Feet to the Fire

Pat Ryan

During the past couple of weeks there's been a lotta bold talk about how we need to get out there and attack certain of our elected representatives as they are just too wobbly and clueless to Do the Right Thing without the input of our own Serious Thinkers.

Well, OK, there's actually only one member of the US House of Representatives that absolutely needs this input and that's Rep. Kurt Schrader, (D-5th district). The Education of Rep Schrader kicked off at the2910C end of last month (October) with Carla demanding that he support Medicare+5% because "This is where the rubber meets the road" which of course sorta glosses over the fact that states which do the best job on outcomes and are most efficient would receive the least money. Commenters pointed out that Schrader was actually on the record supporting  "a robust public option", but that cut no ice with our intrepid reporter.

We then got two additional posts on the same topic with the second arguing that he'd better by God pony up on the latest thingy, which was different enough from the earlier rejected thingy that it should satisfy Schrader and other Blue Dogs (as defined by the author). The third and most recent Jeremiad seemed to be mostly about when Schrader's office was first open to phone calls on a Saturday morning and whether said reporter was getting access befitting her station.

Whatever on all that.

From what I could gather, Rep. Schrader was concerned, as has long been his reputation among less fevered political observers, with a few basic points:

1) Whenever gummint spends money, there should be rigorous controls ensuring efficient use of taxpayer money to get the very best results possible. This should be a mantra with all progressive policy wonks, as voters who may get lost in the details of specific initiatives can still wrap their minds around the concept of getting the most bang for the buck.

2) Funding sources should be targeted with an eye toward mitigating adverse impact on those least able to pay. 

a) The bill will require businesses above a certain financial threshold either offer insurance or pay an offset. Rep. Schrader wanted that threshold doubled from annual gross receipts of $250,000 to annual gross receipts of $500,000 to protect the existence of small businesses that currently make up 86% of our employers nationwide and;

b) Schrader also wanted to protect the consumer side, and asked that the original wording be changed to raise the income ceiling for the consumer surcharge, and;

3) He wants all procedures current and future to be able to pass the test of being evidence based. Getting into the weeds here, this one's about applying science and statistical outcomes to prescribed drugs and prescribed medical procedures which are often driven more by corporate marketing than they are by outcome as determined by scientific studies.

Any Back Bencher with an IQ above that of navel lint understands that the only way that you can get eye contact with The Big Boys and Gurls, is when you have something that they want. It might be the case that said back bencher would use his very limited power in the service of getting the best deal for his constituents and might also have the effect of convincing swing voters that progessives care about cost benefit analysis. In the end, after useful conversations with House leadership and with both Emanuel and Obama, Rep. Schrader voted for the bill.

Not sure if there was any scorching on the bottom of the Tony Lamas or not..........  

Seems like a Win/Win to me, but then......What do I know?

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Interesting post, Pat. A couple of points:

    Commenters pointed out that Schrader was actually on the record supporting "a robust public option", but that cut no ice with our intrepid reporter.

    Actually, not only did I note that Schrader was on the record, I linked to the letter he signed with Congressman Wu stating as such.

    Definitions of the different bills were not in fact done by me. That was Speaker Pelosi, which I also linked.

    I'm not buying in to the idea that Schrader's reticence had something to do with trying to lower the cost curve. If that was his pony, he'd have voted for Medicare +5%. Instead, he decided to have a different reason for not supporting that version. Controlling the cost curve was only articulated as a priority after Medicare +5% was scrapped to appease "moderates".

    The other curiosity is the rest of the Oregon delegation's perspective on this. The rest of the Democratic delegation supported Medicare +5%. They also supported the negotiated rates version that ultimately passed. Your defense of Schrader's reticence, while I'm sure honorable and well-intended, infers the notion that Wu, Blumenauer and DeFazio are somehow irresponsible hacks who don't hold out for what's best. Especially given that the demographics for DeFazio's district are very close to Schrader's--it seems especially weird that Schrader wasn't on board. Or maybe it was weird that DeFazio was...? Which is it?

    Or perhaps the IQ of the rest of the delegation hasn't quite met the "navel lint" standard...? After all, Wu isn't exactly a "front-bencher".

