HinesSight

Right-wing extremism responsible for 10 mass shooting deaths

Yesterday thirteen people were shot and ten killed at a Buffalo supermarket by an 18-year-old white man armed with an assault rifle and high capacity magazines.

A day after one of the deadliest racist massacres in recent American history, law enforcement officials in New York descended on the home of the accused gunman and probed disturbing hints into his behavior, as Gov. Kathy Hochul promised action on hate speech that she said spreads “like a virus.”

The suspect, Payton S. Gendron, 18, shot 13 people on Saturday afternoon at a Tops supermarket in east Buffalo, killing 10, officials said. Almost all the victims were Black — shoppers, grocery workers and a security guard bound together by little more than tragic happenstance.

But Mr. Gendron picked his target carefully, the police said, choosing an area known for its large Black population and even visiting the neighborhood the day before the attack in what authorities described as “reconnaissance.”

Clearly his motive was racial hatred. Gendron left a lengthy manifesto professing concern about the "great replacement" theory that bizarrely warns about white people being replaced by immigrants, Blacks, Jews, and Latinos.

Before embarking on a racist rampage in Buffalo on Saturday, the alleged gunman left behind a document denying membership in “any organization or group.”

“I am the sole perpetrator of this attack,” he wrote.

But the 180-page screed, which authorities are scrutinizing in connection with the massacre, leaves little doubt that the alleged perpetrator, 18-year-old Payton Gendron, belongs to a global fraternity fused by the Internet and fixated on the idea that White people are being intentionally replaced.

That idea, once relegated to the fringe, has gained currency on popular right-wing television programs and in the halls of Congress. The theory, known as the “great replacement,” has turned white nationalism into an international call to arms. The apocalyptic vision has accumulated followers during the coronavirus pandemic, which has deepened political polarization and accelerated the online flow of racist ideology.

All mass shootings are horrific. But they used to be mainly the work of deranged individuals who wanted to kill a bunch of their fellow human beings. 

Now, though, we're seeing mass shootings with a far-right political motivation. That's even scarier, since the crazy ideas motivating the killers are emanating from inside the Republican Party and right-wing media outlets like Fox News.

Tucker Carlson, notably. He's been spouting lies on his Fox show about how Democrats are encouraging illegal immigration so they can get lots of new voters, which is a version of the Great Replacement theory. This is an excerpt from the April 13 CNN story.

Obviously, Carlson was never going to apologize for or retract his remarks. But he could have chosen to ignore the controversy, move on, and let it die out. Instead, he did the opposite. Carlson opened up his show by first replaying the comments he made last week — comments in which he essentially endorsed the "great replacement" theory.

 

Then he mocked critics who were outraged he had done so. "It is amusing to see them keep at it," Carlson said of those who have called for him to be removed from Fox's air, a group that now includes the Anti-Defamation League. "They get so enraged! It's a riot!"

 

Making a mockery of those with very real concerns about his rhetoric wasn't enough for Carlson. He then went on to recite the core element of the "great replacement" theory, describing it to his millions of viewers as accurate. "Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party's political ambitions,"

 

Carlson said. "In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country." Carlson told his audience that the "goal" is "to make you irrelevant." He said it is "provably true." Over and over again, he referenced "demographic" change.

Now that ten people have been killed by a man motivated by the lie of the Great Replacement theory, Tucker Carlson should vow that he'll never bring it up again. Of course, he won't do this. Nor will a House Republican, Elise Stefanik.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the No. 3 House Republican, and other GOP lawmakers came under scrutiny Sunday for previously echoing the racist “great replacement” theory that apparently inspired an 18-year-old who allegedly killed 10 people while targeting Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo.

Yet Republicans around the country are passing laws against discussing race in schools because the United States supposedly has moved beyond racial discrimination. That obviously isn't true, a fact underlined by the deaths of the 10 people in Buffalo.

Mr. Gendron’s writings were littered with racist, anti-immigrant views that claimed white Americans were at risk of being replaced by immigrants or people of color, once-fringe ideas that have been given a fuller airing in recent years by some prominent conservative commentators.

On the far right, the theory, which sometimes blames Jews for fomenting the “great replacement,” has been tied to gunmen in several other mass shootings as well as the 2017 right-wing rally in Charlottesville, Va. that devolved into violence.

Our country desperately needs national gun control legislation. Sadly, the odds of that happening in Congress are slim to none, since Republicans will filibuster it in the Senate.

