Salem Political Snark

Every Trump voter should hang their head in shame after January 6 pardons

Trump voters, you knew what you were getting when you cast your ballot for him.

A man who lies incessantly, who lacks any sense of moral decency, who loves dictators and hates democracy, who has no commitment to upholding the Constitution because his goal is only to uphold himself.

Yet you preferred Donald Trump over Kamala Harris. Maybe it was because the price of groceries was too high. Maybe it was because you wanted our southern border to be strengthened and undocumented immigrants to be deported from the United States.

I can understand those reasons. They make sense. Almost everybody dislikes inflation and a failure to comply with immigration laws. 

But what progressives like me can't understand is how most Trump voters, along with almost all Republican politicians, are unable to disagree with their Dear Leader no matter how horribly he behaves.

On his first day in office, January 20, Trump pardoned all of the January 6, 2021 rioters who attempted an insurrection against the lawful transfer of presidential power following Biden's clear-cut victory over Trump.

Politico describes the pardons.

President Donald Trump pardoned about 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol in his name on Jan. 6, 2021, instantly laying waste to the Justice Department’s four-year drive to punish the first disruption of the transfer of power in American history.

The sweeping grant of clemency includes “full, complete and unconditional” pardons for some of the most notorious participants in the attack, including hundreds convicted of assaulting police, carrying firearms, destroying property or otherwise contributing to the violent rampage. Trump also ordered his Justice Department to shut down hundreds of pending Jan. 6 prosecutions, including many for violent crimes.

Among those freed from jail with a stroke of Trump’s pen: Enrique Tarrio, the former national leader of the far-right Proud Boys, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for a seditious conspiracy related to the attack; Guy Reffitt, who carried a firearm during a standoff with police that helped facilitate the mob’s approach to the Capitol; and Ryan Samsel, the first rioter to breach police lines who was facing a long list of assault charges.

So much for Republicans being strong on law and order. The undeniable leader of the Republican Party has pardoned hundreds of people who attacked police officers on January 6, going so far as to call them "hostages" even after they were convicted of serious crimes by a jury of their peers.

Trump used the hostage line at most of his campaign rallies in the run-up to the 2024 election. Trump said that he was going to pardon the "January 6 hostages," though even Vance, his vice-president, expected that he would focus on those who didn't attack the police.

This is why I think all Trump voters should hang their heads in shame. You knowingly cast a ballot for a man who doesn't respect either our legal system or law enforcement. Another Politico story describes the political backlash that likely will follow Trump's pardons of January 6 lawbreakers. 

Trump promised to “free” the Jan. 6 defendants on his first day back in office, and he has now followed through on that promise. But this will not be a one-day story, and Trump — and the Republican Party — may come to regret the political costs of this decision.

For starters, Trump’s blanket pardon is unpopular, and it could help to frame early perceptions of his return to the White House. After the election, multiple polls reported that somewhere around two-thirds of Americans opposed Trump’s promise to pardon the Jan. 6 defendants, including about two-thirds of independents.

It is not hard to understand why: Despite the best efforts of Trump and many of his political allies, most Americans have not forgotten about what happened that day, and most Americans have rejected the fantasyland version of events that Trump has sought to portray. That is why Trump’s approval rating collapsed after Jan. 6, even though it has since recovered.

That is why surveys showed most Americans wanted Trump to stand trial in Washington in the Justice Department’s prosecution alleging that he tried to steal the 2020 election in the run-up to the Jan. 6 riot. That is why most Americans repeatedly told pollsters that they thought Trump was guilty of criminal conduct. And that is why about half of the country said that Trump should have gone to prison if he had been convicted in the election subversion case.

...Trump’s mass pardon has also created a political problem for many of his fellow Republicans. He has once again cut the legs out from under his own vice president, who said less than two weeks ago, “If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.” Plenty of other Republicans took the same position that JD Vance did and will now have to twist themselves into knots explaining their past comments and their vocal defenses of Trump, who has once again made them look credulous and foolish.

That is just the short-term fallout. The potential for political backlash will linger for months and years to come. That’s because the Jan. 6 defendants are not just going to evaporate into society.

Trump has once again sent a disturbing message to his supporters: If you engage in political violence on my behalf, I will protect you. Tarrio, Rhodes and their associates should feel emboldened, and there is no telling what they will do with Trump now firmly behind them.

