Saying goodbye to Texas

My blog has been sadly neglected for the last several weeks, for which I apologize. I regret on a personal level too, for fear that unrecorded memories will gradually fade away. My last few weeks in Texas were a wonderful blur of packing, studying for and taking the boards, and most importantly, seeing dear friends and family for the last time. Scheduled to leave Texas Wednesday, June 21, I found the time leading up to this date replete with meaningful time with many of those closest to me, thanks in no small part to some advanced planning on my end.

I don't feel that I'm exaggerating when I say that these recent memories are some of the best from my years in this city in Texas.

• My last symphony concert in this city with Joe and Trevor. We had a quick dinner at Pei Wei before walking to downtown for a phenomenal performance of Pictures at an Exhibition.
• A trip to my old college stomping-grounds in Waco. Time with Steve & Laura, and their three winsome children Oak, Eleanor, and John. Visiting my old church, which though in a new building, feels very much like home.
• Coffee with old friend Jane and new friend James, who happen to be engaged (to each other).
• The parents of my good friend from college, Emily, treating me to dinner at a neighborhood Thai restaurant. Waterfall beef!
• Mom and Shelley, Roman and Isabella helping me pack! What a boost in morale!
• A week of night shifts in the ER.
• Lunch with Scott and Michael at Cafe Brazil after my last Sunday at PCPC. Studying all afternoon with Scott--law & medicine at the kitchen table!
• Dinner with Taylor and Jenny, two of my favorite wine-drinking companions!
• Dinner with Adam and Ashley at Cafe Brazil the night before our respective USMLE exams. Two of my most committed prospective vistors!
• The board exams, a two-day affair with graduation in between, for which my parents came in town. Getting to see Adam at nearly every break made the day go a lot faster.
• Spending time with my old roommates in Waco, David & Clint, and Clint's wife Kristin. Too many memories to recount.
• Sharing a couple meals with Reese & Jennifer, two incredibly encouraging people. And Madeline!
• Coffee with two dear professors. Saying goodbye to one for perhaps the last time. I can still vividly see her smiling at me through the car window as they drove away.
• Indroducing Jessica to Dr J, one of my favorite college professors. A medievalist, linguist, and distinguished professsor of literature and religion. In short, a modern C.S. Lewis.
• Coffee with Bonnie and Scott outdoors on one hot Texas afternoon.
• Dinner with Clay and Lori. I've eaten at more Mexican places with these people! (Of course, this time was Salvadorian...)
• Breakfast with Dawn at Breadwinner's
• My final day...using coupons to get drapes for my new apartment from Bed, Bath, & Beyond. David, Clay, Jessica, Laura, Mom, Shelley, Roman, and Bella all helped me pack. Charity came over in the evening to see me off.
• My last meal in this city...grilled chicken on focaccia with peppers and onions with Nathan and Katy. Seeing their two daughters Emma and Margaret.
• Mom and I pulled out of town Wednesday morning!

Drugs, Sex, & Gambling*

This article on CNN.com intrigued me. For those too lazy to click on the link, the story is about a nuclear scientist who was being charged with espionage by the Energy and/or Justice Departments. Information about this suspicion was leaked to the press, and the scientist lost his job in Los Alamos and was actually held in solitary confinement for nine months. Later, he sued the government as well as several media for leaking and disseminating the charges of espionage. He charged that this violated his privacy rights.

It would be interesting to go through law school to better understand cases like this, though I'm sure law school comprises more than riveting & nuanced case discussions. There may be a fair amount of reading too. However, in my limited understanding of the legal system, I know that the court presumes innocence until the defendant is proven guilty.

There also seems to be a general understanding of professional-client privilege. In other words, information doctors gain from professional encounters with patients is protected; the same is true for lawyers and clients. This argument could be extended in the practical sense to journalists and anonymous sources.

Now in this case, the results of the leak appear to have been devastating to this scientist's career. Was the leak appropriate? This makes me wonder what does constitute an appropriate leak. If the informant spoke to the reporter on the condition of anonymity, then there may be professional repercussions if it were known that he shared confidential information to the press. I guess we've seen recently in the CIA that having access to information doesn't give a person the right to decide it should be de-classified.

