Opioid Policy Becomes Personal For One Health Official After Husband's Death

Deborah and Joe Thompson were married for six years. Joe died from an accidental heroin overdose in 2016.

Todd Hugen Photography

hide caption

toggle caption

Todd Hugen Photography

On a Monday afternoon in October, a panel of Iowa state legislators gathered in the statehouse to discuss the opioid epidemic.

Doctors, law enforcement officials and health insurers all took turns at the lectern.

One of the witnesses was Deborah Thompson.

She’s testified in front of state legislators plenty of times. As the legislative liaison for the Iowa Department of Public Health, she’s often asked to provide legislators a window into what the epidemic looks like in Iowa. The information can be wonky at times, like how many morphine equivalent milligrams are prescribed each year, or cold facts, like that year’s death toll.

Last year in Iowa, there were 80 opioid-related deaths. In 2017, there are projected to be 201.

This time, there was something else she wanted to share.

“Today would have been my seventh wedding anniversary,” she told the panel. “My husband, Joe Thompson, passed away from an accidental heroin overdose last September. He left me and his 1-year-old son, Lincoln.”

For years, Thompson had worked on policy related to the opioid crisis in Iowa while keeping her own family’s struggle with addiction in the background. She’d told a couple of state legislators she had close relationships with, but sharing her story in public was a big moment.

Thompson went back and forth about whether she could keep this to herself. She saw her role as the policy expert working in the background, not a face of a national problem.

“I wasn’t really sure I was going to, and I just couldn’t shake the fact that it was our wedding anniversary, and that had to mean something,” she tells NPR’s Robert Siegel. “The coincidence was too great. Joe had always gravitated toward the helping professions, he wanted to be a nurse or a counselor or something like that, and it would be quite an anniversary gift to give him, to be able to, maybe grant that wish through me, if it helped a lot of people. It was probably one of the better gifts I gave him. I was never very good at our anniversary gifts.”

Joe Thompson holds his son Lincoln.

Deborah Thompson

hide caption

toggle caption

Deborah Thompson

Joe Thompson’s struggle with opioids started back in 2004. After he was in a serious car accident, Thompson says her husband was likely over-prescribed medication to treat the pain. He started going from doctor to doctor, a practice called doctor shopping, to get new prescriptions or refills. At his job as a package handler for UPS, he started swiping prescription drugs being shipped through the mail.

Joe tried to get help. He enrolled in an outpatient facility. Several times he got sober, sometimes for several years at a time. He even went back to school and got his nursing degree. But then he would relapse again.

“I think it’s hard to understand that,” Deborah Thompson says. “I think logically your mind can get there, but your heart hurts … the way the disease manifests itself, it’s selfish, things are done to you, money was stolen from me, lies were told to me, and it’s hard to wrap your mind around the idea that it’s a disease causing this behavior while you’re in it.”

It took Thompson a while to really grasp that her husband was sick — that his addiction was not just a bad habit he couldn’t kick, but a disease that was really hard to climb out from.

“I just kind of equate it to, when my mother had brain cancer, we could see the tumor on the X-ray scans, we knew that something was growing and taking over her brain,” she says. “I wish I’d known more about the science when we were in it. … I felt like I was finally ready to deal with Joe’s addiction, and then time ran out.”

Joe Thompson died in September 2016 from a heroin overdose. He was 35.

Joe may not have beat his addiction, but Thompson is confident Iowa can.

She says new funding has helped, as well as changes in the law that have given states additional flexibility to respond to the crisis. One policy change that she says could help save lives right now is requiring doctors in every state to check prescription monitoring databases — information that would prevent doctors from prescribing or refilling opioids to people who don’t actually need it or are dealing with an addiction. She says waiting for doctors to voluntarily adopt best practices simply isn’t enough.

Deborah Thompson is also hoping her unique position at the crossroads of policy and personal experience can help move her state just a little bit closer to curbing the epidemic.

