Brad Hicks or Denise Krause: Who started the negative campaigning?

So the campaign turned into a slugfest. 

Does it matter who started it?

Hicks went on TV and lied about negative ads, so I will set the record straight.

KOBI5: Click here

KOBI5 Interviewer: "How has this campaign been between the two of you?"

HICKS: "Well, I'd like to apologize to Southern Oregon on behalf of my opponent, who went negative very early. Uh, I don't like negative campaigning, we've tried to stay above that fray. If you will, uh, um, but I guess that's a sign of desperation, but I, I don't know what you call it. I wish it were cleaner. Um, but, uh, I guess it speaks to our individual personalities. Uh, I like living here and I want people to still say hello to me at the grocery store, so we're trying to keep it clean as much as we can and, uh, uh, we'll leave the dirty stuff to our opponent."

Perhaps Hicks thinks we are blind, deaf, and stupid. "Stay above the fray?" Who are you kidding, Brad? We see your ads!

I don't mind negative ads when they are completely truthful. Criticism of a candidate can expose foolish and unpopular policies. It is part of the self-correcting process of democracy. If a policy or belief is easy to ridicule and makes the candidate look bad, maybe the candidate should change positions. I see negative ads from both Hicks and Krause about every 15 minutes during news shows. Hicks's line, "We'll leave the dirty stuff to our opponent," is laughable in its dishonesty. So Trump-like in its projection.

This campaign is built around a simple truth: Brad Hicks is a Republican. Denise Krause is a Democrat.

 Hicks's problem is that some Republican positions are unpopular. Krause's campaign hammers on those positions. Her ads seem negative because she presses her case: 

-- Most Oregonians support women's right to abortion. 

 -- Most Oregonians like our vote-by-mail system, which Trump has bullied Republicans into trying to change. 

 -- Most Oregonians support the Oregon Health Plan and don't want the Medicaid cuts congressional Republicans enacted, cuts that will cause tens of thousands of Oregonians to lose their insurance. That will leave them at risk of medical bankruptcy and push local hospitals into financial crisis when uninsured patients cannot pay their bills. 

-- Most Oregonians don't like what tariffs have done to gasoline and grocery prices. (As a grower of wine grapes, I most certainly don't like how tariffs have damaged our export markets.) 

Trump is a drag on Republican candidates, but Hicks says nothing to defend Oregon. Krause points that out.

As a Democrat, Krause carries the baggage of long-time Democratic governance in Salem. She is not an incumbent herself, but she has not openly criticized Gov. Tina Kotek, the Oregon Legislature, or her union supporters. Hicks has openings to challenge Krause on issues, but he isn't using them. We aren't learning what he would do differently, and the public is worse off for that. 

Hicks said Krause started the negative ads. No. That is a lie. There is a record. 

No negative TV ads by either candidate ran before September 13. Until then, the ads had been introductory and feel-good: Krause fighting the insurance company and cancer, Hicks assuring us he was a work-across-the-aisle kind of guy. 

On the afternoon of September 13, I saw an advance copy of the first negative TV spot. But on September 8, five days earlier, I received a copy of this door hanger. It had been left on a voter's screen door. It was the first negative ad: "Paid for by Hicks for Senate." 

 

A comparison piece is not necessarily unfair or dishonest, but this one is. It starts with a manipulated, dark-toned photo of Krause with her mouth agape. It calls her an "extremist"; she is, in fact, a perfectly normal Democrat, in no way extreme. It calls her a "rubber stamp," with no basis; she hasn't rubber-stamped anything. It says she will answer to "politicians and special interests." Who says? She hasn't cast a single vote. And the piece practices guilt by association, citing not what Hicks has any reason to think Krause believes, but what third parties in an organization that endorsed her believe.

The door hanger is no better or worse than the ads we see on TV now. It uses the same smear techniques. 

Hicks has filled mailboxes and airwaves doing exactly what he looked right into the camera and claimed he is too good to do.

Spare me the self-righteous, hypocritical dishonesty. "Above the fray." What a crock.

[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.]

