Salem Political Snark

Trump's Agriculture Secretary expects Medicaid recipients to work in fields

It's always hard for me to figure out which of the many absurd pronouncements by Trump administration officials is most deserving of ridicule. This statement by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins came out on top today.

I'm not sure what the "34 million able-bodied on Medicaid" refers to. There are about 41 million adults on Medicaid, with a bit over 7 million aged 65 or older, so Rollins seems to be speaking about every adult on Medicaid aged 19 to 64 (41 million minus 7 million equals 34 million).

But only 8% of the 34 million, or about 3.3 million, reported that they are retired, unable to find work, or were not working for another reason. I guess these are the folks who the Agriculture Secretary thinks will be jumping at the chance to work in fields, often doing (literally) back-breaking labor.

As a pleasingly sarcastic MSNBC story about the Agriculture Secretary's remarks points out, Rollins seems to want the United States to act like communist Russia or China in forcing people to work on farms.

In other words, as the agriculture secretary sees it, there’s no need for concern about farmers losing out on immigrant labor because those workers can be replaced thanks to “automation” and Medicaid beneficiaries.

A lot of words come to mind when trying to describe such an approach, but for now, let’s go with “flawed.”

Right off the bat, let’s note the fact that most Americans on Medicaid already have jobs, so they won’t be available to pick crops and replace the victims of the White House’s mass deportation campaign.

What’s more, many Medicaid beneficiaries live in urban areas, which tend to be nowhere near farms, and I have a hunch the administration doesn’t intend to pay for an elaborate travel-reimbursement program to shuttle city residents to and from agricultural areas. (History offers some examples of regimes that forced urban residents to work on farms, but the Trump administration should probably try to avoid emulating Stalin’s five-year plan.)

Alas, there’s no reason to stop there. It’s also true, for example, that many Americans on Medicaid have physical disabilities and/or live in nursing homes, so asking them to work in fields to collect produce for consumers probably won’t go well.

But what I find myself stuck on is Rollins’ quote in the context of the Republicans’ domestic policy megabill. GOP policymakers approved sweeping and unprecedented cuts to Medicaid, arguing that Americans who lose coverage can simply get jobs that offer health insurance.

It’s against this backdrop that the secretary of agriculture suggested that Medicaid beneficiaries — whose coverage is at risk — can replace immigrants as farmworkers, brushing past the inconvenient fact that farmworkers tend not to get health care coverage.

All of which is to say, if the administration is counting on Americans on Medicaid replacing immigrants on farms, officials should probably start working on a Plan B.

I'm not feeling proud to be an American on this Fourth of July

I've never been a flag-waving sort of American. Yet I consider myself patriotic. I vote in every election. I'm active in my community. I want the United States to be an international leader, helping bring democracy and prosperity to other less fortunate countries. 

But on this Fourth of July, when we celebrate our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, I'm not feeling great about my country. I've got a lot of company from my fellow Democrats, only 36% of whom are extremely or very proud to be an American.

There's a simple reason. In 2015 80% of Democrats were extremely or very proud to be an American. This was at the tail end of Obama's presidency, when we had a decent human being in the White House who embodied core American values of compassion and caring.

After Trump became president in 2016, then was elected again in 2024, it became much more difficult for liberals like me to feel good about our country. And this wasn't because a Republican occupied the White House.

I'm old enough to have experienced quite a few Republican presidents: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, and now Trump. Until Trump came along, I never was ashamed of my county under GOP leadership. I just disagreed with many of the policies embraced by Republican presidents.

Now, though, Trump is an embarrassment.

His character flaws are horrendous. Trump never exhibits genuine concern for anyone who doesn't subscribe to his childish MAGA'ism. He has no idea what truly makes America great: our diversity, equity, and inclusion, three words that Trump has ordered stricken from the federal government, along with a big chunk of private entities such as universities. 

We used to be a magnet for people around the world who wanted a better life for themselves and their children. Now this image reflects our international reputation.

Previous Republican presidents upheld the core of our American norms and values even as they tinkered around the edges of them to make this country more conservative. Those presidents didn't demonize anyone who disagreed with them, as Trump does. 

Trump has no interest in being a president for all Americans. I've never heard him reach out to Democrats, saying something like "Though we may disagree, we are united in wanting to make our country better." Trump is a narrow-minded autocrat who admires authoritarianism and detests democracy. 

In 1776 the United States said NO to being ruled by a king. In 2025, as the massive No Kings protests last month made clear, we're equally opposed to being ruled by King Trump. He's the first president to make a mockery of our democracy and, worse, be supported in this by almost all Republican politicians and a majority of the Supreme Court.

That leaves it up to the American people to keep alive the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, which says that it is the Right of the People to resist despots. In 1776 the tyranny was from an external king. In 2025 the tyrant is home grown and resides in the White House.