“Just looking at how many community partners that are involved, that run the gamut of law enforcement, the healthcare community, public health professionals, community agencies, coming together in Iowa to fight this, I can’t imagine we’ll lose,” she says.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

NPR Readers Select Mueller Probe As Top Political Story Of The Year

Robert Mueller speaks during a news conference at the FBI headquarters in Washington during his term as FBI director in 2008.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Russia probe, led by special counsel Robert Mueller, was chosen as the top political story of the year.

It narrowly beat out the sweeping story of fallout from sexual harassment, which touched on every industry and caused the resignations of a senator and members of Congress and continues.

The selection happened through Twitter, where more than 4,700 users voted on the final match up of a March Madness-style 64-story tournament.

The final four included the Women’s March and the firing of James Comey, the former FBI director. It was a clear indication of what readers saw as the two big thematic stories of the year — Russia and women/sexual harassment.

But, in the end, it was the Russia probe that won out. It has ensnared four people who worked on the Trump campaign, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, far less than he could have been charged with. But Flynn got a better deal because he is cooperating with the investigation, which could indicate Mueller is climbing even higher up the ladder of Trump’s inner circle.

Mueller’s tenure has come under sharp criticism from conservatives and allies of President Trump looking to discredit the investigation. It’s sure to be a closely watched and consequential story in 2018.

There were 285 bracket submissions from users. And one man won out — Dave Steadman (@davesteadman). (He wins NPR Morning Edition host David Greene’s voice on his voice mail.) Here’s Dave’s bracket:

A look at the final two brackets out of 285 submitted. Nice work all around. Good conversations had on the news merits of the match ups. @davesteadman@courtneyknorrispic.twitter.com/a8FSxZ5mTh

— Domenico Montanaro (@DomenicoNPR) December 29, 2017

You can view the full results here:

NPR readers picked the Mueller probe as the top political story of 2017.

Domenico Montanaro/NPR

hide caption

toggle caption

Domenico Montanaro/NPR

Happy New Year!

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

FACT CHECK: Trump's 'New York Times' Interview On Russia, Taxes, Health Care And More

President Trump has been spending the holidays at his resort in West Palm Beach, Fla., where he was interviewed by the New York Times on a wide range of topics.

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

In an impromptu 30-minute interview with the New York Times on Thursday, President Trump said 16 different times that there has been “no collusion” proved in the Russia investigation. Trump also asserted he will win re-election in 2020 because the media need him for ratings and made inaccurate claims about his role in the Alabama Senate race, the state of the Affordable Care Act and more.

As for that special counsel investigation, while some Trump allies have actively tried to undermine the Mueller probe, in the interview Trump hewed closely to what his own lawyers have been saying. “I think that Bob Mueller will be fair, and everybody knows that there was no collusion,” Trump said.

According to the Times, there were no aides on hand as Trump spoke with reporter Michael S. Schmidt about a wide range of topics in the Grill Room at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Fla. The president didn’t conduct a traditional end-of-year news conference, so this interview offers a look at what Trump is thinking as he heads into 2018.

NPR reporters and editors have combed through the interview excerpts transcribed by the Times. Their annotations follow.

You can also jump to the following sections:

Russia investigation

Defining collusion: “There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.”

NPR’s Ryan Lucas: When people say “collusion,” they’re generally using it in a colloquial sense to refer to secret coordination that would include criminal conduct. But Trump is right — collusion is not a crime. However, there’s another C-word that comes into play here — “conspiracy” — and that is a crime. Now, it depends on how Mueller’s investigation shakes out, but there are a few possible conspiracy charges that could come into play in the special counsel’s probe. One is conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and another is a more general conspiracy charge: to defraud the United States.

Special counsel’s fairness: “No, it doesn’t bother me because I hope that he’s going to be fair. I think that he’s going to be fair. And based on that [inaudible]. There’s been no collusion. But I think he’s going to be fair. And if he’s fair — because everybody knows the answer already, Michael. I want you to treat me fairly. O.K.?”

