Easy Sunday: Indian summer frost alert

At 2:30 a.m. I got the alert that woke me: 34 degrees.

I got up and drove to the farm.

It is 4:40 a.m. as I type this. Here at the farm it is 32.3 degrees.There are two more hours before daylight and about three hours before the temperature starts rising. This is the readout from the electronic thermometer:

The numbers on the thermometer tell the story of Indian summer in Medford, Oregon. Look at the daily swings over the past seven days. Afternoons the past week have been in the 90s in the shade; hotter still in the sun. Hot days are good for ripening a grape crop. Yet this morning, and for the next two mornings, it might freeze at the vineyard. The big swings in daily temperature used to confound me as a child going to school, needing to wear a warm jacket in the morning, but hating even to carry it when coming home in the afternoon. We have days like this in early October.

There is a critical difference for a grape crop between a chilly low of 33 degrees and a frost of 30 or 31.  A frost of a couple of hours doesn't destroy the grapes, but it kills the leaves. Grapes need leaves to finish ripening. 

The wind machines came on at the temperature I set the automatic sensor on the machines: 34 degrees. Wind machines stir up the air, mixing the cold air that settles at ground level with warmer air above it -- if, in fact, there is warmer air above it.  Sometimes it is cold all the way up, and wind turbulance does no good.

The machines are loud. They are dramatic-looking in the predawn darkness. The rumble in a way that reminds me of the airport scene at the end of the movie Casablanca. 

I am waiting and watching the temperature drop.

Thirty minutes ago I got a fresh alert: 32.6. 

I just got another alert as I finished proofreading the post: 31.0 degrees at 6:01 a.m. It is frosting now at three feet in elevation, grape height. 

There is nothing more I can do. It will probably keep getting colder, or it won't. It isn't up to me. I let my mind settle on that thought. I am a passenger, not the driver. I feel helpless, but not alone. I am rooted in the common experience of farmers since the beginning of time. 

Oh-oh.  30.2 degrees at 6:28.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.] 

Guest Post: A close look at healthcare as big business

There is money to be made by consolidating and rationalizing health care into big businesses.

That’s why it is happening.

If the goal is good health care, it’s a bad idea.

My friend Bruce Van Zee is a retired physician. He, too, writes commentary in a web log: https://substack.com/@bvzcvz. His latest post appeared there yesterday.

A process is underway in the U.S. that I liken to the absorption of small family farms into corporate ones, which took place over the 20th century and continues. The economic forces corporatizing health care, changing its goal from community health to profit-seeking, are moving much faster. They work inside insurance companies, government reimbursers, and physician and hospital offices. Van Zee spent a career inside medicine, practicing in Medford. Southern Oregon’s large regional hospital, Asante, is a community-owned nonprofit with a board of directors. Great forces are pushing Asante and every other health care provider toward economic profit, but we still have choices, and they are the community's to make. That means we need to pay attention.

Guest Post by Bruce Van Zee

I shared concerns about increasing corporatization of health care in earlier posts (here) and (here). Additionally, a WSJ series on the big for-profit conglomerates and their impact on cost of the Medicare Advantage program showed the many ways for-profit companies and private equity are being attracted to the health care markets. 

Suffice to say that there is little data that these increasingly prevalent conglomerates and national players improve the quality of care but lots of evidence that they increase costs. And in some well demonstrated cases (denial of care requests, restrictive provider panels) they sacrifice delivery of care to increase profits. In our own backyard, private equity companies and out of area management companies have taken over many the of veterinary care clinics in Southern Oregon with a demonstrable increase in pricing, but not so much in service or quality. The focus of my post today is whether we might be seeing encroachment by management on clinical services in Rogue Valley’s health care systems, specifically Asante Health system in Southern Oregon

Nationally, in response to corporate inroads, states have enacted corporate practice of medicine acts (CPOM) designed to protect clinical decision making from corporate control. Oregon passed a revision of its CPOM in July 2025, Senate bill 951. The first test was a lawsuit by Eugene Emergency Physicians against their prior employer of 35 years, Peace Health in Eugene, Oregon. Peace Health is a Washington based non-profit Catholic system that operates nine hospitals and other clinics throughout the Northwest including Sacred Heart Medical Center in Eugene.