Even setting aside the prospect of further political violence, you can safely expect a fair amount of recidivism among those who were convicted — particularly the defendants convicted of violent conduct. That means that we may see and read stories in the years to come involving Jan. 6 defendants pardoned by Trump who went on to commit more — and potentially more serious — crimes.

After Trump lost to Biden, yet never stopped falsely claiming that the 2020 election was stolen from him, Republican politicians were frequently asked if they believed that Trump had lost in a free and fair election. 

Most would equivocate, saying wishy-washy stuff like "Biden is the president." Now a new question should be asked of every Republican politician at every level: federal, state, local. Do you support Trump's pardon of those who attacked police officers at the January 6 insurrection?

Any politician who doesn't respond with a firm "No," doesn't deserve to be in office, because they've shown their disrespect for the rule of law and those who enforce our laws.

Why I'm going to look upon Trump's second term as a political experiment

Progressives like me have a choice to make now that Trump has been inaugurated for a second term as president. How do we preserve our sanity during the next four years?

I have Democratic friends who say that they're unable to pay attention to the news anymore, given all the crazy stuff the Trump administration will be doing. This doesn't appeal to me. I believe in staying informed, not ignoring what's going on.

Another option is to remain in a more or less constant state of outrage as Trump dismantles valuable programs and policies from the Biden administration and institutes his own right-wing priorities. This also isn't appealing to me. I've got better things to do than be incessantly irritated.

I've concluded that the healthiest thing for me to do is look upon Trump's presidency as a political experiment. Which, of course, it is.

Last November a majority of American voters embraced a hypothesis: Donald Trump will bring more benefits to the United States than Kamala Harris would. I favored the opposite hypothesis, but I respect the decision of voters to put Trump in charge of federal government policies.

Now we'll see what the outcome of the political experiment that will take place from now until election day in 2028 will be, with interim results being reported in the 2026 midterm election. Every decision that Trump makes during the next four years will have effects, large or small, on our country.

Fairly soon we'll have indications of how key questions will be answered. Here's a few of them.

Is inflation going up or down?
Is the budget deficit increasing or decreasing?
Will deporting undocumented immigrants help or hurt the economy?
Will tariffs on imported goods kick off an unproductive trade war?
Can an end to the Ukraine-Russia war be negotiated that isn't a giveaway to Putin?
Are entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security being protected?
Are other countries more or less willing to support the United States?
Does the stock market look positively upon how things are going?

Causes have effects which then become causes that produce more effects. And so it goes, in politics as in other areas of life.

Trump does his best to deny reality through lies, half-truths, exaggerations, and such. This works for him up to a point. However, reality has a way of coming out on top eventually, because facts are stronger than fictions.

Trump has made a lot of promises. His slew of executive orders that he signed today are a down payment on keeping some of those promises. Many of them will be challenged legally. Others will be implemented only partially, if at all.

Every newly-elected president has a honeymoon period. Trump's has just begun. It will end before too long. Then our country will begin to see the shortcomings in Trumpian programs and policies. His approval rating likely will fall. 

Republicans control the presidency and both chambers of Congress. Whatever the results of the political experiment Trump's election unleashed upon the United States are, they will be owned by Trump and the Republican Party.

I love science. It's humanity's best way of knowing reality. By looking upon Trump's presidency as a political experiment, rather than a horrible happening, I feel that I'll strike a good balance between ignoring the news and being outraged by the news.

Sure, a scientist wants their hypothesis to be confirmed. My hypothesis is that while Trump will have some clear successes, he will have more failures and limited successes -- leaving the American public dissatisfied with his presidency by the time of the 2026 midterms.

Of course, I may be wrong. A scientist is concerned mainly with getting valid results of the experiment being conducted, not with a particular outcome. By viewing the Trump administration as a political experiment, I'm hoping to be able to look upon his presidency with a certain detachment.

That said, I think Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America is unbelievably ridiculous. I'll never stop saying "Gulf of Mexico." My bet is that most Americans will do the same.

TikTok is dead. Will Trump resurrect it?

I'm an occasional user of TikTok. When I give it a look, I enjoy what I see.

The short videos are mildly addictive. I like how easy it is to simply swipe up on my iPhone's screen and get a new entertaining video. Sometimes it's hard to stop scrolling through the endless TikTok offerings.

Tonight, though, I was greeted with this message.

