Spreading the Grief

Using his tried-and-true method of exploiting the tragedy of others to push an agenda, Dave hides behind a group of families who have lost loved ones in Iraq in his recent column to cheerlead for the continuation of the war. In so doing, Dave actually makes an effective argument to end the war in Iraq, and immediately bring the troops home.

George Will printed a recent column in the Washington Post (which was actually printed in the same Sunday Oregonian's commentary section) concerning the results of a new survey that states that conservatives, as a whole, are happier people than liberals. His commentary can be whittled down to three simple words: ignorance is bliss. By no means am I calling the Rogers, Kesterson and Plumondore families- and other families- ignorant, as I refuse to cheapen the loss of their loved ones. Rather, my beef is with Reinhard, who simply must be cluelessly ignorant to write a column arguing to keep out troops in Iraq- ostensibly to defend these families' losse- after a week when extraordinary sectarian violence broke out, and the civil war us Bush critics have warned about arrived. When William Buckley Jr. speaks poorly of our effort in Iraq, then ignorant is the only word that can be used to describe Reinhard.

By continuing to encourage American military presence in Iraq, Dave ensures that the grief felt by these families will only be spread to other families. In that context, it doesn't make sense, really, to hide behind these families' pain. Oh, I mean I understand why he does- to provide a counterweight versus the Cindy Sheehan and the "Gold Star Families for Peace" stance. Only problem, though, is that Cindy Sheehan's fifteen minutes and effectiveness ran out the moment she left Bush's Crawford ranch. As a solitary figure standing and waiting for an audience with the President, Sheehan cast an almost folkloric figure. But then she started traveling around and muddying her message with anti-Israel and anti-corporate rhetoric. Although these are messages I agree with, they detracted from Sheehan's effectivness. None of these directly had to do with her son Casey's death in Iraq. In short, she made a joke out of herself, with liberals passing on and a colletive "Who cares?" being sighed when she was arrested for wearing a provacative t-shirt at the President's State of the Union address. (You mean she wasn't expecting to get arrested for wearing that shirt?)

So for Dave to bring up Cindy Sheehan in a column extolling the "flip" side of Gold Star families, in a week of the worst outbreak of violence yet in Iraq, is pretty ridiculous. If these families are the anti-Sheehan, does that make their contigent the "Gold Star Families for War?" And if so, as I stated earlier, doesn't that mean they're just spreading their grief to other potential families? I mean, more war would simply create more dead soldiers, right? Dave seems to imply that the grief these families feel is so fervent, so patriotical, that it shouldn't be kept with just a small number of families. Rather, it must be spread! To honor their loss, more families should lose loved ones, and then they'd have the chance to feel the grief these families do!

Look, I would have to be naive to not acknowledge that, like Dave, Cindy Sheehan is using grief to push an agenda. (I don't feel the families profiled by Dave have an agenda to push besides remembering their loved ones. They must share some political leanings with Dave to have their loved ones' memory preserved at the pen of a third-rate hack.) However, when you look at the agenda being pushed by Dave and Sheehan, I find it interesting that although they start from the same source, they veer towards different conclusions. Cindy Sheehan wants others to avoid feeling the pain and grief caused by the loss of her child.

David Reinhard doesn't. Of course, I don't think he, or anyone in his close circle, has lost a child to this war. That is why I state that he his hiding behind the tragedy of others to push an agenda.

There is nothing in Dave's column that convinces me that Adam Plumendore, David Johnson, and John Banks Ogburn- all brave, patriotic Americans- shouldn't be alive and over here on our shores, defending our country from real threats. These men deserve better than to die in Bush's illbegotten wars, built on a campaign of lies....

Spitting on Tom McCall's grave

It was- and is- a simple tactic. Rather than ignoring the issue at hand, Measure 37, Dave instead in his most recent column chooses to write a slanderous character assassination piece concerning Judge Mary Mertens James, the Marion County circuit court judge that found Measure 37 to be unconstitutional.

Now that the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled for the constitutionality of the Measure, Dave's gloating in this column is nearly audible. From his perspective, you would've thought that Judge James got her degree by mail-order through a Sears catalogue. Dave, the biggest cheerleader for results-based or "activist" judging, derides Mary's ruling against Measure 37 in the Marion County circuit court as a case of extreme activism. That has to be it, right? Surely Judge James was reading an entirely different Oregon constitution when she made the basis for her ruling, wasn't she?

Oh, but the people have spoken- so the iniative should pass, right? The danger of allowing the ability for laws to be written by the public through the initiaitve process means that there is the real possibility that the public will be confused be poorly-worded iniatives, or pass initiatives that defy that state's constitution, as California voters did with Proposition 105 and Washington voters did with Initiative 695.

