Salem Political Snark

Quiz: see which party you'd belong to if America had six

If you'd like to know where you'd find a political home if the United States had six political parties, take the 20-question quiz in a New York Times opinion piece, "Quiz: If America Had Six Parties, Which Would You Belong To?"

I ended up in the New Liberal Party.

Based on a survey of 5,000 voters who answered the same 20 questions, here's the estimate of where the American electorate would end up if we had these six parties. The first three are left-leaning. The next three are right-leaning.

Progressive Party -- 14%
New Liberal Party -- 26%
American Labor Party -- 12%

Growth and Opportunity Party -- 14%
Patriot Party -- 14%
Christian Conservative Party -- 20%

The three left-leaning parties total 52% of the electorate and the three right-leaning parties total 48% of the electorate. That comes close to what polls and national election results generally show the balance of American voters to be.

I like how the quiz shows me as almost equidistant between the three left-leaning parties, though I'm closest to the New Liberal Party. 

Here's the description of the New Liberal Party. 

The New Liberal Party is the professional-class establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Members are cosmopolitan in their social and racial views but more pro-business and more likely to see the wealthy as innovators.

Its potential leaders include Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Eric Garcetti and Beto O’Rourke. Based on data from the Democracy Fund’s VOTER survey, this party would be the best fit for about 26 percent of the electorate.

The polar opposites are the Progressive Party and the Patriot Party. Here's their descriptions. It's interesting that each is estimated to attract 14% of the electorate.

The Progressive Party is focused on equity and racial justice, with a strong vision of inclusive social democracy. Its strongest support comes from politically engaged, highly educated younger people, especially women.

Its potential leaders include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren or Julián Castro. Based on data from the Democracy Fund’s VOTER survey, this party would be the best fit for about 14 percent of the electorate.

The Patriot Party is the party of Donald Trump’s 2016 primary campaign: the coalition of the small town, white working-class Americans who feel left behind by globalism and condescended to by cosmopolitanism. It is economically populist and strongly anti-immigration. Its strongest support among lower-income conservatives comes from exurban America.

Its potential leaders include Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and Tucker Carlson. Based on data from the Democracy Fund’s VOTER survey, this party would be the best fit for about 14 percent of the electorate.

The opinion piece describes how six parties could come to be. It would require much larger proportional multimember congressional districts where voters would use ranked-choice voting to choose who represents them.

The result would be something much closer to a parliamentary system than our decidedly dysfunctional two-party system. Coalition building would be encouraged with six parties, sort of akin to how our current parties used to operate when there were a bunch of conservative Democrats in Congress and a bunch of liberal Republicans. 

Those days are long gone, obviously. 

Even if this six-party system never comes to pass, it's great that the idea has been put forward. The quiz reminds us that the labels of Democrat and Republican are too simplistic. Only 28% of the electorate identifies with the extremes of the Progressive Party and Patriot Party -- exemplified by Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump. 

On 9/11, let's remember the 659,556 Covid deaths

This isn't exactly a politically correct sentiment, but it's how I feel. There should be a statute of limitations on mourning the 2,996 people who died in the 9/11 attack twenty years ago.

I say this because our country has a nasty habit of getting all emotional about the wrong things. Or to put it differently, not getting all emotional about the right things. 

Yes, it was a tragedy that so many people died and suffered as a result of the 9/11 attack. But the current number of Covid deaths in the United States is 659,556 -- 220 times the number who died on 9/11. Repeat: 220 times. 

Currently Covid is killing people in the United States at the rate of a 9/11 every two days.

Where is the outrage at this? Where is the determination to hunt down those responsible for this carnage and stop them from killing so many Americans? Where are the voices demanding we put aside political differences and fight the killers with a united front?

Yes, the Covid deaths are caused by a virus, not humans. And plenty of people -- epidemiologists, health care workers, so many others -- have been treating the pandemic as the dangerous enemy that it is.

However, too many Americans, notably those Republicans/conservatives who love to wrap themselves in the flag when it comes to 9/11, have been acting like traitors when it comes to combatting Covid. They side with the viral enemy when they scoff at public health measures: vaccination, wearing a mask, social distancing, testing.

The root cause of 9/11 was a malevolent religious ideology, radical Islam. The root cause of our nation's flawed response to the pandemic is a malevolent political ideology, Trumpism.

Let's not be fooled by the 9/11 attackers being people, and the Covid attackers being viruses. Most of the United States Covid deaths could have been prevented if Trump and his enablers hadn't failed to do what urgently needed to be done to save lives. 

A Lancet Commission report says 40% of U.S. Covid deaths could have been prevented. Deborah Birx, Trump's White House Covid coordinator, says hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved. A Brookings Institution conference said it was possible to avoid 400,000 deaths. 

So I'm unapologetic about caring more about the unnecessary loss of  hundreds of thousands of American lives during the pandemic, a toll that continues to increase by many thousands each week, than by less than 3,000 Americans dying on 9/11 twenty years ago.

I once worked as a health policy analyst.

My experience with bioethics made me well aware of how the dramatic, like a young child needing a liver transplant, captures the public's attention while much greater human suffering results from medical conditions that don't make the front pages of newspapers.

Our nation's obsession with 9/11 strikes me as similar.