We also need to control the hate speech that is rampant in the Republican Party, which loves to denigrate immigrants, the LGBTQ community, and anyone else who doesn't conform to their archaic political views, including women who want to choose for themselves whether to have an abortion.

Vote for Democrats. That's the only way the United States is going to pull out of the moral tailspin Republicans have gotten us into.

Statesman Journal eliminates opinion section. I'm irked.

I've been a subscriber to Salem's Statesman Journal newspaper for 45 years. The paper has always had an opinion section. 

It's been my favorite part of the Statesman Journal. I enjoy reading letters to the editor. I like to peruse guest opinions by local people. Syndicated columns interest me. So do editorials written by newspaper staff, even when I disagreed with them -- which was frequent over the years.

But yesterday Cherrill Crosby, the executive editor, wrote a piece saying that the Statesman Journal is doing away with the opinion section. The reasons were lousy. 

Crosby claimed "this content does not resonate as it once did with audiences." Well, neither do newspapers as a whole. I wasn't aware that the job of newspapers is to only publish what the greatest number of people want to read. Silly me. I thought news was what newspapers were all about.

A big part of news isn't purely factual. It is interpretative, putting things into a broader context, viewing news through a lens that goes beyond who/what/when/where/why. 

That's what opinion pages have always done. Yet Crosby and her bosses at Gannett don't care about that. They aren't interested in providing the best journalism. They care only about generating enough eyeballs on Statesman Journal content to support their advertising rates.

Crosby said, "Opinion content is often cited as the reason for canceling a subscription." OK. And now I think you're going to find that a lack of opinion content also is a reason for canceling a subscription.

What's bizarre about this screwy decision is that the opinion pages can cost very little. Dump some of the syndicated columnists if you want to save money. Ask people in Salem to submit more letters to the editor and more opinion pieces.

After a bit of editing, you've got an opinion section written by citizens who aren't paid a dime by the Statesman Journal. And it adds local content to a newspaper that currently has very little of it, being mostly a rehash of USA Today.

But Crosby didn't go that route.

Instead, she chose to dump the longstanding tradition of an opinion section entirely, rather than updating it to be more appealing to readers of the paper. Judging by comments on Crosby's announcement, many subscribers aren't happy with her decision. Here's a few of the comments.

This is a blatant attempt to silence readers and guest opinions. Misinformation as the reason to stop the opinion page is a very lame excuse considering almost all of Statesman Journal's articles aren't even fact-checked by a copy editor or editor. Copy editors were part of Gannett's massive layoffs in the past decade. Let the reader decipher whether it is opinion or fact. Also if it is so unpopular then why does Time magazine have 12-16 pages of articles in a section titled "The View?" Here lies the Statesman Journal ... may it rest in my kitty litter box.

---------------------

So another way to silence the voices of the SJ readers and our communities. So sad.

---------------------

My Grandfather was part owner of this newspaper long ago and he must be spinning in his grave to see how bad this rag has become since it was swept up in Gannett's game of Pac Man in the newspaper consolidation industry. (If I wanted to read USA Today I would have subscribed to that.)

 

I wonder what the "real" reason is that brought you to this decision, and doubt seriously the one given. I find it odd timing, since we are in the throes of possibly the most important election in my lifetime.

 

Gannett presents the news like a tabloid and pushed that format down to all its owned subsidiaries. Unfortunate for all who consume the news.

 

I find it amusing that those still wearing their red hats still think this paper is too "liberal." Sure it is, if you are used to the "Daily Stormer" or FOX for your "news" consumption. I find that this paper leans middle-right (like it's parent company.)

 

It would make more sense to turn off comments on individual news stories and continue with an opinion section. One more reason to dump my over priced subscription and go to a local independent news service. The Gods of journalism are weeping.

Daniel Silva's Gabriel Allon series is so good, I'm marrying it

At the (very real) risk of sounding like CNN's Wolf Blitzer, I'm announcing some Breaking News, Happening Now.

After my many years of passionate dalliances with other writers of spy novels -- notably the Gray Man and Mitch Rapp series -- I've decided to commit to a literary marriage to Daniel Silva's Gabriel Allon series.

I discovered Silva in 2018 after making the mistake of buying the book Bill Clinton wrote with novelist James Patterson, "The President Is Missing." 

The book was bad. Not the worst I've ever read, but poorly written with shallow characters. After buying it, I read a review in The New Yorker that said Clinton should have chosen Daniel Silva as his collaborator rather than Patterson.

