Salem Political Snark

Why are progressives on Salem City Council so uninterested in protected bike lanes?

I'm a confused progressive. Along with many others, I've spent a lot of time, money, and energy working to get progressives elected to the Salem City Council.

Now they have a 7-2 majority on the council.

I put councilors Virginia Stapleton, Tom Andersen, Trevor Phillips, Jackie Leung, Chris Hoy, Vanessa Nordyke, and Micki Varney in the progressive camp, with Mayor Chuck Bennett and Jose Gonzalez in the conservative camp.

So it's perplexing why the highly appealing Salem Bike Vision proposal to build a network of protected bike lanes in Salem appears to be getting such little love from the progressives -- aside from Stapleton, who is championing the proposal in the City Council. 

"Protected" means cyclists would be separated from traffic by some sort of physical barrier, not just white lines painted on the side of a road. The photo above shows an example in Portland, given the photo credit.

A few days ago I wrote about the May 23 City Council meeting where Stapleton tried to get approval for $10-15 million to construct a network of protected bike lanes included in the $300 million bond measure planned for the November ballot.

I called the blog post, "Mayor and city staff try to keep Salem from having protected bike lanes." But that was only part of what disturbed me when I watched a video of the council meeting. 

Equally disturbing was how little support Stapleton got from her fellow progressive councilors.

Sure, there were murmurs of support here and there, but in general it seemed that while the other six progressives on the City Council have talked a lot about their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Salem, when it comes to taking a stand for much improved bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure in Salem, so far they have remained seated in regard to this proposal.

I say this because Stapleton noted at the meeting that she's been trying for quite a while to add the Salem Bike Vision proposal to the projects in the bond measure. But she keeps being told that the time isn't right, so she should wait for a future meeting where the bond measure is discussed.

Now time is getting short to add projects before an August deadline to finalize the bond measure.

Since progressives have such a clear majority on the City Council, I have to assume that if Stapleton's colleagues cared about protected bike lanes, they would have acted by now to get this in the bond measure.

Again, I'm perplexed why this is. It'd be great if the other six progressive councilors spoke clearly and frankly about how they view the Salem Bike Vision proposal. What do they object to in this excerpt from the preceding link?

To quickly build out a bike network that is safe for riders of all ages, our plan minimize the need for costly land acquisition and instead focuses on right-sizing existing streets. Such projects are not only cost-effective, but also improve safety for all road users, even those in cars.

A project in Vancouver, WA, which right-sized travel lanes and added bike lanes, reduced crashes by 52 percent on a major road with average daily traffic of 17,000 vehicles. Traffic speeds went down 18 percent, traffic spillover into nearby roads did not occur, and an overwhelming majority (67 percent) of users surveyed felt safer.

Further, Salem's Climate Action Plan, a progressive priority, says that in order to meet carbon emission reduction goals set by the City Council: 

Further, scenarios in the plan that show whether Salem can attain the numerical carbon emission reduction targets assume that the rate of residents walking and biking has doubled. 

This isn't going to happen with a mostly business-as-usual approach to transportation in Salem which, sadly, is what the Community Improvement Bond currently consists of. 

So here's the Salem Bike Vision proposal for a network of protected bike lanes, which can be paid for by allocating 5%, or even less, of the $300 million bond measure amount to the proposal, and currently it's being met with a big fat yawn from the City Council.

Now, I admit that I don't know which councilors support protected bike lanes, and which don't, aside from Councilor Stapleton, who is an obvious supporter, since a vote hasn't been taken yet.

All I know is what I observed at last Monday's council meeting, combined with the fact that even though Stapleton has been trying for a long time to add protected bike lanes to the bond measure list of projects, so far she hasn't gotten enough support from her fellow progressives to do this.

Hopefully that will change.

The Salem Bike Vision proposal is transformative and has a great many benefits for Salem residents and visitors, notably including how much more fun it is to ride a bicycle in a protected bike lane where you don't have to worry nearly as much about safety.