The images of the planes hitting the twin towers is fresh in our minds, while we pay much less attention to the 9/11 happening every couple of days in hospitals, homes, and health care settings across the nation. If we truly care about human life, we should be focused on saving lives now, not mourning those who died in 2001.

It's as if our never-ending grief over 9/11 gives us permission to not feel as deeply as we should about the largely preventable misery of the Covid pandemic. By placing a hand over our heart as the national anthem plays at a sporting event on 9/11, the heartlessness of our country's botched response to Covid fades into the background of our supposed compassion.

Today I ignored all the talk about 9/11 on the airwaves and social media. I refuse to feel more badly about a tragedy that's long gone, than a much worse tragedy still ongoing. 

Can anyone defend the Texas "bounty" anti-abortion law?

I've got a question for anyone who favors the recently-enacted Texas law that allows private citizens to seek $10,000 in civil court from anyone who provides an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, aids someone in getting an abortion, or even intends to seek an abortion.

Why do you think this law is a good idea? Before you answer, "Because it bans almost all abortions in Texas," consider the implications of what you're saying.

There's no doubt that the law is unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal in all 50 states until a fetus can survive outside the womb. That's long after six weeks. 

Thus the Texas law basically sets a bounty on people who engage in a constitutionally protected behavior.

Because private citizens are enforcing the law, not government officials, so far it hasn't been possible to challenge the law in court. Who is the subject of a lawsuit, given that anyone can potentially file a suit against an abortion provider or someone aiding, abetting, or intending an abortion?

Those who oppose abortion are pleased with the law. After all, that's been their goal ever since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. To ban abortion. The Texas law is the most extreme of any law restricting abortion. 

Since an abortion provider is put out of business after a single infraction under the law, almost all abortion clinics in Texas aren't providing abortions any longer. So for now abortion essentially is prohibited in Texas, even though abortions are still constitutionally protected. 

Is this the sort of country you want to live in, supporters of the Texas law? Are you OK with the approach used by the law being exported to other states? Do you think private citizens should be able to earn a lot of money by suing people for engaging in a constitutionally protected act?

An example that's been brought up frequently is a blue state like New York passing a law that forbids ownership of a certain type of gun, like a handgun. 

To make it difficult to challenge the law in court, private citizens in New York are authorized to sue anyone they suspect of owning a handgun. If they win the suit, the handgun owner has to pay them $10,000 plus attorney fees. If they lose the suit, the handgun owner can't make them pay their attorney fees. 

So everything favors the person bringing a lawsuit against a handgun owner. Sure, the Supreme Court has said that handgun ownership is protected under the constitution. But since it isn't government enforcing the New York law, but private citizens, it's very tough for anyone to challenge the handgun ban.

Are you fine with this happening, anti-abortion advocates? If you're  fine with the Texas law, you must be. A Los Angeles Times opinion piece raises other possibilities.

This [Texas] strategy has provided a road map for other states, not just to undermine abortion rights, but to endanger other constitutional rights as well.

For instance, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the constitutionally protected right to marry, a state following the Texas blueprint could outlaw same-sex marriage and then allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs a same-sex wedding for money damages.

A state could ban handguns (even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to possess and own them) and authorize citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who has a handgun. In fact, a state could adopt a law banning criticism of the governor and then allow any private person to sue the critic for money.

So beware of praising the Texas abortion law too highly, anti-abortion folks. You just might find that your own constitutional rights are at risk by your own state using the Texas approach to forbid constitutionally protected behavior.

 

Oregon Democrats should hang tough with redistricting map

There are times to play nice, and there are times to play tough.

When it comes to drawing a new map of Oregon's six congressional districts following the 2020 census -- we get an additional seat due to population growth -- it's definitely a time for Democrats to play tough. 

After all, in states where they're in control of redistricting, Republicans are going all-out to draw maps that are gerrymandered to ensure that GOP candidates win as many seats as possible. Republican politicians even have said that redistricting alone is going to guarantee a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 2022.  

It's great that Democrats are more fair-minded than Republicans. A number of blue states have independent redistricting commissions. If every state had such a commission, that'd be wonderful.

But Oregon Democrats shouldn't give up their political power. In this state, the legislature tries to draw a congressional redistricting map. If the legislature can't agree, then the state Supreme Court takes over. 

Unfortunately, a Democratic leader has already surrendered much of the power her party had over congressional redistricting. This struck me as a really bad idea at the time. Now that we know Oregon has earned a sixth seat in the House of Representatives, it was a really really bad idea. 

As part of a deal to avoid Republican delay tactics in this year’s legislative session, House Speaker Tina Kotek agreed to give GOP members an equal say on the House Redistricting Committee. Without at least one Republican vote in that committee, no map can pass.

Still, Oregon Democrats should do their best to get the map they've released approved by the legislature. Or at least, a map close to their proposed map. If Republicans want to take a chance at whatever the Supreme Court comes up with in the event of a legislative stalemate, fine.

I just don't think Democrats should bend very much on trying to get five congressional seats that are safe D or lean D. Speaker Kotek made a mistake in giving Republicans a veto over what the House Redistricting Committee comes up with.

It was crazy to give up the opportunity to do unto Republicans in Oregon what Republicans are doing to Democrats in states under their control: gerrymander Dems into as few congressional seats as possible.