This doesn't bother me much. However, all the people and businesses who rely on highly popular TikTok to publicize themselves are going to be irked. Of course, this wasn't a surprise. Last year Congress passed a bill with bipartisan support that Biden signed which has a Sunday deadline, as reported by Politico. 

At midnight, it will become illegal for any company to distribute, maintain or update TikTok after the Supreme Court upheld a law forcing the app to sever ties from Beijing-based ByteDance.

TikTok was also quietly pulled off the Google and Apple app stores before Sunday. App providers risked potentially bankruptcy-inducing fines of $5,000 a day per user if they kept offering the app.

The possibility of a TikTok return will now lie with Trump, who has promised to broker a deal to save the app and is considering granting it a 90-day extension.

I won't be saying this often during the next four years, but I hope Trump succeeds in keeping his promise.

I'm on the side of those who worry more about the erosion of free speech than national data security concerns when it comes to the law requiring TikTok to stop being a Chinese-owned company if it wants to operate in the United States.

To my knowledge, there hasn't been any credible evidence that the Chinese government is using data collected by TikTok about its American users in some nefarious fashion, or even how this could occur. It just seems like Congress bought into an overblown fear of the Chinese Communist Party, especially since TikTok assured legislators that the American data is kept on servers here in the United States, not in China.

This is a bad precedent. Why should Congress stop with China? Seemingly an argument could be made that any social media platform with ties to a foreign government should be banned in this country. And when it comes to concerns about the sanctity of user data, I'm much more worried about how Facebook is handling that data than how TikTok is.

If Trump comes to the rescue of TikTok, I'll applaud him for that, regardless of his motives -- which might have something to do with the fact that a major donor to his presidential campaign has urged him to save TikTok, the campaign successfully used TikTok to reach voters, and the TikTok CEO was invited to Trump's inauguration along with other social media moguls. 

Plus, Trump is eager to demonstrate that he can negotiate deals that were off limits to Biden. Saving TikTok would give Trump bonus points when he sits down with Chinese leaders to discuss issues of mutual concern. 

I'm suspecting that if Trump wants Congress to undo the TikTok legislation, or at least make it more favorable to TikTok, Republicans will go along with what their Dear Leader wants. Especially since polling shows that this also is what most Americans want according to a USA Today story.

With a potential TikTok ban looming for 170 million users of the app in the United States, it begs the question: How much public support is there for the ban?

Not much.

Between March 2023 and August 2024, support for the ban decreased from 50% to 32% of Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in September. Pew told USA TODAY on Wednesday that it's the most recent data available.

Hegseth is wrong. Diversity, equity, and inclusion make our military stronger.

Today I watched part of Pete Hegseth's Senate confirmation hearing after Donald Trump nominated him to be Secretary of Defense in his administration. 

It didn't take long for me to conclude that what I'd been hearing about Hegseth was absolutely true. He's spectacularly unqualified to lead our nation's military.

Leaving aside the credible accusations against Hegseth of sexual assault, habitual drunkenness, and inability to competently manage two small non-profit organizations that he was in charge of, Hegseth came across as the weekend Fox News host that seems to be the only reason Trump chose him to head up the Defense Department.

Meaning, he is skilled at evading tough questions, has no commitment to truth, and can recite the MAGA party line with an eloquence honed by his time as a right-wing television personality. 

I'm sure Trump was thrilled with his performance before the committee, even though a Politico story accurately describes what happened. 

Sex assault allegations? Blame “left-wing” media.

Issues with drinking? Those are anonymous smears.

No women in combat? That’s not what I said.

Pete Hegseth used a pattern of denials, memory holes and attacking the “left-wing” media at his Tuesday confirmation hearing for Pentagon chief as he sought to counter controversial issues in his past. And that strategy may work for him — along with Donald Trump’s other troubled nominees.

The president-elect’s Defense secretary pick brushed off questions he didn’t want to answer about everything from the possibility of Trump issuing illegal orders to alleged financial mismanagement in his previous management jobs. He said mainstream news outlets were the reason that allegations of sexual assault and reports of excessive drinking came to light. And he carefully reversed himself on previous comments disapproving of women in combat and gay people in the military.

What struck me about the portions of the hearing that I watched was Hegseth's mentions of "wokeness" in the military, which were echoed by some Republican senators. I paid particular attention to this because I've almost finished reading an excellent book by Tim Urban, What's Our Problem? A Self-Help Book for Societies.