The rationale Judge James had for her ruling was that the law created two closed classes of land-owners: longtime landowners, favored by the law, and more recent landowners. I'd even go further than that, though- like Dave,-I'm no legal expert. As a state law, Measure 37 comes down squarely on the favor of property-owners, yet affects all Oregonians. The case cited by Dave that was used as an example by the Supreme Court of how Mary's interpretation doesn't really fly as an analogy- "...plaintiffs' theory would mean that the legislature would be precluded from enacting a law benefiting, for example, Vietnam veterans or Gulf War veterans, both closed classes." A law could be passed regarding veteran's benefits, encompassing both 'closed classes', and it wouldn't affect me. But Measure 37 does effect me, and like most Oregonians, even those who voted for it, there are no benefits to be gained by it.

Measure 37 was written and campaigned in such a manner to allow property owners to do whatever they want with their land. Property rights proponentswill cheer, but the farmer who has a trashdump or a gravel pit appear next door may bemoan the lack of protection for their property. Sure, regulators can pay fees approximate to the income lost by a property owner due to a regulation, but the draftees and supporters of Measure 37 knew that local city and state governments lack the funds to pay out thousands of land-use claims. Governments were hemorrhaghing funds in 2004, and are in no better situation today.

So now, with the casting of ballots in 2004 and a swift stroke of the pen afterwards, decades of land-use planning that ensured Oregon would continue to stay the majestic state it is- it was- were tossed out the window. What a fitting way to besmirch the legacy of Tom McCall, Oregon's most land-use visionary of a Governor (and a Republican). Unable to defeat Governor McCall's lasting land-use legacy in 1982 as the man was dying from cancer, foes of land-use planning were able to pull off victory two decades later. Bravo.

Now we have condos proposed to be built in historic neighborhoods where they don't belong; exemptions being sought for gravel pits, mining, and billboards to be erected on farm land; and more than 12,700 acres of prime farmland in Washington County are to be exploited. Post-Supreme Court's ruling, there has been much discussion amongst legislators & The Oregonian editorial board: "What should be done next?"

Here's a radical thought: how about nothing? Let the voters reap what they sow. Our cities will expand exponentially, and taxes will be raised as well. (For a decade, Portland's population growth matched that of Atlanta, GA's. But the area of Atlanta doubled in size, while Portland's only grew 2%. That resulted in a raise of property taxes of Atlanta by 29%, while Portland's fell 22%.) Let the quality of life, and value of their property, diminish to the point that responsible land-use planning is looked upon wistfully. Hopefully, then an organic grassroots campaign to repeal the harmful Measure 37 would be undertaken and responsibility will be re-asserted.

If anyone wonders why they didn't know the effects of Measure 37, they just need to be reminded of the 2004 election and the wealth of information available. Measure 37 was- and is- a sham, and will be remembered as such.

Oregonians will remember Feburary 21 as the day the paradigm shifted. It was the day that a judge's valiant efforts to keep the constitutionally viable legacy of Tom McCall alive and kicking were denied. Rather, it was the day that the collective state of Oregon gathered and spit on Tom McCall's grave.

Oregon Republicans' gubernatorial realities....

In his latest column, Dave handicaps the 2006 Oregon Governor's race, stating that we might have a "real" governor's race this fall. Yes, recent events have shaped up an intruiging race for Mahonia Hall, but I predict that any so-called excitement will end up in a result Dave will be unhappy with: Ted Kulongoski will win re-election and serve another four years as Oregon's governor.

As that is the likely course of events, it makes sense that Dave would write a column that gleefully attempts to exploit Democrat challengers taking pot-shots at the incumbent guv, and dreamily ruminating of a Republican victory months in advance, before allowing time for reality to set in.

Dave mentions a few reasons why Kulongoski will win in his column, but let's start off with the most basic fact: as goes Multnomah County, so goes the State of Oregon. Unlike the national electoral map, the metropolitan areas- the blue 'islands' in an otherwise rural red sea- carry the state in filling statewide offices. And if you feel that Multnomah County, which voted 75% for John Kerry, is going to throw a plurality of support behind one of the current Republicans vying for Kulongoski's job, then you're just not paying attention.

Certainly, I must admit Teddy K. is taking flack from Democratic "challengers", but I use the word challengers in the loosest of connotations. On Labor Day State Senator Vicki Walker announced her run for Governor, stating that she felt the need to "challenge the status quo." She is now continuing to challenge the status quo representing the Eugene area in the Senate, after dropping out of the race. Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson has run a spirited campaign appealing to Democrats' most base progressive needs and desires. Unfortunately his campaign has garnered little-to-no press coverage, with Dave agreeing that there was no effective challenge from the Democrat side until Jim Hill, former state treasurer, announced his gubernatorial bid.