UPDATE: Came across this tweet that makes my point. 

(All I can think of is maybe Kotek figured that Republicans would stage a legislative walkout over a Dem-friendly map, so that's why she made the deal, figuring that if the Supreme Court was going to draw the congressional map anyway, she might as well get a concession from Republicans to stop slowing down the 2021 legislative session.)

By comparison, this map released by Oregon Democrats seems quite fair by comparison, though not surprisingly it does tilt in favor of Democratic candidates.

Here's an excerpt from the OPB story.

Of special interest this year is how Oregon creates a brand new congressional district, splitting the state into six parts instead of the current five. With Democrats currently controlling the U.S. House by a slim margin, how Oregon proceeds could have implications in Washington, D.C.

Democrats’ proposal would center the new Congressional district in two areas that have seen some of the fastest population growth in the last decade: Washington County and the Salem region. The proposal would expand Congressional District 3, currently held by Portland Democratic U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, far to the east and south to encompass Hood River, Wasco, and Jefferson counties, and snatch up a portion of fast-growing Bend. It would send Congressional District 5, held by Democrat Kurt Schrader, deeper into the Portland area, and farther south while divorcing it from the coast.

And according to one analysis, the plan would be biased heavily in Democrats’ favor. A tool created by the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center to identify bias in political maps based on four measures suggests the proposal favors Democrats on all four measures, though it suggests such ratings might be skewed in a state with fewer than seven districts. The analysis suggests it could lead to a congressional split of 5 Democrats to 1 Republican, a breakdown that is far out-of-step with the partisan split in statewide races. The website Fivethirtyeight concurred with that analysis.

Texas abortion ban excites American "Taliban"

Today could mark the beginning of the end for abortions in much of the United States. This is horrible news for the majority of Americans who support a woman's right to choose. 

But the fervent anti-abortion minority are rejoicing in a Texas law going into effect which effectively bans abortions, since the law forbids the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, which is before most women even know they're pregnant.

Providers said the ban — which relies on private citizens to sue people who help women get forbidden abortions — effectively eliminates the guarantee in Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that women have a right to end their pregnancies before viability, and that states may not impose undue burdens on that decision.

On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has refused to issue an injunction against the Texas law, which is clearly unconstitutional.

Thus it only seems to be a matter of time before states are allowed to return to the dark ages before the Court ruled in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Those of us old enough to remember what things were like before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision are horrified at the prospect of women either having to travel to a state or country where abortion remains legal -- like here in Oregon -- or engaging in dangerous attempts to end their pregnancy. 

In the years leading up to Roe, more than 1 million women each year, facing the crisis of an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy, found it necessary to resort to illegal abortions. The vast majority of these women turned either to dangerous self-induced abortions or to the dark and often forbidding underworld of “back-alley” abortions.

Women who resorted to self-induced abortions typically relied on such methods as throwing themselves down a flight of stairs or ingesting, douching with, or inserting into themselves a chilling variety of chemicals and toxins ranging from bleach to potassium permanganate to turpentine to gunpowder to whiskey. Knitting needles, crochet hooks, scissors, and coat hangers were among the tools commonly used by women who attempted to self-abort. Approximately 30 percent of all illegal abortions in the 1960s were self-induced.

Women who sought abortions from “back-alley” abortionists encountered similar horrors. To find someone to perform an illegal abortion, women often had to rely on tips from elevator operators, taxi cab drivers, salesmen, and the like. Because of the clandestine nature of illegal abortions, the very process of finding someone to perform an abortion was often dangerous and terrifying.

Women who sought “back-alley” abortions were often blindfolded, driven to remote areas, and passed off to people they did not know and could not even see during the entire process. Such abortions were performed not only in secret offices and hotel rooms, but also in bathrooms, in the backseats of cars, and literally in back alleys.

But this is what our American "Taliban" want to inflict on women.

They're not always religious fundamentalists, but the most avid anti-abortion zealots are. Just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they want to impose their rigid dogmatism on any woman who wants an abortion, even those pregnant because of rape or incest.

An opinion piece in today's Arizona Republic newspaper has the title, "Texas goes Taliban on abortion rights. Is Arizona next?"

I’m puzzled by Republicans who have been clamoring with supposed concern and disgust over the past couple of weeks about the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and what that would mean for the people of that country.

Particularly now, since the state of Texas has decided to go Taliban on women when it comes to reproductive rights and the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to intervene.

It seems like the Republicans who control the Texas legislature, and the conservatives who now dominate the court, are less inclined to go along with the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution than by the restrictions imposed by Islam’s Sharia law.

And Arizona is right behind them.

What makes the Texas law especially Taliban'ish is how it relies on citizens to enforce the law, not government. If someone learns of an abortion before six weeks of pregnancy, they get a $10,000 bounty from an abortion provider or anyone else who helps a woman get an abortion. 

Individuals who are sued under the ban could be required to pay the person who brought the lawsuit at least $10,000 for each abortion the defendant was involved in. Critics say the law places a “bounty” on the heads of those who assist with abortions.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who chairs the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, urged the Senate to “act legislatively to protect the legal right to abortion for every American, regardless of where they live.”

