Babies shouldn't be having babies

Backers of the abortion parental notficiation initiative have been successful in gathering the requisite number of signatures needed to qualify for this November's election. This fall, Oregonians will vote on whether a young girl would be foreced to share medical information with a possible hostile family environment. Unsurprisingly, Dave's latest column emotionally manipulates personal tragedy and hardship to make the case for creating another barrier to legal, lawful abortion.

Look, I'm fine with Dave using his alloted editorial page space to discuss various efforts to outlaw abortion. He's a conservative, and abortion is the conservative's pet rallying issue. (If there were no abortions being committed, how could conservatives possibly get elected?) Now that it's on the ballot, the volume of the discussion on the parental notification initiative will get ratcheted past 11 as state and national conservative groups go overboard and bombard Oregon's voters with propaganda and rhetoric to turn out conservative voters in hopes of electing conservative candidates. But so what. There's one iniative like that on every ballot. (Measure 36, anyone?)

Dave taking a stand for parental notification is hardly a brave stand. It was to be expected. And I'm sure if you were to ask Dave why he opposed abortion, his reply would invariably include the phrase "pro-life." But, I don't know, I kind of wish Dave would be a little more, you know, consistent. I mean, given his most recent editorials that were barely nothing more than cheerleading rah-rah pieces encouraging the death and destruction Israel is reigning upon Lebanon, it's quite clear that Dave supports an ideology of militarized, efficient murder. And that negates any claims he would have of being "pro-life."

And what of this parental notification bill? Isn't it odd that the decision-making process of perhaps the one most major medical procedure a patient may undertake can't be undertaken by a patient and their doctor? Doctors are sworn to a vow of secrecy, but if this bill is passed, would be forced to share incredibly private information with a third-party. Wouldn't this crack in the wall of doctor-patient privilege eventually lead, through whatever psuedo-populist rhetoric championed by the conservative cause at the time, to the eventual dissolution of said priviledge? Until the day comes that everyone's entire medical history is available on some easily-accessible database?

Let's take a moment and consider some of the language Dave uses in this column. He says that the bill "would allow exceptions when notification wouldn't be in the best interest: the small number of young girls who are or may become vicitms of fmily abuse. (Italics mine.)" Who would make this distinction? Would the simple act of sharing this information potentially turn a stable, healthy family environemnt into a dangerous, hostile one? And besides, if you give the anti-abortion crowd an inch, they'll take a mile. South Dakota passed a parental notification law that included all sorts of exceptions. That led to the eventual passage of their draconian anti-abortion law passed year, in which exceptions weren't even allowed for rape or incest.

Do you see why passage of this bill could be dangerous to women's future rights for reproductive choice in Oregon?

Proponents of this bill say that it's unfathomable that girls should be haved to face this decision-making process alone. I agree, to a degree. However, it's also unfathomable that girls get raped by their father or stepfather. It's unfathomable that the same supporters of this initiative rail against the teaching of birth control in our public scools- which would be the most sure-fire way of limiting the number of unplanned preganancies. (Something, naturally, that Dave doesn't mention in his column.) And its also unfathomable to consider that, if this bill passes, some girls would be in such a desperate situation that they would have to resort to illegal back-alley abortions, in which no parental notification would occur. Unless, of course, the girl were to die during the procedure.

I oppose this inititiatve as it involves placing limits on individual's abilities to make decisions regarding their freedom and indiivudal liberty. Babies shouldn't be having babies- is anyone really going to argue against that? And don't give me any crap about "fetus rights" either. As long as fetuses are attached to the mother, than that is all that they are- clumps of tissue attached to a host.

Certainly the numbers of abortions should be reduced, but placing a number of limits on a woman's ability to receive a legal, lawful, and safe abortion is going to reduce the need or numbers any. In the end, a committed effort to public education and family planning that is conducted in an unpatrionizing manner which encourages healthy relationship-building (both with potential partners as well as family members) would be the best steps to take to limit the number of abortions being sought. And let's not forget, if abortion were ever to be completely banned in this country, nothing would stop rich women or wealthy duaghters from traveling abroad to get one if they wanted.

For poor girls unwilling to share such medical conerns with a dangerous family environemnt, the only option available would be the back alley.