I heard Hill explain on The Thom Hartmann show his rationale for running against Teddy K.: "The Governor has not been a good Democrat." Jim Hill has a long history in Oregon Democratic politics, and seeks to run on a platform that appeals to Democrats who feel ignored by Kulongoski. Regarding Hill, Dave writes: "The former state treasurer and gubernatorial candidate gives disaffected Democrats a legitimate vessel for their anti-Tedism in way that Lane County Commissioner Peter Sorenson does not." While Hill's quest to install a "good Democrat" in Salem seems noble, one could say it's also Quixotic: Hill ran for Governor as a Democrat in 2002, and came in second place to Teddy K. in the primary. Four years later, why would history not repeat itself- especially against an incumbent governor?

I mean, having Hill be the main Democratic challenger to Kulongoski in a primary makes about as much sense as having Ron Saxton and Kevin Mannix duke it out in the Republican primary. Oh, wait....

Reinhard attempts to spin the Saxton-Mannix primary fight, coupled with an 'anti-Tedism' and a growing Multnomah County disgust with taxes, as good for Republicans' chances. Specifically, speaking as a campaign mananger, Dave practically advises Ron Saxton to take advantage of the blue MultCo residents' anti-tax backlash, and to exploit his experience as a Portland school board member to his advantage for electoral success. One problem though: in 2002, Saxton came second to Mannix in the Republican primary. Are we to suspect that four years later, the same situation would have different results? And if Saxton were to triumph over the well-connected power-player Mannix, his chances of winning a plurality of MultCo votes over Governor Ted, or any Democratic challenger, are, realistically, impossible.

Dave did point out that Saxton won the endorsement of Vancouver resident Lars Larson on his wing-nut radio show on KXL. Larson supported Mannix in 2002, and earlier in this election season supported State Senator Jason Atkinson, before pulling his recent flip-flop after Atkinson said some pro-immigration quotes and endorsed Saxton. Regardless of the fact that Larson's endorsements seem to fail to register with Oregon's voters, why is Dave hailing Larson turning his back on Atkinson as a good thing? Atkinson provided a fresh Republican perspective, one that Larson called "...all the qualities that Oregon Republicans have been longing for. He has conservative credentials, and moderate appeal." If the Republicans had a chance to unseat the Governor, they would be more likely to do so with a fresh face that provided new rhetoric, rather than the tired faces that lost to Kulongoski four years prior. Instead, Dave states that Larson endorsing one of these same faces "...should persuade once-downcast Republicans that this is a race."

I understand Dave attempting to rally the troops. He doesn't make a living championing party-line rhetoric and endorsing Republican power by writing columns stating that Republicans will fail to gain the Governorship this election. But what I find intruging about his column is that he lacked to mention the most recent GOP gubernatorial race news- that of State Senator Ben Westlund quitting the GOP to run for Governor as an Independent.

Westlund's defection will have ripple effects that will hurt the Republicans chances- no wonder Dave chooses to ignore this story. Westlund provides an example to moderate Republicans that it is possible to deviate from the party-line, and voice displeasure with the Karen Minnis-controlled House that chooses to avoid finding funding solutions for Oregon's schools and to demonize certain Oregon residents for political gain. Westlund provides a GOP perspective modeled in the vein of Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield, one that crosses party lines, and acknowledges that sometimes the best solutions are the hardest ones, not the most popular ones. When revenues are essential for Oregon's needs, jumping on the anti-tax bandwagon lacks common sense, a perspective that Westlund has shared. Its a shame there was no room for the GOP for a politican of Westlund's stripe, but that says more about the current state of Oregon's Republican party than it does for Westlund.

However, enough about Westlund. We are talking the realities of the outcome of the Governor's race. As I have stated before, I am squarely in Kulongoski's camp. Although I find the candidacies of Sorenson and Hill intruiging, I am not wavering in my support for Teddy K. Contrary to Hill's statement, Governor Ted has been a "good Democrat." He has pushed for tougher auto-emission standards, attempted to pass civil union legislation through Oregon's legislature, led Oregon's economy to a miraculous rebound from where it was four years ago, and the former Marine has made a point to attend each funeral of an Oregon soldier killed in Dubya's overseas adventures. Though I'd like to see Ted make a stronger push to fund his education goals, which could be accomplished with a simple re-tooling of the corporate tax "kicker" sending millions of dollars out of state, it cannot be denied Ted has been a "good Democrat." He may not have been a "great Governor" after his first term, but he has been a good one. And you simply do not turn your back on an incumbent doing a good job.