Trump's megabill is both unpopular and uninspired

Liberals like me hate what used to be called Trump's Big Beautiful Bill before Senate Democrats deleted that name for an excellent reason (it's big, and a bill, but isn't at all beautiful). Among other things it will:

-- kick many millions of Americans off of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act 
-- make permanent tax breaks for corporations and wealthy people at the expense of poor people
-- cripple our country's renewable energy industries, leaving China to lead in this area
-- increase the national debt by $3-4 trillion
-- throw many billions of dollars into deporting hard-working undocumented migrants

Polls show that Americans dislike Trump's megabill by about 60-40. That's to be expected, given that the people the megabill benefits are many fewer than the people the megabill hurts.

But a Politico story discusses an issue that I hadn't thought of before -- how the megabill doesn't help Trump's Republican Party (there are no GOP policy positions aside from whatever Trump wants) form a long-term governing majority. 

Here's how "The Limits of Trump's Revolution Are Laid Bare by the Megabill" starts out.

In the service of pushing his tax-and-spending megabill over the finish line, Donald Trump has spent recent days cajoling, threatening and meeting with lawmakers. His message to them was simple.

“It’s a great bill,” the president explained at a Florida event Tuesday. “There is something for everyone.”

It’s an astonishing oversight. Over the past decade, Trump has unleashed the tectonic forces of political realignment. He has torn his party down to the studs and then remade it in his image. He has splintered the Obama coalition and accelerated a class-based political reordering that stands to upend nearly a century of convention. His most recent win was marked by a more racially and ethnically diverse voter coalition than in his two prior campaigns.

These are accomplishments most presidents have only dreamed of. Yet the centerpiece of Trump’s legislative agenda does almost nothing to harness any of it in the service of a permanent MAGA governing majority. He is spending every last cent of his political capital on a bill marked by its lack of ambition and vision.

It suggests real limits to the MAGA revolution, either because the coalition is inherently brittle or because of the stiff challenges Trump still faces in transforming the GOP, even as he utterly dominates it.

This was the moment to announce the arrival of what could be a multi-ethnic working-class coalition. The time to deal a crowning blow to a feckless opposition party that remains convinced the only thing holding it back is ineffective messaging. Instead, the White House produced a domestic policy bill that could have just as easily been produced by any generic Republican administration.

There’s no Nixon-goes-to-China policy surprise, no dramatic break from the familiar. Nothing bold to suggest the unique populist coalition he has assembled or to cement it in the decades ahead. Its signature idea, tax relief, is meaningful — and shouldn’t be minimized — but that’s always been a core GOP tenet. So has a generalized commitment to growth and prosperity. Spending on border security addresses a critical need, but isn’t inherently additive.

Much of the bill smacks of a reassertion of decades-old Republican policies and an embrace of party orthodoxy. It is easily caricatured as a giveaway to the wealthy that also slashes health care, a piñata for Democrats to bash and ride back to a House majority.

One astute conservative student of the realignment likened the legislation “to a death march through a series of choices that nobody really wanted to be making.”

“[It’s] not something that has an especially coherent logic to it or much prospect of actually accomplishing the things that I think people want,” Oren Cass, founder of the think tank American Compass and a leading advocate of conservative economic populism, told POLITICO Magazine recently.

The failure to imbue the legislation with more of a Trumpist ideological throughline may be due to a few factors; perhaps it’s Trump’s well-known aversion to wonky policy details, or the fact that most Republican lawmakers are still loyal to the Reaganite economic policy they came up with even as they now publicly bow to Trump.

But whether the sprawling bill is ultimately judged a policy success or failure, it lacks an original vision to hold together the constituencies Trump has improbably knitted together — tax relief, border spending, safety net cuts and Biden policy rollbacks aren’t a theory of the case. Sure, it has a few Trumpian frills that nod to the president’s populist campaign pledges, but they are largely small-bore and were scaled back by senators anyway. “No tax on tips” became a temporary tax deduction on tips, for instance. The brief musings about a tax hike on upper-income earners quickly were extinguished by opposition from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Decades from now, no one will point to this legislation as a key building block of a lasting Republican coalition. It’s more likely to be remembered for the estimated $3.3 trillion it is set to add to the national debt.

Chair of Salem Main Street Association says I'm not welcome in downtown anymore

At last Monday's City Council meeting, T.J. Sullivan, board chair for the Salem Main Street Association said in the public comment period, "There are a couple of people who are about the complaints who aren't welcome in downtown Salem anymore."

T.J. Sullivan

Sullivan was referring to the complaint against Mayor Julie Hoy that I filed with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. (Another person filed a similar complaint.) That complaint was found to have merit after a preliminary review, and a full investigation of Hoy and city councilors will take place.