You know how to get peace in the Middle East?

Dave spells it out for you in his latest column: sit back and allow Israel to blow the heck out of whoever the hell they want. And then just let peace settle over the region. Obviously, that's a recipe for certain success in creating a "new Middle East," the mantra that Condoleeza Rice has been repeating over the past few days. Yes, let's just allow Israel to decimate Beirut and turn one-fifth of Lebanon's population into homeless refugees. That won't alienate our Arab allies in the region AT ALL.

If Bush isn't going to put any of America's military muscle to stop the wanton killing that's occurring in the Middle East, he should re-visit that veto of stem cell research he signed last week. Given his ineffectiveness to act as a world leader and stop the indiscriminate bombing and deaths of Lebanese and Israeli civilians, he really shouldn't be calling stem cell research "murder."

Remember the time when the U.S. represented the interests of Israel by also engaging in good-faith discussions with Israel's Arab neighbors? I mean, for all of Carter's supposed pessimism, it appears that he was the only President to manage the unthinkable- hammer out a peace deal between Israel and a neighbor-state committed to Israel's destruction, Egypt. And now Israel's incursion into Lebanon has put severe strains on this relationship between Israel and Egypt.

Because remember, this is the "new Middle East." It appears that the Rice Doctrine of enacting diplomacy entails dragging her feet and stalling as long as possible so as the neo-conservatives can get their gun-crazy 'might makes right' jollies off while giving lip-service rhetoric as to why an immediate cease fire actually threatens peace in the region. Obviously for a "new Middle East" to emerge, you have to go through a period of carnage and massive death and destruction. It kind of reminds me of the quote from Donald Rumsfeld in the early days after the invasion- "Freedom is messy. Free people are free to do whatever they want." That may not be the exact quote, but its along those lines. Obviously, in the neo-consevative rationale, what happens, happens, and though they may claim the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world, it would be inappropriate to actually use this power. For peaceful reasons, that is.

Sidney Blumentahl writes a scathing expose on this latest ineffective U.S. foreign policy for Salon.com, and details the Rice Doctrine further. Besides the U.S. deserting its historical role as protector of Israel by being a good-faith negotiator, the Rice doctrine also includes:

Rather than emphasize the paramount importance of Lebanese sovereignty, presumably a matter of concern to an administration that had made a nation's sovereignty Exhibit A in the spread of democracy in a "new Middle East," Rice has downplayed or ignored it in favor of an uncritical endorsement of Israel's offensive against Hezbollah, which has destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure, made refugees of about 20 percent of the Lebanese, and treated the Lebanese government as a contemptible irrelevance. Rice's trip was calculated to interpose the influence of the United States to prevent a cease-fire and to give Israel at least another week of unimpeded military action.

Let's also not forget that if the President did, say, want to send our troops in and make a big show of kicking Hezbollah ass, he kind of can't because he sent them all to Iraq, thus tying his hands on any forceful U.S. military action as long as that pointless war continues. So that's another reason why Dubya is keen on letting Israel fight terrorists while we stand on the sidelines. Dave appears to have side-stepped this point in his column, however.

Dave may think Israel engaging in activities that will alienate and sever relations with surrounding Arab nations will somehow bring peace to the Middle East. For the rest of us sane folk, we realize that if you hold this neoconservative pipe-dream under just the slightest bit of scrutiny, you'll realize that it's completely ridiculous.

Bombs are fallin'! Let's knock the bathroom wall in!

As things continue to heat up in the Middle East, with no diplomatic solution to the crisis between Israel, Hezebollah, and Hamas in site, Dave takes an opportunity to admit that he isn't very handy when it comes to household remodeling projects.

Neat-o.

I've heard conservatives accused of changing the subject when things aren't going their way, but this is simply ridiculous. To be fair, however, I have noticed that both Dave Reinhard and his left-wing counterpart David Sarasohn intersperse their more seriously-minded columns with tales and travails of their domestic life and the insights they've gleamed from daily living in Portland.

That's all fine and dandy. But perhaps the space for Reinhard's straight-outta-Everybody Loves Raymond fluff piece might have been further inside the Sunday O's Opinion section, and not under the picture of bombed-out Beirut that graced the main page?