---

A tiny piece of good news about Trump corruption

     “No, she wasn’t a member of my family. She, I guess, dated my son a long time ago. She went to Greece, she was doing a good job, but we didn't like what we were reading.  I didn't speak with her, no. She will, uh I didn't like what I read."

Trump comments to reporters on Kimberly Guilfoyle

Kimberly Guilfoyle: terminated as U.S. Ambassador to Greece

We should accept this moment with a good and generous spirit.

Trump corruption has limits.

I share the dismay many readers feel that America has reset its standards of corruption so low that open, proud pay-for-play grift, crypto meme-coin bribery, and pardons-for-donations are tolerated by the congressional maority.  How could we sink so low?

And am I now writing that we should see Trump’s preposterous effort to distance himself from Guilfoyle as something good? Yes.

The fact that Guilfoyle lived with Trump’s son, Don Jr., and was engaged to him, in a relationship that lasted six years and ended only in 2024, makes Trump’s distancing an even more heroic lie. Trump is normally a confident, rapid-fire liar. He appears to believe what he says while he is saying it. It is part of his persuasiveness. The idea in circulation to explain this phenomenon is that Trump doesn’t lie; he truly believes obviously untrue things, then speaks his mind.

His claim that Guilfoyle was some remote stranger was so obvious a lie that he couldn’t get the words out cleanly, by his usual standard. He fumbled. It means Trump has a conscience -- yet more good news.

There is a limit to Trump’s corruption. Family members are exempt, of course, but Guilfoyle was near-family, and she remains a fierce loyalist. She was careless in her grift. There were guilty words in texts. She was either running a shakedown, because she had some knowledge of bad behavior by the favor-seeker, or simply peddling influence without a sufficient cover story. 

Trump avoids putting things in writing, and he always has a pretext ready. His pay-to-play dealmaking has the cover of an “investment” in crypto coins. That was plausible enough that thousands of gullible Trump supporters sent money to get in on the bonanza. They were the suckers. They lost money. The big-money players, the smart money, had no illusions. They knew it was a bribe, not an investment. Their reward was a seat at the dinner party, where Trump could acknowledge their deposit in his favor bank.  

Guilfoyle’s firing is not, however, simply a failing grade in grift-craft. Nor, I think, is it simply a failing grade on the look required in the Trump orbit — her garish plastic surgery having given her the “Mar-a-Lago face” that mangled her appearance and casts shade on the Mar-a-Lago brand. Trump did, in fact, set a boundary. He does not want open grift by non-family loyalists. 

It means something that he does not openly embrace the grift brand. That was in dispute. One could argue that he saw getting money from selling influence as a positive, a sign of dominance — proof that Trump is not a trustee of an office owned by the public, but rather the country’s de facto owner, free to take what he wants. Trump personally takes what he wants. That is established. It was uncertain how far Trump could delegate personal enrichment.

We got the beginning of an answer, a boundary: not as far as Guilfoyle.

In the months ahead we will see other boundaries tested to establish how Trump manages enrichment for an umbra that includes White House staff, cabinet members, major donors, friends of donors, and others. We already know that Republican politicians are “protected” IF they are 100 percent loyal. We saw that scandal-plagued George Santos and Ken Paxton are protected. Guilfoyle now joins former Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in being cast out. We learn who can enrich themselves by inference. Like Trump himself, close family and in-laws can do anything. Very wealthy friends appear to be in the protected class, if loyal. Presidential appointees are a mixed case, requiring more definition. Kash Patel is in, for now. Males have more latitude than females.

The fact that there is any boundary is a positive. Trump is establishing a standard for acceptable corruption, the standard of old Tammany Hall: “honest graft.” 

At least it isn’t a free-for-all.

[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.]

The ghost of Lindsey Graham must be furious

The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 passed with large, bipartisan majorities, and was signed into law by President Donald Trump on September 18, 2026.

This week Trump broke the letter and spirit of the law with a deal for Russia to release 36 million barrels of diesel into the world market.

Russia is supplying Iran with intelligence and weapons that target American soldiers. We are helping finance the war against ourselves.