“If you disagree with the idea that a complete stranger could, legally, demand $10,000 from you just because they disagree with your personal decisions, you should find this Texas anti-abortion ban as much of a nightmare as I do,” she said in a statement.

In Afghanistan the Taliban have whipped women who violate some absurd tenet of Shariah law, like not completely covering their body with a burka. The Texas law allows an equally odious form of legal whipping where anyone can butt into a woman's personal life by filing a suit against those who help a woman obtain an abortion, such as an Uber driver or friend.

The best way to stop Republicans from continuing their all-out war against a woman's right to choose would be for Congress to pass legislation guaranteeing that right. That almost certainly would require doing away with the Senate filibuster. Since this looks unlikely, those who support the right to an abortion are fighting an uphill battle in both Congress and the states controlled by Republicans.

The fight needs to be waged, though. The filibuster could be eliminated, and if enough voters kick Republicans out of office in the next elections, a woman's right to choose could remain in many, if not most, states. Hey, I can dream. 

If you hate free speech, you'll love Let's Discuss Salem

If you're a reasonable person who isn't wild about political correctness/cancel culture and supports free speech, probably you haven't had direct experience with excessively "woke" people on the far left of the political spectrum who (1) aren't reasonable, (2) absolutely love political correctness/cancel culture, and (3) don't support free speech.

But if you want a glimpse of how Salem's Woke Police treat reasonable people like you and me, below are Facebook messages exchanged today between me and Shaundi Wuleigh, who founded a recently-formed Let's Discuss Salem Facebook group that I became a member of. 

(Based on what I know now, the "Let's Discuss Salem" name reminds me of those housing developments where every tree that used to be there was cut down, but the development is named "Big Oak Estates.")

Wuleigh is one of the administrators for Let's Discuss Salem. A previous run-in I had with the Woke Police on Let's Discuss Salem is described in "I get cited by Salem's Woke Police." 

The messages from Wuleigh are in italics. Mine are in regular type. I didn't include one of my messages where I referred to someone in another Facebook group.

The blog post I wrote about Amazon was yesterday's "Who wants an Amazon store in the JC Penney building?" The supposedly horribly sexist content in my blog is shown in red in this excerpt from the post. I stand behind what I said, which I included for some mild humor and because I consider it correct.

So I probably wouldn't do much shopping at a physical Amazon store even if one were to be built in Salem one day. However, a lot of people do enjoy walking around a store. By and large they're called women. Thus since Amazon is going to be a major force for the foreseeable future, cities like Salem might as well embrace Amazon, warts and all.

*************************************

WULEIGH: Hi Brian. Your most recent post containing your blog about Amazon was removed for containing what admins determined was sexism. I was the one who approved the post, but I didn't read the blog first and so that was my mistake. I should have read it first before approving it.

ME: Give me a break. I don’t think you realize how dogmatic and lacking in humor you are. I’ve been married for 49 years. I know from my experience and those of my friends that most men look upon shopping differently than most women do. But I realize facts don’t matter to you, just feeling self-righteous.

Here's an article that talks abut the differences between men and women shoppers. https://ecommerce-platforms.com/articles/male-shopping-habits-versus-female-shopping-habits

Excerpt for you to consider, if you think talking about differences between men and women is sexist.

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

It’s no secret that most men and women view shopping differently as an activity. Based on a survey conducted by the Key Note Media Centre, males tend to view shopping as a chore. They do what needs to be done as quickly as possible and are more than happy to be on their way.

As a result, they are less likely to check on competitors’ prices or listen to their friends for advice. So for an ecommerce store aimed towards males, you want to make the experience something extremely simple and straightforward.

Women, on the other hand, treat shopping as a fun event. They tend to bring their friends along during sprees, are more receptive to other people’s opinions, make impulse purchases, and devote a lot of time to shopping. You want to make their online shopping experiences social and comprehensive.

Try to add social media features to your product pages and expose female shoppers to as many products as possible. For instance, you can let them share purchases on Facebook, send them product recommendations, and display similar items to the ones in their carts somewhere on your page.

So I accept your apology for being wrong. It'd be nice if you'd admit this, but I feel good pointing out your error, since I'm a proud member of the reality-based community.

WULEIGH: Only women's views matter with regards to what is and isn't offensive to women. You don't get to decide. You don't get a seat at that table. Your opinion on this subject doesn't matter.

ME: Actually I do get to have a seat at the woman’s table. I also can sit at the Black and LGBTQ table. This is a country with free speech where opinions aren’t limited to only certain people. I realize you want a Taliban-like nation where only certain views can be expressed, but thankfully we don’t live in that sort of place.

WULEIGH: For refusing to respect rule 7, the admins have voted and you have been permanently muted in the group.

[Rule 7 of the Let's Discuss Salem Facebook group says, "7) Telling members of marginalized communities how to think, feel, and act about their own oppression is prohibited."]

ME: This shouldn't be news to you, but I hope you realize that white legislators discuss and vote on laws affecting Black people, and heterosexual legislators discuss and vote on issues affecting LGBTQ people. By your logic, and Rule 7, it's forbidden for anyone who isn't a member of a marginalized community to tell those members how to think, feel, and act.

So do you and the other woke administrators really believe that no one who is white, including legislators, can say something like "I support the John Lewis Voting Rights Act because this will help assure the right of Blacks to vote, and I urge Blacks around the country to contact their legislators and urge them to vote yes on this act"?