The saga began when Peace Health notified Eugene Emergency Physician group of its intent to terminate their relationship and replace them with a corporate group newly formed and wholly controlled by ApolloMD out of Georgia. The judge hearing the case felt that the legal arrangements of ApolloMD were analogous to a shell company practice management firm and violated Oregon’s CPOM. Peace Health subsequently agreed to recontract with Eugene Emergency Physicians. The constraints and intent of the CPOM held.

Hospitals are generally excluded from some of the CPOM restrictions, but there is deepening concern about changes taking place in Asante hospital systems in Medford, Oregon; although there is no evidence of outside private equity or other corporate player (and Asante administration denies any plans for sale or merger). But the same encroachment of clinical decision making can occur in not-for-profit systems for other reasons (here). Over the past year or so, Asante administration has fired all 9 neonatologists at Rogue Regional Medical Center, terminated the contract of their hospitalist physicians, terminated discussions with Oregon Health Authority about plans to purchase an outpatient surgery center (and then purchased the real estate for $10 million and shuttered it with no disclosed plans for its future purpose).

It appears the contract terminations and firings of physicians were because of resistance to some requests of administration to modify clinical practices rather than medical errors or incompetence. Administration assures us that the terminated physicians will be replaced – will it include temporary physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants? It appears that Asante wishes to contract individually with replacement physicians and providers to exert more control. Some of them will be short term contracted physicians who may not even live in the valley. While most nurse practitioners and PA’s show good outcomes and metrics with outpatient care, the more urgent critical nature of inpatient illness may require higher levels of training and could result in lower quality outcomes.

Asante management has expressed frustration and irritation at the Oregon Health Authority, Oregon’s Corporate Practice of Medicine act (Senate bill 951), and Oregon’s Health Care Market Oversight (HCMO). The Oregon Health Authority’s employs the HCMO for review of mergers and acquisitions. While there may be legitimate concerns about occasional excessive red tape, the intent of the CPOM is to assure physician and provider clinical judgment is not usurped by administration. And the intent of the Market Oversight law is to protect consumers from harmful consolidation and predatory practices.

Asante is also involved in contentious negotiations with the ONA for a new nursing contract. A satellite facility, Ashland Community Hospital has been significantly downsized. Asante’s website FAQ’s confirms plans for the release of approximately 300 employees following as many as 400 in the past two years. The impact of these changes on the staff and employees of Asante has led to many departures, resignations, and physicians leaving the area, causing shortages of access to needed care and prolonged waiting times for appointments. Staff and physician morale have suffered. Recruiting seems to be negatively impacted.

Asante management has claimed these changes are all needed because of significant financial “headwinds”. Concerned and knowledgeable observers note, however, that Asante’s financials appear reasonably stable with positive margins through the latest release of fiscal year 2025 and a consistently excellent bond rating by Fitch. But the future financial health of Asante may well be negatively impacted by the loss of FEMA funds (that were awarded during the pandemic) and the severe Medicaid cuts by the OBBBA. These are challenges many hospitals face, particularly in rural areas.

Clearly, the collaborative relationship and trust between many health care providers and administration have broken down as administration seeks more control over traditionally clinical areas in which physicians had voice. And a robust, trusting relationship between clinical staff and administration is needed if these barriers to financial sustainability and quality of care are to be overcome. Management moved recently to change Asante’s bylaws to further exclude physician input and even those of Board members not on the executive committee. We hear from many physicians and nurses that there has been no collaboration between parties, only seemingly top-down decisions without a clear long-term strategy to stabilize and improve quality and access to care.

At this writing, all the facts are not publicly available nor is the long-term strategic plan for these changes clear. But concern for the quality of care that traditionally has been a source of community pride is growing. Over the years, Asante garnered awards for excellence because of the collaboration of administration and the clinical staff. That is being threatened in the current atmosphere. Administration can set the stage for clinical quality of care by virtue of its policies. But ultimately, only clinicians can deliver excellent quality of care. And current policies and actions by Asante are making that problematic.

