Page 4A
OPINION
East Oregonian
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Founded October 16, 1875
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Publisher
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
TIM TRAINOR
Opinion Page Editor
MARISSA WILLIAMS
Regional Advertising Director
MARCY ROSENBERG
Circulation Manager
JANNA HEIMGARTNER
Business Office Manager
MIKE JENSEN
Production Manager
EO MEDIA GROUP
East Oregonian • The Daily Astorian • Capital Press • Hermiston Herald
Blue Mountain Eagle • Wallowa County Chieftain • Chinook Observer • Coast River Business Journal
Oregon Coast Today • Coast Weekend • Seaside Signal • Cannon Beach Gazette
Eastern Oregon Real Estate Guide • Eastern Oregon Marketplace • Coast Marketplace
OnlyAg.com • FarmSeller.com • Seaside-Sun.com • NorthwestOpinions.com • DiscoverOurCoast.com
OUR VIEW
Distraction kills
A law that goes into effect
Oct. 1 will increase the penalty
for distracted driving in Oregon
and broaden the definition of what
“distracted” means.
The upgraded punishments
reflect the ever-increasing danger of
controlling a speeding vehicle while
also operating an array of digital
devices, which is making our roads
as dangerous as they have been in
decades.
Using a handheld device while
behind the wheel will soon cost you
$260 to $1,000 for your first offense,
$435 to $2,000 for your second and
up to six months in jail for your
third. And that’s not just talking or
texting. Any momentary glance,
while in motion or at rest in the
roadway, is eligible.
And it could cost you even more
than that — a serious injury, an
expensive fix, a fatal accident. More
than 3,100 people die every year in
cell phone-related crashes, according
to the Centers for Disease Control.
It’s a serious public health threat,
though not significantly different
from ones we have faced before.
Drinking and driving, in the
days before the dangers of such
action were known, was laughed
about or even admired as a rite of
passage. But as fatalities mounted
and innocent victims demanded to
be heard, a nationwide public outcry
called out for action. Advertising
campaigns broadcast the danger
of drinking and driving, law
enforcement agencies committed
resources to catching lawbreakers,
and the justice system upped the
penalties for those convicted of
engaging in illegal contact.
And although drinking and
driving remains an issue, you
would be hard-pressed to find any
American who doesn’t know that it
is a dangerous, illegal act that carries
with it serious consequences.
That must now be the case with
distracted driving as well. Until the
not-too-far future when our cars
are driving themselves, people are
going to be bombarded with more
gadgets and gizmos that do not play
nice with operating a large piece
of machinery traveling fast and
carrying our loved ones. Not taking
that responsibility seriously must be
a serious crime.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board of publisher
Kathryn Brown, managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, and opinion page editor Tim Trainor.
Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
OTHER VIEWS
Congressional majority leaders look
to eliminate minority tool
The New York Times
N
ow that Republicans control both
the White House and Congress,
top party officials, including
Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority
leader, are itching to eliminate the last
remaining tool the minority party has
to influence a president’s picks for the
federal courts — the so-called blue slip.
This longtime but informal Senate
practice allows a senator to block the
nomination of a judge from his or her
home state by refusing to sign off on a
blue-colored form. The idea was to give
senators, who are presumed to be more
familiar with the lawyers and judges in
their own states, a meaningful say in the
choosing of those judges. It also works
as an incentive for moderation in staffing
the federal judiciary, which, as the only
unelected branch of government, depends
on the public trust for its legitimacy.
But with Democratic senators now
refusing to agree to hearings for two of
President Trump’s nominees to the federal
appeals courts, Mr. McConnell told The
Times that the blue slip “ought to simply
be a notification of how you’re going to
vote, not the opportunity to blackball.”
What a difference a few years make.
Back in 2009, Mr. McConnell and the
entire Republican Senate caucus — then
in the minority — implored President
Barack Obama to honor all blue slips.
The appointment of federal judges is a
“shared constitutional responsibility,” the
Republicans said, warning Mr. Obama
that “if we are not consulted on, and
approve of, a nominee from our states,”
the senators intended to prevent that
nominee from getting a hearing. They
expected the blue-slip policy “to be
observed, even-handedly and regardless
of party affiliation.”
Lucky for them, it was. Senator
Patrick Leahy, the veteran Vermont
Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary
Committee at the time, applied the policy
without exception, meaning that a single
withheld blue slip would torpedo a
judicial nomination.
Republican senators exploited their
blue slips with abandon, and with little
or no explanation. One senator blocked
a nominee because she had once said the
Constitution did not protect an individual
right to bear arms — an accurate
description of the uncertainty about the
law at the time. Other senators blocked
nominees they had previously approved
for other courts, or even recommended to
the White House themselves.