NPR’s Tamara Keith: President Trump’s description of the investigation closely mirrors that of White House special counsel Ty Cobb’s. “I think it’s been highly professionally done,” Cobb said of the investigation in an interview with NPR in November. “And I think they have moved with an alacrity that they’re proud of and that the American people can be proud of.” Under Cobb’s guidance, the White House posture has been full cooperation with the investigation, with an insistence that it will be over soon and the president will be cleared. This is in contrast to some of the president’s allies who have been actively trying to undermine the investigation.

Feinstein’s comments: “I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day on television saying there is no collusion. She’s the head of the committee.”

NPR’s Keith: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is the chairman. On Nov. 5, Feinstein appeared on CNN’s State of the Union following the guilty plea of former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos. Charging documents described conversations Papadopoulos had with Russian-linked individuals where he was promised “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, as well as hacked emails. Feinstein was asked whether she had seen any evidence of that dirt or emails being given to the Trump campaign. “Not so far,” Feinstein responded.

A month later, though, in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Feinstein said she believed an obstruction of justice case was coming together against the president.

“I see it in the hyperfrenetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets. And I see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of Director [James] Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to ‘lift the cloud’ of the Russia investigation. That’s obstruction of justice,” Feinstein said.

“They made the Russian story up”: “So for the purposes of what’s going on with this phony Russian deal, which, by the way, you’ve heard me say it, is only an excuse for losing an election that they should have won, because it’s very hard for a Republican to win the Electoral College. … So the Democrats. … [Inaudible.] … They thought there was no way for a Republican, not me, a Republican, to win the Electoral College. Well, they’re [inaudible]. They made the Russian story up as a hoax, as a ruse, as an excuse for losing an election that in theory Democrats should always win with the Electoral College. The Electoral College is so much better suited to the Democrats [inaudible]. But it didn’t work out that way. And I will tell you they cannot believe that this became a story.”

NPR’s Keith: It is true that the Electoral College map in recent elections has been favorable to Democrats — not “always.” However, it is simply not true that the “Russian story” is a hoax cooked up by Democrats to explain away Clinton’s loss. The U.S. intelligence community, with a high level of confidence, has concluded that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, hacking emails, using troll farms to amplify fake news that was favorable to Trump and intended to hurt Clinton, and pumping out its own anti-Clinton propaganda on Russian state-owned television and YouTube channels. Even among members of his own administration, Trump is virtually alone in insisting that Russian interference in the election is a hoax.

What Trump often conflates when he says that the “story” is a “hoax” is the idea of “collusion” with Russian interference overall. He has cast doubt on and left open the possibility that Russian interference didn’t happen, but he has not outright dismissed it. Trump has not been consistent on Russia’s role in the election. At times, he has questioned whether the Obama administration’s response was adequate. In July, he said, “I think it was Russia” and “others also.” Trump also said, after speaking with Putin in Asia in November, that he believed that Putin meant it when he again denied interfering.

Justice Department

Purview over Justice Department: “What I’ve done is, I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department. But for purposes of hopefully thinking I’m going to be treated fairly, I’ve stayed uninvolved with this particular matter.”

NPR’s Carrie Johnson: The president is the ultimate boss of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other Justice Department leaders. But norms and guidelines enforced widely after the Watergate fiasco have meant that only a few people inside the White House may contact only a few people at the Justice Department. Those policies are supposed to insulate prosecutors and FBI investigators from political interference. DOJ law enforcement decisions, such as whether to bring criminal charges, are supposed to operate independent of political decision-making. But several times in 2017, President Trump himself or someone in his White House has reportedly reached out to FBI or DOJ officials about particular matters. And the president’s lawyers maintain he has the ultimate authority over federal investigations, whether or not it is wise to use it.

Loyalty and the attorney general: “I don’t want to get into loyalty, but I will tell you that, I will say this: Holder protected President Obama. Totally protected him. When you look at the I.R.S. scandal, when you look at the guns for whatever, when you look at all of the tremendous, ah, real problems they had, not made-up problems like Russian collusion, these were real problems. When you look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect for that, I’ll be honest, I have great respect for that.”

