Lessons on how to use other's tragedy to push a viewpoint

Dave writes with much gravitas in his latest column about Oregon's death with dignity law. Last week Dave had many questions regarding Senator Gordon Smith's statement after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Oregon's death with dignity law- "This case has run the full length of the American legal process, and the issue is now settled law." This week, he had Senator Smith on the phone, and any time you're on the line with a United States Senator, the occasion calls for much gravitas.

Dave and Senator Smith discussed the topic of dying with dignity, with the Senator offering a unique perspective on the subject, as his son Garrett had committed suicide in 2003. Far be it from me to ruminate on one's personal tragedy, but that doesn't prevent Dave from using the death of Smith's son to push a particular viewpoint. This viewpoint is betrayed by the language Reinhard uses, from calling Smith a "pro-life Senator" and quoting the Senator as saying "there is a natural course to birth and death." Never mind the fact that a suicide similar to Smith's son in no way compares to the 200 or so lives ended with dignity over the past decade thanks to Oregon's law.

My biggest beef with Reinhard and other conservative critics is their use of language in regards to this issue. Oregon's law isn't "assisted suicide", nor is it "slapdash." It is called 'Death with Dignity' for a reason, as it allows right-minded people who have been clinically diagnosed with a fatal illness to choose the standards of how they can live their life. Sometimes the "natural course" Senator Smith speaks of is the most painful and injurious course, with no respite from pain available. "To do no harm," is the oft-quoted condensed version of the Hippocratic oath, and one that is used by opponents of laws such as Oregon's. However, in some situations doctors do more harm by not prescribing a lethal dosage of drugs and preventing their patients dying- on the terms of their own choosing- in a dignified manner.

Dave seems almost depressed after his discussion with Senator Smith, resigned to the fact that a law that Oregonians had passed twice will, indeed, be able to withstand attacks from the federal government. (And I thought state's rights were a typcial conservative ethic?) Reinhard quoted Smith bemoaning the fact- just as Reinhard had quoted Scalia in the earlier column- that assisted death with dignity was hardly a 'legitimate medical purpose.' The issue at hand wasn't whether dying with dignity was a 'legitimate medical purpose,' but whether if doctors who assisted in helping their patients die with dignity were violating the Controlled Substances Act. Were becoming, in effect, drug dealers. And the Supreme Court's decision answered that with a resounding "No."

A week ago Dave called Smith "scattered and pragmatic." Now he calles him "realisitc, if not coherent"- which is pretty much saying the same thing. Its obvious Dave's unhappy with Smith's ultimate stance- the citizens of Oregon have ruled on a law that the Supreme Court agrees with, therefore the law is settled- but ends with Smith ruminating, once again, on end of life issues: "Suicide is a tragic tool for dealing with physical or psychological pain. Pain can be relieved without killing." This is a stance that not only Dave, but myself, could agree with.

However, coming from the point of view of someone who isn't wracked with horrendous, disabling pain or diagnosed with a lethal disease- and with all respect given the Senator's tragic family loss- I hardly feel as if Gordon Smith (or David Reinhard) makes the best spokesperson for those who are.

Pontificating on Kendra James.....

Some things should beyond partisan punditry. Tragedies that shake communities and destroy families, for example, should be left untouched by hack columnists. That doesn't stop Dave from pontificating on Scott McCollister and the three-year old Kendra James shooting case.

So Scott McCollister was granted a reprieve from a state arbiter's office, his suspenstion expunged from his record and back pay ordered. That hardly merits a surprise. Yes, Kendra James posed a threat to herself and the community if she had sped off in her car that fateful evening. Yes, the shooting caused a political rancor from the black community, leading Mayor Katz to call for McCollister's head before a review had been conducted. Now- after that review has been completed by an objective, independent investigation- McCollister has been cleared of charges, as it appears that he acted properly and according to procedure.

As McCollister was found innocent by a grand jury, and cleared a $12 million civil lawsuit filed against him by Kendra James's family, the most recent developments are hardly anything for Dave to crow about. Indeed, they should have been expected.

What troubles me is the pattern I see in Dave's columns concerning the deaths of black people. Never in any columns does he refer to these deaths as a 'tragedy.' Never mind the fact that Kendra James was a mother of two children, who will have to learn to grow up without their mommy. Yes, Kendra James was a drug addict, but there have been plenty of examples of reformed addicts leading healthy, benefitial lives. If she had been allowed to live, and not have her life taken so needlessly, she may have eneded up as a role model for her children. We'll never know.