That led me to purchase one of Silva's books in his Gabriel Allon series.

Right away I was hooked. Compared to other writers in the highly-skilled-spy genre, Silva has a rare ability to captivate the reader with thrilling action and finely honed characters who are both wonderfully human and exceptionally talented.

Gabriel Allon is a master Israeli spy who also is one of the world's top art restorers. Brilliant combo!

Allon is the guy you want if, as in the book I'm reading now, you're trying to save the honest wife of a Russian illicit arms dealer who has been captured by the modern equivalent of the KGB and you need someone who can calmly shoot three guards in the head even though they only have sight in one eye due to being repeatedly punched in the other eye by a Russian thug.

He's also the guy you want if you've got a precious painting that needs restoring to its original condition and only the best restorer will do.

Allon is thoroughly committed to defending Israel against its enemies. But I like how Silva often has Allon engage in conversations with Palestinians who he has to combat, yet have good reasons for why they're battling Israel. 

That sort of nuance typically is missing from other spy novels -- which I enjoy for the thrilling plot and action, yet disappoint me because Daniel Silva's writing is so superior.

I've read about half of the 20, I think it is, books in the Gabriel Allon series. It's my bedtime reading, what I read just before I turn the light out. Since I'm usually sleepy, my habit is just to read four pages or so.

Another reason I do this is to make the Gabriel Allon books last longer, since I enjoy them so much. However, the older I get (I'm 73), the more I worry that at the rate I'm going, I could die before I finish all of the series.

Hence, my decision to commit to reading a Gabriel Allon book not only at bedtime, but during my nightly hot bath where I've been reading the Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn and his writing successor, Kyle Mills, who took over the series after Flynn died.

Perhaps I'll change my mind. I tend to be fickle when it comes to my reading habits. Maybe the later Gabriel Allon books won't be as good as the ones I've read so far. I doubt it, though. 

Silva is such a skilled writer, the chance of him writing a lousy Gabriel Allon book seems slim. "The Cellist" was released in 2021. Here's part of an interview with Silva that shows how seriously he takes his craft.

Lots of books and movies use the “torn from the headlines” tag line. It’s usually just PR, but, in this case, it’s a literal description of The Cellist. 

It is. I was working on the book, and I got a call from my wife. She said, “Turn on the TV.” I did, and I saw our capital being overrun. I write about national security issues, and I’m not an intelligence officer but I have to think like one when I’m writing. I have to imagine current and future threats to our country. Twenty years after 9/11, and all the trillions of dollars spent to make our homeland safe, to see our capital overrun by our own people was really awful. I knew I had to write about it.

How did you work it in?

 It wasn’t easy. I had to rewrite most of the book in six weeks.

Young folks, here's a tale of the not-so-good old days

Gather around the blog post kitchen table, young'uns.

(Which means just about everyone, since I'm 73, older than all but a few people reading this, but, hey, if you're a sentient Giant Sequoia, I'm a baby compared to you.)

I realize that hearing senior citizens talk about the good old days is just about the most boring thing imaginable. Not wanting to inflict that on you, I'm going to do something different.

Talk about the bad old days. 

I feel the need to do this because it wasn't all that long ago when I was a youngster just out of college who subscribed to the 1960's mantra, Don't trust anybody over 30.

Well, actually it was all that long ago, about 50 years. In that half century I've learned a few things. Not because I'm smart.

Because the sheer passage of time gives us baby boomers a perspective on where our country was way back when that impels our sometimes frantic desire to warn people about the danger of our country heading that way again.

Which is a clear and present danger, not the sort of warning my grandmother used to give childhood me, like "Never stand under a light globe where the bulb has just been changed, since the globe could fall, hit you on the head, and you're dead."

No, what I'm warning about is a very real commitment by a large share of the Republican Party to return the United States to the way things were when I was in high school, 1962-66. 

OK, not totally, obviously. The GOP doesn't possess a national time machine. We'll still have smartphones, big screen TVs, computers, and other benefits of living in the 21st century. 

What we could lack, though, may sound crazy to those who have grown up in an age of societal progress. However, let me assure you, as someone who grew up when the following were absent from the cultural landscape of the United States, that what was missing, then became a reality, can go missing again.

Meaning, progress isn't inevitable. Societies can go backward. Hard won gains can be lost. All it takes is people, and voters, becoming complacent, figuring that No way could our country ever return to...