Mayor and city staff try to keep Salem from having protected bike lanes

Given how pleasurable and safe it is for all ages to ride a bicycle on protected bike lanes, rather than dangerous white lines painted on the side of busy streets, it was irritating to watch a video of last night's City Council meeting and see Mayor Bennett, along with city staff, do their best to shoot down the popular proposal put forward by Salem Bike Vision. 

One way among several to create a protected bike lane

Councilor Virginia Stapleton handled the falsehoods with more patience and calm than I would have been capable of. Stapleton is taking the lead in championing the protected bike lane proposal on the City Council, though it seems clear that the idea also is supported by other councilors.

Yesterday I wrote about the upcoming council meeting in "Tell the Salem City Council you want protected bike lanes." I noted that Salem Bike Vision had sent out an email saying that the project list for a $300 million bond measure to be voted on in November was expected to be finalized at the meeting.

But the $15 million budget to build a network of protected bike lanes in Salem hadn't been added to the project list yet.

Councilor Stapleton came to the council meeting with a motion to do just that. She said that she'd spent a lot of time on the phone last week talking with constituents and others about how to find a way to pare down road/bridge construction projects planned for the bond so 5% of the $300 million bond could be used to build protected bike lanes. 

Or if not $15 million, I believe Stapleton said $10 million could be acceptable. Everything seemed normal up to this point of the protected bike lane discussion. Then things got disturbingly weird. 

Several councilors said they hadn't seen Stapleton's motion prior to the meeting. She said this was a surprise to her, since she'd given the motion and supporting documents to the City Attorney, Dan Atchison, figuring that he would share the motion with councilors and staff.

That didn't happen -- the first sign that City of Salem staff were doing their best to make sure money for protected bike lanes didn't make it into the bond measure.

Another sign came when Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director who has never showed any real commitment to improving Salem's bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, jumped in and began spreading some highly annoying B.S.

In the course of talking about the need for center turn lanes on certain streets -- somehow that subject got mixed into the discussion of protected bike lanes -- Fernandez said unconvincingly he was a strong supporter of Salem's Climate Action Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, of which the transportation sector contributes the most in Salem.

Echoing the absurd argument used by proponents of a Third Bridge across the Willamette, Fernandez said that idling vehicles waiting a while to turn left increase carbon emissions, so building more roads with left turn lanes is a Green thing to do.

Like I said, total bullshit.

If Fernandez had wanted to demonstrate how committed he is to combatting global warming, all he had to do was say, "I'm in favor of protected bike lanes, since the more people get around town by bicycle or on foot, the closer we'll come to meeting the goals of the Climate Action Plan. I'll work with Councilor Stapleton on finding a way to fund the Salem Bike Vision project by reducing the road construction budget in the bond measure."

But he didn't say that. Neither did Mayor Bennett, who appeared astoundingly clueless about the process being used to come up with a list of bond measure projects.

After Stapleton made her motion to add protected bike lanes to the bond measure, which was seconded by Councilor Andersen (an avid cyclist), Bennett criticized Stapleton for her motion, telling her that he couldn't understand why she was trying to change the bond measure projects "at 8 pm" of the council meeting.

Councilor Stapleton replied that she had been bringing up the Salem Bike Vision proposal at every opportunity during previous council meetings devoted to the bond measure, yet kept being told that wasn't the right time yet. Stapleton said it was her understanding following the council work session the previous week, that the projects for the bond measure could be finalized at this May 23 council meeting.

Stapleton was right. Bennett was wrong. Here's a screenshot of part of the memo from the acting City Manager regarding the work session. 

"As early as May 23, 2022, Council may adjust the package..." Exactly what Stapleton tried to do, until she got so much unjustified resistance from Mayor Bennett, combined with the failure of City Attorney Atchison to forward her motion to the City Council prior to the meeting, Stapleton decided to table her motion, which can be voted on the next council meeting.