It appears that Sullivan has been watching too much Fox News lately, since he believes that as the chair of the Salem Main Street Association he has the authority to decide who gets to "migrate" to downtown. As far as I know, American citizens can't be banned from part of a city because they criticized a conservative mayor. But I haven't been keeping up on all of Trump's executive orders.

The good news, I guess, is that Sullivan didn't call for my deportation -- though maybe this blog post will  further incur the Wrath of T.J. and I'll be hit with an even more absurd insult. 

After someone pointed out to me what Sullivan said at the city council meeting, I replied that he must have been joking and needed to see the video. However, if his remark was supposed to be humorous, I have to admit that it didn't come off that way, especially since it followed a mention that members of the city council supposedly couldn't attend a Salem Main Street Association meeting because of the ethics complaint.

That's ridiculous. Oregon's public meeting law prohibits members of a body like a city council from conducting "serial communications" where deliberation of an issue takes place privately outside of the public eye. It doesn't prevent city councilors from attending meetings of the Salem Main Street Association.

Here's the video of the city council meeting. I've made it start just before Sullivan makes his public comment.

Trump's constant lying means he can't be believed about Iran's nuclear program

If there's one thing that can be said with certainty about Donald Trump, it's that he is a habitual shameless liar. This was annoying when he was a presidential candidate. As president, Trump's constant falsehoods are a clear and present danger to our national security.

All American presidents have shaded the truth to some extent. That comes with being a politician.

But in the past lying by the occupant of the White House about important issues was fairly rare. The most notable recent example was the George W. Bush administration lying about evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in an attempt to justify invading that country.

With Trump, the lies flow freely regarding matters great and small, important and unimportant. Devotees of the Cult of Trump aren't much bothered by this, because they checked their capacity for independent thinking at the Please Fool Me cloak room when Trump became a national political figure.

However, anyone who cares about the credibility of the United States, which is sinking like a stone as Trump's second term is proving to be even more of a lie-fest than his first term, has to be concerned, especially when it comes to national security issues.

After American warplanes attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites a few days ago, Trump went 0n national television to claim, without any evidence, that Iran's nuclear program had been completely obliterated. This was utterly unlike what any previous president would have said, since the proper response was to say that the attack was a success but it will take time to assess how much damage was caused to the sites.

Because Trump demands absolute loyalty from his acolytes, his complete obliteration claim couldn't be questioned by members of his cabinet -- even after a leaked preliminary report from a Defense Department intelligence agency said that it appeared Iran's nuclear program had only been set back by a few months.

So now the Trump administration is twisting itself into logical knots, trying not to contradict Trump's initial lie about Iran's nuclear program while not embracing the consequences that would follow if it were indeed true that the nuclear program had been obliterated. 

For example, if that were the case, then there would be no need to negotiate a treaty with Iran about not restarting enrichment of uranium or development of a nuclear weapon because there is no Iranian nuclear program that could be restarted. 

A Politico story, "The administration is struggling to back up Trump's bold claims on Iran strikes," says:

The Trump administration is running into a problem as it touts the U.S. strikes in Iran as an unqualified triumph: It hasn’t yet provided clear evidence to prove it.

The effort began after a preliminary classified U.S. intelligence assessment that leaked to the press appeared to undercut Trump’s assertions the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.

In the last 36 hours, Trump and his aides have sparred with the news media, rushed out new statements from intelligence chiefs to counter the leaked report, and called a press conference to detail the many years of planning that went into the strike.

So far, officials have not been able to publicly provide convincing evidence that the entirety of Iran’s sprawling nuclear program was destroyed — a conclusion that would likely take spy agencies weeks if not months to establish. Assessments they have offered are light on details and flit between ambiguous language about whether Tehran’s nuclear program has been destroyed or just experienced a major setback — a lesser achievement.

Moreover, in working to debunk the leaked assessment saying Iran’s nuclear program may have only been set back months, Trump administration officials have stressed that it is too early to evaluate the strikes — though that’s precisely what they are trying to do.

...Trump has claimed any nuclear effort by Iran has been halted, saying, for example, in a social media post Thursday: “It was my great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability.” He has also said that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back “basically decades.”

Speaking at the NATO summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, Trump even said a nuclear deal with Iran was no longer necessary because Tehran has been cowed by the U.S. strikes. “They’ve had it,” he said at one point.

But there is some suspicion that Iran maintains other, secret nuclear sites the American airstrikes left untouched. And even though Israel has killed scores of Iran’s leading scientists and intelligence officials in the war, Iran likely retains enough scientific and technical talent to build a bomb if it wants.

There are many reasons to worry about Trump's incessant lying. To my mind, they point to the risk of having an American president who can't be believed. Our allies can't believe what he says. Our enemies can't believe what he says. This makes negotiating with the Trump administration extremely difficult, because any agreement can be undone when Trump changes his lying mind.