And does anybody else find it a bit interesting that Dave didn't take his Sunday column- which ultimately has more readership, I would imagine- to continue to make his case for Bush to assist Israel, either complicitly or by merely standing out of the way? Perhaps Dave's realizing that Bush's "scorched-earth" policies over the past half-decade have yet to lead to a further instabilized world, with Islamist terrorists being able to increase their range of attack inside of Israel and, by proxy, us.

So Dubya's war on terror has made the world more of a safe haven for terrorism? Well, golly, sounds like it's time for a column on bathroom tile, and ignoring reality....

Peace in the Middle East? Dave, What are you Talking About?

It appears that Dave has returned from catching wide-mouthed Chinook salmon on his fishing trip, and such has time to weigh in on the fact that the Mideast has gone to hell in a handbasket. Some how, I'm sure, Dave feels that the New York Times is behind this one, but in the meantime we have his latest column in which he weighs heavily on the recent actions that have been carried out in the Middle East, ultimately coming in defnse of Israel.

Shockers! Who would've saw that coming? Look, I'm not saying that Israel has no right to defend itself and protect its borders. If it exchanges land for peace that's exactly what it should get, peace. Instead, Israel has been on the receiving end of numerous attacks from foreign-government nuzzled terrorist groups on two fronts- both by Hamas in the Palestinian South and by Hezbelloh, attacking from a militarized zone in Lebanon on Israel's northern border.

Dave asks a lot of questions. I count twelve question marks, as he makes use of the "lazy columnist" tactic of filling half his column up with queries, a rhetorical device that causes readers to glaze over the rest of the column, lacking any interest as to whetehr Dave even has a conclusion or not. However, amongst all his questions, the one that isn't asked, the elephant Dave's side-stepping in the room, is How could this have happened?

Invading Iraq was supposed to create a "beacon" of democracy, remember? Or has Dave forgotten? He can easily ask Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the other architects of the failed "democracy exportation" experiment. Elections have happened in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Palestine, with the end result being nothing except democratically-elected headaches. The Taliban is on a resurgence- again- in Afghanistan, with actions being undertaken against them by U.S. and Afghan forces this past month. Nearing the five-year anniversary of 9/11 and we still haven't been able to run out the nest of vipers that allowed the planning and committing of that event to happen in the first place?

After the Lebanese elections, there was an uprising that pushed out Syria's occupying forces, after nearly three decades of influence. Conservative pundits bellowed, declaring democracy was thriving and Dubya was simply better than Jesus. However, a year later, it has become clear that the popularly-elected Lebanese goernment has no sway over Hezbollah, who have continually defied United Nations resolutions by continuing to attack Israel from the same land that Israel had pulled out from in 2000. Indeed, with members of Hezbollah sitting on Lebanon's parliament and holding their own private militias, it appears that Lebanaon presents a classic case of minority factions engaging in actions in which the rest of the population have to suffer for.

And let's not forget last winter's Palestinian elections, in which the old Palestinian Authority regime was replaced in favor of a Hamas-led ticket. From the on-set this government was met by acrimony by Israel, to nobody's surprise, who cut off all economic support to the Palestinain people. This may have cut off some funds from finding their way into the hands of terrorists, but at the same time condem millions of non-terrorists forced to live and starve in abject poverty and dehumanizing conditions. Gosh, no wonder Palestinians lobby rockets over the border and making daring excursions to kidnap Israeli soldiers! When you're of such an insignificant size being trampled by an elephantine nation, it could be aruged that the only steps you can take are simialr to the ones Palestine has.

On the flip side of the editorial page in his syndicated column, Thomas Friedman writes "I don't see the U.S. promoting any more elections in the region, for now. The Arab democracy experiemnt is on hold- because if Islamist parties can't be trusted to rule, elections can't betrusted to held." Uh, no shit, Sherlock? Seriously, all the rhetoric espoused by the ideologues as they clumsily grabbed power over a half-decade ago was so divorced from reality, they might have pused for Operation Magic Wands, which they could use to wave over the region and magically transform centuries of in-fighting and bloodlust in a blink of an eye. Instead, we have our soldiers bleeding on the sands of Iraq as the tinderbox that once was the Mideast has been blown to high heaven.