It is incumbent upon the Asante Board in its oversight role to examine these disturbing trends and provide transparency to the hospital staff, providers, and the larger community, but so far Asante Board members have refused requests for a dialogue. The Board seems to have lost its voice. Let’s hope that changes. While board members should not be involved in micro-management, they have an overriding duty of oversight and loyalty to the institutional mission and are ultimately responsible for administrative actions. It is past time for them to step up.

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.] 

 

Seven dollar diesel!!

"The back bone connected to the neck bone,
The neck bone connected to the head bone,
Oh, hear the word of the Lord."
African-American spiritual, from Ezekiel 37.

You can't "fix" diesel prices without disrupting a complex international supply chain involving multiple products.

Service station near the farm

Trump announced a bright idea in late September. It was simple, understandable, crude, and selfish. We would ban exports of diesel. We would hog it for ourselves. It would hurt everyone else, especially our European allies and friends, but so what? It would mean an oversupply of diesel in the U.S. and would lower our prices. Oil companies wouldn't like it, but Trump has been very good to them so they will complain but stay on Trump's team. Trump would look like a can-do problem-solver and his popularity would soar. 

What's not to like?

This week Trump said the idea was never serious. Nevermind. Trump learned that diesel is complicated. You cannot help purchasers of diesel without, simultaneously, hurting purchasers of diesel, plus everyone else. It would create more economic chaos. Jim Stodder offered to explain it to me. He is a college classmate, but didn't graduate with me in 1971. He dropped out his senior year, spent his 20s working as a roughneck in the oil industry in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Latin America, then returned, finished college, then earned a Ph.D. in economics at Yale. 

Stodder

Guest Post by Jim Stodder 

Trump’s noves on diesel 

My brother just asked me what I thought about Trump’s threat to cut off diesel exports. Wasn’t it a good move? After all, it got the EU to open up its diesel reserves.

OK, it does make a kind of sense. But there was a lot of improvising along the way. The original idea was simple: the U.S. is a big exporter of oil and natural gas, and our exporters get a higher price abroad than they would at home.

So in a simpler world, if we stop diesel exports, foreign prices go up and domestic prices fall – a lot. Foreigners cry, but who cares?

Here’s the problem. The East Coast gets most of its fuel by pipeline from the Gulf Coast, and those pipelines run at or near capacity. The rest has to come from abroad. The US is a net exporter of petroleum distillates, but by the US Energy Information Administration’s numbers, imports equal about a quarter of what the East Coast consumes in oil and petroleum products. Canada is the largest single supplier, at more than a third. Trump’s 50 percent tariffs on Canada exempt energy, but an export ban would push up world prices, and East Coast importers pay world prices. They won’t be happy on the East Coast, and lower prices elsewhere will piss off the oil-producing states.

Trump thought this one through about as well as he did the Strait of Hormuz. The domestic half of his export ban was a bust – he even admitted it could drive up gasoline prices. But the foreign half scared the EU, with its shaky economies. So Europe agreed to release diesel reserves to get him to back off – from something he now realizes he shouldn’t do anyway.

But those EU reserves won’t last forever, and Iranian or Houthi drones over Hormuz and the Red Sea aren’t going away anytime soon.

But don’t worry – Trump’s people are working on an oil deal with Russia! Just like the good old days. Remember Rex Tillerson? As CEO of Exxon, he got the Order of Friendship from Putin, one of Russia’s highest honors for foreigners, for teaming Exxon up with Russia’s state oil giant. Then Trump made him secretary of state, the senior cabinet post, in 2017.

He’d love to be buds with Vlad again. They both love oil and gas, and both admire Slavic beauty. What sickens me is that Ukraine will get screwed. I see this as the most important international conflict since WWII. We were on the right side, but Trump is flirting with the bad guys.

And China? It holds 66 percent of the world’s manufacturing capacity for EVs, 73 percent for wind turbines, 83 percent for batteries, and 92 percent for solar panels. Look it up; see the numbers.


We’re handing China the keys to the energy of the 21st century while our gas jalopy sputters along, and Trump dreams of Russian oil and Russian babes.

If every country gets the leader it deserves, we’d better start praying for forgiveness.

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]  

Debate night: Tina Kotek versus Christine Drazan

Nobody screwed up.

Both candidates are smart and articulate.

Drazan is a Republican. Kotek is the Democratic governor. That is the takeaway from last night's Oregon gubernatorial debate.