Back to our story. The scientist sued. It seems that the court requested the names of the informant(s) from the journalists, who in turn refused on the grounds of protecting the privilege between a journalist and an informant. The journalists were then held in contempt of the court, and the media & government agencies settled with the scientist out of court.

The most interesting thing is that the media representatitves seemed to take the moral high ground. The settlement was not meant to be a tacit admission of guilt. Rather, they settled to avoid jail time for the journalists and protect the confidentiality of their sources.

"We were reluctant to contribute anything to this settlement, but we sought relief in the courts and found none," the companies said. "Given the rulings of the federal courts in Washington and the absence of a federal shield law, we decided this was the best course to protect our sources and to protect our journalists."

And another quotation, this time from Lucy Dalglish, executive director of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who believed the settlement to be "unusual and perhaps unprecedented." (A rather measured remark from a person who makes her living working for freedom of the press.) She goes on to say,

"I'm certainly not happy about this, but I'm not sure I could have dreamed up a better result," Dalglish said. "On the positive side, it appears that this result will allow these reporters to continue to protect their sources."

The settlement underscores the need for a federal law that would shield reporters from having to disclose their sources, she said.

I think what we have here is a discrepancy between presumed rights of journalists and the written law. Dalglish argues that because of these rights (perhaps derived from the First Amendment), the "federal shield law" is needed. But in my simple way of reading the article, I wonder if a counter argument could be made. Because there is no such shield law, journalists don't have the right to protect confidential sources when ordered by the court to reveal them.

In the medical profession, of which I've learned a little, there are exceptions for doctor-patient privacy. If a patient presents a serious danger to himself or others, appropriate people or agencies should be contacted. CPS must be called with the suspicion of child abuse. And it's required to inform the Health Department in the case of certain infectious disease. All of these provisions are in the written law.

So, why is it that some journalists believe they enjoy an unassailable right to protect confidential sources which may have infringed on other's privacy rights, especially when this right is not spelled out in the law and the courts have ordered the sources be made known? With all respect to the importance of a free press, I welcome comments on this subject.

*My original title to the post was "Individual versus Journalists' Privacy Rights," but I changed it for fear of boring away potential readers. Sorry for being misleading.

Starker on trial

Tempted to buy something I don't really need from Amazon.com in order to utilize the free shipping for orders greater than $25, I've spent some time browsing some recordings of Bach's cello suites. A favorite recording over the last 8 or 10 years has been Janos Starker's Mercury edition, which probably first came out on LP in the 1970's and was re-released on CD in 1991. Unfortunately this recording is now in my brother's possession (I suppose it is his) and my scruples don't allow for copying of his CD.

The Mercury recording is one that I've listened to time and again. "Listen to" is such a weak verb, however, for my relationship with this music. Just as Karl Haas was a companion of sorts with his Adventures in Good Music every weeknight at 8:00 during the long evenings studying during my first and second years of medical school, these recordings have accompanied me in life. Replete with detail and grace, rich in personality (which in Starker's case is of course more than a big mellow tone and lots of rubato...his playing utilizes nasal--and at times even tinny--tones and sparing vibrato), and far more nuanced than most recordings I've encountered, the scope and magnitude of these works contrasts sharply with the visual restraint of a lone musician on a bare stage.

It should be no suprise, then, that I read with great interest others' reviews of the Mercury recordings and the newer RCA recordings Starker made in 1997. I'm having trouble deciding between the two recordings: the younger, more technically perfect and artistically nuanced Starker versus the older, wiser, more reflective Starker.

A few samples of the reviewers' comments... the negative ones displease me. On the other hand, perhaps the authors of those comments don't deserve to appreciate Starker the way I do.