Couldn't less-than-lethal actions have been taken by Officer McCollister in dealing with this situation? Although there has been some debate whether his life was threatened or not- still, couldn't Officer McCollister have shot Kendra in the shoulder, or shot the wheels of the vehicle? Why do police so willingly jump to fire deadly shots- are they not trained to subdue threats in any other manner? If so, that speaks volumes as to the quality of training conducted by the Portland Police Department.

Dave paints Scott McCollister as the victim in this picture. As the latest findings have revealed, Office McCollister's character was unfairly maligned by the community. Still, Office McCollister is still alive, which is more than you can say for Kendra James....

One interesting thing to chew on: considering that Multnomah County voted 75% for John Kerry in the 2004 elections, and that both the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the National Association of Police Organizations put their support behind Kerry, there is a very real possibility that Officer McCollister voted for Kerry, and may not support the views Reinhard typically shares in his column. Wouldn't that be ironic?

The false argument of "choices"....

If there is any doubt concerning the anti-choice platform that conservative Republicans wish to enforce, one need look no further than Dave's new column. And I'm not talking about anti-choice in the context of abortion here, but conservatives' wish to deny choice in a number of areas. Dave's new article details the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this past week upholding Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, and Gordon Smith's response to it. According to Dave, having terminally ill patients making informed decisions on the best way to end their life is "evil."

I want to digress a moment on the subject of "choice." I recently had a conversation with an economic conservative and the issue of health care came up. Why is it not possible for basic health needs to be covered for all Americans, I asked. "There will never be government-controlled health care in the United States because Americans like choices," was the reply. That made me wonder about the millions of people living in poverty who lack any kind of insurance, specifically children. Are they choosing to live without insurance (or a job, or roof over the heads)? No, of course not. It's a false argument, one that conservatives stick to in their zealously blind ideology that benefits them at the expense of very many.

In his new column, Dave gives voice to the chorus of conservative flip-floppers who, all of a sudden, feel that the concept of "choice" should be denied to Americans who wish to end a terminally ill, painfully short life. I see. If I understand the conservative argument correctly, you 'choose' not to have health care or access to pharamaceuticals, and, due to this lack of access, you'll 'choose' to die in a painfully drawned-out process! (Plus, you'll never be able to see a doctor, so what, really, is the point of the Death with Dignity law?) According to conservative flip-floppers, the concept of "choice" is something to give lip-service to every four years, and then precede to take stances denying choices to Americans in the interim....

Dave calles his column "Life-and-death questions for Gordon Smith" and, boy, he's not kidding. I counted 12 question marks in this column. Does that seem like too many questions to you? Does it seem as if Dave was struggling with this column? Like he had a point to make, but not sure what it was? And decided to fill up space by attempting to peer into the mind of Senator Smith? And seeing how many different ways the Senator's simple statement- "This law is now fully tested and constitutional. Case closed."- can possibly be examined? What possibly could the Senator mean by that statement? Was Dave going to offer any possible answers to the number of questions he raised? No? Why not? Does that seem a bit irresponsible? How about obnoxious? Maybe annoying? Perhaps? Do you? Dontcha wish your girlfriend was hot like me? Dontcha?

Dave calls Senator Smith "scattered and pragmatic," comparing him to former Oregon Senator Bob Packwood, rather than former Senator Mark Hatfield. Dave might make this comparison considering Hatfield's pro-life stance when it came to both abortion and the death penalty, but it should be noted that the maverick Republican Hatfield was both principled (and pragmatic) enough to break from the Republican Party establishment repeatedly throughout his Senatorial career. (Such as in regards to opposing the death penalty.) Assisted suicide was not an issue when these Senators represented Oregon in D.C., but I would hope that both, especially Hatfield, who referred to himself as a "liberal Republican", would take the principled stance that right-thinking terminally ill individuals can make the most important decisions in regards to their life, and how to live it- or end it. This principled stance is a stance that Dave seems unable to take.

At any rate, the scope of the case against the Death with Dignity Act as it was argued before the Supreme Court was very narrow. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft ruled that Oregon doctors violating the Controlled Substances Act by prescribing lethal dosages of drugs, and could therefore have their prescription-writing abilities taken away. The Controlled Substances Act was written to prevent doctors from abusing their prescription-writing abilities to become drug dealers. Any right-thinking individual would realize that doctors attending to the requests of a patient at their time of highest need- to take a lethal dosage of drugs to end pain and suffering- is not anything close a drug dealer. If anything, they are a dealer of mercy.

Considering this narrow, technical scope of the argument presented to the court, it is disenheartening to read Justice Scalia write "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose ' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death." The purpose of this case wasn't to hear Justice Scalia define "legitimate medical purpose," but to see if Oregon's Death with Dignity law violated the Controlled Substances Act. It appears that Justice Scalia's growling dissent of an opinion smacks of, oh I don't know, legislating from the bench. Could it be that Nino is a *gasp* judicial activist?