That statement is expressing an opinion about an action affecting a marginalized community.

*************************************

Lastly, Here's the complete list of Let's Discuss Salem rules.

1) The group's political identity is neutral, but healthy political debate between individuals is welcome and encouraged.

 

2) All science-related posts and comments must be able to provide widely-accepted scientifically accredited sources if asked.

 

3) Posts should somehow be related to the city.

 

4) Posts and comments must not contain racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, ableism, body-shaming, or appearance-based discrimination.

 

5) Please notify the admins about complaints or concerns about any members or admins. Responsive action will be determined by a majority vote of admins.

 

6) Blocking one or more admins is prohibited.

 

7) Telling members of marginalized communities how to think, feel, and act about their own oppression is prohibited.

 

*Please note that admins do not tone police (limiting members' choice of words they can use to express themselves and/or limit the tone they are allowed to have) in this group with the exception of the items listed above.

Who wants an Amazon store in the JC Penney building?

I admire fellow progressives with social media death wishes. In these politically correct times, it took some guts for Jim Scheppke to post this on the Salem City Council Facebook page, which leans decidedly liberal in its readership.

(Note: this page is just where City Council-related stuff is discussed; it has no official connection with the City Council.)

Of the 74 comments, there only were a few supporting an Amazon store.

Most were along the lines of Amazon being a corporate devil that makes drivers piss in bottles while working warehouse employees to death and killing retail stores all across the United States.

Personally, I think this is an idea worth exploring, though it is a long shot.

I suspect that most of the people who commented on Scheppke's post hadn't read the Strong Towns story. Here's how the story starts out. 

Last week brought the surprising news that Amazon intends to open a series of department stores. Yes, department stores. Remember those things? 

CNN Business reports that a number of new Amazon retail stores, starting in Ohio and California, will operate much like department stores, selling clothing, household items, electronics, and other products, and facilitating returns and exchanges. Amazon will strongly emphasize its own private-label products, and these stores will occupy smaller footprints than conventional mall anchors: closer to 30,000 square feet than 100,000.

It seems counterintuitive that the mall killer, the company that brought on-demand, two-day delivery of nearly anything under the sun to millions of people, would follow in the footsteps of its vanquished enemies by opening brick-and-mortar stores. Department stores have long been a waning presence in U.S. retail, from 14.5% market share in 1985 to 2.9% today.

But there are clear reasons why Amazon sees this as a strategic move. And those reasons are worth understanding, even if you have no love lost for Amazon itself (and I think it's safe to say that here at Strong Towns, we don't).

Me, I'm a progressive who believes in strong towns also. But I'm perfectly willing to admit that unlike the Senior Editor for Strong Towns who wrote the story, I do love Amazon. 

I've had Amazon Prime for as long as it was offered as a paid way to get free shipping on most Amazon purchases. Over the years I've used Amazon more and more. Now that Amazon has a warehouse in Salem, I'm thrilled when stuff I've ordered comes even faster.

It's just so damn convenient to buy from Amazon. Rather than drive all over town looking for an obscure item, I fire up Amazon on my laptop, search for the item, and bingo! -- it's in my hands in a couple of days. 

So I probably wouldn't do much shopping at a physical Amazon store even if one were to be built in Salem one day. However, a lot of people do enjoy walking around a store. By and large they're called women. Thus since Amazon is going to be a major force for the foreseeable future, cities like Salem might as well embrace Amazon, warts and all.

The Strong Towns story says that Amazon isn't looking to put stores in existing malls, which usually are on the edge of a town. Instead, they want to locate them in areas with a lot of pedestrians. Downtown Salem might qualify. 

Since an Amazon store would only be about 30,000 square feet, this would leave a lot of room in the JC Penney building for other uses like local shops. Having something occupy that building sure seems better than having it vacant.

Several commenters on the story noted that a large grocery store is needed downtown. One person suggested that Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, could occupy a floor of the JC Penney building. 

Anyway, I'm glad Jim Scheppke raised this idea. Amazon has been successful because it is meeting the needs of both consumers and business owners. A great many small businesses sell on Amazon. They couldn't survive without Amazon. Sure, Amazon deserves much of the criticism directed at it.

But this shouldn't stop Salem's Urban Development Department from telling Amazon that the City of Salem is interested in exploring the possibility of having an Amazon store in the JC Penney building. Maybe a better use for the building will emerge.

Yet maybe one won't.

Salem Climate Action Plan lacks urgency

When it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there's no time to waste.

Everything I read about global warming is scary. The Earth's climate is changing for the worse considerably faster than scientists expected as little as a few years ago. 

So everybody -- nations, states, cities, government, businesses, individuals -- we all have to do our part to keep our one and only planet habitable for humans and other life forms. 

This month USA Today had a story, "Local climate plans a key to progress." 
Download Local climate plans a key to progress - USA TODAY

Over the past three decades, more than 600 local governments across the United States adopted their own climate action plans setting greenhouse gas reduction targets. These pledges were in addition to America’s commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement, an international treaty signed by nearly 200 nations to limit the impact of climate change.

But experts now say many of those cities’ plans were aspirational at best. Now they must work harder if they’re going to curb the warming trend.