• "...there is a pleasing 'thickness' to the performances by Ma and Starker..."
• "...[Starker] remarks, 'Playing Bach is a never-ending quest for beauty, as well as in some sense, the truth...As the years and decades go by, the understanding grows while the technical means weaken.'"
• "A fitting backdrop for any epiphany..."
• "...sound is very dry and often thin ." (Mercury recordings)
• "He often chooses not to vibrate certain notes, seemingly arbitrarily. And he clearly has no concept of the piece as a polyphonic work, trying (and often failing) to make smooth melodic lines when there are none to be found."
• "Starker's Mercury set of the suites is, for most cellists, the gold standard."

One quick post

I have to apologize to those faithful friends and family members who continue checking my blog regularly, despite the paucity of posts. ("I like that alliteration...all those L's!" John, this is for you.) I do intend to keep this thing up; it's just that some seasons of life are busier than others. Lately I've been trying to read anesthesia, do some online courses for my residency in New York, plan my next month, prepare for the USMLE Step III, start thinking about getting ready to move, and spend time with some of my friends for the last time before leaving this Texas town I've grown to love over the last five years. And oh yes, continue my 70-hour a week job of being an intern.

Okay, so "grown to love" is a little cheesy, but it's still a great city, and God's blessed me with many dear friends here. I went running tonight with my iPod shuffle, and after listening to Heifetz' recording of the Sibelius violin concerto, a rather sentimental bittersweet pop song came up next. One that reminded me that although there are many exciting adventures to come in New York City, I'm leaving a lot behind.

Before I sign off for the night, I wanted to share a picture of my brother & best friend David. This is on the rooftop of an apartment building in the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Gas prices these days...

The funny thing about this picture is that a couple years ago, these prices would have been high! Although I usually avoid the realm of political commentary on this blog, I couldn't help but write about the current "gasoline crisis."

Maybe this comment will come back to haunt me years down the road when I'm running for elected office, or maybe it will simply reveal my invisible hand tendencies, but I simply don't have too much pity for today's motorist. So gas prices are pushing, and in many places have exceeded, three dollars per gallon. Does this actually come as a surprise?

I read that there are more V8 automobiles on the road than four-cylinders. Even my own two dear sisters drive SUV's when a simple family sedan would probably suit their needs just as well. The collective mindset of America seems to be that oil is an unlimited resource, and that makes whining about gas prices and oil-industry profits particularly annoying.

First to address the oil-industry's profits. I don't claim to understand the economics of this (e.g., that companies like Exxon have to make huge multi-billion dollar investments that affect the course of the company over 10 or 20 years, hence quarterly performance indices are less relevant). But I do recognize that America and even the world is a free market. Developing economies, notably in South and East Asia, compete for the same oil that suburban Americans need to commute 30 miles daily to work. Because the supply is fairly rigid, an increase in demand will riase the price of the oil. And as far as "price gouging," that would require illegal cooperation between oil corporations. Governmental agencies are not always swift and nimble (one might think about FEMA here), but c'mon, the SEC surely has to have a few folks focused on the oil industry. I think simple economics are the greater force at play here. Katrina knocks out refineries and the supply decreases, so the price increases. Those oil companies able to continue to provide make a profit. That's the way it works.

And now--the whining. I don't see rising gas prices entirely bad. A physician whom I heard last fall lecture on the problems with Medicare made the point that when there is much at stake, the tendency is to wait until a state of crisis until drastic changes are made. Clearly when gasoline was $1.50 a gallon, investors weren't lining up at the doors of ethanol research labs. Perhaps it takes a bit of a pinch on the pocketbook to grab the attention of the sluggish and often-stubborn collective American mindset. "Perhaps we should look into alternative fuel sources. Perhaps we should have done this 10 or 15 years ago, but oh yes, we just weren't that worried about fuel prices back then. And oh yes, perhaps drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve could possibly damage an irreplacable resource all for a few drops of oil. And now that we think about it, perhaps we should defer that $100 government check and apply those resources toward alternative fuel research and development. In the meantime, you can find us carpooling to work, and even exploring lifestyle adjustments like riding public transportation."

Comments welcome.