At least Dave didn't take the bizzaro approach in this column and follw the lead of James Bopp, the president of something called the National Legal Center for the Medically Disabled and Dependent- basically an arch-Christian conservative group hiding behind the real needs of people with disabilities and diseases to push an agenda. Mr. Bopp filed the amicus brief challenging Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, and upon the Supreme Court's ruling had this to say on the 'Newshour with Jim Lehrer': "The vast majority of states have such laws [preventing assisted suicide] because they recognize that it is really a form of discrimination to say, well, your life is not worth living and therefore we're not going to protect your life from assisted suicide because you have some condition or illness or disability."

Yeah, except for one thing- the reason why it's called "assisted suicide" is because its the choice made by the terminally ill individual. Not by the state of Oregon. And it most certainly will not be applied towards people with disabilities or 'conditions.' But here we are back at the subject of choices- it's really hard for people to make the right ones when there are people like Dave Reinhard and James Bopp spreading so much misinformation around....

Hypocrisy? Fugghedaboutit....

I wish I could live in Dave's world. Where things aren't actually what conservatives say they are. Where George W. Bush is the "peace president," clear-cut forests are "healthy," and the events of the past week inolving Ted Kennedy and Al Gore illustrate them as being "hypocrites."

Dave doesn't even try with this column- he's just dialing it in. It reads like he spent a half-hour flipping back and forth between Rush Limbaugh and Lars Larson, heard some choice bits, and condensed them into a column. But if you examine his arguments for more than two seconds, as usual, they fail to make sense....

First, Dave chastises Ted Kennedy- who else?- for giving Sam Alito grief for being a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, while Kennedy was a member of the Owl club, a social club at Harvard. Never mind that CAP was a reactionary club, created to promote an agenda to block the acceptance of women and minorities, while the Owl club was created before Harvard was a co-ed school, and was pretty much one step above a fraternity. Although conservative critics point out the fact that the Owl club didn't accept women members- which eventually led to Harvard severing ties with the club- it should be pointed out that fraternities typically don't allow women members. Nor did the Owl club proactively lobby against admitting women and minorities to Harvard.

The true shame here involving Kennedy is that he felt forced to resign from a club that he had a 52-year affiliation with, dating from his days as an undergrad, thus providing ammunition for conservative critics to write lousy columns about. I am a firm believer that clubs- particularly social clubs- can be exclusive of their membersip. Should a lesbian solidarity club, for example, be forced to admit a neo-nazi male? If I formed a chess club, and someone I knew was a crackhead wanted to join, I'd have every right to not allow him in my club. So Kennedy was a member of a men's club. Somehow- as Dave alludes, throwing his fans a bone, given Kennedy's history with women- this is "sexist." It's not. And it absolutely in NO WAY can be connected with Kennedy's questioning Sam Alito's memebership in the morally repugnant CAP.

Now, onto Al Gore. On Monday, Gore gave a speech pointing out the fact that Dubya has consistently broke the law that he threatened "the very nature of our government." What, exactly, is the nature of our government? Remember that first day of civics class- right, I know they don't teach civics any more, just bare with me- and the teacher drew a triangle on the chalkboard? The three sides of the triangle were to represent the three branches of government: the judicial, legislative, and executive branches, designed in such a manner that they were to check and blance each other.

Checks and balances is the "very nature of our government" that Gore was referring to. However, when you have an executive who side-steps laws he doesn't approve of, avoids receiving warrants from the proper courts to domestically spy on Americans, states that he has "inherent" powers from the Constitution (which he refers to as a "goddamn piece of paper") that Congress did not allow, signs a "signing statement" when signing an anti-torture stating the law didn't actually apply to him, stacks the courts to allow him to act in such a manner, and with the Congress standing idly by, it is quite clear that the checks and balances- the very nature- of our government sure seemed to be threatened.

The apologists for the President have begun to use the term "unitary executive", which is simply a more wordy way to say "dictator." Didn't we invade Iraq to remove a dictator? Yet, Dave and his ilk don't bat an eye as a dictatorship replaces the model of democracy America has championed for over two centuries. After all, its happeneing with Republicans in charge, so it must be good.

Again with that fantasy world that Dave lives in....

At any rate, Dave accuses Gore of being a hypocrite for attacking the NSA's warrantless wiretapping. Gore is a hypocrite, according to Dave, because the Clinton-Gore administration approved of a program that had absolutely nothing to do with warrantless domestic spying. Dave points out the tired conservative argument that Clinton's Deputy Attorney General had argued that the president had the inherent power to conduct physical searches in foreign intelligence cases. The fact is that case dealt with physical searches of foreigners detained by intelligence agencies overseas, not the domestic surveillance of Americans. I can see where Dave could get confused- perhaps its an after-effect from living in Bizzaro Conservo World for too long...