NPR’s Johnson: While former Attorney General Eric Holder once declared himself President Obama’s “wing man” and called the president a friend, he also maintained that the Justice Department’s law enforcement duties operated independent of the White House. Prosecutors did decline to bring charges over the IRS scandal in the Obama years, to the dismay of Republican lawmakers. As for the ATF gun-running scandal known as “Fast and Furious,” it prompted a shake-up at the ATF and a congressional contempt citation for Holder. But no evidence emerged that either the White House or Obama had a role in that failed operation.


Working with Democrats: “So. … We started taxes. And we don’t hear from the Democrats. You know, we hear bullshit from the Democrats. Like Joe Manchin. Joe’s a nice guy. … But he talks. But he doesn’t do anything. He doesn’t do. ‘Hey, let’s get together, let’s do bipartisan.’ I say, ‘Good, let’s go.’ Then you don’t hear from him again.”

NPR’s Keith: In a recent interview with Politico, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was critical of the president’s approach to the tax bill, going with a partisan process that relied on Republican votes alone for passage. “I was an easy pickup. Very easy pickup,” Manchin said. “And a couple, two, three other Democrats would have been easy pickups, if they had just made an effort.”

In the end, not a single Democrat voted in favor of the tax bill.

State and local tax deduction: “Had they come to me for a bipartisan tax bill, I would have gone to [Majority Leader Mitch McConnell], and I would have gone to the other Republicans, and we could have worked something out bipartisan. And that could’ve been either a change to SALT or knockout of SALT.”

NPR’S Keith: This is a fascinating maneuver by the president. In a way, he is absolving himself of blame, and instead pointing fingers at both Democrats and members of his own party for new limitations on the deductibility of state and local taxes in the new GOP tax law. He is blaming Democrats for not playing ball, and blaming Republicans for insisting on limiting the deductions. The limits on state and local tax deductions are expected to disproportionately affect high-cost areas in blue states. A handful of Republican representatives in the House voted against the tax bill because this provision would hurt their constituents. But other Republicans saw this as a way to punish high-tax states or even push them to lower taxes, reducing the reach of government at the state level.

Health care

Individual mandate: “You know the individual mandate, Michael, means you take money and you give it to the government for the privilege of not having to pay more money to have health insurance you don’t want. There are people who had very good health insurance that now are paying not to have health insurance. That’s what the individual mandate. … They’re not going to have to pay anymore. So when people think that will be unpopular. … It’s going to be very popular. It’s going to be very popular.”

NPR’s Keith: The individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance, is a largely unpopular part of the Affordable Care Act. The law also requires people to pay a fine if they do not have health insurance. With the new tax bill, Republicans eliminated the fine (technically the mandate to have insurance still exists, but the enforcement mechanism goes away). In 2015, according to the IRS, 6.5 million taxpayers were hit with the penalty. The average payment was $470. Millions more received federal subsidies to help offset the cost of the insurance they did purchase.

According to NPR’s Shots blog: “The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that dropping the requirement would result in 13 million fewer people having insurance over 10 years.” Premiums are also predicted to rise as healthier people drop insurance.

Association health plans: “We’ve created associations, millions of people are joining associations. Millions. That were formerly in Obamacare or didn’t have insurance. Or didn’t have health care. Millions of people. That’s gonna be a big bill, you watch. It could be as high as 50 percent of the people. You watch. So that’s a big thing. And the individual mandate. So now you have associations, and people don’t even talk about the associations. That could be half the people are going to be joining up.”

NPR’s Keith: Trump is referring to an executive order he signed in October calling on various federal agency heads to “consider proposing regulations or revising guidance” to expand the availability of association health plans; short-term, limited-duration insurance; and health reimbursement arrangements. Trump speaks as if this executive order is already in full effect and millions of people have signed up for association health plans as a result. That is simply not the case.

“The regulations for these new association health plans have not yet been proposed, let alone implemented,” Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation said in a tweet. “So unless we’re in a time warp, people are not yet covered by them.” Levitt is co-executive director of the Program for the Study of Health Reform and Private Insurance and is a noted expert on the U.S. health care system.