Discussion then turned to the public opinion research mentioned in the Next Steps above. This led to more evidence that city staff are trying to prevent Salem residents from enjoying protected bike lanes, even though the authority to decide what projects are included in the bond measure is in the hands of the City Council.

Councilor Stapleton asked Courtney Knox Busch, a City of Salem staff person working on the public opinion research, to describe the question being asked about protected bike lanes. Busch said that she didn't have the exact language before her, but it said something about how people would feel about the bond measure if a change was made to add the protected bike lane project.

Councilor Chris Hoy, who was recently elected Mayor (takes office in 2023), immediately realized how loaded that question would be. After all, Busch and Bennett had just taken pains to emphasize to Stapleton that there was time for her to try to get the Salem Bike Vision proposal added to the project list, since the bond measure didn't need to be finalized until August 8.

So currently there is nothing to be changed in the bond measure, since it hasn't been approved by the City Council yet. Hoy correctly said that the survey question should say something like, "How would you feel if the bond measure includes protected bike lanes."

Busch waffled around in her response to Hoy, offering up a rather lame statement that the survey research company being paid to do the public opinion research knows that they're doing. She assured Hoy and the rest of the council that this wasn't a "push poll" intended to get a certain answer.

OK, but it sure looks to me like Mayor Bennett and City of Salem staff are doing what they can to kill the popular protected bike lanes proposal. Hard to say why. My suspicion is that they've heavily bought into traditional road projects and don't want $10-15 million going to bicycle infrastructure.

City staff kept saying they don't want the bond measure to be controversial. Well, here's some news for them. If you keep on playing games with Councilor Stapleton and other advocates for protected bike lanes, you're going to end up with a controversial bond measure. 

Stapleton smartly asked Busch to bring a tally of the public comments in favor of various bond measure projects to the next council meeting. Stapleton said she suspects protected bike lanes is one of the most popular projects, if not the most popular. 

I think she's right. There's a lot of people in Salem who want be able to get around on a bicycle without risking life and limb. Ignore them, and you're diminishing the chance of the bond measure passing.

Tell the Salem City Council you want protected bike lanes

While it is unclear whether the Salem City Council will be deciding tonight, May 23, on what to include in a $300 million bond measure to be voted on by citizens in the November election, it still would be a good idea to urge them ASAP (before 5 pm today, if possible) to include $15 million for protected bike lanes in the measure.

Email your testimony to [email protected]

Say you heartily support the proposal to use existing infrastructure to create the protected bike lanes, and want to see money for this in the bond measure. I described the proposal by Salem Bike Vision in an April blog post, "Protected bike lane network proposed for Salem." 

This photo from the Salem Bike Vision web site shows how much safer and pleasant a protected bike lane is than mere painted lines on the edge of a busy street.

Today I got an email from Salem Bike Vision saying in part:

Tonight is the night! The City Council is expected to finalize the project list for the community infrastructure bond in their meeting tonight. This is what we have been building towards this last couple months and we need your help to get this across the finish line! 

There is still time for Council to add funding for protected bike infrastructure into the bond. We have asked for 5%, or $15M, to be set aside for these projects to help build a livable and climate-resilient community over the next 10 years.

It appears that Council may only be able to set aside $10 million. In either event, please submit public comments by 5pm today, if you want more bike infrastructure in Salem. Personal experiences are powerful so please do not shy away from sharing your experiences riding in Salem. 

That public comment link doesn't lead directly to how comments are submitted if you don't testify via Zoom at the meeting itself. Again, email [email protected]

Tonight's City Council agenda includes an item to be voted on that calls for public opinion research to be conducted before what's included in the bond measure is finalized. So that implies the project list won't be finalized tonight, but maybe it could be, if the public opinion research isn't approved by the council.

Local election results look positive for progressives

Election night results always change in Oregon, even with vote by mail. This year they likely will change to a greater degree, since for the first time ballots postmarked today will count if they're received within a week.