  • (Show?)

    infers the notion that Wu, Blumenauer and DeFazio are somehow irresponsible hacks who don't hold out for what's best.

    No, merely that they aren't rookie legislators with near-zero leverage. We shouldn't be surprised that members of Congress try to influence the legislative outcome. It's a tough thing to do - especially in a body of 435 members.

    Those three have other ways of exerting influence. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to take Schrader at his word - that he was seeking to influence the outcome of the bill... and was successful:

    I have received assurance from House leadership and the Administration that additional cost containment measures will occur in the final conference agreement. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress to ensure the plan is more sustainable over the long-term.
  • (Show?)

    Kari:

    That infers that somehow the other members of the delegation were willing to sign off on something that didn't have appropriate cost containment measures. And honestly--this still doesn't square with not supporting Medicare + %5, which dealt with the cost curve issue that Schrader articulated.

    It feels to me like we've been given the run around on this one. And honestly, Schrader's office should have handled this much better.

  • (Show?)

    Medicare +5% was scrapped to appease "moderates"

    Er, my understanding was that it was scrapped because it was a brain dead effort by states like Texas that do a crap job of providing services and get huge reimbursements to screw states like Oregon that do much better and hence have lower reimbursements under the current perverse incentives.

    At least that seems to have been the objection of Senator Wyden and a lot of other thinking progressives to this hoary old idea.

  • (Show?)

    Er, my understanding was that it was scrapped because it was a brain dead effort by states like Texas that do a crap job of providing services and get huge reimbursements to screw states like Oregon that do much better and hence have lower reimbursements under the current perverse incentives.

    I have no doubt that this was your understanding, Pat.

    Again however, this infers that the rest of Oregon's Democratic House delegation was on board with this while waiting for it to screw Oregonians.

  • (Show?)

    I think Carla's underlying point about how the rest of the Oregon delegation handled this particular vote has not been adequately answered.

    There were two hold-outs from Oregon: Schrader and Walden.

    Is it the contention that Defazio, Blumenauer and Wu were not interested in "additional cost containment measures? Less interested in "ensuring efficient use of taxpayer money"?

    And while I'm asking questions... how much are verbal assurances that something will happen in the future, such as those Schrader says he received, typically worth inside the beltway?

  • (Show?)

    Is it the contention that Defazio, Blumenauer and Wu were not interested in "additional cost containment measures? Less interested in "ensuring efficient use of taxpayer money"?

    Not my contention Kevin. You'd have to query Carla about this one as she (and perhaps now, you) seem concerned that The Oregon Delegation should be a multi-bodied monster of some sort, joined at the head.

    Me? I put up a post alleging that Carla's criticism of Schrader is off base in this particular instance. I like me some independent legislators, and eagerly look forward to a Hue and Cry over every house vote where Wu or DeFazio deviate in any way from Kurt's outlook.

  • (Show?)

    Pat, I both like and respect you. You know this. But I don't see how creating a "multi-bodied monster" strawman answers the question. I don't see where Carla has ever even hinted that every Democrat in our contingent ought to vote precisely alike on every issue or handle every issue identically.

    The defense was proffered here that Schrader was holding out, at least in part, due to his concerns that the funding mechanisms be both efficient and equitable. Defazio, Blumenauer and Wu were not holding out.

    How would you characterize the dichotomy between those three Dems and Schrader viz handling this bill before the vote? Because it seems to me that a logical inference from your defense here is that those three didn't share Schrader's concerns, or at least didn't share them enough to hold out as well.

  • JTT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's flip the question the other way here. Since I know there are plenty of staffers from Wu, Blumenauer, and Defazio that read BlueOregon...perhaps they would like to explain why their bosses sold out Oregon providers so easily? I know that doctors are predominantly Republicans, but come on. Our entire delegation has railed against poor Medicare reimbursement rates and inefficiencies at one point or another and only Schrader had the gumption to stand up say, "hey wait a minute, won't this exacerbate the current situation?" I don't think the question is about Schrader...I think the question is why the rest of the delegation sold out the state so easily on this one.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kevin, the way I read the debate is that Carla and friends believe that the day the veteran members of the Oregon delegation decided how they would vote on the final bill, the clock started ticking on when the freshman member would decide, and that Carla and others not living in the district had every right to nag him until he "did the right thing".