In another tweet, he pointed out that many questions remain about how these plans would be regulated. The news site Vox wrote a detailed explainer about the policy implications.


DACA and the wall: Schmidt: “It sounds like you’re tacking to the center in a way you didn’t before.” Trump: “No, I’m not being centered. I’m just being practical. No, I don’t think I’m changing. Look, I wouldn’t do a DACA plan without a wall. Because we need it. We see the drugs pouring into the country, we need the wall.”

NPR’s Amita Kelly and Joel Rose: Trump has reason to become more “practical” on immigration: He has been unable to secure funding to construct his U.S.-Mexico border wall from either Congress or Mexico. He has, however, remained steadfast that a border wall is needed. His administration is moving to end DACA, which protects about 700,000 people brought illegally to the U.S. as children. But he has called on lawmakers to protect those immigrants through a larger immigration overhaul. Polls show wide support for allowing so-called DREAMers to stay in the country.

Here are five immigration stories to watch in 2018, including DACA and the border wall.

“Chain migration”: “We have to get rid of chainlike immigration, we have to get rid of the chain. The chain is the last guy that killed. … [Talking with guests.] … The last guy that killed the eight people. … [Inaudible.] … So badly wounded people. … Twenty-two people came in through chain migration. Chain migration and the lottery system. They have a lottery in these countries.”They take the worst people in the country, they put ’em into the lottery, then they have a handful of bad, worse ones, and they put them out. ‘Oh, these are the people the United States. …’ … We’re gonna get rid of the lottery, and by the way, the Democrats agree with me on that. On chain migration, they pretty much agree with me.”

NPR’s Kelly and Rose:What Trump calls “chain migration,” immigration advocates call “family reunification.” It describes the way most immigrants come to the U.S. — someone immigrates and, in turn, sponsors family members.

Trump is apparently referring to Sayfullo Saipov, who allegedly killed eight people after plowing a truck into a crowd in Lower Manhattan in November. Saipov is a legal resident and came to the U.S. from Uzbekistan in 2010 on a diversity visa, not through a family connection. The diversity visa program, which issues 50,000 visas per year, was created for people from countries that have sent relatively few immigrants to the U.S. They apply and are vetted before being entered in a lottery. It’s not a program that allows countries to put the “worst people” into a lottery. Trump has called for a merit-based system that would preference highly skilled workers.

A suspect in a different New York attack — Akayed Ullah, who is accused of setting off a bomb near the Port Authority in December — was in the U.S. on a visa available through family connection.

Democrats aren’t necessarily on board with Trump’s desire to eliminate chain migration. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said following the subway bombing that many New Yorkers were in the U.S. because they “were allowed to come after the first family members got here. … If we’re now talking about a new generation of immigrants who are, in many cases, people of color … suddenly it’s ‘chain migration,’ and it’s a bad thing.” And Trump has blamed Democrats — specifically Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York — for creating the diversity visa lottery program. Though, as NPR has noted, it had bipartisan support at the time.

Foreign policy

Spending in the Middle East: “Michael, we have spent, as of about a month ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East. And the Middle East is worse than it was 17 years ago. … [Inaudible.] $7 trillion.”

NPR’s Domenico Montanaro: This is higher than Trump said during the campaign. He would pin the cost of what the U.S. has spent in the Middle East after the Sept. 11 attacks as $6 trillion. That, PolitiFact noted in October 2016, “is confusing money that’s been spent with money that researchers say will be spent. That’s a $1 trillion difference or more.” That’s because of money that is estimated to be spent on veterans’ care over the next half-century.

Welcome in China: “I like very much President Xi. He treated me better than anybody’s ever been treated in the history of China. You know that. The presentations. … One of the great two days of anybody’s life and memory having to do with China.”

NPR’s Montanaro: In the 4,000-year history of China, this is a sweepingly hyperbolic claim. Without delving into the pomp China has provided past foreign dignitaries, it’s worth pointing out that former President Richard Nixon is largely responsible for the normalization of relations with China and was received warmly in 1972.