Well, here's how things stood when I was in high school.

-- Women were second class citizens. Abortion was illegal everywhere. Girls couldn't wear pants in school. They could be cheerleaders, but could only compete in a few sports. Home economics was required. Getting a loan or credit card typically required a man's signature. Few women worked outside the home.

-- No such thing as LGBTQ rights. We knew there were homosexuals. But they were considered deviants. Any boy who seemed effeminate would be taunted with Queer! Homo! Faggot! There was zero discussion of gender identity or sexual preferences in school other than the traditional male/female. Any suggestion that gay marriage would ever be legal -- ridiculous.

-- Blacks lacked basic rights. I was six years old when the Supreme Court finally declared racial segregation in public schools to be illegal in 1954. But southern States fought the ruling for quite a few years. As late as 1963 Alabama governor George Wallace tried to stop Black students from enrolling in the University of Alabama. Racial discrimination in voting wasn't banned until 1965.

Our country has come a long way since those not-so-good old days. Problem is, there's strenuous efforts to reverse that progress by conservatives. They can't be allowed to succeed.

My fear is that younger people who have grown up without knowing anything other than equal, or almost equal, rights of women, the LGBTQ community, and Blacks will be complacent in the battle to preserve those rights against Republican efforts to turn the clock back to the 1950s and early 1960s.

Like I said, nothing is guaranteed when it comes to human rights and democracy. What seems impossible to lose can be lost. Hopefully this won't happen if enough people wake up and realize the need to preserve our hard-won social gains.

 

 

Covid cases rising in Oregon and Marion County with fewer people wearing masks

I've never stopped wearing a mask in indoor public spaces, even though masks are no longer required. When I see most people maskless, sometimes I wonder if I should join them.

But since wearing a mask is no big deal, and I'd much rather do that instead of getting Covid and running a significant risk, about 30% I believe, of having nasty Long Covid symptoms persist for months or even years, I always end up putting my mask on.

That decision is looking even wiser given the recent rise in Covid cases both statewide in Oregon and here in Marion County.

The real number of cases is at least ten times greater than shown, since most people with symptoms are getting tested for Covid at home now, so the vast majority of cases aren't getting reported to the Oregon Health Authority.

Why are cases rising? The Albany Democrat-Herald has a good story by Tim Gruver, "OHA: Fewer face masks likely leading to more COVID cases in Oregon." 

COVID-19 cases are climbing back up in Oregon, and fewer people wearing face masks is likely the cause, according to state public health officials.

While the state is faring much better than other states, it is far from out of the woods, Deputy State Health Officer Tom Jeanne said at a virtual press briefing on Wednesday, April 20.

...Hospitalization figures, however, lag behind case counts, and right now, daily case counts are seeing steady rises since their lows of 300 per day at the start of the month.

The seven-day rolling average, Jeanne said, is now 600 cases per day as of Tuesday, April 19.

Those numbers are higher than what Oregon saw when COVID-19 restrictions were last relaxed in July while also far short of January's case surge brought on by omicron variant of the disease.

Why? Fewer people than ever are wearing face masks, according to Jeanne.

...The Oregon Health Authority has no threshold for when it would reinstitute a statewide mask mandate, according to Jeanne, regardless of what COVID-19 case trends are signaling.

"We hope that that kind of intervention will not be required," Jeanne said.Nevertheless, Jeanne described wearing a face mask as one of the simplest and least burdensome measures people can take to protect themselves and others.

I think of it this way.

If I stop wearing a mask in a store or other public indoor space, after more than two years of doing this and not getting Covid, then I get infected and suffer from COVID-19, not just for a few weeks but for many months, I'd berate myself for failing to heed the masking advice of public health experts for people like me -- over 60 or otherwise at greater risk.

But if I keep on wearing a mask until Covid truly becomes endemic, rather than an epidemic/pandemic, I'd feel bad if I got Covid but I wouldn't feel like an idiot for failing to wear a mask when this is such an easy thing to do.

I'd like to trade Joe Biden for Volodymyr Zelensky

I'm a Democrat who is ever so thankful that Joe Biden is president rather than Donald Trump. But if I could trade Biden for President Zelensky of Ukraine, I'd make that deal without a second thought.

Zelensky is a fighter.

He's rallied the Ukrainian people behind him in their battle against Russia's invasion of their country. More: Zelensky has inspired the entire freedom-loving world by refusing to bow to the demands of Putin, an authoritarian ruler who is committing horrific war crimes in Ukraine, if not outright genocide.