Which is often, because Trump doesn't embrace any strong  values. He's a flag that blows whichever way his ever-shifting mind blows in the direction of whatever is most advantageous for him at any given moment. 

This is why progressives like me look back with some fondness at presidents we used to heartily dislike: George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon. They were flawed, but in a traditionally conservative way. Meaning, their lies and mistakes were mostly in the service of a political philosophy, not their own personal self-interest. 

Trump is different. He only cares about himself, wrongly believing that what is good for King Trump is good for the nation. No, it isn't.

 

Democratic Socialist wins New York City's Democratic primary for Mayor. Wow!

Most of what I know about today's Democratic primary for the New York City mayor comes from posts on X, formerly known as Twitter, from people who follow NYC politics much more closely than I do from my perch some 3,000 miles away in Oregon.

I learned that Andrew Cuomo, the former Governor of New York, was trying to mount a comeback after he resigned following allegations of sexual abuse and mismanagement of the Covid pandemic. Cuomo has been leading in the polls over his chief primary rival, Zohran Mamdani. 

Zohran Mamdani

Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, was expected to lose to Cuomo, though NYC's ranked choice voting process would make the primary race interesting. Final results weren't expected until next week, as the number of candidates in the primary for mayor made it unlikely that anyone would get more than 50% of the vote and win outright.

Well, Mamdani surprised the pundits by coming out ahead of Cuomo, who has conceded to Mamdani. A Politico story talks about the implications of Mamdani's victory for the Democratic Party nationally.

If Mamdani’s lead holds, it would mark a humiliating defeat for Cuomo, a fixture in New York politics who tried to resurrect his career four years after resigning in disgrace, following sexual harassment and Covid mismanagement allegations.

A Mamdani victory would also be tantamount to a political earthquake that will reverberate across the country, as the Democratic Party — still reeling from its losses last year — tries to chart its path forward. His lead late Tuesday night portends what will likely be an historic triumph of the party’s left wing in the biggest city in the United States, for one of the highest-profile jobs in American politics.

The hard-fought local fight mirrors the national Democratic divide: A young, inexperienced socialist running on a hopeful message with the backing of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez versus a 67-year-old, three-term former New York governor who worked in Bill Clinton’s Cabinet and got the ex-president’s endorsement in the race’s waning days.

It is also the most high-profile Democratic primary in the country since President Donald Trump won a second term seven months ago. Seen as a referendum on how Democrats should counter the White House, New Yorkers lined up in droves during nine days of early voting, many of them matching the profile of a prototypical Mamdani supporter: Young, white and in gentrifying areas of the city.

If the results Tuesday night hold, they will have chosen a new voice focused on affordability over a party elder who leaned into his prior experience fighting Trump and promised to restore order to Adams’ chaotic City Hall.

Buoyed by that relentless focus on affordability — Mamdani pledged to freeze the rent on more than a million regulated apartments and push for a tax increase on the rich to fund free buses and create city-owned grocery stores — the social media savvy state lawmaker earned a devoted following that included more than 50,000 volunteers. That workforce is unprecedented in a New York City race, according to Jerry Skurnik, a longtime political consultant.

Being a Democrat who desperately wants my party to make a strong showing in future elections, I find Mamdani's apparent victory to be really encouraging. Democrats have to break out of their stale identity politics where they attempt to craft election wins by targeting traditional Democratic voting blocs with traditional policy messages.

It's great that Mamdani is a young Muslim who takes bold stands that don't sound like they've been fashioned out of polling and focus groups. I don't know him at all well, but my impression is that he is able to speak authentically, from the heart, which is valued by voters these days over carefully tailored speeches.

Sure, Republicans will seize on his Democratic Socialist leaning, hoping to brand Democrats nationally with what they consider to be the socialist epithet. But I doubt this will work very well. After all, Trump is a convicted felon with lots of other personal negative baggage, and he's sitting in the White House.

I find it admirable that NYC voters chose Mamdani over Cuomo even though Cuomo hammered his opponent for criticizing Israel and promoting Palestinian rights. I agree with Mamdani's position on these issues, as do most Americans. 

It's absurd to equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Plenty of Jews in both the United States and Israel find a lot not to like in how Israel has conducted its war against Hamas and treated Palestinians in the West Bank. 

M. Gessen wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times, "The Attacks on Zohran Mamdani Show That We Need a New Understanding of Antisemitism." Here's how it starts out:

Last Wednesday, the New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani held a press conference in Harlem to announce that the civil rights activist Maya Wiley had endorsed him. As the event was wrapping up, the thing that always happens to Mamdani happened: Someone in the crowd wanted the candidate to prove that he was sufficiently opposed to antisemitism. “It pains me to be called an antisemite,” Mamdani said, and then, as he went on to describe what it’s been like, he choked up.