Oil going to North Korea: “It was very recently. In fact, I hate to say, it was reported this morning, and it was reported on Fox. Oil is going into North Korea. That wasn’t my deal! … My deal was that, we’ve got to treat them rough. They’re a nuclear menace so we have to be very tough.”

NPR’s Keith: Trump tweeted about this on Thursday. “Caught RED HANDED – very disappointed that China is allowing oil to go into North Korea,” Trump said. “There will never be a friendly solution to the North Korea problem if this continues to happen!” The tweet raised questions about where this information had originated and whether the president was tweeting about something he had learned in a classified briefing. As Trump explains here, his source was a report on Fox News.

NAFTA renegotiation: “If I don’t make the right deal, I’ll terminate NAFTA in two seconds. But we’re doing pretty good. You know, it’s easier to renegotiate it if we make it a fair deal because NAFTA was a terrible deal for us. We lost $71 billion a year with Mexico, can you believe it?”

NPR’s Montanaro: In 2016, the overall U.S. trade deficit with Mexico was about $56 billion, not $71 billion. But, more important, this is not a zero-sum game. American exports to Mexico have increased sixfold since NAFTA went into effect. Goods exports are five times as high as they were in 1993 when NAFTA was signed, with more than $200 billion worth of American goods being sold in Mexico. In fact, Mexico is the second-largest goods export market for the United States — behind Canada.

As NPR’s Danielle Kurtzleben fact-checked during the 2016 campaign: “NAFTA doesn’t seem to have been catastrophic for the U.S. economy or for U.S. jobs. As we pointed out in our last Trump speech annotation, nonpartisan analyses have found only a small economic impact from NAFTA. The Congressional Research Service wrote in a 2015 report, ‘NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters.’ “

Trade with Canada: “[We lost] $17 billion with Canada — Canada says we broke even. But they don’t include lumber and they don’t include oil. Oh, that’s not. … [Inaudible,] … My friend Justin [Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister] he says, ‘No, no, we break even.’ I said, ‘Yeah, but you’re not including oil, and you’re not including lumber.’ When you do, you lose $17 billion, and with the other one, we’re losing $71 billion.”

NPR’s Montanaro: The U.S. had a trade surplus with Canada of $12.5 billion in 2016. Canada is the U.S.’s largest export market, and the Commerce Department says exports to Canada accounted for an estimated 1.6 million jobs in the United States in 2015.

Alabama Senate race

Endorsing Strange, then Moore: “I was for Strange, and I brought Strange up 20 points. Just so you understand. When I endorsed him, he was in fifth place. He went way up. Almost 20 points. But he fell a little short. But I knew what I was doing. Because I thought that. … If you look at my rhetoric, I said the problem with Roy Moore is that he will lose the election. I called it. But as the head of the party, I have a choice: Do I endorse him or not? I don’t know. … I feel that I have to endorse Republicans as the head of the party. So, I endorsed him. … The problem with Roy Moore, and I said this, is that he’s going to lose the election. I hope you can straighten that out.”

NPR’s Jessica Taylor: When Trump endorsed Sen. Luther Strange in a tweet on Aug. 8, most polls had Strange in second place behind Roy Moore in the GOP primary. One contemporaneous poll put the appointed senator’s support at 23 percent, while another pegged it at 32 percent.

Strange ended up getting just shy of 33 percent, compared with Moore’s almost 39 percent in the first round of voting on Aug. 15. So Trump did not “bring [Strange] up 20 points,” and Strange was not in fifth place at any point in time. In the runoff in September, Strange did get 45 percent of the vote, an uptick of 20 points, but he was always going to gain more votes once there were just two candidates instead of a crowded field. That can’t be attributed to Trump’s endorsement alone — which wasn’t able to bring Strange across the finish line. Moore headed to the general election instead.