That said, it's no fun to be cautious and say, "Let's wait until all the votes are in." Instead I say, "Let's look at the results as they are now!"

Assuming those results hold up -- again, a big assumption -- progressives like me should be pleased with how things are looking in local races. 

Chris Hoy leads in the race for Salem Mayor over Chane Griggs. This would be a pleasing win for progressives, since conservatives have occupied that seat for quite a while, and Griggs pulled in big bucks from the usual Chamber of Commerce-type business groups.

Since Linda Nishioka was unopposed in the Ward 2 city council race, that's an easy win for a progressive.

The Ward 4 race is close. If Medlock hangs on to her lead, that's another win for a progressive. 

I and quite a few others suspect that Julie Hoy's main qualification to run for the Ward 6 seat is that though unrelated to Chris Hoy, who has represented that ward on the city council, she shares his last name, so some voters probably cast a ballot for Hoy thinking she was his chosen successor or relative. It looks like she'll be a new conservative on the council.

Micki Varney, a progressive, has a slim lead over Chris Cummings in the Ward 8 race. She narrowly lost to Jim Lewis four years ago, so I'm hoping the second time is a charm for Varney, who is very well qualified to be a city councilor. (She was appointed to fill the seat after Lewis resigned.)

In the Democratic primary for the 19th House District in the state legislature, progressive Salem city councilor Tom Andersen leads Brad Witt by a fairly comfortable margin. Jackie Leung, another progressive city councilor, dropped out of the race but remained on the ballot and is getting over a quarter of the vote.

It looks like Tina Kotek will be the Democratic nominee for Governor. There were even more candidates, but I cut the screenshot off since nobody has heard of most of them.

In the Democratic primary for the new 6th Congressional District, which includes Salem, I'm thrilled that Andrea Salinas is so far ahead of Carrick Flynn. Flynn had way more money supporting his campaign that did any of the other candidates, and his almost daily mailers that arrived in our mailbox grew to be irritating as they went into our recycle bin. 

Lastly, Kurt Schrader is getting beaten badly by Jamie McLeod-Skinner in the 5th Congressional District race which includes part of Marion County. Schrader has voted in Congress against progressive priorities numerous times, so this would be a sweet victory for those who want a real Democrat to represent them.

Oh, there also were Republican primaries. Since I'm a Democrat, I'm not reporting them, except to note that Christine Drazan is leading in the race to be the GOP nominee for Governor. May she and independent candidate Betsy Johnson lose badly to Tina Kotek in November, along with Republicans in other races.

Big bucks flowing to conservatives in mayor and city council races

Today the Statesman Journal had a story about spending on the races for mayor and four city council seats in next Tuesday's primary election (which usually determines the winner in those contests, since a candidate getting 50% of the vote plus one more vote wins outright and avoids the November election).

The title of the story by Whitney Woodworth shows its primary focus: where the $375,000 came from. But equally important is where the money went.

There are four contested Salem races on the ballot -- mayor and three of the four even-numbered city council seats up for election (Ward 4, 6, 8). Ward 2 only has one candidate, Linda Nishioka. 

Each race has a more conservative candidate and a more progressive candidate.

The conservatives are Chane Griggs, mayor; Deanna Gwyn, Ward 4; Julie Hoy, Ward 6; Chris Cummings, Ward 8. The progressives are Chris Hoy, mayor; Dynee Medlock, Ward 4; Stacey Vieyra-Braendle, Ward 6; Micki Varney, Ward 8.

Using the list above in the Statesman Journal story, I totaled up the money contributed to the four conservative candidates and the four progressive candidates. Big difference! 

Four conservative candidates in contested races: $272,279 
Four progressive candidates in contested races: $96,428

(The grand total is $368,707 rather than $375,000 because Nishioka raised $5,860 in her uncontested race.)

