And Jeff appears to be winning his battle with cancer. In fact, he's doing so well that he's been trying to raise awareness of leukemia and lymphoma with a cross–country bicycle ride that began about three weeks ago in Oregon.

His friends and family have kept track of his progress through the updates and pictures he's been posting on Facebook.

An avid fisherman, Jeff has reported stopping at some rivers to do some fishing along the way. He appears to pitch his tent wherever he can — although, like my parents, he's been making some stops at friends' homes. He reported, for example, that he stopped in Boise for a few days of R&R with some friends around the Fourth of July.

Sometimes, the wind is at his back, and he makes more progress than he expected. His original goal was to cover 70 miles a day traveling at roughly 10 miles per hour, but he actually covered about 85 miles when he left the coast. "Great day in the saddle," he wrote.

"The coast of Oregon is a feast for the eyes around each bend."

Conditions continued to be favorable as he made his way through Oregon. A few days later, he wrote this: "McKenzie River. Gonna fish here today. Pedaled up the river from Corvallis yesterday 90 miles slight uphill. The weather is great. ... Slept in an old growth forest last night. ... This part of Oregon is very lush with lots of rain."

Then there are times when conditions are not so favorable. "Met my match today with the toughest climb I have had yet," he wrote last week.

"The ride down the main Salmon was nice and then once in White Bird the climb started 11 miles at 8% grade for 3200 vertical feet. The legs had a hard time responding after three days fishing in Boise, will begin my ascent over Lolo Pass tomorrow."

His latest post on Facebook says he is in Montana now. "The big open country of SW Montana makes one feel small," he writes. "In Virginia City now."

Montana, he wrote yesterday, "gave me all I wanted and more. Got hit by a hail storm, 40 mph headwinds and got a dose of the huge country with lonely roads."

In spite of all that, he observed, "This is beautiful country."

I've never been there, but, from what I have heard, it really is.

He closes each post with his signature line — "Straight ahead. Chainsaw."

My understanding is that Jeff won't be going clear across the country. Originally, his plan was for his ride to conclude around the Kansas–Colorado border — and if that is still the plan, then I expect that he will start to move in a more southeasterly direction now, probably taking him through Wyoming and Colorado.

But his plans might have changed. And, if they have, I would recommend that he stay in the northern half of the country. It's just too hot in the central and southern states for extensive bike riding.

Whatever his plans are now, though, I just say, keep going, Chainsaw.

Straight ahead.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

You're Busted!



I've been an advocate of freedom of the press all my life.

And let me tell you, it hasn't always been easy. Because if you're going to support something like freedom of the press, by definition you just about have to be opposed to censorship.

But then we get into something of a gray area. You see, even the most ardent supporters of freedom of the press will agree that there are times when censorship is necessary — and, so, certain concessions had to be made.

We've tried to be careful, even grudging at times, about the restrictions we as a society impose on the press — and we expect publications to honor the restrictions we do deem necessary.

Within the sometimes vague framework our lawmakers have created to govern the behavior of the publishing business (which, for the interests of this article, include broadcasting outlets and any other news gathering/writing outfit), I have found myself supporting some groups I never thought I would support — all in the name of protecting freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

I have always believed those freedoms were essential, but they are not absolute. Certain things are not in good taste. Certain disclosures really could jeopardize national security. People's lives can be unnecessarily threatened if you inject chaos into a previously calm situation — for example, standing up and yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There tend to be very good reasons behind the restrictions that exist, and most newsgathering organizations make an honest effort to follow them. Most of the time it works out pretty well. Credibility is very important to most newsgatherers. Things may have been different when "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was made, but I have never worked for a newspaper that did the kinds of irresponsible things portrayed in the attached clip.

So I would applaud Jimmy Stewart — to an extent — for his defensive response. But his character was a public figure, and he would be sure to attract some attention for it.

Which brings me to today.

I was taking care of some personal business this morning, and, while I was driving around, I heard the end of a radio report about a new publication that currently appears to be available only in Michigan and Oregon, but the goal seems to be to make it available from coast to coast. It is called Busted, a tabloid–style newspaper.

Busted apparently publishes the names and mugshots of people who get arrested for anything and everything.This publication, we are told at its website, is printed weekly and can be found at "convenience store(s), liquor store(s), independent market(s) and gas stations."
"Each week BUSTED publishes hundreds of Mug Shots of Local People throughout your community who were arrested during the previous week.

