A nice and relatable piece from one of the few bright spots at the “O” (12 and counting, each year better than the last!)

One of the nicest things I've read in awhile and timely considering my wife and I are just a week away from being married for 21 years(together 23). Thanks for linking.

This coming January 18th will mark our 41st anniversary.

Sandra Rowe is correct, in my view, that the Oregonian has some talented writers, many of whom came to the paper under her watch. This is a nice guy, too. Too many of the talented writers are egomaniacal to the point that they can't hear a recommendation that they direct their talents to providing better local coverage.
That, I think plays some role in the paper's decline despite the Pulitzers and all.

If it's good writing by an Oregonian, it's in the NYTimes.

- -

(Cynthia, as I recall Sarasohn was at The O way before Rowe, back while she was still composing Pat Robertson-symp editorial ca-ca at the Virginia Pilot. Whoever she recruited into The O with any kind of credit is more than negatively offset by all the ones she should have and didn't dump out.

(Who was the single vote which tipped the editorial board endorsement in 2004 to Dubya? Long may her infamy be inked.)

The O endorsed Kerry in 2004. You might be thinking of 2000, when they took W over Gore.

My wife and I were married the day after Nixon resigned. Little did I know that's why she's put up with me for so long.

I think you're right about Sarasohn Tensk. But the Oregonian these days is mostly readable and grammatical. I recall a day when I cringed reading the paper because the writing was so bad.

What I think is worst about the O is how editors avoid investigating serious local problems. The other day, someone told me she had spoken to a judge who had made an impossible legal ruling. When she asked why the judge wasn't in jail, she was informed that the judge was a friend of the DA. This kind of thing has been going on for years and years, hurting many, while the O has been exalting local players and refusing to investigate. To me, this political correctness approaches criminal complicity.

I second Cynthia's comment. There's no meaningful public accountability with regard to Multnomah County judges because no one ever challenges any of them for re-election. Why we even hold judicial elections at all escapes me. There's only a race when one of them retires or dies (and sometimes not even then). And when was the last time anyone in any local media took a close, critical look at a local judge? For whatever reason, it apparently just "isn't done." As a result, of course they feel free to make any crazy ruling they want to. The Portland City Council, which gets slagged on this site daily -- usually deservedly -- is a model of competence and transparency compared to the county judiciary (which also, last time I checked, was 100% white in Oregon's most racially diverse county).

Perhaps instead of holding meaningless elections, all judges should be appointed by the governor and their terms be subject to renewal or termination every few years by a competency panel (either fully or partly elected) that would review their decisions and consider public feedback.