Back to the slugfest of negative ads.

A debate like this one is an exercise in earnestness. It is a celebration of sober, intelligent, good-government citizenship: people making reasoned, rational choices about their future.

Southern Oregon University partnered in it; SOU is an institution in the business of informing a citizenry. It is a public-service feather in the cap of KOBI, a locally owned TV station, to have produced and aired it, and it did so acting like a public utility, not a commercial station with a hot ticket to surround with fast-food ads. They are proud of being a civic asset; I counted six KOBI NBC5 logos on the screen. Here is a YouTube link to the debate.

Both candidates spoke in complete sentences; indeed, complete paragraphs. They are both pros.

My takeaway: from a competency point of view, Oregonians are in good hands either way. We have two informed, reasonable, articulate people who aren't kooks. Whew.

Drazan had a point to make, and she worked it into answers to questions: Oregon isn't doing so well, and Governor Kotek is at fault. Drazan cited businesses leaving the state, Oregon's high taxes compared to other states, and poor educational performance. She cited Oregon's estate tax as a reason people leave and she said that she would end it. She said our regulations are more burdensome than other states'. Drazan said Oregon has one-party rule and Democrats don't share power with Republicans, so if there are problems (and there are), blame Democrats. 

Kotek made her own point in her one-minute answers: Oregon is doing OK, problems are being addressed, and the big problems facing Oregon come from policies initiated by President Trump, policies Drazan supports. Oregonians stressed by unaffordable health care and closing hospitals? Trump's Medicaid cuts did that. Oregon businesses hurting? Trump's tariffs did that. Kotek cited instances where Drazan stood with her party and with Trump, including on Trump's attack on our vote-by-mail system.

Drazan never said "Trump." She neither defended nor criticized him. Kotek said "Trump" repeatedly: She protects Oregon from him.

Drazan and Kotek appear to hold essentially the same position on data centers: a moratorium now, with future permits only for projects that prove they will pay their own way.

They clearly disagree on reproductive rights. Kotek holds the standard Democratic position that abortion is health care. Drazan is endorsed by anti-abortion groups and opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. But there is an odd wrinkle: Drazan acknowledged she would be powerless to change Oregon law, at least as long as Democrats hold a majority in the legislature. She would obey current law.

Drazan argued repeatedly that she would simply govern better than Kotek. She would cut waste. She would make state agencies more effective. She would maintain roads and bridges better, with the same amount of money. "I will deliver efficient, accountable, transparent government." There is no real rebuttal to that except the partisanship viewers bring with them. I expect Republicans to find it plausible and Democrats to dismiss it.

Kotek doesn't have a startling can-do success like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's 12-day reopening of I-95 after a bridge collapse in Philadelphia. The quick rescue of Southern Oregon University doesn't have the same impact. Homelessness is reduced but not eliminated. But Kotek does have a card to play: a Trump card. Trump, and now Republicans, are not a symbol of prudent, sensible, effective government. Quite the opposite. Trump represents chaotic destruction.

I expected Drazan to criticize Trump over something, to give herself room to show she was different. She deviated from GOP orthodoxy in only one small way: recounting her girlhood dependence on food stamps and other public benefits. Her family needed them, she said, because her father had trouble finding work. She said those programs need to be well administered, and she did not criticize Trump's changes to SNAP, but her tone toward people who need public benefits was compassionate, not contemptuous.

I suspect nearly everyone who watched was already a partisan, so few votes were changed. Anyone looking for a campaign-killing gaffe was disappointed. 

The debate solidified the one big choice that will decide the election:

Are Salem Democrats the problem, or are President Trump and Republicans who go along with him the problem?

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

LA is a small price to pay

Trump said it. 

The cost of the war with Iran might include Iran destroying Los Angeles and San Diego. 

The Nebraska crowd cheered.

Trump:

It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles, let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay and it's going to be over very soon. It's essentially almost over with, and they might keep going a little long, you know? They always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it, let me tell you, they need it. But it's going to end very soon. It will end one way or another.