"Murder to Misdemeanors, Possession to Prostitution. Each week the Busted Crime Investigation Team scours the files of county courthouses across the country, Searching For the Truth!

"Was your neighbor Driving While Intoxicated, Is there a Registered Sex Offender living around the corner; What about that Rapist you heard about on the news; BUSTED Lets You Know!

"Who tops your communities
(sic) Most Wanted list. Have you seen a list of Missing Children lately — BUSTED Keeps You Informed!"

I don't know how this publication presents these police reports. But I know that, when I was a student and then when I was a reporter and an editor, the usual procedure was to say — if it was even deemed necessary to report that someone had been arrested (and if the person was not well known, the tendency was to say, "Who cares?") — that So–and–so was arrested or charged with an offense.

We never referred to anyone in a way that suggested, directly or indirectly, that he/she was guilty. If the case went to court and the defendant was convicted, then we would use that. But we never presumed that an arrest was the same thing as a conviction.

Yet, that is what it seems to me that this publication does — perhaps not so much by design as by implication.

What happens if the charges are dropped? Or if the person who was arrested contests the charges in court and wins?

If that scenario seems far–fetched to you, I can tell you that I was once selected to serve on a jury in a case in which a middle–aged woman had been charged with driving while intoxicated and entered a plea of not guilty. The prosecution had a video tape of the defendant failing field sobriety tests (although other tests revealed no alcohol in her system), but the charges were dropped midway through the prosecution's presentation when her doctor arrived and verified, in a closed–doors conference involving only the judge and the attorneys, that what she had been telling the officer repeatedly on the night she was arrested was true — that she was driving in an unfamiliar area, that she hadn't been drinking and that she was on a prescription medication.

Why hadn't the woman's doctor been consulted before the case wound up in court? I don't know. No one ever told us. Perhaps the doctor had been consulted, but the medication was fairly new and little was known about it when the woman was arrested — and now, the doctor had the results of recent studies that shed new light on the drug's effects. Perhaps the woman had been specifically instructed to take the drug before or after eating and she had done the opposite. Or maybe she had been told not to operate any kind of vehicle after taking the drug.

No such details were provided to us. We were just told that the charges had been dropped, and we were free to go.

Before her arrest, the woman was not a public figure. As I recall, she worked as a secretary. Somehow, her employers found out about her arrest and she was dismissed. I don't think her initial arrest was publicized in any way, but, if it had been, that might have opened the door for a lawsuit against the police (and the media outlet that reported the arrest) that could have been very costly, in more ways than one.

You see, private citizens are entitled to their privacy. Police departments — and news departments — are staffed by people. And people can and do make mistakes.

It's different with public figures. The mayor of your town was willing to trade the privilege of privacy for the honor of serving the public. A star athlete or a rock musician or a popular actor will know he/she cannot go to a restaurant or a bar without somebody noticing — many somebodies if he/she engages in objectionable behavior of any kind.

And if the mayor or a quarterback or the lead singer for a popular band or the star of a popular movie gets arrested for driving while intoxicated, the news will be on TV, radio, internet and the morning newspaper. Then, if it turns out to be a mistake, those outlets will run retractions.

Juries also are staffed by people, and it is possible for a jury to make a mistake as well. But it seems less likely that 12 people will make the same mistake than it does that a reporter and a couple of editors — or a police officer and a couple of his superiors — will make the same mistake.

In other words, when it comes to matters involving criminal justice, we can usually trust the judgment of juries more than we can trust a policeman or a reporter, either of whom may have an ax to grind. Jurors are summoned to a place they seldom visit to hear the facts of a case involving a person whose name they have never heard. They might make a mistake, but, theoretically, they have no prejudice, no agenda.

If Busted is prepared to run a retraction every time an arrest turns out to be unwarranted — and that could be a lot more frequently than anyone bargained for — the editors had better be prepared to set aside a lot of space for that purpose. That shouldn't be a problem in cyberspace, but what about the printed product?

But is a simple retraction enough? Some people may feel that the damage to their reputation and their privacy was so great that the retraction should take as much space and be as prominently placed as the original report.

It may sound like a good idea to publicize every single arrest — maybe it satisfies some internal need — but not every arrest is justified. Busted does post a disclaimer that says, "Any indication of an arrest is not intended to imply or infer that such individual has been convicted of a crime," in the fine print beneath the mugshots, but will that be sufficient as a CYA? Or will those who feel their good names have been smeared by Busted demand that as much space be devoted to the retraction as was dedicated to the report of the arrest?