What course of action does Dave think is the most appropriate? That the United States should "continue to do nothing to get in Israel's way." These are pretty sober words, forcing the reader's introspection on Dave's words of inaction. That is, until when you turn the editorial page to see Jack Ohlman's political cartoon. Since it takes a couple of days before his cartoons are available online, I'll describe it:

The setting is a town square on a Old West movie set. Above the various saloon and business doors, however, the signs read 'Hezbollah', 'Israel' and 'Lebanon.' Bodies are strewn about, covering the square. In the middle of this scene stands Condoleeza Rice, wearing a typical sheriff's ten-gallon hat and a thick moustache. In the balloon, she asks "....Am I late?" This is exactly the scene that would be carried out if Dave gets his wish of the U.S.- who is, after all, fighting proxy through Israel in the first place- continuing to "do nothing to get in the way."

Of course, the U.S. needs to get in Israel's way. And in Hezbollah's. And in Lebanon's. And Hama's. And Palestine's. The current situation is the exact reason for a mutlilateral coalition to tamp down any "hot" battles and gave an opportunity for diplomacy to allow itself to work. Not for optional, voluntary, misguided pre-meptive wars into a countries that pose no threat. However, with the treasure and lives expunged in the foolhardy war in Iraq, the U.S. lacks the international credibility to take a pro-active leadership role in scaling back the hostiltiies in the mideast. Nor does it sound as if the conservatives want to. (Conservatives try to avoid war? That's a good one.) Indeed, conservative pundits are bandying about the phrase 'World War IV' while discussing this current bat-shit storm in the Mideast in hopes of making the situation palatable to the wider American consciousness, and their hopes of finally attacking Iran and Syria would be realized.

Becuase that's what they want. Nothing short of global war involving every country occurring on George W. Bush's watch is a worthwhile legacy. Thatis why Victor Davis Hanson is using the phrase "World War IV," believing that the Cold War was the Third World War. That is why Reinhard states that the U.S. should do nothing but "continue to get out of Israel's way" even though such a tactic would only make the situation on the ground worse in the mideast.

Such a hopeful series of events would bring the mideast to a veritable standstill, accomplishing nothing but an even more increasing cycle of violence and destrutction. On the domestic front, conservatives would continue to exploit the situation to the same extent as they always do. With every election they would cry in mock horror, "You can't change leadership during a time of war! Think about the troops!" Which they would continue to send off to die in a cynical attempt to create "peace" and "democracy."

This is Dubya's legacy. You create foreign policy in a vaccum, divorced from reality, be prepared to reap the rewards. Sometimes it may take a few years for foreign policy miscues to bite you on your ass, such as Dubya ignoring the Mideast situation during the past half-decade, except, of course, to give lip-service to a "road map for peace." Sometimes, the consequences of foreign policy mistakes may take generations to make itself obvious, such as the aftermath of imposing the Shah on Iran or of abandoning the mujahdeen after the Soviets were chased out of Afghanistan.

To be fair, these foreign policy mistakes weren't all Dubya's fault. No, he was just the latest in a long line of Presidents continuing the same mistakes. Even if Israel- with the U.S.'s complicitness or no- succeeds indestroying Hezbollah, how many young terrorists will rise up to replace those murdered? I'd wager two for each one.

Oh, and Condi Rice's chances of becoming the next President? They have all but disappeared...

Like a certain President....

Dave has gone AWOL.

Oh, I'm sure he has merely taken a sumemr recess to go fishing in Alaksa, which he has mentioned doing in past columns. And to be sure, the lack of his right-wing clap-trap has made reading the Oregonian sufferable.

So, in the meantime, I just want to point out the whole idea that invading Iraq would pave the way for democracy in the Middle East and take the wind out of the jihadists' sails has gone along quite swimmingly!

Still no column from Dave today

I guess Dave's been having trouble finding stuff in the New York Times to get pissed off about.

No column from Dave today

Today's Oregonian lacked a column by Dave.

I bet he's poring through the Sunday New York Times trying to find the latest thing that pisses him off.