But, what about the NSA Echelon program reported on by CBS's "60 Minutes" program during the Clinton-Gore administration? Dave points out this program picks up electronic signals from around the world- including cell-phone conversations, fax transmissions, and ATM transfers, the mesh of electronic static and noise that comprises the "chatter" that the intelligence agencies sift through for a fine grain of information. Having a program that captures billions of electronic beeps and "ones and zeros" is a far cry for placing wiretapping on specific phones, cell phones, or watching specific emails. Especially without warrants allowing these specific targets to be listened to by the government.

Yes, it is factual that individual cell phone conversations were recorded by Echelon, but more than likely, they were snippets of conversation that you sometime catch on your radio- "...something for din...." How that compares to the Bush administration tapping the phone of a journalist fails to compute. But, as we have traveled to Dave's fantasy world, in today's column that should be expected....

Keeping with the tone of Dave's column, I will present Dave with the Golden Globe for Best Journalistic Hack....

The Curious Case of Brandon Mayfield

The front of this Sunday's Oregonian Opinion page promised a gripping column from Dave detailing the "Legend of Brandon Mayfield," who had wrongly been imprisoned in Portland by the federal government for two weeks as a "material witness" to the March 2004 Madrid bombings. I was curious as to what this "legend" might be- would the legendary Brandon Mayfield be a strapping lad, 12 feet tall with the ability to cut down entire forests with one swing of his trusty axe? Did he kill himself a bear when he was only three? Or maybe the legend would detail how Brandon Mayfield built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination and as Oswald shot, Brandon met all three bullets, deflecting them, causing JFK's head to explode out of sheer amazement?

Sadly, Brandon's "legend" is pilloried in Dave's new column, which attempts to justify the latest celebrated conservative cause- the over-reaching ability for the federal government (as long as it's run by Republicans) to snoop wherever, whenever, and however it wants. The about-face the right has done is so unbelievable, and flies in the face of long-standing conservative ethics, that it falls on the shoulders of lower-level conservative pundits to make this view palatable for the general public.

The reason why this issue is important, and why Dave makes such an attempt to belittle Mayfield's "legend", is because Mayfield is taking the federal government to court. Mayfield is claiming that the provisions under the Patriot Act that allowed the covert break-in and searching of Mayfield's house violated Mayfield's Fourth Amendment rights. If this is proven true in court, it could threaten Dave's beloved Patriot Act and parts of it- if not the whole thing- could be stricken from the books. So, faster than you can say "right-wing spin machine," Dave is making an attempt to discredit Mayfield's case, calling it an "adult fairy tale", regardless of whether or not Mayfield's constitutionally protected rights were violated.

Dave attempts to convince us that recent reports from the Justice Department debunks this so-called "fairy tale." It appears the opposite is true, that recent Justice Department reports will, according to legal experts, strengthen Mayfield's case. The report states that "performance issues... helped cause the errors in the Mayfield case." These performance issues range from following up with a wrong fingerprint identification although Spanish authorities weren't convinced, to bolting the wrong lock when leaving the Mayfields' home and leaving a footprint when searching Mayfield's home, to removing "Spanish documents"- his son's Spanish homework- from the house. If this is the crack team that's supposed to be protecting us from terrorists- and, possibly, listening in and spying on me without my knowledge- consider me not impressed, and just a little worried.

Dave makes the argument from a crime-fighting perspective: if the FBI had examined the evidence in total- the wrongly-matched fingerprint, the fact that Mayfield was a converted Muslim, had represented a member of the 'Portland 7' al Qaida cell [in an unrelated child custody case, which Dave fails to mention]- it would've been reprehensible for the FBI not to act to some extent. This would be acceptable, as long as the law is followed by the government's attempts to enforce the law. Did the government seek and acquire the proper warrants before placing Mayfield under surveillance and traipsing through his home? Dave doesn't say so- he says the government had plenty of authority before a pre-Patriot Act FISA to "make a move on Mayfield"- and the government has refused to say whether they had received the proper warrants or not. Given their hard-line stance on the insistence of defending the administration's domestic surveillance program sans proper FISA warrants, I'd wager they didn't. (But Dave does applaud the National Review talking point of the elimination of "the Wall" between intelligence agencies, as if this so-called "Wall" thwarted efforts by the Clinton administration to prevent the Y2K attacks or Project Bojinka.)