    Personally, although Pat says it better than I could, I like his comment, " I like me some independent legislators, ".

    It is the right of legislators--incl. members of Congress to wait until the last minute if that gives them leverage to possibly improve a bill. No, I don't believe people on the W. Coast know everything happening on Capitol Hill, even if they spend 8 hours a day on the phone talking to people in DC.

    Personally, I like legislators who give a lot of thought to their votes rather than being told "the train is leaving the station" and so they hop on board without any thought or public statements.

    There was an incident some years ago when a Congressman made a brilliant speech on a hot topic to Portland City Club and then later voted the polar opposite of the speech. It was WAY before the days of being able to do research online, but in a later election an opponent's campaign dug up that vote and people started asking the Congressman about it. Took a lot of questioning, but the Congressman finally admitted he had gone to a number of lobbying groups and asked how they thought he should vote. When the story came out, he complained it was his opponent attacking him. But if he had never done that vote contrary to his speech, there would have been nothing to attack.

    For those who think I tell too many anecdotes, let me put it this way. On a scale of 0--10, 10 being as transparent as glass with regard to voting record, I'm inclined to give Kurt Schrader at least an 8. The story above shows a Congressman who deserves no more than a 2.

    Which is why I love Pat's post. It is witty, it makes a point about freedom to disagree, and I have already told one friend about it offline.

  • (Show?)

    There were two hold-outs from Oregon: Schrader and Walden.

    No, Schrader voted FOR the bill. He announced his vote later than the others, but in the end, he voted the way that you (and me, and Carla) hoped he would.

    Did the late announcement hurt your feelings? What's the complaint here, exactly?

  • (Show?)

    What's the complaint here, exactly?

    Actually--that would seem to be an appropriate question for this post..what is the point of it, exactly?

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks, Carla. Thought it was just me. I respect Pat enough to assume that I've missed the point, though.

    At least, it tacitly raises a point I tried to make on another thread, where, unfortunately, I'm on the "do not respond list".

    Any Back Bencher with an IQ above that of navel lint understands that the only way that you can get eye contact with The Big Boys and Gurls, is when you have something that they want.

    So, is it not logical to think that "Stupak" was included to give Stupak more clout, and to give Reps a negotiating chip? The logic was that "Stupak" was always intended to come out. It just gives Dems a plausible excuse for why they will allow Reps to take some major meat out as well. "Bipartisanship". When he was discussed, qua Stupak, here, many moons ago, progressives lamented that he seemed to exist only to peddle power, favor and influence and to keep himself in the center ring, even if it were only as the clown. Of course all those that could only see the "D" after his name made a spirited defense. And now, surprise!

    I have to ask again, on things like Iraq, "hope and change", Stupak...were we lucky, psychic or know something you won't acknowledge? Odd question, since Pat doesn't fit "you", but you know what I mean.

  • (Show?)

    C'mon, Kari. Obtuseness doesn't suit you.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Seems to me that what Pat wrote here was an excellent example of satire

    From dictionary.com

    satire

    A work of literature that mocks social conventions, another work of art, or anything its author thinks ridiculous. Gulliver's Travels, by Jonathan Swift, is a satire of eighteenth-century British society.

  • (Show?)

    OK. Here's the point.

    Carla, you've promoted a nice little narrative that begins with a new representative who is failing to meet your standards for ideology or speed (that's not quite clear). You then call the troops out to "hold the guy's feet to the fire", and there are lots of specific and general accusations thrown around regarding the rep, his staff, and their failure to live up to various benchmarks which you've set. He votes for the bill that you favor.

    <hr/>

    This post is to call bullshit on the entire narrative. To accomplish that, I poked around and came up with a totally different narrative, which includes some specific concerns. You not only don't address said issues, but istead start in on the tricks like this:

    Your defense of Schrader's reticence, while I'm sure honorable and well-intended, infers the notion that Wu, Blumenauer and DeFazio are somehow irresponsible hacks who don't hold out for what's best.....Or maybe it was weird that DeFazio was...? Which is it? Or perhaps the IQ of the rest of the delegation hasn't quite met the "navel lint" standard...?