It sounds crazy. Is Trump is really doing this? He is.

Maybe there is something in it for the Trump family, some deal with Lukoil. Maybe it is wordless signaling, a way to show Ukraine that notwithstanding the Lindsey Graham Act, Trump supports Russia in its war with Ukraine, so Ukraine should give up. Maybe it is political theater to show American buyers of diesel that Trump will do anything to lower the cost of diesel, including financing our enemy.

It is still the oil era. My age cohort left college and graduate school in the early 1970s to experience as adults the disruptions of the first big oil shock. I remember struggling to buy enough gasoline to travel round trip from New Haven to Boston for a weekend. The gasoline stations were out of gas and closed on Sundays. As an aide to U.S. Rep. Jim Weaver (D-OR) in 1977, I staffed a booth at county fairs explaining the congressman's bold proposal that we barter with Middle East oil kingdoms a one-for-one deal: a bushel of wheat for a barrel of oil. The commodities had been at parity, each about three dollars, a price Americans considered fair. But in 1977 oil now cost us $12/barrel. Weaver was a Democrat with a good feel for a populist issue: demand parity. In the 1970s, the nationalist animosity against Middle East countries was not religious or cultural. The fact that they were Muslim was a non-issue. American voters were angry that they had economic leverage and were extorting us. What an outrage! I was young and learning politics.

College classmate Erich Almasy has his own history with oil, and he shares it in this guest post. He attended Harvard Business School, then joined a management consultancy. He was young and learning the oil industry.

Erich Almasy, with Gulf logowear added

Guest Post by Erich Almasy

I spent several years consulting for GORAM (Gulf Oil Refining and Marketing), based in Houston, Texas. It was 1978, five years after the world had gone through the first energy dislocation. Following the Yom Kippur War and the United States’ support for Israel, the leading oil countries of OAPEC (Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries) embargoed oil to the United States, and prices quadrupled from $3 to $12 per barrel. OPEC had formed in 1960 as a cartel of oil-producing nations: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, but OAPEC was specific to Arabian producers. Most of these were allies of the United States, but they joined to cut production and embargo oil, resulting in long lines at American gas pumps. At that time, the United States imported roughly 30 percent of its oil, most of it from the Middle East. 

Gulf Oil had been created in 1901 to market output from the Spindletop oilfield in Beaumont, Texas, and was headquartered in Pittsburg because the Mellon family controlled it. Throughout the 1930s, Gulf invested in oil fields in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Venezuela. By the 1940s, Gulf was recognized as one of the Seven Sisters, the world’s leading oil companies, which included British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, three former Standard Oil companies, Texaco, and Gulf. The cost of oil from Gulf’s holdings was estimated at 20 to 50 cents per barrel. The company’s strategy was to “monetize” oil in whatever way possible by refining the liquid gold into anything that would sell: asphalt, heating oil, kerosene (jet fuel), diesel, and gasoline. Gulf Oil had gas stations in all 50 states until 1973.

My consulting role was to evaluate GORAM’s strategy since it was now harder just to make money by maximizing production. Value-added was now the key. To start, I received a primer on how oil is turned into derivative products, a process somewhat misleadingly called distillation. Crude oil pumped out of the ground derives from fossilized organic remains that were subjected to pressure over millions of years. There is no single chemical formula, but generally it is represented as a complex hydrocarbon of C85H15. Heat and/or a catalyst can break the carbon-hydrogen bonds into several component parts. At the refinery, crude oil is heated to temperatures ranging from 950°F to 1400°F. The heated oil can be partially broken up by a catalyst, usually a form of zeolite, a naturally occurring aluminum compound that breaks ionic chains. Catalysts don’t change what happens, but they reduce the heat needed and thus the cost of refining.