Also, isn't a law enforcement perspective the wrong approach when we're fighting a war on terrorism? In an October 2004 profile on John Kerry in the New York Times magazine, Kerry proposed fighting the war on terror using law-enforcement and prosecutorial practices until it gets to the point where it could recede until it was barely in our thoughts. The right lambasted Kerry's perspective as how he- a former prosecutor- would fight the war on terror, and Bush informed audiences that Kerry "just didn't understand this war." Bush and the right emphasizedthe word "war," as if to point out that an attempt to apply a prosecutorial or crime-fighting approach would be foolhardy- until, that is, they have to defend their own prosecutorial and crime-fighting approach.

George Lakoff points out in his treatise Don't Think of an Elephant that immediately after 9/11 the administration spoke of a crime and victims, of bringing the perpetuators "to justice" and "punished"- using the rhetoric of prosecution and fighting crime. That "framing" lasted hours- until the rhetoric of fighting a "war" on terror was introduced, with such terms as casualties, enemies, war powers, etc. Why the change in rhetoric? Well, Cheney and Wolfie had some countries to invade, didn't they?

Anyone notice that both Britain and Spain responded to their terrorist attacks with a crime-fighting and prosecutorial approach, using the help of Interpol to track down and imprison those responsible for the attacks (similar to how Clinton responded to the 1993 WTC bombing and imprisoned every single bomber invovled)? Shouldn't Spain have invaded India or some other country that had no involvement in its bombing?

In sum, Mayfield being Muslim may not have been the reason why he was investigated- there were other reasons listed in the Jusitce Department's affadavit as well. (Which, as One True B!x points out, pretty much just have to do with Mayfield being Muslim.) In the end, you have to ask yourself: if the FBI had this fingerprint match and traced it back to a Bush-voting father of three and a regular attendee of Portland's Foursquare Church, would they have arrested him and held him in detention for two weeks?

On the topic of legends, I'd like to propose the one of David Reinhard. That is, of being a competent columnist for The Oregonian who uses facts to strengthen his arguments while respecting the intelligence of his average reader. Yep. Stuff of legends indeed.....

A 'Borking' that's not even a Borking....

to bork (v.)- to destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy.

It is quite clear from this article that the right still hasn't gotten over the denial of Judge Robert Bork- Reagan's radical Supreme Court nominee- in 1987. In fact, not only are they still crying over it, they are using Judge Bork as a model for every judicial nominee they offer to fill a vacany in the federal judiciary. Samuel Alito is the latest example.

Dave attempts to make a case that the Democrats- he uses 'first-term' although the only first-termer on the Judiciary Committee is Republican Tom Coburn- are 'making a name for themsleves' as 'master Borkers' during the current confirmation hearings for Sam Alito. How can the Democrats be "Borking" Alito when they are simply doing their expected job of finding out how the candidate feels on various isues. In 1988, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese released a report stating few factors are more critical to the future of the nation than the values and philosophies of those who populate the federal judiciary. Yet, when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee try to discern what Alito's values and philosophies are, Dave dismissively refers to them as 'Borkers.' As anyone who has followed the proceedings can attest, Alito has given no clue what his opinions are in any of the issues being asked of him.

It is quite apparent, through the hearings, that Alito is an intelligent man. This comes across not only in what he says in his replies to the Committee, but also in what he doesn't say- which speaks volumes. As Judge Alito bobs and weaves and practices his White House-trained art of deception in avoiding answering any questions that may shed insight on the judge's values and philosophies, it becomes more difficult for the Democrats to 'Bork' Alito even if they wanted to.

Even if they did, it shouldn't be that hard. They can make a good case against Alito using the judge's own words. As an unsigned editorial in the New York Times points out, Alito himself has called Judge Bork "one of the most outstanding nominees" of the 20th century, with Judge Bork's views to strike down all of the Supreme Court's privacy cases- even the striking down of a state law banning contraceptives- notwithstanding.

Still, Dave attempts to admonish the Democrats for their "half-substantial" attempt to 'Bork' Alito. He decries their lack of questioning and analyzing technical legal issues behind Alito's decisions. (Though Alito did state, when confronted by Senators who disagreed with his results in certain cases, 'that was a hard case' or 'I really struggled on that one.') Dave cites Senator Leahy's questioning of Alito allowing the warrantless strip-search of a ten-year old girl. Now, there are legal rulings I may not agree with, such as free speech being allowed to neo-nazis, that I can understand, but not so in this case. Dave has expressed his infatuation with naked ten-year old girls before, citing stare decisis- a fancy legal way of saying "precedent." However, during Wedensday's hearings, Oklahoma Senator Sam Brownback challenged Alito on the subject of stare decisis- in the context of abortion- noting that the Supreme Court has overruled precedent 177 times. So, not only is the "technical legal issues" allowing warrantless strip-searches of ten-year old girls morally repugnant, but they also appear to be on shaky legal ground- according to the rationale of Republicans, at least.