This abuse of blue slips led many,
including this page, to call for an end to
the practice, but Mr. Leahy continued
it — as did Senator Charles Grassley
of Iowa, who became chairman of the
Judiciary Committee after Republicans
won the Senate in 2014. President Trump
now has 144 vacancies to fill on the
federal bench, many as a direct result
of Republican intransigence during the
Obama era. So it’s particularly rich, if
not surprising, for Republicans to urge its
demise.
What led them to this? In short, the
same behavior that they had engaged in
with impunity. This month, Senator Al
Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, refused
to return his blue slip for David Stras,
a well-respected but very conservative
justice on the state’s Supreme Court
whom Mr. Trump nominated to the Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Last
week, Oregon’s two Democratic senators,
Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, opposed
another of Mr. Trump’s court picks, Ryan
Bounds.
Unlike their Republican counterparts,
however, these Democrats provided a
clear explanation for their opposition:
The White House, they said, made no
meaningful effort to consult with them
before making nominations. Mr. Wyden
and Mr. Merkley said Mr. Trump had
completely bypassed Oregon’s bipartisan
selection committee.
These are fair complaints. The
Constitution gives the president the
power to choose federal judges, but
only with the “advice and consent” of
the Senate. In an earlier era of relative
comity and good faith, the blue-slip
tradition may have helped to ensure that
advice was considered. But in this toxic,
hyperpartisan age, there’s no simple way
to force a president to listen.
And that is not a minor matter. Any
president, not least one who lost the
popular vote by almost three million
votes, should take account of the wishes
and concerns of senators of the opposing
party. Mr. Obama made concessions
to Republican senators in states like
Oklahoma and Utah, and he tried for
years to negotiate with others, often to
no avail. In contrast, Mr. Trump, not
even eight months into his presidency,
has farmed out the selection of judges to
conservative advocacy groups like the
Heritage Foundation and the Federalist
Society.
The push toward ever-more extreme
judges will only further politicize the third
branch. Still, the blue slip is no longer the
answer. As we argued in 2014, senators
who oppose a nominee can state their
objections on the Senate floor and try to
persuade their colleagues — something
Mitch McConnell was too cowardly to
do in 2016, when he refused to allow
even a hearing for Merrick Garland, Mr.
Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court
vacancy.
For the next few years, at least,
Democrats will have to grit their teeth
and watch as hard-right judges begin
to restock the federal bench. But
Republicans who are gloating right
now over their near-total control of
Washington might remember one of the
more painful realities of politics: No
majority lasts forever.
OTHER VIEWS
When life asks for everything
I
’d like to offer you two models of
Now I confess, this strikes me as
human development.
a cold and detached conception of
The first is what you might call
marriage. If you go into marriage
The Four Kinds of Happiness. The
seeking self-actualization, you
lowest kind of happiness is material
will always feel frustrated because
pleasure, having nice food and clothing
marriage, and especially parenting,
and a nice house. Then there is
will constantly be dragging you away
achievement, the pleasure we get from
from the goals of self.
earned and recognized success. Third,
In the Four Happiness frame, by
David
there is generativity, the pleasure we
Brooks contrast, marriage can be a school in
get from giving back to others. Finally,
joy. You might go into marriage in a fit
Comment
the highest kind of happiness is moral
of passion, but, if all works out, pretty
joy, the glowing satisfaction we get
soon you’re chopping vegetables side
when we have surrendered ourselves to some
by side in the kitchen, chasing a naked toddler
noble cause or unconditional love.
as he careens giddily down the hall after bath
The second model is Maslow’s famous
time, staying up nights anxiously waiting
hierarchy of needs. In this conception, we
for your absent teenager, and every once in
start out trying to satisfy our physical needs,
a while looking out over a picnic table at the
like hunger or thirst. Once those are satisfied
whole crew on some summer evening, feeling
we move up to safety
a wave of gratitude
needs, economic and
sweep over you, and
physical security. Once
experiencing a joy
those are satisfied
that is greater than
we can move up to
anything you could
belonging and love.
feel as a “self.”
Then when those are
And it all happens
satisfied we can move
precisely because
up to self-esteem.
the self melded into
And when that is
a single unit called
satisfied we can move
the marriage. Your
up to the pinnacle of
identity changed. The
development, self-
distinction between
actualization, which
giving and receiving,
is experiencing autonomy and living in a way
altruism and selfishness faded away because
that expresses our authentic self.
in giving to the unit you are giving to a piece
The big difference between these two
of yourself.
schemes is that The Four Kinds of Happiness
It’s not just in marriage, but in everything,
moves from the self-transcendence individual
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has always
to the relational and finally to the transcendent pointed toward a chilly, unsatisfying version
and collective. Maslow’s hierarchy of
of self-fulfillment. Most people experience
needs, on the other hand, moves from the
their deepest sense of meaning not when they
collective to the relational and, at its peak, to
have placidly met their other needs, but when
the individual. In one the pinnacle of human
they come together in crisis.
existence is in quieting and transcending the
Rabbi Wolfe Kelman’s life was fraught
self; in the other it is liberating and actualizing with every insecurity when he marched with
the self.