Trump did say at a rally on Strange’s behalf on Sept. 22 that Strange was the most electable candidate, telling the crowd that, “If [Luther] wins, that race is over. If somebody else wins, I will tell you, that’s gonna be a very tough race.” And those comments came before the sexual assault allegations against Moore surfaced. But Trump also did express some hesitation at endorsing Strange during that rally, admitting that, “I’ll be honest, I might have made a mistake” in picking Strange. Many of Trump’s allies — including former chief strategist Steve Bannon — backed Moore in the primary.

Ultimately, Trump is probably right about another thing — if it had been Strange as the GOP nominee, Republicans very likely would have held on to the Alabama seat. Democrat Doug Jones won, despite a last-minute challenge from Moore and his refusal to concede even as the voting result was certified.

Campaigning for president

The popular vote: “I won because I was a better candidate by a lot. I won because I campaigned properly and she didn’t. She campaigned for the popular vote. I campaigned for the Electoral College. … It would have been a whole different thing. The genius is that the popular vote is a much different form of campaigning. Hillary never understood that.”

NPR’s Keith: Hillary Clinton’s campaign was not ignoring the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote, though it did assume she had more strength in several typically Democratic states than it turns out she did. In the lead-up to the election, Clinton’s campaign focused on Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, states that were thought to be winnable but by no means a shoo-in, while spending less time and resources on Wisconsin and Michigan — traditionally Democratic states mistakenly thought to be in her column. Meanwhile, Trump put a lot of emphasis on those states, knowing he would need them to pull off an Electoral College victory, which he ultimately did. He also did so because it was his only path. Clinton had several options.

The irony here is that some Clinton insiders were concerned that she would win the Electoral College but Trump would win the popular vote and then contest the election results. In the end, Clinton ended up with nearly 2.9 million more popular votes than Trump.

For a primer on how the Electoral College works, watch this episode of Ron’s Office Hours from February.

Winning in 2020: “We’re going to win another four years for a lot of reasons, most importantly because our country is starting to do well again and we’re being respected again. But another reason that I’m going to win another four years is because newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I’m not there because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes. Without me, The New York Times will indeed be not the failing New York Times, but the failed New York Times. So they basically have to let me win. And eventually, probably six months before the election, they’ll be loving me because they’re saying, ‘Please, please, don’t lose Donald Trump.’ O.K.”

NPR’s Keith: This is far from the first time Trump has claimed with confidence that he will win re-election in 2020. But he is now offering a stunning theory that the media — an institution he has denigrated to no end throughout 2017 — will help him win because papers and cable networks need him to keep their ratings and subscriptions up. It is true that Trump has generally been good for ratings. But in America, the media don’t decide who wins elections. Voters do.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

The 50-Year Newspaper


Destruction tends to happen quickly; progress is often gradual.

This combination of sudden, bad things and slow, good things can mess up the way we see the world. We notice the sudden but miss the gradual. The nature of daily (hourly, minutely) news only adds to the perception problem.

What would happen if, instead of getting constant news updates, we only got a news update once every 50 years?

Today’s Indicator is 50. We’re dreaming up a newspaper that comes out once every 50 years. What goes on the front page?

Spoiler alert: It’s not all bad news.

Music by Drop Electric. Find us: Twitter/ Facebook.

Subscribe to our show on Apple Podcasts, PocketCasts and NPR One.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Sue Grafton, Bestselling Author Of Kinsey Millhone Alphabet Mysteries, Dies At 77

Author Sue Grafton, author of 25 mysteries featuring detective Kinsey Millhone, died Thursday at age 77. Grafton is seen here with a copy of her book “R is for Ricochet” in 2005.

Michael Buckner/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Michael Buckner/Getty Images

Sue Grafton, the author of A Is For Alibi and 24 other mysteries featuring detective Kinsey Millhone, died Thursday at age 77. Her daughter Jamie wrote on Facebook that her mother had been battling cancer for the last two years, but had been doing well until recent days.