The heated oil ascends up a “cracking” or “fractionating” steel tower with outlets at prescribed intervals. At the bottom are the heaviest compounds (technical term: “sludge”), used for asphalt and road paving. At the top of the column are the lightest compounds, such as butane. In between are heating oil, kerosene (jet fuel), diesel, and gasoline. These are called derivatives, or distillates, and because they all come from the same crude oil input, their costs are inextricably linked through a concept called byproduct costing. Thus, their price depends on market value rather than direct cost. Also, because you cannot make one without the other, the relative amounts produced during cracking determine supply. If the market demands only so much diesel fuel but wants more gasoline, then diesel must be in surplus. For Texas oil refiners, this diesel was sold in foreign export markets. By banning diesel exports, Trump is trying to defy the laws of both oil production and supply and demand. It doesn’t work that way.

My work with Gulf extended over six years and focused on finding alternative markets within the constraints of the crude type and production process. During the 1940s and 50s, Gulf Oil ranked in the middle of the world's oil companies. By 1973, it produced and refined roughly 3 million barrels of oil per day, about 5 percent of world output. In 1975, Kuwait nationalized its oil business, and Gulf Oil’s reserves dropped dramatically. By 1984, Gulf was an easy target, and lax antitrust oversight by the Reagan administration allowed Chevron (formerly Standard Oil of California) to purchase the company.






[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.]

You did WHAT??? A federal judge explodes

Reading today's post will be fun for people who want the federal courts to demand that the Trump adminisration obey the laws he swore to obey and enforce.

Sit back.


President Trump has a system that works well for him. He does whatever he wants, regardless of the law. He dares someone to stop him. Republicans in the House and Senate majority do not object. Democrats are outvoted and complain from the sidelines. The federal courts are easy for Trump to game. Do something willful and illegal, and carry on while the slow machinery of the justice system and layers of appeals play out. When he loses, choose another pretext for doing what he wants, and again start the judicial clock.

Key to this successful strategy is working quickly. Just do it. Take bold, decisive action. The American public has not insisted on democratic process. 

Trump decided that Washington, D.C. needed a PGA-level golf course, something spectacular. He chose as its location the East Potomac Gold Links, currently a public golf course established under a 1898 law that created green space for public recreation. It has a history; it became desegregated in 1941. The course provides inexpensive recreation space for the D.C. community.

Trump moved decisively over the holiday weekend. The National Park Service cut down some 500 trees. The federal judge, Ana C. Reyes, who was overseeing the lawsuit filed by the D.C. Preservation League, had presumed that the U.S. Park Service would operate in good faith by not take precipitous action to destroy the current park while the matter was being adjudicated. That was a mistake. Here is what happened in court.

The court transcript:

Judge Reyes: I could not have been clearer, I have given the Govt the benefit of the doubt. Let me read what I ordered at the last hearing to show how the Govt has lost its credibility in this case. The transcript says I said cutting down the tree would be irretrievable harm, I think I should have said, irrevocable harm. I made myself entirely clear.

Trump lawyer Robertson: Yes, your Honor.

Judge Reyes: And now, at 4:55 pm on Friday - hundreds of trees cut down! When did counsel first become aware?

Robertson: I became aware it might happen, by Oct 8-

Judge Reyes: Ignorance is not an excuse here! You should have immediately told me. When did you know the plan for the trees to be toppled?

Robertson: Late Oct 8 or early Oct 9.

Judge Reyes: Why did you wait so long to notify the court?

Robertson: We were waiting for details?

Judge Reyes: Do you have email or a cellphone? What was preventing you from contacting us?

[The judge is screaming at full voice here.]

Robertson: I don’t think there was a conscious decision not to tell the court-

Judge Reyes: There WAS a conscious decision! You didn’t tell the court. Do you know why I am furious right now? The plaintiffs said this could happen and I said, I trust the govt! I don’t know how I could have made it any plainer that I did not want what has happened to happen.

I have given the govt every single benefit of the doubt that it would not do precisely what it has done. I am just at a total loss to understand what has happened here, other than - Occam’s Razor time - that the govt intended to do precisely what it has done.

You know why I’m furious right now? I was hearing from everybody on plaintiffs’ side that this was going to happen and I said repeatedly, ‘no, I trust the govt.’ I trusted you all not to do precisely what you have done.