Dr. Martin Luther King in Selma, but, he
Most religions and moral systems have
reported: “We felt connected, in song, to the
aimed for self-quieting, figuring that the great
transcendental, the ineffable. We felt triumph
human problem is selfishness. But around the
and celebration. We felt that things change for
middle of the 20th century, Abraham Maslow, the good and nothing is congealed forever.
Carl Rogers and others aimed to liberate and
That was a warming, transcendental spiritual
enlarge the self. They brought us the self-
experience. Meaning and purpose and mission
esteem movement, humanistic psychology,
were beyond exact words.”
and their thinking is still very influential today.
In one of his many interesting data points,
For example, on Tuesday one of America’s Finkel reports that starting around 1995, both
leading marriage researchers, Eli J. Finkel,
fathers and mothers began spending a lot
publishes an important book called “The
more time looking after their children. Today,
All-or-Nothing Marriage.” It’s quite a
parents spend almost three times more hours
good book, full of interesting insights on
in shared parenting than parents in 1975 did.
contemporary marriage. But it conceives
Finkel says this is an extension of the Maslow/
marriage completely within the Maslow
Rogers pursuit of self-actualization.
frame.
I’d say it’s evidence of a repudiation of it.
In this conception, a marriage exists to
I’d say many of today’s parents are moving
support the individual self-actualization
away from the me-generation ethos and
of each of the partners. In a marriage, the
toward covenant, fusion and surrendering
psychologist Otto Rank wrote, “one individual love.
is helping the other to develop and grow,
None of us lives up to our ideals in
without infringing too much on the other’s
marriage or anything else. But at least we can
personality.” You should choose the spouse
aim high. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs too
who will help you elicit the best version of
easily devolves into self-absorption. It’s time
yourself. Spouses coach each other as each
to put it away.
seeks to realize his or her most authentic self.
■
“Increasingly,” Finkel writes, “Americans
David Brooks became a New York Times
view this definition as a crucial component of
Op-Ed columnist in 2003.
the marital relationship.”
The highest kind of
happiness is moral
joy — when we have
surrendered ourselves
to some noble cause
or unconditional love.
YOUR VIEWS
No sense blaming Obama
for logging levels, wildfires
A recent editorial about federal land
management and fires covers a topic that is
close to my heart — the use of active forest
management to better set up our national
wildlands for the inevitable wildfires. I was
happy to see that you got much of it right,
especially with respect to the need to place
thinning treatments in strategic places in order
to better manage fires.
However (and this is critically important)
the editorial took an irresponsible turn when
you chose to lay the blame on the Obama
administration.
Your statement (“(A)t some point the
Obama administration decided nearly all
federal forests were off-limits to logging, the
best and only way to manage forests”) is flat
out wrong and unnecessarily divisive. Does
every issue have to be viewed through the lens
of partisan politics?
Here are the facts: according to the Oregon
Department of Forestry, federal annual timber
harvest levels in our state were actually higher
during the Obama administration than during
the G.W. Bush administration (503.75 billion
board feet harvested per year 2009-2016 vs.
324 billion board feet per year 2001-2008).
Interestingly, the harvest level per year during
the Clinton administration was even higher
(665 billion board feet/year 1993-2000). I
see absolutely no evidence that any particular
administration “decided that federal forests
were off-limits to logging” as you have
so boldly stated — let alone the Obama
administration.
In my beloved Blue Mountains National
Forests, harvest levels have also risen
over the past eight years, due in part to
the collaborative approaches to forest
management that were encouraged (and
funded) by the past administration.
If you want to blame federal laws for
our current situation, it is popular to blame
the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Wilderness Act, and the Endangered Species
Act. Be aware that these laws were passed
(by Congress) and signed (by the president) in
the 1960s and 1970s — under the Johnson and
Nixon administrations.
There is enough partisan politics being
played in our country right now, and to
further polarize the public in the west by
falsely laying blame for the 2017 fire season
on the Obama administration only makes it
worse. I would expect the opinions of the
editorial board to be based on real facts, not
“alternative facts” or partisan hyperbole. I can
get enough of that by reading letters to the
editor and social media.
W.C. (Bill) Aney
Pendleton