Urban spends quite a few pages decrying what he calls Social Justice Fundamentalism, which he distinguishes from Liberal Social Justice. I agree that Social Justice Fundamentalism is a danger to our society, because usually, or at least too often, advocates of this extreme leftist perspective try to shut down open debate and free expression of competing views. 

For example, criticizing Critical Race Theory, which sees racism as embedded in the very fabric of American society, frequently causes someone to be called a racist just because they have reasonable objections to Critical Race Theory.

But I deeply doubt that this is what has been going on in our military, which appears to be focused on DEI: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. The problem is that Fox News and Republican politicians, notably Trump, have been effective at conflating the excesses of Social Justice Fundamentalism with the mainstream goals of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion -- which is firmly in the realm of Liberal Social Justice.

A bit of Googling turned up a recent article that supports this contention. Is the American military too "woke"? concludes, no.

A theme that keeps dominating certain corners of media commentary is the idea that the U.S. armed forces have become “woke.” In today's vocabulary, this implies that the American military has been overtaken by ideological imperatives that push a far-left political agenda.

Allegedly, U.S. enlisted personnel and officers are being subjected to compulsory exercises in groupthink that devalue the American historical experience, spread contempt for traditional American values and diminish the appeal of military service in favor of other alternatives.

From time to time, concern about political bias in the American armed forces has been voiced both by liberals and conservatives. Some liberals have warned against infiltration of the enlisted ranks by right-wing extremists who regard the American government as fundamentally illegitimate and deserving of overthrow.

Some conservatives have warned against Marxist or postmodern ideas being adopted by government agencies, including the Pentagon, and foisted on officers and enlisted personnel whom they claim are quietly gritting their teeth in resentment.

...For the past 50 years, the United States has had an all-volunteer force. That means that the sociological diversity of the armed forces cannot be imposed by fiat in the same way that a force based on conscription can operate.

Diversity means that the American military is open to all races, genders, gender identities, nationalities and so forth -- but the force is made up from persons who self-select military service as a profession (at least temporarily, although some make a career of it). Recruitment rates therefore are less revealing of the true diversity in the armed forces than are retention rates.

In addition, there is a misunderstanding of what training sessions in diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB) are intended to accomplish, in or outside of the military. If effectively presented, these sessions are not indoctrinations in political messaging, but awareness-raising opportunities for informed discussion and sharing of experiences.

Granted, some bureaucracies excel in reducing nuanced issues into wood chip fragments of imbecility. But this outcome from DEIB information is neither inevitable nor desirable. Civilian workplaces have developed successful programs in support of diversity, and there is little or no evidence that the Pentagon has failed to meet acceptable standards of professional competency in this area.

Democratic and Republican leaders preview 2025 legislature at Salem City Club

In the not-so-old days, the Oregon legislature only met every two years. Now it convenes for a short session in even-numbered years, like 2024, and for a long session in odd-numbered years, like 2025.

Today the Salem City Club had a program that featured the Senate Democratic Majority Leader, Kayse Jama, and the House Republican Leader, Christine Drazan (she ran for Governor in 2022).

Christine Drazan and Kayse Jama

Jama, a Somali-American, spoke first. Due to his accent and use of a handheld microphone (a built-in microphone wasn't working) I had some difficulty in understanding him. So I'll use this as an excuse for any errors in what Jama said, along with my notoriously bad handwriting as I took notes.

He noted that Oregon faces a lot of challenges, including rising prices. Unity is needed. Citizens expect Democrats and Republicans to work together in the upcoming legislative session. 

Protecting the rights of all Oregonians is a Democratic priority. So are building more affordable housing and dealing with homelessness, issues that obviously are related. Constructing infrastructure on land suitable for housing is needed: sewer, water, and such. 

He doesn't think that public safety can be achieved by arresting our way out of crime. LGBTQ rights are important to assure. Collaboration between diverse interests will be needed to solve the state's problems. We need to work together and be kind to each other.

Drazan then described the Republican approach. The status quo isn't working. This is an opportunity to work across the aisle (Democrats control both the state House and Senate). She said that billions of dollars already have been spent on housing without a whole lot of results.

There are still too many people living on the streets. We need to try something different, a new strategy. We need to better understand the population we're serving, whether this be the homeless or students. 