Biden, by contrast, is doing OK in supporting Ukraine, but not nearly enough.

Biden is unduly afraid of Putin's threat to use nuclear weapons if the United States goes beyond sanctions and supplying military equipment to Ukraine, such as by protecting humanitarian evacuations and relief efforts via a limited no-fly zone to stop the killing of many thousands of Ukrainian civilians.

So Putin gets to draw red lines that the United States can't cross, while Biden and our NATO allies refuse to draw a very reasonable red line aimed at Putin.

Stop killing Ukrainian civilians and bombing entire cities into rubble, along with other war crimes, or the United States and NATO will force you to do that by military means.

Would that lead to World War III between the United States and Russia? Almost certainly not. Putin talks tough, but he isn't going to start a nuclear war over Ukraine. 

We're making the same mistake Europe did in the run-up to the Second World War. Assume that an authoritarian ruler, Hitler in that case, Putin in this case, will be content with merely taking over part of an adjoining country.

Didn't work then. Won't work now. 

Zelensky is absolutely correct when he says that Ukraine isn't fighting just for its own survival, but for the survival of the free world. I wish Biden would grasp that fact. If Putin succeeds in taking over part or all of Ukraine, he'll be emboldened to do the same with other countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union.

And China will feel freer to invade Taiwan, since the Biden doctrine seems to be, "If you're a nuclear power who invades a sovereign nation, we won't confront you militarily, but only by sanctions and providing arms to the country you invaded."

Pretty damn weak.

Plus, Biden initially was reluctant to give Ukraine all the weapons it needed to defend itself. Notably, a plan to have some NATO countries transfer MiG aircraft to Ukraine that Ukrainian pilots were familiar with fell through when the United States didn't want the planes sent to an American base in Germany before being flown to Ukraine.

A just-published New York Times story, "The U.S. Races to Arm Ukraine With Heavier, More Advanced Weaponry," reflects the mistake Biden made by dribbling out arms to Ukraine too slowly and cautiously.

As columns of Russian troops began pouring into Ukraine nearly two months ago, the United States and its allies started supplying Kyiv with weapons and equipment for what many expected to be a short war: sniper rifles, helmets, medical kits, encrypted communications, lots of bullets and the portable, shoulder-held Stinger and Javelin missiles that quickly became icons of the conflict.

Defying the odds, Ukraine held on to its capital and pushed Russia from the north. Now, as the Kremlin switches gears and begins a concerted effort to capture eastern Ukraine, Washington and its allies are pivoting as well, scrambling to supply Ukraine with bigger and more advanced weapons to defend itself in a grinding war.

The West is focused on sending longer-range weapons like howitzers, antiaircraft systems, anti-ship missiles, armed drones, armored trucks, personnel carriers and even tanks — the type of arms that President Biden said were tailored to stop “the wider assault we expect Russia to launch in eastern Ukraine.”

...Some argue the Americans are being too cautious.

“Seven weeks ago, they were arguing over whether to give Stinger missiles — how silly does that seem now?” said retired Lt. Gen. Frederick B. Hodges, the former top U.S. Army commander in Europe. “We have been deterred out of an exaggerated fear of what possibly could happen.”

...Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, repeatedly expresses gratitude for the aid but wants more, sooner. He admitted to being fed up with listing the same set of requirements over and over again to different national interlocutors, telling The Atlantic in Kyiv: “When some leaders ask me what weapons I need, I need a moment to calm myself, because I already told them the week before. It’s Groundhog Day. I feel like Bill Murray.”

How our dog drives me crazy: Example 1 of 1,000

I keep reading about how modern dogs are evolved from wolves who became domesticated when people realized that they could be useful, and stopped chasing them away from their prehistoric camps.

That's probably true. But now the dog-human relationship seems to have swung almost totally in the direction of dogs benefitting from living with us. 

Sure, I enjoy the company of our Husky mix canine, Mooka. However, she doesn't contribute very much around our house. The most useful thing she does is occasionally catch a mole or vole that's burrowing in our yard.

Meanwhile, she regularly drives my wife and me crazy. I guess that's her job -- challenging us to stay as sane as possible in the face of her antics. 

This morning Laurel took her for a walk around the community lake in our aptly-named neighborhood, Spring Lake Estates. Walking ahead of Mooka, Laurel realized she was nowhere to be found. And she wasn't coming when called, a sign that something has seriously grabbed Mooka's attention.