...A small window of opportunity remains for local governments to get serious about curbing climate change, according to the IPCC report. But, to achieve any kind of major corrective action, emissions must be slashed by the end of the decade.

The pressure is on to limit emissions faster at every level, said Mark Muro, a senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.

Cities can play a key role in the nation’s ability to cut greenhouse gas, but more need to adopt action plans, Muro said, and those that have “need to deliver on their promises and tighten them.”

“Within this decade we have to make a sharp turn,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director and economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Yet with disturbing regularity I hear people say, "What's the point in Salem having a Climate Action Plan, since we account for such a small percentage of global emissions?"

That's a ridiculous argument. If every nation, state, and city in the world followed that logic, nobody would do anything, since each entity generates a relatively small share of planetary greenhouse gases. 

Here in Salem, we need to do our part.

Recognizing this, 350 Salem OR pushed the City Council to allocate funds for a Salem Climate Action Plan. As noted in my December 2020 post, Salem Climate Action Plan is going in wrong direction, the goals established by the City Council match what experts say is needed to fight global warming. 

The City Council wants a Salem Climate Action Plan to specify how we're doing to do our part in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions that are literally cooking our planet. Recently these goals were approved by the council.

By 2035, Salem’s greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced to 50% of the citywide greenhouse gas emissions for the baseline year of 2016, and by 2050, Salem should be carbon neutral.

OK. One would think that the Climate Action Plan process would be focused on how these goals are to be achieved.

That's the main problem evident in the Climate Action Plan nine months ago, and it still is the main problem today. The project team isn't serious enough about coming up with strategies to reduce Salem's greenhouse gas emissions, most of which come from transportation.

So if the plan doesn't mandate significant reductions in driving fossil-fuel-powered cars and trucks, there's no way Salem will be able to meet the goals set by the City Council. 

Yet the title of an August 17 Salem Breakfast on Bikes post, Draft Strategies for Salem Climate Action Plan Still Evade the Heart of the Matter, says it all. 

We still haven't seen even a basic swag at charting effectiveness and cost. Not to mention any modeling showing analytically that a 50% reduction by 2035 is plausible under this current proposal.

This list as we have it is mainly symbolic, not oriented to actual reductions.

So it is hard to look at the list and take a very positive first impression from it. It looks instead like it continues to evade the heart of things and is not positioning Salem for success on a 50% reduction by 2035.

Geez. It isn't as if we don't have plenty of evidence that global warming is a huge threat to Salem.

Last year gigantic wildfires turned our air so smoky the reddish sky was dark at noon. This year a heat wave smashed all-time temperature records, with Salem recording a sizzling 117 degrees, the same as the record high in Las Vegas.

Yesterday a Drought Status Update for the Pacific Northwest was issued. The tweet that brought the report to my attention had some disturbing facts. 

Hopefully the draft Salem Climate Action plan will be altered to reflect the seriousness of our global warming situation.

We can't afford to screw around with bureaucratic half-steps and cosmetic gestures that won't markedly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. 

I get cited by Salem's Woke Police

For a long time I thought that being "woke" always was a positive thing. Sure, conservatives warned of the danger of liberal political correctness, but by and large I thought that fear was overblown.

I still believe that it is better to be overly concerned about racism, sexism, nationalism, and other nasty "ism's" than under concerned. 

However, a balance needs to be struck between awareness of social problems affecting minorities and other historically oppressed groups, and an overzealous righteousness where perceived affronts to social justice are criticized in an absurd fashion.

Here's a couple of examples of how I've been cited by the Woke Police here in Salem. Keep in mind that my progressive credentials are impeccable in my admittedly personal opinion.

I always vote Democratic. I've supported Progressive Salem-backed candidates in every election since that organization was formed. My Salem Political Snark blog posts almost always criticize non-progressive policies, though I'm fine with taking shots at fellow liberals when I think this is deserved. I've marched against Trump and in favor of Black Lives Matter.

In short, I'm a mainstream progressive. My three blogs and three Facebook pages I administer are an open book. I doubt anyone could find something I've written that isn't solidly liberal. However, I'm not an extreme liberal. 

That's why the Woke Police cited me for several insufficiently woke infractions.

(See here for a review of how the modern meaning of "woke" came into the English lexicon; in 2017 the Oxford English Dictionary defined it as "alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice.")

Yesterday I got a message via Facebook asking about the cover photo on my personal Facebook page, as shown above. Here's our dialogue, with my replies in italics.

Hey there.. so... I was just wondering if you could help me understand what the headdress looking thing is in your cover photo?

Just a mask that I got at the Oregon Country Fair in Veneta one year.

So you don't know what it is or its cultural significance?

No. It just is a mask sold by the creative mask makers who had a booth at the fair. The cultural significance is that I liked the mask and bought it.

Were the people who made the mask of African descent? The reason I'm bringing this to your attention is because you may not be aware that what you've done with that mask might be seen as cultural appropriation. It's very reminiscent of an African ceremonial headdress and face paint.

I don’t believe in cultural appropriation, so this concerns me not at all. I guess by your reasoning I shouldn’t have gotten so many Tango lessons, since this dance style originated in a different culture.