“Sue always said that she would continue writing as long as she had the juice,” she wrote. “Many of you also know that she was adamant that her books would never be turned into movies or TV shows, and in that same vein, she would never allow a ghost writer to write in her name. Because of all of those things, and out of the deep abiding love and respect for our dear sweet Sue, as far as we in the family are concerned, the alphabet now ends at Y.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No 'Easy Answer' To Growing Number Of Stray Dogs In The U.S., Advocate Says

Dogs rescued from floodwater wait to be transferred to a shelter after torrential rains pounded Southeast Texas following Hurricane and Tropical Storm Harvey on Sept. 3, 2017 in Orange, Texas.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Author Peter Zheutlin never wanted a dog, let alone a rescue. He had always believed, as a lot of people do, that rescue dogs are damaged goods.

Now Zheutlin can’t imagine life without a dog, and he’s become so driven by the issue of stray dogs that he’s written two books about it. He tells Here & Now’s Lisa Mullins the number of stray dogs has “cascaded out of control” in some parts of the U.S.

“People are often very often surprised when I tell them that the picture … of dogs running on highways and so forth, this is not just a third world problem — that exists here in the United States,” says Zheutlin, author of the new book, Rescued: What Second-Chance Dogs Teach Us About Living with Purpose, Loving with Abandon, and Finding Joy in the Little Things.

There are more than 200 million stray dogs worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates about 3.3 million dogs enter U.S. animal shelters every year.

While Zheutlin makes the case for adopting dogs that are abandoned, he also acknowleges there is no easy answer to the problem. He says the supply of stray dogs greatly outweighs the demand.

In Houston, Texas, alone, there are more than 1 million stray dogs, according to the city’s pet shelter, BARC. After Hurricane Harvey hit this summer, thousands of dogs were rescued from floodwaters.

“These shelters, they’re dealing with an incredibly difficult problem where they may have a shelter that can hold 100 dogs, and every week a hundred more strays are coming in,” Zheutlin says. “And where do they go?”

The no-kill movement has contributed to the population growth, as the number of dogs and cats that are euthanized has decreased from 20 million to 3 million each year. As NPR previously reported, there are nearly 14,000 shelters and pet rescue groups in the U.S. that acquire almost 8 million animals each year.

Stray dogs also present safety issues when they roam in packs, causing traffic accidents, attacking residents and spreading disease. WHO estimates nearly 55,000 people die from rabies every year.

Spay and neuter laws that vary by state have also driven the increase of abandoned dogs, especially in more rural, southern states.

“The South still has a lot of work to do with spay-neuter laws, and getting people to feel that pets are more companions and parts of their family than yard dogs or that kind of thing,” Laurie McCannon, director of Northeast Animal Shelter in Massachusetts, told NPR in 2015.

Several city and local governments have adopted mandatory spay-neuter ordinances, but Zheutlin points out that the stray animal issue is low on the priority list for some cash-strapped cities.

“This problem has escalated to the point where it would take decades of a concentrated spay-neuter program in a city like Houston to begin to reduce the numbers,” he says. “The shelters are not often high priorities for governments either when they’ve got competing demands from the school department, the police department, the fire department, parks, sanitation. Who speaks for the dogs?”

According the ASPCA, approximately 1.6 million dogs are adopted from U.S. shelters each year, but 34 percent of dogs obtained as pets still come from breeders.

Many adopted dogs come from difficult circumstances, Zheutlin says, which means they could suffer from separation anxiety, barking and a lack of socialization skills. Critics of the no-kill movement say some dogs are just not fit for adoption.

“At some point, you begin to adopt out animals that have serious health issues or serious temperament issues that you should not,” Patti Strand, director of the National Animal Interest Alliance, an organization that represents dog breeders, told NPR in 2014.

While rescue dogs can present challenges, rehabilitation programs have led to an increase in the percentage of animals adopted, according to the ASPCA. Zheutlin suggests obtaining references before working with a rescue organization.

“Those organizations work hard to make sure these dogs are socialized and ready to be placed in a home,” he says. “In the vast vast majority of cases they are so ready to be loved, and to love back dogs, I think, draw us out of our own heads and [can] help us to live more in the moment.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)