I’m at a total loss to understand what happened here - it’s been to intentionally not tell the Plaintiffs, and clear hundreds of trees. How many? I said, I don’t want TEN trees taken down. I said, the Govt won’t lie. And now they did. On what universe did anyone in your office think that was acceptable?

Robertson: Your honor, we did our best --

Judge Reyes: No, you did not do your best! You did your absolute worst. More than being upset and furious right now, I am just beyond disappointed in the govt. I have done everything humanly possible to give the govt the benefit of the doubt in this case. I have done it repeatedly. I have done it for months.

Judge Reyes: What are the plans going forward?

AUSA Piropato: The contractor is checking the conditions of the course-

Judge Reyes: If my order is violated by ONE SECOND I guarantee there will be contempt proceedings.

AUSA Piropato: I understand. But there has to be chipping of the wood.

Judge Reyes: Why did this have to happen on Saturday?

AUSA Piropato: I don’t know.

Judge Reyes: Anything else planned about further renovations of the golf course?

AUSA Piropato: I am not aware of anything requiring NEPA review.

… Kevin Griess from the National Park Service was then called to testify by the court:

Judge Reyes: Please put Mr. Griess under oath. Misstatements are a federal felony.

Plaintiff lawyer: Mr. Griess, as I understand your declaration, this happened because you got new resources - from where?

Griess: They are NPS personnel from all over, brought in.

Plaintiff’s lawyer: Who told them to do this on Saturday? When?

Griess: I can’t say-

Judge Reyes: Who notified them to start on Saturday?

Griess: Deputy Director Frank Lance.

Judge Reyes: Get Mr. Lance here. Ms. Piropato, this is an order. I want him here now. Proceed.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer: When were you contacted to create the declaration you filed on Friday?

Griess: We were completing the compliance and received notice.

Judge Reyes: But what approval did you receive on October 5?

Griess: I had requested a tree approval, a pre-management plan.

Judge Reyes: Including cutting down 100s of trees?

Griess: Yes.

Judge Reyes: Approval by email - from whom?

Griess: Jessica-

Judge Reyes: Do you have it?

Griess: Yes. When the money became available, I asked them to mark every single tree that could be cut - they GIS mapped that then I asked my architect how to achieve it for whatever leasee.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer: Are you saying you are not aware of the President’s plans?

Griess: Only from social media. Not professionally.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer: For the 700 trees, where in the CLR is there support for this?

Griess: First we do the inventory, then the report.

Scott Macfarlane: “Looks like the plan is to cut down 729 trees at East Potomac Golf course. 430 have already been toppled, despite court order that the judge be sufficiently notified first.”

Griess: We look at each tree, and see when it is from-

Judge Reyes: When did you get funding authorization? Didn’t the WH cut NPS by 20% - are you aware?

Griess: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: Where did the money come from?

Griess: I don’t know. This plan isn’t just about safety, it’s about the restoration of the park to its initial form.

Judge Reyes: The trees removed Saturday, were they hazardous trees?

Griess: No.

Judge Reyes: I am ordering you to maintain all communication about this, for you and your staff to turn off all auto-delete functions, do you understand?

Griess: Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Reyes to DOJ: What are the plans moving forward?

Robertson: Today, NPS go with the contractor to see whether grounds are wet - I understand nothing can happen.

Judge Reyes: Is everyone else aware of that? Because I promise you if that order is violated by two seconds, there are gonna be contempt proceedings.”

Deputy National Park Service Director Frank Lands was then called to testify:

Judge Reyes: When did you became aware of plan to take down trees on Oct 10?

Lands: October 5.

Judge Reyes: Who told you to do this?

Lands: Deputy chief of staff for the Dept of Interior.

Judge Reyes: I want him in here too. Why all the sudden urgency to take down trees?

Lands: I don’t know.

Judge Reyes: How much is this tree removal going to cost the taxpayers?

Lands: I can’t even ballpark it.

Judge Reyes: Why did this have to be done urgently?

Lands: I don’t know a reason.

Judge Reyes to DOJ: Did you track down the Dept of Interior Chief of Staff?

Piropato: I can’t reach him. It’s a holiday.

Judge Reyes: Oh, I’m well aware it’s a holiday.