Huh... well okay then. I would kindly invite you to study up on the topic and learn the differences between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange and appreciation. Maybe when I have a moment ill dig up a few resources for you.

I believe in America as a melting pot. My father's parents came from Germany. My heritage is a bit over 85% German and Baltic states. So what? Doesn’t bother me at all when someone wants to have a beer festival. Cultural appropriation makes no sense to me but you’re welcome to embrace it.

Now, I'm not saying that cultural appropriation isn't a real thing. This is why the Washington Redskins pro football team has just been called the Washington team since 2020. Redskins seems offensive to me. But the mask I bought doesn't seem offensive at all.

It's a matter of degree. If Redskins scores 100 on the woke cultural appropriation scale, I'd rate me wearing my mask at a 1. Or even zero.

However, over on a private Facebook group I belong to, Let's Discuss Salem, where Salem-related issues are discussed, today the person concerned about my mask left this comment on a post that I'd shared with the group.

Im just gonna point out that Brian here told me that he doesn't believe in cultural appropriation, it makes me wonder what else he doesn't believe..

Ooh! Scary! A member of the Woke Police, who often bear at least some resemblance to a Maoist reeducation committee back when such existed in communist China, are using my mask infraction as reason to question what other inappropriate ideas might be floating around in my pseudo-progressive head.

Why, I might be a closeted Trump supporter. Or maybe a Proud Boy who keeps my bear spray, baseball bat, and paintball gun hidden from my liberal friends, which could be why I need a culturally appropriated mask to hide my identity when I go out beating up Black Lives Matter protesters. 

Speaking of the Proud Boys, my other recent run-in with the Woke Police happened after I posted a story on the Let's Discuss Salem Facebook group from the Oregonian regarding last Sunday's battle in Portland between Proud Boys and counter-protesters. 

I figured what I said about the Oregonian story would be fairly uncontroversial.

Others are free to disagree, but it sure seems like the best way to handle the Proud Boys is to ignore them when they come to a town -- Salem, Portland, or anywhere. Leaving them alone takes away most, or all, of their incentive to be violent. When counter-protesters show up, as happened in Portland yesterday, there's firing of paintballs, pepper spray, and even bullets. I fail to see what's gained by giving the Proud Boys an opportunity to act like the tough guys they pose as. Ignore them and they get much less publicity and incentive to violence. Excerpt from Oregonian story:

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

"By mid-day, splinter groups from the left arrived at the right wing gathering, prompting verbal skirmishes, followed by roving street battles that were marked by bear mace and bursts of fireworks that shrouded a stretch of Northeast 122nd Avenue in thick smoke. Members of both sides were heavily armed. Bats, paintball guns and wooden spears were among the weapons observed on the left and paintball guns and bats were seen among members of the right. People on both sides carried large shields. A person clad in black was seen at the waterfront early in the afternoon carrying what appeared to be a rifle and bullets. It was not immediately clear whether the rifle was a replica."

It didn't bother me that most of the commenters on my post disagreed with me. They felt antifa and other counter-protesters should be armed and fight against the Proud Boys. What irritated me were the comments saying that I was complicit in the nasty stuff Proud Boys do, because I didn't think it made sense to fight with them on Portland city streets. For example...

Hi, I’m sorry, but silence is absolutely violence in this case snd I refuse to remain silent. If you want to tuck your tail between your legs and retreat, we don’t need you anyways. I will not let these terrorists remain comfortable here. You are a problem, Brian.

Let me make a cup of tea, I cannot wait to read what an old white guy thinks BIPOC people should do when terrorists come to town to kill them.

Brian is basically saying, if you got cancer or a tumor growing on your nose right in front of your eyes, ignore it and it will go away. Of course as a white man, you can ignore hate and still live comfortably. The same can't be said for others.

The comments got so bad, a friend defended me.

Can we please stop the personal attacks on my friend Brian Hines? He and I (obviously) disagree on a number of topics, but he is a kind and thoughtful person. I am grateful for his posts here, which help make this an open forum and not an echo chamber. I am here to learn and debate, not to watch people who are here in good faith be harried and driven out.

Well, that's the goal of the Woke Police.

They're motivated by an almost religious zeal for ideological purity. If you don't agree completely with their take on social issues, then you're a traitor to the progressive cause. Geez, all I said was counter-protesters shouldn't arm themselves and get into fights with the Proud Boys.

UPDATE: I was just informed that this blog post, which I shared on Let's Discuss Salem because it obviously pertains to how issues are discussed on that bastion of wokeness, has been deleted from that Facebook group. I told the administrator that it was strange that numerous comments criticizing me personally were allowed, yet this well-reasoned critique of political correctness was banned. Guess I hit a nerve with the Woke Police. I invite Salem residents who are on Facebook to head over to Let's Discuss Salem and join the group. If enough reasonable people become members, we could change the climate of the group for the better. FURTHER UPDATE: It seems the Let's Discuss Salem administrators deleted my Facebook posting before reading this blog post, which doesn't surprise me. I've now been told that after they finished reading this blog post, it has been deemed racially insensitive. I've asked how this could be.

That puts me in some damn good non-violent company. Like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi. Of course, having said that, the Woke Police now probably will charge me with runaway egotism, comparing myself to King and Ghandi.