He has plenty of reasons to be upset. He has been subjected to a relentless barrage of anti-Muslim slurs and threats. Someone messaged, “The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.” He has had to hire security. Meanwhile, proposed mailers illustrated with photographs of Mamdani doctored to make his beard fuller, darker and longer have been circulating online.

An anti-Mamdani TV ad includes a montage of him wearing a kurta — a long shirt in a style often worn in South and Central Asia (though on the campaign trail Mamdani usually wears a jacket and slacks). Billionaires who support the candidacy of the former governor Andrew Cuomo bankrolled glossy fliers that warn that “Mamdani’s radical plans would make New York less safe.” The message: He is a Muslim fundamentalist who poses an existential threat to this city and its Jewish residents.

When I spoke to Mamdani on the phone a couple of days after that press conference, it became clear to me that there is another reason he chokes up: It’s hard to keep defending yourself against a false accusation. It’s logically impossible to prove an absence. And as anyone who has ever been falsely accused knows, it hurts.

The mayoral campaign isn’t the first time that Mamdani, who has spoken out in support of Palestinian rights, has faced accusations of antisemitism, but this time critics have focused on two events. In the June 4 Democratic debate, candidates were asked which foreign country they would visit first after becoming mayor. Cuomo named Israel. Mamdani said he would stay in the city and added, “As mayor, I will be standing up for Jewish New Yorkers and will be meeting them wherever they are across the five boroughs, whether it’s at their synagogues and temples or in their homes or at the subway platform.”

A moderator then insisted that Mamdani declare whether he believes in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. He answered that he believes “that Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights.” Cuomo cut in to score a point: “He said he won’t visit Israel!”

If there is such a thing as correct answers in politics, Mamdani had them. It ought to be uncontroversial for a mayor to focus on his city and for a politician to assert the value of equal rights. But the exchange fueled accusations of antisemitism.

Last week, Mamdani was interviewed on “FYPod,” a podcast aimed at a young political audience. One of the hosts asked Mamdani to comment on the slogan “Globalize the intifada,” which, the host acknowledged, means different things to different people. “Antisemitism is a real issue in our city,” Mamdani responded. “It’s one that can be captured in statistics,” he continued. “It’s also one that you will feel in conversations you will have with Jewish New Yorkers across the city.”

He talked about a Jewish man who told him about being at services at his synagogue, hearing a door creak open behind him, and feeling terrified. Mamdani talked about a Jewish man in Williamsburg who had started locking a door he’d always kept open. Then Mamdani said he would fight antisemitism not by banning words but by increasing funding for anti-hate-crime programming by 800 percent.

His response showed deference to the American tradition of free speech, evidenced commitment to tackling the issue at hand and showcased his remarkable talent for articulating the feelings behind the politics. More accusations of antisemitism followed.

Trump's bombing of Iran likely will have unintended consequences

Currently President Trump and the rest of his administration's merry band of MAGA acolytes are puffing out their chests, all proud that seven B-2 bombers dropped 14 giant 30,000 pound "bunker buster" bombs on three underground nuclear sites in Iran.

But as I said in a post about the attacks on my Church of the Churchless blog yesterday, it's likely that things aren't going to go so smoothly from now on.

The best case scenario would be that the attacks were successful, Iran doesn't retaliate in a major way, Iran agrees to a peace deal with the United States and Israel that guarantees Iran won't reconstitute its nuclear program, and a pro-democracy movement takes hold in Iran that ends the fundamentalist Islam control of the country by a single person, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that the best case scenario will happen.

As the saying goes, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Iran will respond in some fashion. Then Israel and the United States will respond to that response. And so it will go, actions spurring reactions in a series of events that are impossible to predict.

Obviously it would be dangerous for Israel and the world if Iran ever was able to build a nuclear bomb and develop the capability to deploy it via a missile or some other means. Problem is, the March 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community said that Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon and hasn't reauthorized a suspended nuclear weapons program.

We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision making apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decision maker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.

So there was no pressing need to bomb the underground nuclear sites. It appears that Trump gave the go-ahead to do this because Israel's prime minister, Netanyahu, goaded Trump into action after Israel attacked Iran with the weapons at its disposal and needed the United States military to bomb the underground sites -- since only a B-2 bomber can carry the bunker-buster bomb, both of which Israel lacks.

As I said in my previous blog post:

Iran has been denying that it seeks to build a nuclear bomb. But it's been enriching uranium to levels that are far beyond what's needed for civilian nuclear purposes, such as generating electricity. Israel is justifiably concerned that if Iran did get a nuclear bomb, it could be used to destroy much of their country.

Problem is, life is inherently unpredictable. Wars, even more so. At the moment there's no reliable evidence as to how much damage the B-2 bomber attacks caused to Iran's underground nuclear facilities.