    Of course this is just a hamfisted attempt to draw me out into the weeds. There is no implication one way or another regarding the rest of the delegation in my post.

    I'm pretty sure that each an every one of them had concerns and that each of them deployed different resources, skills, and talent to address those concerns.

    <hr/>

    Finally, the reason that I'm Going to the Mattresses on this one is not pricipally about rep. Schrader, but rather about the specific ideas that are beneath your contempt for comment or consideration, but rank as high priority in my mind for the long term health of progressivism.

    That should clear things up from my end (but I know that it won't).

  • (Show?)

    Zarathustra

    The latest that I've heard about Stupak, was that Reid would/should not include it in the Senate bill, requiring the Stupakians to introduce it as an amendment.

    There are probably more votes against Stupak than there are for the public option in the senate right now.

  • (Show?)

    Carla, you've promoted a nice little narrative that begins with a new representative who is failing to meet your standards for ideology or speed (that's not quite clear). You then call the troops out to "hold the guy's feet to the fire", and there are lots of specific and general accusations thrown around regarding the rep, his staff, and their failure to live up to various benchmarks which you've set. He votes for the bill that you favor.

    Yes--he was failing to meet my standard on this particular piece of EXTREMELY IMPORTANT legislation, Pat. As I said in comments on one of those threads--I totally get that sometimes people in swing districts vote more conservatively. But there are certain efforts where we can't afford not to have people on board. So yeah, I took it to Schrader and I'd do it again.

    I didn't just "throw around" accusations about Schrader and his staff. I talked with people who work on the Hill. You might not like what they had to say about how things were going down on that particular Saturday morning--but that doesn't negate the facts.

    This post is to call bullshit on the entire narrative. To accomplish that, I poked around and came up with a totally different narrative, which includes some specific concerns. You not only don't address said issues, but istead start in on the tricks like this:

    It's not a trick, Pat. It's a specific question based on the narrative you're trying to create here. I get that you don't like it and that it might even make you uncomfortable--but when you go down paths like that it raises legitimate questions.

    If the point of this post was to push that narrative--and apparently it was--then the asking of that question or set of questions goes with it, like it or not. Of course this is just a hamfisted attempt to draw me out into the weeds. There is no implication one way or another regarding the rest of the delegation in my post.

    Yeah, there really is. If your contention is that Schrader is simply holding out because he's Mr. Government Efficiency--and he wanted that in the bill, this infers (strongly) that the rest of the delegation that has been in support from the outset is not. You might not like that it infers this or you may not mean to be setting up that inference, but that's where reasonable people can and will take it.

    I'm pretty sure that each an every one of them had concerns and that each of them deployed different resources, skills, and talent to address those concerns.

    Maybe. Maybe not. But as long as Schrader was not on board with this very important legislation--he had himself set up for a push on it. This wasn't just some minor thing--it was ENORMOUS. Most other stuff would fly under the radar, this couldn't and wouldn't.

    Finally, the reason that I'm Going to the Mattresses on this one is not pricipally about rep. Schrader, but rather about the specific ideas that are beneath your contempt for comment or consideration, but rank as high priority in my mind for the long term health of progressivism.

    I don't think I understand at all what you're getting at here. I don't know which ideas are "beneath my contempt for comment or consideration". But the "long term health of progressivism" seems to have little chance if on the really big progressive issues, people like Schrader are wobbly-kneed.

    And from my observation, on this one...he was.

    And when I observe that kind of behavior--I will push. It's the right thing to do and I have no intention of backing down from it.

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not sure I see where the point of contention is here (ad hominems aside, which I'm ignoring). Violently in agreement?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pat and Carla, get together and have someone hold a paper cup so that one of you sees the side and the other sees the opening.

    I recall a college event (youth group or something) where a lecturer was speaking in a large auditorium. She held up a paper cup and had one person from each side of the audience and one from the middle describe the paper cup.

    One described the bottom of the cup, one described the opening, one described the side. In other words, point of view and perspective matter. I realize that may be a "radical" idea to some, but I have believed it for over 40 years and no one is going to change my mind now.

    This I believe is the relevant line, "Yes--he was failing to meet my standard on this particular piece of EXTREMELY IMPORTANT legislation, Pat."