Dave cites 'ignoring results that don't agree with your caricature' as another step in the Democrats' attempt at 'Borking.' Dave speaks in vague generalities to strengthen his argument and doesn't cite specifics to discount the Democrats claim that Alito is against abortion rights or would oppose corporations. The New York Times points out that Alito has "consistently sided with big corporations, employers, and rejected claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled" and specifically cites a ruling by Alito that stated coal-processors were not covered by Mine Safety and Health Act provisions. Also, if Alito shows such support for abortion rights, why does he insist on stepping around whether or not Roe v. Wade is settled law?

To continue with his quasi-Bork case, Dave says that Democrats cite studies that discuss only part of the nominee's record. Well, if that part of his record is especially troubling, shouldn't that be examined? The study cited showd that Alito ruled against the individual in 84% of his dissents. Granted those were just dissents- when Alito wrote for the losing argument- but it does exhibit quite a trend. And what if the other judges' decisions agree with Alito, and his trend of deciding against the individual was the majority opinion? I would wager that trend would continue. Dave admonishes this study, authored by Cass Sunstein, the legal professor who Dave had earlier cited as a liberal in support of George W. Bush's wireless wire-tapping. Weird.

"Making things up" is the next part of the Democrats' so-called 'Borking' attempt. Ted Kennedy was foolish to state that Alito had "never" ruled in favor of a person of color alleging racial discrimination on the job. Alito has had thousands of rulings- way too many to use such qualifiers as "never." "Hardly ever" would've been more appropriate. Still, it's odd for Dave to make this argument after hearing "I do not recall being a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton" or "I did not think my recusal on the Vanguard case was a big deal." As if those are any easier to swallow. On these subjects, it appears that Alito is being disingenuous at best, and a liar at worst.

And the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Alito's decisions? Again, the man has made thousands of decisions. It is of little to no surprise that some have matched those of the Supreme Court and of Justice O'Connor. What is more alarming are the number of dissenting opinions in his Circuit Court- that aren't backed by the Supreme Court and that portray a very definite ideological bent much radical than the current make-up of the Supreme Court.

Dave ends by touching on Kennedy, McCarthyism, and "guilt by association," an obvious refernce to the CAP issue. Perhaps someone should point out to Dave that none of the accused Communists during McCarthy's hearings had put down "proud member of the Communist Party" in a job application for a position with the administration of an American president. Alito's membership in CAP is hardly by association, but one of admittance.

Perhaps Dave should begin for a call to end the Senate judiciary hearing process. Rather, just have a debate on the floor of the Senate, as these 'hearings' are nothing more than a game, in which Alito says as little as possible and still gets confirmed.

Better yet, let's just bypass the Senate all together, and have Bush appoint his judges to the Supreme Court by recess appointment. That way Dave and other conservatives can quit their whining over 'Borkings' that aren't even Borkings...

Progressives for Alito? Puh-leeze!

According to Dave's new column, progressives just love Samuel Alito, Dubya's nomination for Supreme Court who's confirmation hearings begin this week. That's right, you heard correctly. Progressives are just falling all over themselves in support of this corporatist, pro-unlimited executive power, pro-government prosecutorial power, anti-abortion and decidedly regressive judicial candidate. Yet, for some reason, Dave makes an attempt to convince us that progressives find Judge Alito's record favorable.

Before I go on to examine why Dave has this outlandish left-field perspective- which borders so much on the unbelievably bizarre its as if Dave's cribbing from the scripts for "Lost" rather than the National Review for this column- I want to digress for a moment. Did anyone catch this week's exchange between David letterman and Bill O'Reilly? A friend of mine described O'Reilly as coming across as "decent." Perhaps expectations were incredibly low (something akin to a frothing madman, most likely), but O'Reilly came across- in one person's opinion anyway- as "decent." My reply was that if one person exposes themselves to the harsh light of national attention in the field of politics, celebrity, punditry- and the judicial system- but doesn't illicit such a response, they should get out of the game, because they aren't playing it very well. Consider Dubya in the 2000 campaign. A plurality of respondents consistently picked him as the candidate they'd prefer to have a drink with rather than the so-called 'wooden' Al Gore. (And the results over the past five years couldn't be much different than having one of your actual drinking buddies run things.) If O'Reilly doesn't make himself widely appealing in his ten minutes of national exposure, he doesn't demand his hefty paycheck. And if Sam Alito can't make himself appealing to all sides of the political specrum, he has no business being a Supreme Court nominee.