This is the problem with having a black and white view of the world. Nuance, shades of gray, moral ambiguity, political compromise -- that doesn't appeal to people on either the left or right who believe that how they see things is how everybody should see things.

However, since excessive wokeness is related to political correctness, the good news is that the people who found fault with me on Facebook aren't at all representative of the country as a whole. Here's excerpts from an October 2018 story in The Atlantic, "Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture." If that link doesn't work for you (I'm a The Atlantic subscriber), The Hidden Tribes of America report described in The Atlantic story can be read here. And below is a PDF file of The Atlantic story.
Download Large Majorities Dislike Political Correctness - The Atlantic

Note the last paragraph about how the 8 percent of Americans who are progressive activists, and are most likely to support woke political correctness, are viewed by most other Americans as falling prey to a "preening display of cultural superiority."

On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful. Team Resentment is manned—pun very much intended—by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white “allies” do their dutiful part). These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.

Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” most Americans don’t fit into either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest—including a general aversion to PC culture.

The study was written by More in Common, an organization founded in memory of Jo Cox, the British MP who was murdered in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. It is based on a nationally representative poll with 8,000 respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups conducted from December 2017 to September 2018.

If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.

According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”

...Most members of the “exhausted majority,” and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn’t, either.

Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.

...The one part of the standard narrative that the data partially affirm is that African Americans are most likely to support political correctness. But the difference between them and other groups is much smaller than generally supposed: Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. This means that they are only four percentage points less likely than whites, and only five percentage points less likely than the average, to believe that political correctness is a problem.

...If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and education.

While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.

Political tribe—as defined by the authors—is an even better predictor of views on political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.

...So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

...It turns out that while progressive activists tend to think that only hate speech is a problem, and devoted conservatives tend to think that only political correctness is a problem, a clear majority of all Americans holds a more nuanced point of view: They abhor racism. But they don’t think that the way we now practice political correctness represents a promising way to overcome racial injustice.

The study should also make progressives more self-critical about the way in which speech norms serve as a marker of social distinction. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the affluent and highly educated people who call others out if they use “problematic” terms or perpetrate an act of “cultural appropriation.” But what the vast majority of Americans seem to see—at least according to the research conducted for “Hidden Tribes”—is not so much genuine concern for social justice as the preening display of cultural superiority.

Painful truth: Afghanistan was a mostly useless war

Recently I've seen interviews with veterans of the twenty-year Afghanistan war where the interviewer says at some point, "Thank you for your service; it wasn't in vain."

Not true. It was mostly in vain.

So were the 2,448 deaths of American service members, the 66,000 deaths of Afghan military and police, the 47,245 deaths of Afghan civilians, the 444 deaths of aid workers, and the 44 deaths of journalists.

I realize that it's really tough to admit that a war which cost the United States over 2 trillion dollars and caused so many deaths was a big mistake -- at least after Osama bin Laden had left the country and Al-Qaeda no longer had a viable presence in Afghanistan, which occurred soon after our 2001 invasion.

So virtually all that money and all those deaths went toward nation-building.

Just as in Iraq, the United States is great at winning wars against minimal opposition. We're lousy at nation-building, in large part because we believe that it's possible to remake other countries in our own image. 

Trump wisely decided to pull American forces out of Afghanistan. Biden wisely decided to go along with Trump's decision. Yet supporters of a perpetual war in Afghanistan now are criticizing Biden for doing what most Americans support: getting out.

It doesn't make sense to argue that even though the Afghanistan war was a failure, the contributions of the American military were a success. 

Sure, it's human nature to see a glass as half full rather than half empty. But when a war is almost entirely useless, those who fought that war almost entirely were doing something equally useless. 

Obviously almost all of the Americans who served in Afghanistan did so with bravery and honor. However, so did almost all of the Confederate forces who fought in the Civil War. This doesn't make the Confederate cause anything other than what it was: a failed attempt to secede from the Union.

Undoubtedly some good came out of the Civil War, though I'm unsure what that might me. Some technological advances, probably. Some good also resulted from the Afghanistan war.

However, if Americans had been asked in 2001 if they'd be willing to fight a twenty-year war that resulted in Afghan women and girls having considerably more rights, and Afghanistan getting roads, schools, wells, and other infrastructure built, few of our citizens would have said that'd be worth thousands of American lives and several trillion dollars -- especially if the end result was the Taliban returning to power.

The plain fact is that sometimes a lot of effort goes into a cause that results in failure.

Everybody has experienced this in their own life to a greater or lesser extent. Countries experience this also. Witness the United States and the Vietnam War. Witness Germany/Japan and the Second World War. 

Sacrifices frequently are made for a lost cause. This doesn't take away from the nobility of those who made the sacrifices, because it is impossible to know that a cause is lost until that happens. 

Which is the case in Afghanistan.

Veterans of that war are entitled to look for benefits from their service. But history can't be rewritten to make those veterans feel better. For most of those twenty years, the Afghanistan war was a mistake. Our military and political leaders misled the public about how the war was going, just as happened with the Vietnam War.

Now President Biden is telling the truth to the American people. Good for him. That truth about a mostly useless war has been a long time coming.

I'll end by copying in a series of tweets that do a great job of briefly explaining the Afghanistan war and the current uproar over the American pullout.