    Carla set a standard and the Congressman (from her district?) was supposed to live up to the standard Carla set because she says so and no one should argue with her?

    I am very fond of the verbal image of 5 people sitting around the table being 4 factions and a moderator. I've been involved in successful advocacy groups and campaigns where success came even though everyone did not agree on everything to the point that they were like those proverbial 5 people.

    I take Pat's point that he "poked around and came up with a totally different narrative, which includes some specific concerns. You not only don't address said issues..."

    Too often in politics, potential allies have gotten into debates which are more about the description of the part of the paper cup they see than the greater good.

    There have been times when several people have looked at the same debate and come to very different conclusions. I'm OK with that.

    Years ago I heard someone say of the folks who demand that everyone see a particular issue THEIR way as "excessive certitude".

    Those of us who appreciate Pat's approach are not going to change our minds just because someone disagrees with him.

    There is no requirement that all Democrats think, talk, and act alike, at least not among those who agree with Will Rogers saying "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat". Generally, this is how majorities are created in a legislative body--electing members who don't agree on everything because they represent very different districts.

    There has long been a faction among Democrats which says, "All good Democrats believe..." and which castigates everyone who is an active Democrat but exercises their rights of independent thought and action. I've never belonged to that faction, and I suspect Pat doesn't belong to it.

  • (Show?)

    Kevin wrote, C'mon, Kari. Obtuseness doesn't suit you.

    Maybe I'm being obtuse, but humor me.

    Schrader voted for the bill. What's the complaint?

    Carla wrote, Yes--he was failing to meet my standard on this particular piece of EXTREMELY IMPORTANT legislation, Pat. .... but that doesn't negate the facts.

    I'm still confused. Exactly what standard did he fail to meet? The facts are clear: he voted for the bill.

    What am I missing here? Why are people still upset with Schrader? Did he hurt your feelings before he voted the way you wanted him to? Did y'all want him to personally send you a handwritten note telling you how he was gonna vote?

    If I want Congresswoman X to vote for Policy Z, and when the vote happens, Congresswoman X votes for Policy Z, I don't really care how she gets there or when the announcement is made. I'm just happy. I got the outcome I wanted.

    Seems to me that y'all got the outcome you wanted. So, I'll repeat myself: what's the problem?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you Kari--exactly how I feel. Maybe in the future there should be warnings by those like Carla that a particular version of the bill should be supported by all and a politician's vote should be announced publicly ___ days before the vote. Then those who agree can side with her, and those who think a member of Congress has the right to decide when to announce their vote on a bill can side with those who vote a particular way but don't jump on a bandwagon in advance.

    Some of the comments give me a case of deja vu.

    Anyone here remember the 1988 presidential campaign when GHW Bush's campaign said Dukakis was against the flag salute?

    What they were actually "upset" about (or was it only a political ploy--nothing happened after Bush won) was that Gov. Dukakis and his AG had enforced a US Supreme Court decision. Jehovah's Witness kids were required to stand and salute the flag although this was against their religion (graven images or whatever).

    In 1943--DURING WWII, a courageous court ruled against the school board and said the kids couldn't be forced to do something that went against their religion.

    Here's the link and the famous quote:

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_591

    Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson argued that "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

    I don't care if Carla thinks Schrader messed up and thus she will never support him for anything he runs for again. She has a right to her opinion. But Kari, Pat, or anyone else has the right to disagree, question, satirize what she says. That is what free speech is all about.

    When Carla said, "Carla wrote, Yes--he was failing to meet my standard on this particular piece of EXTREMELY IMPORTANT legislation, Pat. .... but that doesn't negate the facts."
    I believe she was prescribing " what shall be orthodox in politics..." as if no one was allowed to argue with her standard on the legislation.

    Individuals have the right to agree or disagree with any public official--where they stand on legislation, what they said publicly about that legislation, how they explain a vote, whether they believe a campaign tactic is wise, who they have hired to work in their office, all sorts of other things.

    Anyone has the right to say "I cannot in good conscience vote for this person because.." just as they have the right to say they support someone because of a vote, an inspiring speech, or whatever.

    ANYONE has that right.

    No one has the right to demand "You should not like the person who doesn't meet my standard" anymore than they have the right to say all good Democrats must support a particular candidate and not ask questions.