So 74% of total contributions went to the conservative candidates and 26% went to the progressive candidates. Since Salem voters lean to the left -- Obama, Clinton, and Biden won comfortably in Salem in the past three presidential elections -- I suppose it could be argued that most of the local political money tilting rightward helps balance things out. 

Still, it wasn't that long ago when a few thousand dollars and a willingness to get paid absolutely nothing to put in long hours and serve as mayor or a city councilor was all that was needed to become a viable candidate.

Now the price tag has risen to five figures, and in the case of Chane Griggs' campaign for mayor, six figures. It's hard to see that this is good for citizen involvement or democracy, but the plain fact is that this is how politics at every level in our country has been moving.

Small money becomes big money which becomes huge money. Intimate local campaigning by a candidate door to door becomes mass mailings/radio and TV ads/paid consultants.

So far, though, from what I can tell there hasn't been much of a relationship between the amount spent on a mayor or city council race and who wins the race. People power can still compensate for money power. 

May it always be that way.

Hating Russia, I now better understand why so many hate the United States

Before Putin invaded Ukraine, my attitude toward Russia was one of rather detached disinterest.

I knew that Russia wasn't our friend, Trump had some sort of fatal attraction toward the country, Putin was an authoritarian who killed dissidents/journalists he didn't like, and it had a lot of oil and gas.

But in no way did I hate Russia. Now I do. 

Not the Russian people. Just that portion of the Russian populace responsible for carrying out the invasion of Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin. The oligarchs who support him. The Russian military. Anyone else in Russia who knows about the horrendous war crimes being carried out in Ukraine and still is OK with the invasion.

War is hell. Even when war is being conducted as it should be, with battles being fought by competing armies. War is far beyond hellish the way Russia is acting in Ukraine.

Kidnapping, torturing, killing, and raping civilians. Targeting schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and other targets with no military value. Leveling entire cities through indiscriminate bombing. Failing to allow civilians to evacuate from areas being attacked by Russia.

Knowing what I do about Russian atrocities in Ukraine, there's no way I could ever go back to feeling even neutral about Russia. For the rest of my life I'll detest Russia, even if Putin ever is replaced (which likely will be with another authoritarian ruler).

I now better understand why the United States is disliked by so many people around the world. Yes, my country does a lot of good beyond our shores. But we've also done a lot of bad.

The Vietnam War was a disaster. Ditto the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, leaving aside the justified invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, but not the twenty-some years that followed. The United States has caused hundreds of thousands of people to be killed unnecessarily.

Those deaths have caused a lot of intense reactions. If members of your family have been killed in a drone attack aimed at an Al Qaeda leader, the death of those innocents is going to leave a gaping hole in your heart that can't be repaired.

Anger at the United States can be as justified as my anger at Russia, albeit with some important differences. The United States didn't have an official policy directing our military to commit war crimes, but it definitely appears that Russia does.

Our intentions in going to war also were more defensible, though I realize that many would disagree. As much as I disliked George W. Bush, I feel that he truly did want to see Iraq become a democracy, even thought the U.S. strategy to accomplish this was deeply flawed.

By contrast, Putin wants to conquer Ukraine just to expand the borders of Russia back into what used to be the Soviet Union. He has no lofty aim, just the exertion of raw power.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is much more publicized than any other conflict, thanks to smart phones and the courage of journalists who report on what's going on there. I suspect that if our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had been equally open to view, American atrocities would have been much more on display, though nowhere near to the degree of Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

Ukraine is fighting a righteous war against an unprovoked invasion by Russia. That gives them the moral high ground. I wish I could say that the United States always has occupied the same ethical territory in the wars we've fought recently, but I can't. 

So while in no way do I believe that we're as guilty of war crimes as Putin's Russia is, I now can empathize more strongly with those who hate the United States for our own wartime atrocities. 

Claudia Howells text unfairly smears Tom Andersen in HD 19 race

It's getting close to the Oregon primary election day, May 17. Per usual, the nastiness is ramping up in campaign attack ads. 