Eventually Mooka appeared out of some brush near the lake. She was carrying something. Laurel thought it might be a tennis ball thrown and lost by another dog owner. But no, it turned out to be a goose egg.

It was impressive that Mooka could gently cradle an egg in her powerful dog jaws. Laurel wanted to return it to the goose nest, though. Which Laurel never found. What she did find was newly sprouting poison oak growing in the area Mooka had been rummaging around in. 

So Laurel had to wash her clothes, since we both are allergic to poison oak, and Mooka got a good hosing down.

My afternoon walk with Mooka wasn't so eventful. Just the usual way Mooka drives me crazy on our mostly leashless walk along some Spring Lake Estates trail easements, then on Lake Drive back to our house.

Much of my time on a dog walk is spent staring at a motionless dog obsessing over a rodent hole. Or, some other place where Mooka smells a small critter that she really wants to catch. 

Me, I have the strange idea that a dog walk should mostly consist of walking along with our dog. Mooka has a different understanding.

Pretty clearly she views walking as a means to get from one captivating scent to another captivating scent, spending as much time as possible engrossed in the smells, with as little time as possible actually walking.

I'm fine with this up to a point.

That point has a limit when I start thinking about how much I want to get home and eat dinner, along with watching my recording of All In With Chris Hayes on MSNBC so I can keep in touch with my own obsession: politics and current affairs.

So after waiting for what seems like ten minutes for Mooka to cease her sniffing at some spot, but probably is more like 45 seconds, I start issuing commands to our dog: "Mooka, let's go!" Though her hearing is excellent, Mooka ignores me until, maybe the fifth time I say this, I try to sound more like a stern Alpha pack leader.

"Mooka, let's go, now!" She then ambles slowly away from whatever she was smelling to find a new scent, after which we repeat our little game of me commanding and Mooka very reluctantly complying.

Part of our walk is along a wide grassy part of the trail where it is easy for me to see what Mooka is up to. 

But out here in the country there's plenty of places for a mischievous dog to hide from sight. Like behind this impressive pile of wood from the February 2021 ice storm that hasn't yet been split and hauled away. 

Eventually, though, I put on Mooka's leash when we reach Lake Drive, a lightly travelled road where you can walk along the center line as if it were a yellow brick road that leads not to the Wizard of Oz, but ...

To another thing to stop and smell.

The good news (for me) is that now I have Mooka on a leash and can pull her away from the enticing garbage can. Our house is just a few hundred yards away, so I know that I've survived another attempt by our dog to drive me crazy.

Tomorrow will be another day.

Protected bike lane network proposed for Salem

I'm super-excited about the very real possibility that fairly soon Salem could have more than 55 miles of new protected bike lanes -- which now basically exist only in Minto Brown Park and a few blocks of downtown.

This photo showing a protected bike lane elsewhere comes from a must-see web site that describes the Salem Bike Vision. At least, you must see it if, like me, you enjoy riding a bicycle but aren't wild about riding your bike in Salem on paths that are either nonexistent or consist of painted lines on the edge of a busy road.

Here's a map of the proposed bike network.

Read the press release below to learn more about the interconnected bike network. "Interconnected" is a key word. It drives me nuts when I hear people say things like, Salem doesn't need protected bike paths because I hardly ever see anyone using the one downtown.

Well, that's because the one downtown is only on a few blocks (purple in the map above). So you can't safely get to those few blocks, and once there, you can't get anywhere else on a protected bike path. Build a network of protected bike paths and they'll be heavily used, for sure.

If you want to see the protected bike paths built, email city officials at city[email protected] ASAP. As noted in the press release below, the City Council will be considering projects to include in an upcoming bond measure at meetings on April 4 and April 11.

Say you heartily support the proposal to use existing infrastructure to create the protected bike lanes, and want to see money for this in the bond measure.

Here's a copy of the March 24 press release.

Community Leaders Unveil Vision for Unified Bike System in Salem

The comprehensive system would provide more than 55 miles of new protected bike lanes and paths including a North-South and East-West bike routes with connections for all residents to safely travel throughout the city.

Salem, OR - Community leaders serving on the City Council, the Cherriots Board of Directors, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board have jointly released a new vision for an interconnected bike system for the future of Salem.