Oregon schools are falling behind on test scores. She urged that students be viewed as customers, putting them at the center of the conversation about education policies. Oregon's state budget is a moral document. The key question to be asked of programs is "Will it work?" Accountability measures are sorely needed. 

In the Q&A part of the program, I asked about Oregon's land use program, saying that in states with strong land use rules, farm and forest land is better protected but affordable housing is lacking compared to states with weaker land use rules. So where is the balance to be struck?

Drazan said that since the passage of Oregon's pioneering land use program (in the early 1970s), more requirements keep being added. Carve-outs from the program occur for particular purposes, but she prefers a general revamping of the state's land use rules that would better balance economic vitality with protecting the environment.

Someone asked Drazan if she would take money away from public schools and give it to private schools. She said that she believes in public schools but wants a focus to return to individual students, as some students are not being served well. She favors a "yes, and" rather than an "either, or" approach to the public-private debate. We need to be more flexible with education. 

After a questioner asked if the "kicker" should be done away with, Jama said that conversation is needed. Drazan gave a fairly intricate answer that, if I understood it correctly, basically said that if the legislature had been able to spend all of the revenue available in strong economic years, the state would be in worse shape now due to the need to either keep funding new programs during weak economic years, or eliminating them when times became tough. 

(The kicker rebates money to taxpayers when revenues come in several percent more than what was projected by the state economist for the next two-year period.)

After the program ended I went up to Drazan, shook her hand, and told her, with a smile on my face, that I was pleased to hear a Republican say things that made quite a bit of sense to me. I also said that it was a pleasure to have she and Jama engage in this dialogue, as Democrats and Republicans don't do much of that in Washington D.C. these days.

Of course, after the meeting I told someone else that Republican politicians in Oregon are prone to appearing more moderate in public than they do in private, given our state's electoral leaning toward the Democratic Party. So I'll take a wait-and-see approach to how collaborative Republicans turn out to be in the 2025 legislative session. 

Trump acting like a jerk in politicizing Los Angeles wildfires

No big surprise, but really disturbing nonetheless.

Donald Trump, who recently was elected president of the entire United States, all 50 of them, is acting like the non-empathetic jerk that he is by making completely unfounded criticisms of California's governor regarding the wildfires that are devastating the Los Angeles area.

If Trump had one ounce of decency in his flabby body, he'd be making statements like any other president-elect would. Like: "My heart goes out to everyone suffering from the fires in southern California. I assure you that once I become president I'll order my administration to do everything possible to help you and your communities recover from this disaster."

Here's a photo of part of the devastation caused by the wildfire that hit Pacific Palisades. Sure seems like every politician, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, would feel saddened by this image.

Reports I saw today said that the entire community of Pacific Palisades, which has about 25,000 people, essentially is destroyed. This includes the core of the town: two large grocery stores, high school, restaurants, churches, almost everything. It reminds me of the fire that destroyed the town of Lahaina on Maui, countless lives turned upside down by a wind-fueled wildfire.

Yet Trump is spouting lies about this disaster in a disgusting attempt to score political points. A Washington Post story, "As L.A. burns, Trump blames Newsom -- and California governor pushes back,"  says:

President-elect Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom clashed Wednesday over fires burning out of control in the Los Angeles area, injecting national politics into a growing crisis in the city that Vice President Kamala Harris calls home and that President Joe Biden was visiting for the birth of his great-grandson.

During a news conference Tuesday, Newsom had urged Trump not to “play any politics” during the “precious moments that we have to evacuate.”

But as the fires forced tens of thousands of people to leave their homes and left at least five dead Wednesday, Trump sought to pin the catastrophe on Democratic governance, blaming Newsom’s water management decisions for the fires — an idea that water experts strongly disputed — and noting that some fire hydrants had run dry amid huge demand.

...Trump’s contention that Newsom’s water management decisions were to blame for the severity of the fires is not supported by the facts, multiple water experts told The Washington Post.

“There is no relationship between federal and state water management and the intensity of these fires or the ability of people to fight these fires,” said Jeffrey Mount, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan think tank. Instead, he said, lack of rain and severe winds created dangerous conditions.

“Right now Southern California has ample water supplies, their reservoirs are full — they’re well above historical averages. They do a very good job of managing water. There is no shortage of water in Southern California, that’s just not true,” Mount added.

He said some hydrants are running dry not because the region ran out of water, but because pressure drops with high demand, making it harder to move water around.