And which side will justice's scales favor?

We'll find out when the first test case comes up.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Another Senate Pick-up for Democrats

Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith has conceded to his Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkley, who has built a lead of about 50,000 votes with more than 90% of the ballots counted.

Counting independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who have caucused with the Democrats for the last two years, the Democrats have a 57-40 advantage with the outcomes in three Senate races still undetermined.

Here's how things stand at the moment in those three races:
  • Alaska — Incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted in his corruption trial a week before the election, leads his Democratic challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, by less than 5,000 votes.

    That's with 99% of the precincts reporting.

    However, the Anchorage Daily News reports that "[s]till to be counted are roughly 40,000 absentee ballots, with more expected to arrive in the mail, as well as 9,000 uncounted early votes and thousands of questioned ballots."

    Clearly, a 4,000-vote lead might not hold up if about 50,000 ballots haven't been counted yet.

  • Georgia — Incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss leads with nearly 50% of the vote, but state law says he has to receive 50% plus one vote. With 99% of the precincts in Georgia reporting, Chambliss is less than 8,400 votes from his objective.

    The fly in the ointment for Chambliss was an independent candidate who received about 3% of the vote. That translates to more than 125,000 votes. Chambliss led his opponent head to head by just under 120,000 votes.

    So, even though Chambliss leads Democratic challenger Jim Martin, he's apparently going to have to win a Dec. 2 runoff to retain his seat.

    It is likely that some of the independent's supporters will not vote in the runoff. It is also possible that some of the people who supported Chambliss or Martin the first time won't participate the second time.

    However, because Chambliss came so close to the votes he needed the first time — and I presume a voter will only be eligible to vote in the runoff if he/she voted in the general election — I think Martin will have to persuade some of Chambliss' original supporters to switch to him if he is going to have a chance of victory.

    Perhaps Martin can accomplish that by arguing that, with the Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Georgia needs to elect a Democrat to the Senate in order to have any real voice in the federal government.

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution anticipates that both John McCain and Sarah Palin — who carried the state on Tuesday — will come to Georgia to campaign for the senator during the runoff. I expect the Democrats to make a similar effort on Martin's behalf.

  • Minnesota — Incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman leads comedian Al Franken by 221 votes out of nearly 2.9 million counted. An independent candidate drew 15% of the vote.

    Coleman's margin was so small that it will apparently trigger a state law that requires a recount. "Recounts are required in races with a winning margin of less than one-half of 1%," reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

    Less than one-half of 1% would be about 14,000 votes — which means that Coleman's lead clearly is narrow enough to trigger a recount.
So there you have it.

Three Senate races in which Republican incumbents lead narrowly — and in which circumstances exist that could hand victory to their Democratic challengers.

When the final results are known, a decision apparently will need to be made by the Democrats about what is to be done with Joe Lieberman.

Ryan Grim writes at Politico.com that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell — who narrowly survived in his own bid for re-election on Tuesday — has been trying to get Lieberman to join the Republican conference.

Lieberman apparently has been bargaining with the Democratic leadership over his future as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Chairmanship assignments will still be the domain of the Democrats, whether they win those three remaining seats or not.

Lieberman, of course, was once a Democrat and, although he supported John McCain in the presidential election, he did so almost exclusively because he supports the Iraq war and he is a close personal friend of the Arizona senator.

On most issues, however, Lieberman agrees with the Democrats, so he has continued to caucus with them, even after switching to independent status when he was rejected for re-election by the Democrats in his state two years ago.

Grim warns that Democrats may hold a secret vote on Lieberman's future in their caucus. Such a vote, I'm sure, won't occur until we know more about the Senate races in Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota.

Following the 2006 elections, Democrats needed Lieberman and Sanders in order to establish a majority in the Senate. Will they still need him — to achieve greater control over that legislative body?

With a sweep of those last three races, the Democrats could achieve the "filibuster-proof" three-fifths majority they've been coveting — but they can only do so if Lieberman and Sanders continue to caucus with them.

But if even one of the Senate seats remains in Republican hands, the Democrats will fall short of the three-fifths majority.

And then Lieberman may not be viewed as necessary.

To be continued ...