There's a strong possibility that the lesson Iran is going to take from the attacks by the United States and Israel is that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible. For nobody messes with North Korea, a nuclear power, while Russia invaded Ukraine after that country gave up its nuclear weapon stockpile following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Iran could develop a nuclear weapon in secret, perhaps with the help of Russia and North Korea. Or those countries could give a nuclear weapon to Iran, though they might not be willing to risk the blowback if this was made public. Today Vice-President Vance said that the United States isn't at war with Iran, it is at war with Iran's nuclear program.

Fine. But if Iran's nuclear program goes underground, not physically but secretly, how is the United States going to stop what can't be detected?

There's no way we're going to invade Iran like we invaded Iraq. If Iran quietly develops a nuclear weapons program that up until now it has held off on, the first we might hear about it is when Iran announces that it is a nuclear power with multiple weapons and the capability to deliver them.

As a final observation, the screenshot below of a post on X shows that the only reason Iran currently possesses such a large stockpile of enriched uranium is because Trump withdrew from the JCPOA agreement negotiated between Iran, the United States, and several other nations during Obama's second term.

After Trump tore up the agreement following his 2016 presidential win, Iran steadily enriched uranium from a negligible level until it reached about the same level as before the JCPOA went into effect. 

This means that Trump is having to deal with the problem that he himself created, since the JCPOA was working fine to limit Iran's nuclear capability until Trump trashed that agreement.

Mayor Julie Hoy can't get her story straight about Ethics Commission investigation

A few days ago the Salem Reporter published another informative story about the Oregon Government Ethics Commission decision to investigate Mayor Julie Hoy and city councilors for failing to comply with our state's public meeting law.

Julie Hoy

Here's an excerpt from "State investigator concludes Salem council discussed manager's ouster out of public view" by Joe Siess. 

Mayor Julie Hoy and Salem city councilors appear to have engaged in an illegal serial meeting leading up to the departure of former Salem City Manager Keith Stahley in February, a state investigator concluded in a preliminary report. 

That report led the ethics commission last week to vote in favor of pursuing a full investigation into Hoy and the entire city council.

The vote came as an investigator’s early review found there’s a basis to believe city officials violated the state’s open meetings law.

The investigation can take up to six months.

Salem Reporter obtained the investigator’s May 9 report and accompanying exhibits through a public records request.

The report provides more detail on the circumstances surrounding Stahley’s surprising ouster, which became public on Feb. 10.

Investigator Joshua Sullivan’s report found that between Feb. 1 and 10, Hoy had a series of conversations with a majority of the city council through phone calls, text messages and meetings. 

Those conversations considered Stahely’s performance and continued employment with the city and occurred before the council publicly voted to accept Stahley’s resignation, the report said. 

The investigator wrote that it appears that through those conversations, Hoy was gathering information from city councilors that could be used by the council to decide about Stahley’s employment.

Since I was the first person to file a complaint with the ethics commission (another person filed a complaint a few days after I did), naturally I'm interested in how the commission's investigation turns out.

The Salem Reporter story includes links to both the preliminary review by commission staff of the complaints against Hoy, which the commission broadened to include the entire city council, and the response by Mayor Hoy's attorney to the complaints. 

Hoy is in legal trouble because she spoke with a majority of the City Council about whether City Manager Keith Stahley should keep his job in individual calls/meetings with the councilors. Instead of conducting this city business in public -- the City Council is responsible for hiring and firing the City Manager -- Mayor Hoy did it privately out of public view.

This excerpt from the Salem Reporter story highlights how Hoy's story has changed about whether she was aware that Oregon law prohibits the sort of "serial communications" that Hoy engaged in with city councilors.

During her appearance before the commission on June 13, Hoy said she would not have made the calls if she knew it was against the law, modifying her attorney’s earlier statement that she was fully aware of the rules after consulting with the city attorney. 

She told the commission she lacked the necessary training and experience to understand her behavior might have violated state law.

“I would not have made these phone calls had I known that the ethics commission would have viewed them as a serial meeting. We have a need in Oregon for greater education for all electeds, myself included,” Hoy told the commission.

Here's an excerpt from the April 9, 2025 letter that Hoy's attorney sent to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.

During these telephone calls, Mayor Hoy was very aware of the requirements and prohibitions of the Public Meetings law because she had sought and received advice from City Attorney Atchison prior to making the calls. City Attorney Atchison advised Mayor Hoy that one-on-one conversations with other members of Council did not violate the Public Meetings law or constitute a “serial meeting” as long as the Mayor did not serve as a conduit to allow a quorum of the Council to deliberate towards or make a decision.

So on April 9 Hoy's position was that she was "very aware of the requirements and prohibitions of the Public Meetings law." But on June 13 Hoy told the commission that she lacked the necessary training and experience to understand her behavior might have violated state law.