Trump knows Americans are unhappy. Gasoline is up 25 percent, and inflation is running about 3.5 percent a year. That may cost him one or both chambers of Congress. Call it what it is: a form of regime change. Meanwhile, Iranians have endured the sudden death of their top leaders, the destruction of military sites, schoolgirls killed, shortages of food and fuel, and hyperinflation. Yet their new government remains secure in office. Moreover, their bombed-out military is somehow driving our forces from their bases and our aircraft carriers out of the region. This week they even chased American B-1 bombers out of the United Kingdom. Like the old Timex watch, Iran can take a licking and keep on ticking. Not us.

I am accustomed to this from Trump. It means nothing.

More interesting is the crowd's response. The cheering started at the names of the cities. That didn't surprise me. Trump has twice been elected president by dividing the country. There are friends and there are enemies. Trump doesn't express respect for the "loyal opposition." He rewards his friends and destroys his enemies. He moved U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama, and he didn't bother with a pretext. He said he did it because Colorado votes by mail and Alabama does not.

This partisan notion of reward and punishment has drifted out into the zeitgeist. It isn't just Republican leaders and voters. MSNBC interviews Iowa farmers who voted for Trump and are now in distress from his tariffs. Social media passes around memes of MAGA voters hoist on their own petard. There is joy in the misfortune of foolish people whose votes backfired.

The country has changed in the past 25 years. When planes struck the World Trade Center, we all became New Yorkers. It was an attack on us.

At a 2015 campaign rally in Alabama, Trump spoke of Muslims celebrating:

Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.

What he described did not happen. There is no record of anything remotely like it. It was a lie Trump wanted to tell. 

Trump was finding an audience and shaping it: There are enemies among us. They hate us, so we can hate them. Trump did not create this zeitgeist out of nothing. People have wished ill on their enemies forever. But Trump trades in this emotion, inflames it, and profits politically from describing internal enemies. It secures his base. It is part of what historians will examine when they write about the Trump era in American politics.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Someone needs to lead.

"Presidential power is the power to persuade."
          Presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power, 1960

Better a bad leader than no leader.

Trump fills a void.

When I look for the next Democratic leader, I will be looking for someone articulate, charismatic, bold, decisive, and willing to confront and disagree with people in his or her own party. A president needs to be a salesman willing to sell.

Democrats shake their heads in wonderment that the country, including Republicans who otherwise seem to be good, reasonable people of decent character, voted for and continues to support Donald Trump. How can they tolerate in a president a person they would not use as a trustee of their estate, a business partner, the manager of a cash business, or the executive director of a tiny nonprofit, or trust to drive a teenage daughter home from babysitting?

Gallup polling supplies some of the answer. We are at a time of profound skepticism about the institutions of our society. In the public's eye, they are all more or less flawed. Corrupt. Incompetent.

"Small business" partially survives the skeptical mood because it is not an institution. It is different people and organizations competing with each other for business.

Democrats are playing with weak cards when they insist that President Trump follow the Constitution and respect congressional prerogatives and power. Congress should write the tariff law? Congress should exercise the power to go to war? Congress should write immigration policy? Congress cannot agree on important matters, and it is as conflicted and corrupted by special interests as is Trump.

Do we trust the military? Yes and no. My own feeling of support for the U.S. military took a deep dive in 1968, when it promulgated a policy of winning the Vietnam War through attrition and comparative body counts. That was me, the potential trade. My respect has grown back in recent years, rooted in the military's own culture of honor and duty, when Trump considered using it to back his effort to stay in office after the 2020 election. It refused him. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is openly replacing military institutionalists with Trump loyalists. Are they trustworthy now? I don't know.

The Supreme Court's switch on Roe v. Wade revealed that the court is a lagging-indicator political body, now reflecting America's turn from Warren Court equality in various spheres to MAGA backlash against that. It is making controversial social policy because Congress fails to do it. Its decision to give presidents immunity from following the law destroyed its credibility with Democrats and will destroy it with Republicans the next time there is a willful Democratic scofflaw president.

President Trump holds power by process of elimination. No other governing institution is willing to stop him from doing anything he really wants to do. He exercises the fundamental power of the presidency: persuading Republican officeholders that what he is doing is in America's interest, and, moreover, that challenging Trump would cost them personally. 