Here's an example.

Today I learned the identity of the person who's been sending text messages wrongly accusing Tom Andersen, the Salem city councilor running in the Democratic primary for House District 19 against Brad Witt, of being weak on abortion rights.

It didn't take much sleuthing, since Claudia Howells identified herself in the text message. Howells' husband, Bradd Swank, lost badly to Andersen in a 2014 City Council race, so this raises the question of whether retribution is a motive for Howells. Or maybe she just doesn't like people not named Brad/Bradd. Here's the 2014 election result and the text message.

Tom Andersen vigorously disagrees with what Howells says.

It's almost beyond belief that Tom Andersen isn't pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Claudia Howells must know this, yet she sent out the text message.

Probably she'll come up with the pitiful excuse that the text speaks of pro-choice voting records, not being pro-choice. But that's B.S.

If Andersen never has had a chance to vote on an abortion rights bill, because he hasn't been a state legislator as Witt has, obviously he doesn't have a pro-choice voting record.

This is a sleazy attempt to smear Tom Andersen. No other way to describe it. Claudia Howells should apologize to Andersen and promise never to do something like this again.

Why Paige Clarkson is unfit to be the Marion County District Attorney

A recent mailer I got from Friends of Paige Clarkson, who is running to be the Marion County District Attorney, shows why voters should cast their ballot for Spencer Todd, her opponent. 

It's disgusting. Todd is a public defender. But apparently Clarkson doesn't understand that in the United States everyone is entitled to an attorney who defends them in court, because the front page of her mailer says this:

And who is the company Spencer Todd keeps? Why, defense attorneys! OMG! The horror! A public defender has friends who are defense attorneys. 

(Note: if you're a spelling geek, another reason not to vote for Paige Clarkson is that she and her campaign can't spell "palling around" correctly.)

Gunn & Gunn P.C., a Salem law firm, posted a terrific response to Paige Clarkson's offensive mailer on their Facebook page. This was written by Marc Gunn.

Friends:

As you may know, there is presently a contested election for the District Attorney for Marion County in which Spencer Todd is seeking to replace Paige Clarkson. To date, I have remained neutral and have not advocated for one party or the other in this election. In fact, Mr. Todd is unaware I am writing this message.

 

Unfortunately, I have recently become aware of a flier published and distributed by Ms. Paige Clarkson that cannot be allowed to stand. The flier attempts to malign Mr. Spencer Todd because he is “paling around with defense attorneys and convicted criminals.” She then lists 11 local defense attorneys that are supportive of Mr. Todd, indicating that you should not vote for Mr. Todd because he is supported by these good people.

 

Ms. Clarkson apparently believes the fact that individuals represent criminal defendants (i.e., criminal defense attorneys) that they are somehow deplorable individuals who should not be trusted.

 

This inference by Ms. Clarkson is a symptom of a cancerous disease of tribalism that is destroying our democracy and the ability for civil disagreement and public discussion of important issues. In my opinion, this speaks of an individual (Ms. Clarkson) who has contempt not just for those who are convicted of crimes but for those who play an important and constitutionally protected role in the American justice system.

 

You should know that I am personally familiar with every one of the attorneys listed by Ms. Clarkson. In my experience, every one of those individuals is a competent, capable, caring individual who provides professional legal services in our community.

 

All these attorneys work as public defenders, representing fellow citizens charged with criminal conduct. They are all private attorneys contracted with Marion County Association of Defenders which is a non-profit association that provides Public Defense Services. These individuals are constantly underfunded by the legislature (though that is changing) and put in long hours for relatively little pay.

 

It is my understanding that many of these individuals receive less financial compensation than the prosecutors working under the direction of Ms. Clarkson. For the past six months, Marcus has been a part-time contractor with MCAD. Seeing the time, energy, and resources he has dedicated to that work provides me with an increased appreciation of how difficult it is to work as a public defender.