That statement is hard to believe.

The preliminary review by commission staff certainly doesn't support Hoy's revised position that, basically, "Gosh, how could a volunteer like me know that talking with members of the City Council privately about the employment status of the Salem City Manager was prohibited by Oregon's public meetings law?"

This is B.S. for a couple of reasons. First, Mayor Hoy got advice from the City Attorney, Dan Atchison, about what is and isn't allowed by the public meetings law when it comes to serial communications with a majority of the City Council. Second, the Salem Reporter story says:

State law requires elected officials in cities the size of Salem to undergo training in public meetings law at least once per term in office. Hoy was elected to the city council in 2022 and held the seat until she was sworn in as mayor in January.

Neff, the city spokeswoman, said the city provides periodic training to city councilors and also updates the council when changes to state law and administrative rules concerning public meetings take place. She said such training is part of orientation for new councilors.

So it sure seems that Mayor Hoy was well informed about our state's public meeting law before she apparently flouted it in her zeal to get rid of City Manager Stahley, who Hoy reportedly didn't get along well with.

Hoy had previous ethical lapses, as discussed in the Salem Reporter story. This shows that Hoy views ethics rules as an annoyance rather than as a requirement.

The possible serial meeting is not Hoy’s first brush with ethical concerns on the council. 

Last spring she received a warning from Stahley after she promoted a Salem tire shop for a city contract, nearly violating city ethics rules. At the time Hoy was a city councilor and a mayoral candidate running against former Salem Mayor Chris Hoy. The two Hoys are not related. 

During Chris Hoy’s tenure as mayor, Hoy, along with Councilor Deanna Gwyn, was publicly censured by a majority of the council after she did not recuse herself from voting on a land use appeal that benefitted a major campaign donor. 

That campaign donor was prominent Salem developer Larry Tokarski who donated $20,000 to Hoy’s mayoral campaign. Mountain West Investment Corp. donated $19,000 to Hoy’s campaign. Tokarski is the president of Mountain West.

Lastly, I found it amusing that in her letter to the ethics commission, Hoy's Lake Oswego attorney called this Salem Political Snark blog a "bog" and was upset that I filed my complaint with the commission as a blog post. Gosh, what a terrible thing, me making public my complaint about how Mayor Hoy violated the public meetings law.

I have been retained by Julie Hoy to represent her regarding a complaint filed by Brian Hines. He posted his ethics complaint on his publicly available bog, thereby circumventing the confidentiality rules of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (the “Commission).

I read the commission's procedures for filing a complaint. I haven't been told by the commission that filing a complaint via a blog post goes against any rules. To the contrary, it seems to me that complaints about violations of the public meetings law should always be public. 

I'm worried that Trump is going to order B-2 bombers to attack Iran's nuclear sites

Usually I don't believe in magical thinking. But I'll make an exception this time.

Because if expressing an anxiety means that it is less likely to occur, then I'm damn well going to say "I'm worried that Trump is going to order B-2 bombers to attack Iran's nuclear sites" -- since doing that would be a disaster.

Here's why I think there's a decent chance that Trump is going to insert the United States into the conflict between Israel and Iran, which is looking increasingly like a full-on war.

(1) Trump is leaving the G-7 summit in Canada a day early in order to focus on the Israel-Iran war.

President Donald Trump abruptly announced that he would leave the G7 summit a day early and return to Washington shortly after posting an ominous social media message that appeared to suggest more carnage in Iran.

...The change of plans only added to the sense of uncertainty around Israel’s ongoing military operation in Iran, which Trump seemed to warn was about to intensify in an ominous and somewhat cryptic social media post after a day of meeting with world leaders.

“Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life,” Trump wrote in a TruthSocial post late Monday. “Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again!”

He closed it on an alarming note: “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!”

(2) Israel has expanded its bombing campaign to include targets in Iran beyond above-ground nuclear facilities and military officials. Oil and natural gas infrastructure is being bombed, as was Iran's state television. One goal now seems to be regime change spurred by wholesale destruction in Iran that might spur the nation's citizens to demand new leaders.

(3) Another Israeli goal is even clearer: draw the United States into finishing the job that Israel is incapable of on its own -- destroying Iran's underground nuclear facilities. If this isn't done, Israel believes that eventually Iran will be able to reconstitute its nuclear program and build several nuclear bombs.

(4) Doing that would require the United States to become involved in the war, since we have "bunker-busting bombs" delivered by B-2 bombers that supposedly are capable of penetrating into the underground nuclear facilities that Israel is unable to destroy on its own.

(5) Trump has been saying that the United States isn't going to be drawn into the Israel-Iran war. However, there's good reason to believe that the negotiations the United States had been having with Iran about a new deal aimed at preventing development of nuclear weapons were a ruse to lull the Iranians into thinking that Israel wouldn't attack while the negotiations were happening.