That said, let's revisit the ludicrous claims Dave makes in his recent column. Upon first glance of the headline you expect him to detail a group of progressives that have united to show their support for Dubya's rabid ideologue of a nominee. "Something" like the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, perhaps. But, then you read the damn thing and realize by "progressives" Dave is referring to two of Alito's friends.

It doesn't pass the smell test. "I did not vote for George W. Bush, and am not supportive of his administration. Personally, I think it's a disaster for this country," Dave quotes San Francisco attorney Jim Goniea- a former Alito law clerk and long-time Alito buddy- to begin his column. So, let's get this straight. A progressive who is against Bush and find his policies damaging to our country support's Bush's judicial candidate who, in turn, would legally allow and condone said policies? Why, the only way that makes sense is if that progressive were to be friends with said candidate....

I am tired of Dave insulting my intelligence twice a week. We all want to see our friends succeed. Goniea's testimonial reads like a post you'd see on Alito's friendster.com profile: "Sammy would make a great SCOTUS judge! Totally! He's, like, process-driven!" Dave's case, if he had one, would be much stronger if he detailed the support of Alito by progressives that had no connections with the judge.

And therein is the rub: faster than you can say 'Hariet Miers", Judge Alito- the sure-fire candidate who was supposed to 'save' Bush and the sinking Republicans- has fizzled into a dud. His 'A' rating from the ABA not withstanding- that merely proves Alito can do his job competently, which raises questions as to how he got fingered by Dubya in the first place- let's remember that the strongest case conservatives had in support of Judge Alito a month ago was that Alito would 'save Christmas.' Now its devolved to the point where Alito's buddies make the rounds to second-rate conservative pundits, who attempt to pass off the praise to a readership they (obviously) hope would be too naive to know better.

Just in the prior page of The Oregonian's Sunday Commentary section, an unsigned editorial takes Alito to town. "In many areas of law, Alito's record is similar to other GOP-appointed judges," the editorial reads. "He's generally favorable toward busineses, prosecutors, and employers. But he's more restrictive on social issues, more favorable toward government sponsered religion and less sympathetic of immigrants than his GOP peers...." In a nutshell, every trait your average progressive would want in a judge protecting the Constitution- in Dave's Bizarro world, that is.

Dave laughably bemoans the fact that, using a quote from Goriea's wife Susan Sullivan, Alito's critics "cherry-pick cases" even though Dave does exactly that. Dave has harped about the same spousal notice abortion law- in which Alito wrtoe the lone dissenting opinion in the losing argument- for the past two months, except for when he discussed Alito's fascination with naked ten-year old girls. In his columns on Alito, Dave makes no mnetion of Alito's opinions in regards to corporate allowances, unchecked presidential power, and greater social restrictions. Tell me- who's doing the cherry-picking?

Dave ends with another Sullivan quote: "If Democrats succeed in filibustering Sam Alito, this administration will turn around and aapoint a real conservative ideologue....." What nonsense. There can't be more of a conservative ideologue than Sam Alito. And if the Democrats do block his nomination by means of a filibuster, while in the background Arlen Specter grows a pair and investigates Dubya's warrantless wire-tapping (and let's not forget the Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, and still-continuing Valerie Plame proceedings!), Bush's hand will be forced to nominate a true moderate candidate.

Someone who will appeal to all sides. Both conservatives. And actual progressives.

What self-respecting righties should do....

Ah, holidays. The best part of drinking cervaza in Mexico and spedning time with my out-of-state family is that I had nearly a month devoid of the idiotic, mealy-mouthed, confusing ramblings of David Reinhard. It was a taste of freedom. But, like that inevitable New year's Day hangover, Mr. Reinhard's columns have come my way again, leaving me with a taste in my mouth similar to that of licking twenty ashtrays.

Before I begin with my evisceration of Mr. Reinhard's latest column, I hope everybody had a good Christmas. Yes, I said Christmas. If anyone is aghast that I, a liberal, used the "C" word, I want to point out that here in Portland, which voted 75% for Kerry, we had a Christmas tree. We had Christmas lights. We had a Christmas parade. We had Santa Claus at Meier & Frank. 96% of U.S. citizens consider themselves "Christian" to some degree, so relax all ready. Besides, this seems to be the 2005th year in a row that liberals' war on Christmas failed, miserably. Perhaps next year. Maybe we can occupy malls by spring, and get an early start on next year's war?

Oh, and my Christmas present cam a bit late this year- Jack Abramoff copping a guilty plea and agreeing to assist the Justice Department in their influence-peddling investigation. Happy new year to those slimy Republican bastards indeed....