    This is a general rule for me. I don't say anyone else has to abide by it, only that anyone who wants my support will admit individuals have the right to disagree with anyone's position on any issue.

    I can remember a time when there were politicians so polarizing that they were describe as "some people would go to the ends of the earth for them, others would not cross the street to talk to them".

    The point was that individuals have the right to decide for themselves.

    I think Pat wrote a brilliant piece of satire here. If others think I am full of it because they have the revealed truth, not my problem. YMMV

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So are you all saying we should've waited to see how he voted first? If a representative holds out until the last minute, what's wrong with constituents letting him know they have strong opinions about the leg, until he does commit?

    Yes, it got a bit dramatic and arm twisty, but Carla's piece was infotainment, no? As my grandmother would say, "if you're going to tell a story, make it worth telling".

    Pat makes good points, but they're so esoteric, given the forum... Basically handbags at 30 paces, from where I sit.

    Kari acts like he had a crystal ball and we should have all sat back and trusted. All I can say to that is to recall a line from the Butthole Surfers, "the funny thing about regret is that it's better to regret something you have done than to regret something you haven't done". Your prescience would have been better applied warning us about "Stupak".

  • (Show?)

    Seems to me that y'all got the outcome you wanted. So, I'll repeat myself: what's the problem?</i.

    I don't have the problem--this isn't my post. It's Pat's. :)

    So given that there isn't even clear understanding where the problem is and who has it, I'm still thinking that the point of this post is really lost on pretty much everyone.

  • Peri Brown (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Not saying that you're saying, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing, you know?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Heard Ron Wyden on the Ed Schultz show this afternoon talking about his concerns about the House passed bill. "I've been working on this issue since my days with the Gray Panthers", he said.

    He's concerned with how few Americans would be eligible for the public option as written in the House bill (something he has talked about previously) and how little competition is really given to big insurance companies.

    The biggest news he made was that he's not yet sure he is a vote even to proceed on the bill, "not wanting to see a bad bill go to the floor". His big point was that if people go to the polls in 2010 or 2012 (before the current bill takes effect) and their health insurance premiums have gone up a lot, that is not a good thing.

    Sounds not all that different than House Majority Whip Clyburn on some of the health care debate.

    FWIW

  • Peri Brown (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So, Harry Reid has now released the merged bills (Health and Finance), the Senate version, and boy, what an improvement over "Stupak"!

    I just finished wading through it, but, correct me if I missed something, it basically says, "Sure you can have abortions covered. Pay out of your own pocket."

    So, when he said that "Stupak" would surely come out, he meant, "but still no Federal funding for abortions"? Seems all the hand wringing was well founded.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peri, thanks for wading thru that and keeping your eye on the ball. I am lucky to not have to think about it any more, but I do not want the young men and women of my son's generation placed back into the authoritarian shackles of my mother's generation. Abortion has always been under a continuous attack. It's a battle for self-regulation that is never won.

    Somehow I feel that if those radicals on the right who continue attacking abortion REALLY believed in all their god-stuff they would understand the eternality of the spirit and the many tasks of that spirity god-stuff within us. The task may include consenting to be part of some man and woman's painful journey with abortion. They might reach out to men and women with compassion and giving spirit instead of the rage and trickiness too. They might offer options, and win many little lives a berth by dint of no tricks, only of straightforward compassion.

    I recall an interaction with my friend, the great Jack Micheline. He growled out some business against abortion: and I flashed back at him as a young girl alone and dealing alone - "So are you going to help to raise it? Feed it? School it?"... and suddenly my crusty friend seemed to see me, really see me. He fell silent.

    The next day, at some other North Beach Coffee Joint he gently (as gently as Jack ever spoke) asked me: "How are you doing?". And he was there in a middle front seat when I did that night's performance of "Nasty LA Suite", which, yes, featured that confusing event in my life as a part of the inevitable Naked Moment (when you forget all your lines and step out of role and simply talk to the "audience", till the work and script assert themselves again).

    Jack found a moment of clarifying compassion in facing the reality of his young poetess friend.

    I just wonder why the ideologues cannot do this task of compassion.

  • Peri Brown (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>"Conquering heart can hold no love" - Steel Pulse</h2>

connect with blueoregon