Los Angeles’ vegetation, which is highly flammable, exacerbates the problems caused by dry conditions and high winds, said Matthew Hurteau, a forestry vegetation expert and professor at the University of New Mexico.

After two wet years, which led to increased vegetation growth, Los Angeles has received almost no rain since the spring of 2024. I heard a figure of 2/10 of an inch, which is next to nothing. So the vegetation was extremely dry. 

Then came the Santa Ana winds, gusting to as much as 100 miles an hour. The winds turbocharged the wildfires, causing them to grow rapidly. This is January. Usually the Santa Ana winds occur earlier. However, climate scientists predicted that global warming would cause the winds to become stronger and occur later.

Here's the abstract of that 2006 study. 

A new method based on global climate model pressure gradients was developed for identifying coastal high-wind fire weather conditions, such as the Santa Ana Occurrence (SAO). Application of this method for determining southern California Santa Ana wind occurrence resulted in a good correlation between derived large-scale SAOs and observed offshore winds during periods of low humidity. The projected change in the number of SAOs was analyzed using two global climate models, one a low temperature sensitivity and the other a middle-temperature sensitivity, both forced with low and high emission scenarios, for three future time periods. This initial analysis shows consistent shifts in SAO events from earlier (September–October) to later (November–December) in the season, suggesting that SAOs may significantly increase the extent of California coastal areas burned by wildfires, loss of life, and property.

Of course, Trump is a climate change denier. He wants the United States to produce more greenhouse gas pollution, not less. So Trump has neither the intelligence nor the willingness to grasp the truth about the Los Angeles wildfires: they're being stoked by rising temperatures. A Vox story says: 

Wildfires are a natural part of the landscape in California, but the danger they pose to the region is growing because more people are living in fire-prone areas. That increases the likelihood of igniting a blaze and the scale of the damage that occurs when a fire inevitably erupts. California’s growing wildfire threat has rocked the state’s insurance industry and forced regulators to allow insurers to price in the risk of worsening future catastrophes. At the same time, global average temperatures are rising due to climate change, which can prime more of the landscape to burn.

It will take a concerted effort on many fronts to mitigate the wildfire threat, including using more fire-resistant building materials, performing controlled burns to reduce fuels, changing where people live, improving forecasting, pricing insurance in line with the actual disaster risk, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change.

demobrats podcast is a must-listen if you care about Salem politics

I'm not a big fan of podcasts. Until now.

Because thanks to a December 31 story by Whitney Woodworth in the Statesman Journal, "Salem politics goes brat: New 'demobrats' podcast focuses on city budget, local government," I learned about the podcast started by Virginia Stapleton and Vik Schaaf.

Stapleton is a former Salem city councilor who didn't run for re-election last year, choosing to challenge Kevin Mannix for his seat in the state legislature, House District 21. Unfortunately, she lost to Mannix. Schaff handled social media for Stapleton.

The story says that the demobrats color scheme and name is a homage to Charli XCX's recent album, and the singer's endorsement of Kamala Harris as "brat" -- a good thing. Here's how brat is described by Charli XCX.

The title of Charli XCX’s sixth studio album, she envisions a “brat” as someone who has a “pack of cigs, a Bic lighter and a strappy white top with no bra.”

“You’re just like that girl who is a little messy and likes to party and maybe says some dumb things sometimes,” she explained in a video shared on TikTok.

“Who feels like herself but maybe also has a breakdown. But kind of like parties through it, is very honest, very blunt. A little bit volatile. Like, does dumb things. But it’s brat. You’re brat. That’s brat.”

Many theorize that it is the antithesis to the “clean” and “highly groomed” aspect so often on display by social media influencers.

The podcast is on Apple and Spotify. Some of the episodes are short. Some are long. On Apple, which I use, a transcript of every episode is available. I read the transcript of the first episode I "listened" to, The Mayor That Got Away (Chris Hoy).

With three people speaking and the transcript not identifying speakers, it was a bit confusing to read the transcript. But I preferred doing this, as Stapleton, Schaaf, and Hoy talked about a variety of things, some far removed from Salem politics, which is my main interest. 

I encourage you to check out demobrats. The podcast is a great addition to our local political scene. It has a strong progressive slant, which is perfectly fine with me. However, even if you're a conservative, you should use demobrats as a way to find out what the other side is thinking.

I'm looking forward to listening, or reading, the City Council and the Chamber of Secrets episode. The description is tantalizing.