The comprehensive bike network would utilize existing infrastructure in a way that will provide unprecedented access and direct routes for residents traveling by bicycle. Most importantly, the vision would ensure protected bike lanes that allow riders of all ages and skill levels to feel safe and comfortable.

By 2035, estimates show as many as 60,000 new residents will move to Salem. Meanwhile, new housing developments are pivoting away from car infrastructure and encouraging residents to use bikes and public transportation. Community leaders say it is imperative that the City plan for this growth with a safe and efficient system for all residents to travel the city.

“I constantly hear from residents and Neighborhood Associations that they want more bike lanes in Salem,” says Salem City Councilor Virginia Stapleton, who represents Ward 1. “This plan provides a unified and safe way to connect the entire city.”

The City of Salem is currently exploring a $300 million Community Improvement Bond and building their list of projects, which presents a unique opportunity to place a down payment on the transportation system of the future.

This plan coincides with historic increases in gas prices, leaving many residents unable to affordably travel throughout the city. A comprehensive bike system would offer a safe, affordable, and carbon-free mode of transportation that is unaffected by fluctuating gas prices.

The plan would establish designated North-South and East-West bike routes throughout the city,with numerous connecting routes leading to businesses, neighborhoods, parks, and other landmarks. The new protected bike infrastructure could be built affordably by avoiding costly land acquisition needed to widen roads.

Instead, by right-sizing travel lanes the City will have room for protected bike lanes. The end result will be safer streets for all modes of travel,including car traffic.“Cherriots has many exciting projects in the works to increase public transit options in Salem,” said Ian Davidson, President of the Board of Directors for Cherriots. “But a truly integrated transportation system means we must also invest in bike infrastructure that both an 8-year-old and an 80-year-old are comfortable riding in. This plan achieves that.”

The City of Salem is also considering the Our Salem Plan and recently adopted a Climate Action Plan. Both of these strive to make Salem more livable and climate friendly in preparation for the future. Transportation remains the largest source of planet-warming pollution in Salem as well as the whole state of Oregon. Increasing residents' access to carbon free transportation options will help significantly reduce emissions.

“The past two years of the pandemic have shown us the importance of making long-term investments in our community,” said Dylan McDowell, Vice Chair of the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and a member of the city’s Climate Action Task Force. “Salem has an abundance of parks and green spaces, and a unified bike system will mean that residents can safely go from home to work to natural areas without worrying about traffic or parking.”

Salem residents are encouraged to visit Bit.ly/salembike for more information about the proposed bike system and to sign in support of this vision. City Council is expected to consider a list of bond projects at its April 4th work session and April 11th Council meeting. Residents can send written comments to [email protected] or sign up for verbal public comment at both meetings.

About the Authors
Virginia Stapleton is the City Councilor for Ward 1
Ian Davidson is the President of the Board of Directors for Cherriots
Dylan McDowell is the Vice Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

CenturyLink sucks when it comes to rural broadband

After we got Starlink satellite internet at our home in rural south Salem, Oregon in early 2021, I stopped complaining about CenturyLink after we dumped their crappy 6-7 Mbps DSL "broadband" and started enjoying 50-150 Mbps Starlink download speeds.

But today a CenturyLink repair guy came to our house to fix an annoying buzz on our landline, which got me thinking about rural broadband again.

(Yeah, we're old-fashioned, since we still have a landline, in part because the Verizon cellular connection on our iPhones is pretty poor, two bars at most, unless we take a hike up our long driveway.)

Since it took a while for the repair guy to figure out what was causing the buzz, I was able to chat with him about what used to be my favorite subject when I talked with a CenturyLink technician -- why our neighborhood about six miles from the city limits of Oregon's capital can't get fiber optic service.

We're only a couple of miles from where CenturyLink's fiber optic line ends along Liberty Road. It wouldn't cost a huge amount to extend fiber optic to our area.

Before we got Starlink, a few years ago I contacted a local broadband company about signing up for their cellular broadband. It turned out that because we didn't have a line of sight to the cell tower they use, that wouldn't work for us. 

Another company was kind enough to give me a rough estimate for what it would cost for them to extend fiber optic cable along Liberty to our neighborhood. Their estimate was about $400,000. That's a lot of money, but it sure seems doable for a massive company like CenturyLink (now legally Lumen Technologies.)

There's several hundred homes in our area. Yet the repair guy told me that CenturyLink isn't even installing fiber optic in all parts of Salem, or in all new subdivisions, so he felt that our neighborhood will never get fiber optic. 