Anyway, Dave would have you believe, if you read his latest column, that liberals disapprove of and would disallow warrantless wiretapping done by Dubya of suspected al Qaida members. After all, he quotes a December 28th Rasmussen poll, which stated that "64 percent of Americans believe the NSA intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects overseas and people here." Count me in among that 64%!

Wait, what's that you ask? "True_slicky, you agree with David Reinhard? Did the world just pause on its axis? Is Satan doing a triple-axel in Hades? What in tarnation is going on here?"

Of course I would want our top super snoops intercepting communications betwen al Qaida and possible internal cells within the United States. You would have to be a moron not to. Just do it legally, and within the framework of the Constitution, and everything is fine. You have the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts with the ability to dole out top-secret warrants- even retroactively, if needed- to allow these interceptions to occur. When Dubya steps around these courts and avoids these warrants, that can only mean he's hiding something. Who does he not want anyone to know he's keeping tabs on?

The question here is of language. I notice that the Rasmussen poll didn't ask "Do you agree that the President should have unregulated and unchecked power to spy on anyone domestically?" I would guarantee the answer to the question would definitely not be 64% "yes." Especially considering Bush's base- the rural, religious, "get off my land" and "I dont trust no gov'ment" voters. You think they'd agree with unchecked government spying on them? And remind them, this unchecked power would apply to both President Dubya and President Hillary. See what their answers are then.

Dave must not respect the average intelligence of The Oregonian readership. He must not, considering how he starts his latest feeble attempt playing pundit: "Self-respecting lefties couldn't come right out and say the Justice Department shouldn't open a probe into the disclosure of classified information on the National Security Agency's surveillance program." Never mind that the wording is absolutely atrocious. The fact is, self-respecting lefties actually can say the Justice Department shouldn't open such a probe.

Dave attempts to make a correalation betwen the outing of Valerie Wilson and the disclosure of the NSA's domestic spying program, stating that the whistle-blowers in each case blew the lid on top-secret government programs that should've stayed hushed up, and, by disclosing them, the whistle-blowers broke the law by unveiling national secrets.

This Republican talking point has been repeated incessantly with each new recent announcement of the Bush administration's shady dealings, in hopes of discouraging future whistle-blowers. One problem is, we need whistle-blowers. As the New York Times points out: "A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials." The revealing of Valerie Wilson wasn't an attempt by a whistle-blower to expose any wrong-doing or abuse of power. It was an abuse of power, a "cynical attempt to deflect the public's attention" by Vice President aide Scooter Libby to discredit her husband, Joe Wilson. On the contrary, the whistle-blowing of the NSA's secret domestic warrantless spying program is, actually, the reveal of an abuse of power (or rather the appropriation of power that didn't exist). Like every Republican talking point, when you think about it for two seconds, it ceases to make sense....

But wait a minute! Dave trots out a quote from Cass Sunstein (who Dave makes sure to point out is a 'liberal'): "The claims [the President makes to authorize the spying program] are actually fairly modest, and not unconventional." That's it then! Dave's found a liberal that supports his views- and ignores all the grumblings coming from conservative Republican members of both Congress and the Senate in regards to Dubya's over-reaching of power. (Oh, and don't look, Dave, but Professor Sunstein's remarks have been debunked some time ago.) In fact, one can go no further than John Dean- perhaps the pre-eminent expert on the subject of Constitutional law- who, after saying 'whateverrrrrr'- has pointed out the fact that Dubya is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.

Wow. Can you wrap your mind around that? A President admitting to an impeachable offense? Just imagine if we had a Congress with any cajones. Or Democratic leadership. (Course, when the Abramoff saga blows through, that'll be what we have.) Let's also consider this quote from Bush at a 2004 campaign rally in Buffalo, New York: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." So, we have a President who has admitted to- according to a legal scholar who knows a thing or two about the subject- an impeachable offense. And has also been caught in an out-in-the open, bald-faced lie.

So, of course Dave is apologizing for him.

One more thing, does the name Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan sound familiar to anybody? No? C'mon, he was the al Qaida operative captured by Pakistani intelligence in the summer of 2004, and agreed to work undercover and send emails to his al Qaida contacts. He was such a coup for the United States- and the Democrats were having such a nice bounce post-convention- that Tom Ridge decided he'd share it with the rest of us. Thus nipping that little undercover operation right in the bud. But, hey- these guys are strong on terror, right?

Jeez, with actions like that, what self-respecting rightie can point any fingers or find fault with the left's critcisms Justice Department investigations into so-called "leaks"....

true_slicky