Do private big developers and their friends have any business involving themselves in local politics? The Salem City Council, City Staff, and future electeds received a letter last week from The Salem Chamber of Commerce and the Home Builders Association. They are requesting the formation of a "Blue Ribbon Committee" to take a redundant deep dive into understanding the city's already dwindling resources. Join Vik and Virginia as they examine the distrust these groups have been shepherding in the community since the fall of the payroll tax in 2023 and the potential motivations behind this letter.

Regence dispute with Salem Health shows craziness of U.S. health care

I'm glad I ditched my Regence Medicare Advantage plan last November, switching to a Providence Medicare Advantage plan after getting a letter from Salem Health warning that negotiations were ongoing with Regence over renewing a contract for in-network services that expired at the end of the year.

For it turned out that December 31 came and went with no agreement between Regence and Salem Health. A Salem Reporter story, "Thousands of Regence members to lose in-network care at Salem Health, insurer says," tells the sorry tale.

Thousands of people insured through Regence will have to pay more to get care at Salem Health hospitals and clinics starting Wednesday, the insurance company announced.

The health system will be out-of-network on Jan. 1 for Regence BlueCross BlueShield members after the insurance company and Salem’s only hospital system failed to agree on a new contract.

...About 30,000 people in Marion and Polk counties are insured through Regence, and about a third of them use Salem Health on a regular basis, Dr. Zak Ramadan-Jradi, Regence’s vice president of network management, said to Salem Reporter in October.

It's kind of a pain to switch Medicare Advantage plans, but I figured it was better to do this than be stuck in the middle of the dispute between Regence and Salem Health -- each of whom blames the other for being greedy money-grubbers who care more about enriching themselves than caring for people.

The way I see it, they're both right.

While I'm satisfied with the medical services I get from Salem Health, it bothers me that Salem Health is gobbling up previously independent clinics, becoming ever more dominant in our local health care scene. Also, that the Salem Health CEO makes over a million dollars a year, I'm pretty sure.

I've also been satisfied with my Regence Medicare Advantage plan, which I've had since I became eligible for Medicare eleven years ago. I signed up for the plan after joking with my Salem Health primary care doctor about me turning 65 soon and asking her if she was going to stop seeing me once I was on Medicare.

She said with a more serious tone, "We lose money on each Medicare patient we see, but we basically break even on Medicare Advantage patients." That was part of the reason I signed up for the Regence Medicare Advantage plan, with added benefits (like a discount on my athletic club membership) being another reason.

However, deciding whether a giant health insurance company or a giant health care provider is more deserving of my affection is like choosing between poison ivy and poison oak. They're both irritating -- again, I'm talking about corporate management here, not regular employees or medical staff, who do a good job, by and large.

Now that I have a Providence Medicare Advantage plan, news reports of a looming strike by Providence nurses and doctors have caught my eye. This won't affect me, just Providence patients in the Portland area. It's still disturbing, though. 

For contract disputes and strikes by medical personnel are a side effect of our crazy American health care system. We're the only high income country in the world that lacks some sort of national health care where getting needed services isn't dependent on the whims of insurance companies and corporate medical providers.

We citizens put up with that crap because there's no other option. Most people aren't able to afford "boutique medicine" where if you can pay with cash, medical professionals provide a level of care that is way more convenient and accessible than what insured people get.

Unfortunately, during the next four years of the Trump administration we'll be fortunate to not have health care in this country slide backward. Maintaining the crazy status quo is the most I'm hoping for. 

My totally made-up 2024 local and national political awards

It's the last day of 2024.

Time to spend a (very) few minutes inspecting the recesses of my brain about what struck me, politically, during the past year, before I turn my attention to a Very Important Question: will CNN be up with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen consuming copious amounts of alcohol at Times Square, or will this be a dry year for the only New Year's Eve hosts I can stand to watch?

Here's some 2024 awards.

Biggest national fuck-up. Joe Biden ignoring his almost-but-not-quite-explicit pledge to only be a one-term president before turning the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination to a much younger candidate. That ended up happening anyway, but Biden hanging on way past his best by date really hurt the Democratic cause.

Biggest local fuck-up. After five progressives on the City Council voted to approve without a vote by the citizenry an employee payroll tax on people who work in Salem, conservative business interests forced a vote anyway in November 2023, and the tax was soundly defeated. This caused Mayor Chris Hoy's popularity to sink, as he was one of those progressives, which led to a conservative, Julie "I'm not related to Chris" Hoy being elected Mayor of a city that leans progressive, except when progressive politicians are punished for doing stupid things.