Judge Reyes: This is totally beyond the pale. Someone is going to be under oath and explain what happened to me. There is no urgency to any of this tree work! I want Dept of Interior deputy chief of staff Gregory Wischer in here.

The question is: Have I been lied to about the timing of things. I’m beyond disappointed in the govt right now. I order a halt to all further work at East Potomac Golf Course until 2 PM tomorrow. I will decide whether to make a longer extension. I also want Wischer in here to testify tomorrow.

[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.] 

Buried by ads

"Less is more."
Architect Ludwig Meis van der Rohe

"More is more."
Behavior of campaign consultants in Oregon's Senate district three

Money keeps pouring into Republican Brad Hicks' campaign: $330,000 more in the past seven days. Denise Krause is getting money and in-kind help from union groups: $145,000 in the same period.  

Hicks started out with almost a million-dollar head start as of Labor Day, so he is way ahead in the ad war. My estimate of TV ads is that there are three, possibly four, Hicks' ads for every one of Krause's, at least in the news-oriented TV that I watch. 

Hicks has already done door-to-door canvassing with teams of paid canvassers:

Oregon Capital Chronicle

An Ashland family provided me with some insight into who gets which mail advertising, consisting mostly of 6-by-11-inch stiff full-color postcards. The wife of the family is a registered Democrat. The husband is a non-affiliated voter. 

One can infer the strategy: Krause is trying to energize and secure Democrats to turn out in this Democratic-leaning district in a year when Republicans are burdened by Trump's divisiveness and policies identified as hurting Oregon. Trump has prospered politically by zero-sum politics: Show contempt for Democrats and urge Republicans to relish liberal tears. That has consequences; it makes it hard to get Democrats to support Republicans. Hicks has a dual message: Krause is terrible, so don't vote for her, and Hicks isn't a Republican, not really.

The wife has received five postcards so far from Denise Krause's campaign. Here are the front and back of each of them. Four of the five flesh out her brand as a strong advocate who has overcome problems. One of the six postcards references Hicks' opposition to the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument designation, saying that if he had his way it would be sold to mining and timber companies.

The husband has received 10 separate mailings, all from Hicks.

These postcards accuse Krause of becoming part of a too-powerful Democratic majority and a prospective rubber stamp for Governor Tina Kotek. He does not articulate any policies of his own, not a new tax policy, not a different policy for the Oregon Health Plan and our stressed hospitals, nothing about why he would ban abortion, nothing about agreeing or disagreeing with Trump's effort to end Oregon's vote-by-mail system, nothing about what he would do to address homelessness, nothing about data centers, nothing about how to finance education, and nothing about what he would do to support regional colleges like Southern Oregon University . It is astonishing to me: Over a million dollars in ads in this tiny media market and yet I know nothing about Hicks' position on anything. 

I have written that his well-documented record as the CEO of the local Chamber of Commerce was one of relentless and consistent Republican partisanship. It is an observation voiced by others on social media. He does not deny it. Instead, he ignores me and that criticism, sticking to his position that he would be bipartisan, really he would. He has good, smart, cynical message discipline; when your claim is indefensible, don't defend it. Instead, ignore critics and hope they fade away.

The husband said the wife will vote for Krause. The husband also said that he would not vote for Hicks because it would validate Trump, but that he didn't think Democrats in the legislature needed Krause's vote. He told me that incumbent Senator Jeff Golden's on-again-off-again indecision about whether to run for re-election created irritation with both Golden and Krause among some Democrats. He had heard about that. Krause filed for the Democratic nomination during a period that overlapped a period when Golden had said he was indeed running. The husband seemed equally miffed at Golden and Krause for the messy primary. He is relatively new to the area and knew Golden only as a talk show host on the local public radio station, and said he did not realize that a young Jeff Golden in 1986 himself won a Democratic primary nomination by filing against an incumbent Democratic county commissioner, a contest Golden won. The husband said he would consider Krause after all, but was still undecided. The bombardment of negative ads about Krause and Democratic majorities appears to be leaving an impression. 

[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.] 

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.]