Throughout Biden's presidency I bemoaned his incapacity to communicate to Americans the value of what he was doing. Behind the scenes, he carried out an Elizabeth Warren set of policies. Those policies needed to be explained, defended, and sold. The effort to sell them would have brought its own self-correction. If you cannot sell it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in a democracy. Biden couldn't sell. That set up Trump to be a change agent.

Trump filled the void.

I blame Republican voters and officeholders for tolerating such a morally defective leader, but they are not wrong to say that Democrats gave them a weak choice in the 2024 election. Kamala Harris positioned herself as Biden's successor. She didn't lead.

Trump's depravity and dishonesty leaves a moral leadership void. His destruction of our trade networks and military alliances leave a strategic void. Trump represents the "destructive" phase of progress by creative destruction. It is not clear to me that Republicans are exhausted by his destruction. 

Democrats seem ready to repair and rebuild. They don't need a policy wonk to do this. They need a salesman who tells us what he is doing, and why it makes America great.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Artificial Intelligence ethics

Google's Gemini artificial intelligence program stopped my experiment.

I was seeing what it would allow in a political ad.

My first prompt asked Gemini to create a photorealistic image of a pile of U.S. currency and told it to label it: "Campaign contributions." It made this in a few seconds. 

That assured me that someone could, indeed, use AI to make a campaign ad. The image looked pretty good to me, and I was amazed that a few typed words from me would generate a usable image. 

Next, I wanted to see if it would insert an image of a real person into this image. I moved my photo into the prompt box and told it to label it "Earned every penny himself." Gemini complied immediately: 

Then I wanted to see if it would replace the image of me with an image of Republican state Senate candidate Brad Hicks, and insert new text. I took this photo from Hicks' campaign website. I prompted it to change the label to "Republican PAC money." I told it to put in smaller type below that label, "Source, Oregon Secretary of State, ORESTAR, October 5, 2026." 

I had to remind Gemini what, exactly, it was replacing: Swap out me; put in Hicks.

Gemini responded with this:

I cannot fulfill this request. I am unable to modify or generate images that place real people, public figures, or political candidates into misleading or unverified contexts, such as depicting them surrounded by cash with political labels.

When a request involves combining a real person's likeness with specific political commentary or text overlays (like" Republican PAC money") it raises several critical safety ad policy considerations:

It listed concerns over "Misinformation or Deception," "Defamation Risks," and "Ethics and Public Trust." It said it could generate an entirely fictional, generic illustration depicting political fundraising and campaign financing, but without using a specific person's name or likeness.

Good for Gemini. I am happy that Gemini's creators have some restraints. 

An image of Hicks, happily sitting chest-deep in cash, attributes personality and emotions to him that move him from the original context of the photo (a staged conversation with a voter) into him sitting in a pool of money. A partisan might justify that as "true in spirit." A partisan might justify it by saying that Hicks is doing the same thing to his opponent, Democrat Denise Krause, placing her photo next to Governor Tina Kotek, placing her in a new context of making a speech at the state capitol; plus, he asserts without evidence that she would be a rubber stamp for Democrats. Her being a rubber stamp is a presumption, not a fact. (Of course, it is a guess, a presumption, that Hicks would  be a puppet in Trump's Republican Party.) So turnabout is fair play, right? If Hicks or Krause dishes out partisan disinformation, each deserves the same in return. Right?

Not right to me. Better to be literally true than "metaphorically true." I realize that a text in this blog describing the hundreds of thousands of dollars of Republican PAC money funding the Hicks campaign, does not have the emotional power of seeing Hicks smiling chest-deep in PAC dollars. The image is fake, but memorable. It is a blunt statement. This blog is a different medium, with limitations and strengths. My thought is that I am trying to be in the truth business, not the "metaphorically true" business. The simple truth reported by the secretary of state is persuasive intellectually, if not emotionally. My hope is that there is a slow drift from rational thought into emotional gut feel. People sometimes check their guts. Data matters. Truth exists. And people who have data may punch above their weight in influencing others. That is the thought.

Go to the Oregon Secretary of State's official record of contributions. Click the "Campaign Finance Transactions" tab on the left, and enter the Hicks Campaign ID, 24485, in the box at the top. To see who Hicks' Chamber PAC supported over the years, enter Campaign ID 5067. To see who is funding Krause, enter ID 22966.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]