Brightest local rising star. City councilor Vanessa Nordyke was the only progressive on the City Council unscathed by the payroll tax fiasco, as she wanted the tax to be voted on by citizens. Nordyke seems destined for higher office, much higher than Mayor.

Brightest national rising star. Trump's gigantic shadow blots out any Republican rising stars. On the Democratic side, I'm hoping some appear, damn soon! I like Michigan's Governor, Gretchen Whitmer. California's Governor Gavin Newsom is appealing, but his hair is too slickly styled for my taste.

People I least want to get an email or text message from ever again. No contest: Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. 

Decision that will either turn out horribly or terrific. For Salem, the soon-to-be imposition of downtown parking meters. This will either drive people away from visiting downtown or be the savior of a struggling urban core. For the United States, the attempted removal of millions of undocumented migrants. This will either cement Trump's popularity as a president who shook things up in a good way or earn the wrath of a country that realized too late how valuable those undocumented migrants were to our economy. 

Most pleasingly fanatic local citizen activists. Jim Scheppke and his merry band of library supporters, who have been besieging city officials with calls to make the Salem Library and its West Salem branch a high budget priority. Librarians are known for telling people to keep their voices down. But they've been speaking loudly about preserving library services in the face of upcoming general fund deficits.

Politician I'm really happy lived to be 100. Jimmy Carter. While he was alive, I failed to realize what a good president he was. Now that he's dead, this historians who have been talking about him remind me of Carter's accomplishments, not least of which was recognizing way back in the late 1970s that global warming was an existential threat to humanity. Putting solar panels on the White House roof was a visionary move, even though Ronald Reagan removed them after he beat Carter in the 1980 election.

Jimmy Carter's death reminds us that presidents should be decent and honest

When I got in my car this afternoon and heard talk about Jimmy Carter after I turned on the radio, I knew, or at least strongly suspected, that former President Carter had died. 

My first thought was, "He was such a decent person, the complete opposite of Trump."

Listening to reports of Carter's life -- his upbringing, his presidency, his post-presidency -- reminded me  that it wasn't that long ago that decency, honesty, strong moral character, and putting the broad interest of the nation above narrow party politics were viewed as basic qualities someone aspiring to be president needed to demonstrate.

Those days are gone, given the fact that Trump won the White House in 2016 and 2024. Which is sad, especially for those of us old enough to remember the humility, charm, and accomplishments Jimmy Carter brought to the presidency after he was elected in 1976.

Well, I needed some help from the news programs I listened to as I drove home after learning of Carter's death at the age of 100 to remember his political accomplishments. 

For I'd mostly bought into the oft-repeated conclusion that Carter's presidency was an abject failure, while his post-presidency was a great success marked by charitable endeavors like he and his wife building houses on behalf of Habitat for Humanity.

It's true that "stagflation" and Iran taking 52 American diplomats hostage produced a resounding defeat for Carter's 1980 re-election bid at the hand of Ronald Reagan. However, Carter did some very good things during his single term as president.

The Carter Center summarizes those accomplishments.

Jimmy Carter served as president from Jan. 20, 1977 to Jan. 20, 1981. Significant foreign policy accomplishments of his administration included the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David Accords, the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. He championed human rights throughout the world.

On the domestic side, the administration's achievements included a comprehensive energy program conducted by a new Department of Energy; deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and finance; major educational programs under a new Department of Education; and major environmental protection legislation, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which doubled the size of the national park system and tripled the wilderness areas.

For me, one of Carter's memorable moments was recollected in a Politico story about him.

But he could also be disarmingly candid, in a political culture that almost never rewards that trait (who can forget his confession to Playboy magazine that he had lusted after women not his wife and committed adultery many times in his heart?)

This seemed quaint at the time, along with being astoundingly obvious. What man hasn't committed adultery many times in his heart? But what Carter said fits with his commitment to Christian ideals and high moral standards. 

Since we have a president-elect who had sex with a pornstar soon after his wife had given birth, then was found guilty of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to the pornstar so news of Trump's infidelity wouldn't come out just before the 2016 election, Jimmy Carter's admission of purely mental sexual affairs is refreshing by comparison.