Not because it can't be done. Because it wouldn't generate enough profit for CenturyLink.

Hopefully President Biden's bipartisan infrastructure bill will fulfill Biden's promise that broadband will become available to everyone in the United States. I'm skeptical, though, that this will happen anytime soon. 

Broadband should be a public utility like electricity. In the 21st century fast broadband is a necessity. Businesses need it. Families need it. Students need it. But so long as broadband is left in the hands of private companies out to make big profits, many people in the United States won't be able to get it.

I asked the CenturyLink technician if 5G cell service would come to the rescue of rural people lacking fast broadband. He wasn't very optimistic. I hadn't thought about this before, but he said that more cell towers would be needed for 5G, and they all require a fiber optic connection.

So plunking 5G towers all over rural America is going to be impractical, most likely.

Which makes Elon Musk's Starlink satellite broadband the best option for many rural people. Yes, the cost is $110 a month, recently raised from $99. If government funding could subsidize the cost of Starlink for those unable to afford it, this could be the best way to go for lots of rural Americans. We're certainly happy with it.

Oscars blow it by a pitifully minor mention of Ukraine

Tonight's Oscars show was viewed around the world. It used to get hundreds of millions of watchers. Maybe that's less now.

Regardless, both those who put on the Oscars and those who won awards blew it by failing to take a much stronger stand in support of Ukraine against Russia's unprovoked invasion.

I watched every minute of the show.

I kept waiting for someone -- a presenter, an award winner, anyone -- to make some impassioned remarks about the bravery of the Ukrainian people and the need for freedom lovers everywhere to support their battle against Russia.

Instead, all we got was the bare minimum: a screen with a bunch of words that called for a moment of silence for Ukraine, along with a request to donate to Ukrainian relief.

Better than nothing. But just barely. 

I heard a lot of talk in support of deaf people, of LGBTQ people, of Black people. But there were only two verbal references to Ukraine.

After a tribute to the 50th anniversary of the Godfather movies, if I recall the number of years correctly, one of the honorees said as he was leaving the stage, "Viva Ukraine." 

Wow. The Oscars ran about 40 minutes over the scheduled three hours.

So there wasn't time for a couple of minutes to honor the freedom fighters in Ukraine, who, while the Hollywood elite were congratulating themselves for being able to make movies, were risking their lives to combat the biggest invasion of a European country since World War II?

I guess not. Looks like the Oscars had decided that what the world needs now is 3 hours and 40 minutes of an award show devoted to wealthy people involved with movie-making patting themselves on the back.

The other verbal reference to Ukraine came from Amy Schumer, one of the three hosts, who said after making a humorous remark, "There's a genocide going on in Ukraine and women are losing all their rights."

Huh? Thousands of Ukrainians are indeed being killed. That arguably is a form of genocide, but it also is simply Russia bombing civilian areas rather than military targets. And I have no idea what Schumer meant by women losing all their rights.

Maybe she got Ukraine mixed up with Afghanistan, where the Taliban are indeed taking away women's rights.

Actually, many women and children in Ukraine are losing their lives, not their rights. Russia is forcing lots of Ukrainians to flee to Russia from cities being bombed by Russian forces, so I guess that could be considered a loss of rights.

I found this year's Oscars entertaining, but also deeply irritating. It astounded me that no presenter or award winner, neither of whom is at a loss for words, didn't use the world stage they found themselves on to draw attention to the horrors being inflicted on Ukraine by Russia.

Instead, I watched Will Smith rush up on stage and punch Chris Rock after Rock made a joke about Smith's wife. OK, she has hair loss, and Rock joked about that.

Chris made a comment about Jada's shaved head ... saying he couldn't wait to see 'G.I. Jane 2' -- which got some groans from the crowd, to which he just sorta shrugged off.

Chris didn't think he'd crossed a line, but Will clearly did ... because he stormed the stage and literally socked the dude in the face. A stunned Rock exclaimed, "Wow. Will Smith just smacked the s*** outta me."

The American broadcast on ABC muted, and even froze, but in other countries it continued ... and Will shouted "Keep my wife's name out your f****** mouth" twice to Chris.

Will Smith later made one of the most annoying acceptance speeches I've ever seen when he won Best Actor for his role in "King Richard." Smith kept saying that God had chosen him to do some amazing things, which apparently included punching Chris Rock and swearing at him.

Religious hypocrisy is the worst kind. Will Smith showed that tonight.