 

I find it telling that there are also multiple privately retained defense attorneys that have donated far more to Spencer Todd’s election than these individuals – but there is no mention of those attorneys. Does Ms. Clarkson feel that she should only target “Public Defenders” and not target those who are more highly compensated for providing criminal defense services.

 

No public figure should ever feel the need to malign the character of citizens because they choose to support the other candidate. I also find it highly unprofessional and unbecoming of a member of the Oregon State Bar to publicly express what I can only see as spite, hatred, and vitriol against fellow members of the bar.

 

Though my name was not included in the list, I am a criminal defense attorney. I represent individuals charged with and convicted of crimes. I take personal offense at the inference that citizens should not listen to someone because they are a “criminal defense attorney.”

 

Apparently, Ms. Clarkson feels that her credentials and record are so weak that she needs to engage in what I consider vile behavior. She should be ashamed of what she has published and should publicly apologize for her statements. I am sad to say that Ms. Clarkson lost a great deal of my respect today – something that is hard won and easily lost.

 

When you are casting your ballot in the next week, please seriously consider voting in favor of Spencer Todd as our next District Attorney.

 

Please feel free to share this message with anyone you feel will benefit from this perspective.

Best Regards,

Marc

#thecompanyhekeeps

If we make the mistake Zelensky did, we'll lose our democracy

I'm a huge fan of Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. They've fought against Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine with amazing skill, valor, and determination. 

Zelensky

Since the war began on February 24, Zelensky has led his country almost perfectly. He inspires both Ukrainians and the entire freedom-loving world with his words and actions. And yet...

A special report in the May 9 issue of TIME magazine, "Inside Zelensky's World," describes how close a bad decision by Zelensky came to imperiling Ukraine in the first few days of the war.

The error was ignoring the obvious evidence that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine. The story says about the morning of the invasion:

For months Zelensky had downplayed warnings from Washington that Russia was about to invade. Now he registered the fact that an all-out war had broken out, but could not yet grasp the totality of what it meant. "Maybe these words sound vague or pompous," says Stefanchuk. "But we sensed the order of the world collapsing."

Until I read the TIME story, I wasn't aware of the disaster that almost befell Zelensky and Ukraine in those first few days of the war, since Ukraine hadn't prepared for the invasion.

Beyond the checkpoints is the government district [in Kyiv], known as the Triangle, which Russian forces tried to seize at the start of the invasion.

...It soon became clear the presidential offices were not the safest place to be. The military informed Zelensky that Russian strike teams had parachuted into Kyiv to kill or capture him and his family.

...As Ukrainian troops fought the Russians back in the streets, the presidential guard tried to seal the compound with whatever they could find. A gate at the rear entrance was blocked with a pile of police barricades and plywood boards, resembling a mound of junkyard scrap more than a fortification.

...As night fell that first evening, gunfights broke out around the government quarter. Guards inside the compound shut the lights and brought bulletproof vests and assault rifles for Zelensky and about a dozen of his aides. Only a few knew how to handle the weapons.

One was Oleksiy Arestovych, a veteran of Ukraine's military intelligence service. "It was an absolute madhouse," he told me. "Automatics for everyone." Russian troops, he says, made two attempts to storm the compound. Zelensky later told me that his wife and children were still there at the time.

Reading this got me to thinking about the parallel between Zelensky denying the evidence that Russia was about to invade his country, which left Ukraine worse off than if preparations to repel an invasion had been taking place during those months of denial, and how people in the United States are failing to grasp the evidence that Republicans are busily working to undermine our democracy.

So far the pitiful response of Congressional Democrats and President Biden to GOP efforts to take away voting rights, set the stage for overturning the 2024 presidential election if a Democrat wins, and stack the Supreme Court with highly partisan right-wing justices willing to stand by and allow our democracy to be trashed is painfully like the frantic efforts to protect Zelensky's compound.