(6) So it's entirely possible that Trump is doing something similar now: saying that the United States isn't going to enter the Israel-Iran war as part of a scheme cooked up between this country and Israel to deceive Iran about our intentions.

Obviously I don't want to see Iran get nuclear weapons. Hardly anybody does.

But leaving aside the fact that the rules of war prohibit attacking another country that isn't clearly on the verge of starting a war (this would be a legal preemptive strike), there's no guarantee that using B-2 bombers to attack the underground nuclear sites would have the benefits that Israel thinks it would.

Maybe the sites are too well protected. Maybe there are sites that Israel and the United States aren't aware of. Maybe attacking the sites would inflame Iranian nationalism and pride, leading to a government that is even more hardcore and determined to have nuclear weapons than the current regime. Maybe bombing the sites would lead to a wave of terrorist attacks against the American people.

President Trump and his administration aren't known for well thought-out plans, to put it mildly. They're adept at talking a big game without being able to play one. That's why I have little confidence in Trump's ability to enter the war against Iran without screwing things up, big time.

Hopefully this won't happen. I'm just afraid that it will.

 

Trump's military parade was boring. "No Kings" protests were inspiring.

Today I forced myself to watch a few minutes of Trump's military parade in Washington D.C. I expected that MSNBC and CNN would cover the whole parade, but they didn't. 

Probably the reason was that it was exceedingly boring. I've never seen a parade that was more listless and uninteresting than this one. Once you've seen one piece of military equipment roll by, or soldiers marching by, the rest is just repetition. 

Well, actually the troops I saw weren't marching. Not in the North Korean or Russian sense. They were merely walking. Boring!

Apparently people had the good sense to stay away from the Trump parade. The stands were almost empty in this video that I saw in a post on X.

Aside from being boring, I had no interest in watching a parade that featured Trump's army. That's how I view it now. For my whole life I've considered that our armed forces belonged to the entire country. Those days are gone in the Authoritarian Age of Trump.

The speech he gave recently at Fort Bragg had a backdrop of soldiers who laughed and applauded when Trump uttered his usual insults.

During the speech, uniformed soldiers yelled in support of Trump’s political statements and booed former President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don’t think so,” Trump said to boos about Biden.

Trump made other comments about Newsom and about Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where protests against the administration’s crackdown on immigrants have been taking place and where Trump has ordered thousands of National Guard members and active-duty Marines deployed in response. Other Trump comments about the “fake news media,” transgender people, protesters in California and flag-burning also drew boos from the uniformed military members in attendance.

So we no longer can count on the independence of the armed forces to keep us safe from unconstitutional actions by Trump. The Fort Bragg commanding officers didn't instruct their troops to be non-political as Trump spoke. Looks like they have as little respect for our Constitution as Trump does.

The good news today for patriotic lovers of liberty was the massive turnout for the hundreds, or even thousands, of "No Kings" protest rallies around the United States. Organizers estimate that millions of people took part.

My wife went to the event here in Salem. She said that it seemed to be the biggest anti-Trump rally so far this year. The Salem Reporter estimates that 5,000 people attended, making it one of the largest rallies in recent Salem history. The 2017 Women's March rally was about the same size.

Thousands of people swarmed to the Capitol on Saturday to participate in the nationwide “No Kings” protests, with many expressing grave concern that the Trump administration is trampling constitutional rights and eroding democracy.  

...The protest set up on Northeast Center Street, with sign-carrying protesters lined for blocks.

Signs aired a diversity of grievances with some saying, “Defend the Rule of Law,” “Dump Trump” and “Chinga la Migra,” which loosely translates from Spanish as “Screw Immigration officials.”

Some people chanted, “ICE off our streets!”

The crowd on Saturday was diverse with protesters of varying ages, ethnic backgrounds, and national origin. Families with children and grandparents were a common sight. Street vendors sold grilled hot dogs, and a group of musicians played under a canopy. 

So much positive energy, a stark contrast with Trump's depressing military parade.

Hopefully the American people will continue to see through Trump's MAGA bullshit, recognizing how destructive it is to our country's values, economy, long term vitality, and respect around the world. HIs first term was the most incompetent in our nation's history. His second term is well on the way to surpassing that embarrassing mark.

To name but a few examples, rather than getting us out of foreign wars (something he promised would happen on Day 1 of his presidency), peace talks are stalled or non-existent in the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts, and now Israel is at war with Iran, a war that we might soon be dragged into.

Throughout his 2024 campaign Trump bragged about deporting everyone in this county who is here illegally. Now, though, Trump has ordered that deportations be halted for undocumented workers in the agriculture and hospitality (restaurants, lodging) industries. Apparently business owners have clued Trump in to an obvious fact that most people already knew: those workers are absolutely essential to our economy.