Piles of barricades and boards wouldn't have been enough to stop Russian troops without a combination of Russian incompetence and Ukrainian fortitude. Yet too many people in the United States are hoping, as Zelensky did, that the worst isn't going to happen, even though there's lots of evidence that it will.

Two of those people, sadly, are Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema, who are standing in the way of doing away with the archaic Senate filibuster that's preventing Democrats from taking steps to protect our democracy in the short time remaining when this can occur, since Republicans likely will take back at least the House in November of this year, and perhaps the Senate also.

For months Zelensky looked at Russian troops massing on the border of Ukraine and thought, there's no way Putin would order a full-scale invasion of my country. 

For years too many Democrats have been looking at Republican efforts to undermine our elections and thinking, there's no way Trump and his GOP cronies would order a dismantling of our democracy. 

The next thing Zelensky knew, his guards were fighting Russian paratroopers at the gates of his compound. What I fear is that the American people are going to discount warnings of a Republican assault on democracy until that battle has gone too far to stop it from succeeding.

Once abortion is illegal, gay marriage and contraception could follow

Unless you're living in a news desert where word of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning abortion rights hasn't reached yet, likely you're either outraged or ecstatic -- depending on how you view abortion. 

Me, I'm in the outraged camp.

I strongly favor a woman's right to choose what medical care she gets. That leads me to be upset at what anti-abortion zealots and their enablers in the Republican Party have wrought: the imminent doing-away of a constitutional right to an abortion that has been the law of the land since 1973, almost 50 years.

Even worse, there's good reason to believe that the Supreme Court won't stop with doing away with the constitutional right to an abortion, but could reverse other rights also, such as same-sex marriage and contraception. So says a piece in The Atlantic, "Alito's Plan to Repeal the 20th Century."

However, listening to liberal Congressional politicians speak today about how they're going to work to codify a right to an abortion in a law to be introduced soon leaves me with a bad feeling also. 

After all, these are the same Democratic politicians who have been promising to pass voting rights legislation because that too deserved urgent attention. Yet nothing has happened with voting rights. Just as nothing has happened with police reform, immigration policy, and other progressive priorities.

Since there aren't 51 Democratic votes for doing away with the filibuster in the Senate, and no abortion rights bill can get 60 votes, the chance of such a bill passing is essentially zero. Which raises the question: why didn't Democrats enshrine the right to an abortion in legislation when they had the chance at a time when this was possible since 1973, assuming it ever was?

As much as I dislike today's Republican Party, I give the GOP credit for fighting tough on what it deems important. Yes, they fight dirty, but that got them a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and gerrymandered districts all across the country that now provide them with a solid base of support.

Democrats are good at expressing outrage at Republican nastiness. They're not nearly as skilled at responding in kind to cure the ills that the GOP is inflicting on our country.

Below I've shared some tweets from my Twitter feed that I especially liked out of the many views about the Supreme Court leaked draft order that I read today. You'll see that a woman who clerked at the Court has changed her mind about who likely sent the draft order to Politico reporters.

Yesterday she thought it was a liberal law clerk or justice who wanted to raise the alarm at how five conservative justices were poised to not just restrict abortion rights but do away with them entirely by reversing the Court's previous rulings on abortion.

But now she leans toward the notion that it was a conservative law clerk or justice who sought to lock in Justice Alito's strong, even harsh, draft order, since it appears that Chief Justice Roberts may have made some progress in finding support for having abortion rights pared back, yet not eliminated entirely.

Now that will be more difficult, since any weakening of the draft order will infuriate anti-abortion activists who want abortion illegal in any state that wishes it so, and ideally in the entire country -- which could happen if Republicans get control of both the House and Senate in 2024, along with the presidency.

So any conservative justice in favor of softening Alito's language will find this more difficult to do, given that the draft order has been publicized. Anyway, we may never know who leaked it. It just won't be surprising if it turns out to be, say, one of Justice Thomas' law clerks.

Here's the tweets.