So, the reality of a Republican governor in Oregon? No sooner than 2010....

The Ironic Argument in Favor of Domestic Spying

On September 11, 2001 a group of Islamist fanatics armed with box-cutters made fools of the most powerful country in the world and its' multi-billion dollar Defense Department. Due to that chain of events, it became necessary for the United States to disregard its Constitution, cast aside all checks and balances, and subvert our nation's precious liberty in an effort to fight 'terror.' Or so Dave explains to us in his latest column attempting to, yet again, provide the apologists' rationale for Dubya's far-reaching domestic spying policy.

Let's start at the beginning. Dave cites the usual conservative barking point that the New York Times assisted 'blood-stained terrorists' by leaking the President's domestic spying program. These guys were brilliant enough to bring down the World Trade Center with nothing more than box-cutters! You'd have to think that they would be smart enough to know that, beginning on September 12, 2001, it would be fool-hardy to discuss any sort of terrorist plans over the phone. Because of course the United States' top spies would try to intercept them!

But that didn't prevent Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld from instigating the domestic spying program. As they argue, the only way to keep us safe is if they listen to everything we do. As this is little more than an ineffective fishing expedition, little wonder that the FBI has complained that the NSA's program has come up with thousands of worthless leads. Makes me wonder who 'leaked' this story to the Times. Perhaps G-men tired of calling Dominos?

Irony alert. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld worked in the Ford Cabinet, feeling that Nixon- the "law and order" President- had gotten a bum rap. Thirty years later, they're casting "law and order" to the wind in an attempt to prop up Bush's sagging poll numbers.

Dave states that everyone thinks Dubya's domestic wire-tapping is 'swell.' And asks if these people would want to threaten the program's effectiveness by threatening its legality. I have to ask: what is he talking about? Effectiveness? Give us any positive results the NSA program has led to a captured al Qaida cell, or a thwarted al Qaida plot. And I don't want to hear any garbage about an attack in Los Angeles either. I mean- using shoe bombs to blow off a cockpit door and then flying a plane into a building? Please. Besides the fact that one would have to be stupid to believe such a yarn, it's been revealed that this is nothing more than a pipedream of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed with no details offered by the administration.

Irony alert 2. When the Y2K attacks were foiled by the Clinton administration, without relying on domestic spying, there were plenty of details offered. When Bush cites in an October speech that "ten attacks were thwarted" yet has no details to provide- you'd think he'd be crowing about them- excuse me if I retain a healthy dose of skepticsm.

And who's calling this program swell? Here are what fellow Republicans have to say about the program:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-VA): "I don't believe the inherent authority of the president is so strong that there's no role for the Congress or the courts in a time of war when the American citizens are involved."

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), who oversees the NSA: ""The checks and balances in our system of government are very important."

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS): "I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis..."

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform: "It's not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don't break the existing laws."

With friends like these.....?

The issue at stake here is one of ideology. Bush and Cheney feel that the President answers to no one- though only a decade ago they were part of a conservative chorus saying that the President is not above the law. They claim that Democrats live in a pre-9/11 world, but a dismissal of the three-tiered system of checks and balances hearkens back to a pre-1787, pre-Constitution world. It appears this domsetic spying program is an example of trying to do way too much, too late to compensate for the failures on 9/11.

When Alberto Gonzales is unable to give assurances to Arlen Specter that no Americans without any connections to al Qaida hadn't been targeted by the NSA program, a case couldn't be made more clearer that this program requires oversight.

Funnily enough, Dave ends his column by chastising certain leaders in not providing enough oversight in regards to the President's lawlessness (which he qualifies with a "supposed"). That mirrors what Al Gore said in his Martin Luther King Jr. speech last month: "Oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today." Dave Reinhard parroting Al Gore?

The irony knows no end.

Deconstructing Janet

Before I begin the evisceration of Dave's latest column, I want to share a little story. According to my father, some years back he drove past an anti-abortion rally on the steps of the capitol building in Olympia, WA. The crowd was waving signs and holding enlarged photos of mangled fetuses, chanting their usual chants, doing what they normally do at those things. As my father drove by, he saw a cigarette-smoking protestor holding an "Abortion is Murder" sign. My father stopped his truck, rolled down his window, and yelled at the protestor, "Put out that cigarette." The protestor looked at my father, dumb-struck. "You can't tell me what to do," the protestor replied. "Exactly," said my father as he drove away.

The conservative stance towards abortion in a nutshell. The most fundamental of life's decisions, to become a parent, is one far to great for an individual to make- best let the state make it for you. And if that means forcing people to become parents due to accidents, ignorance, or confusion- well, hopefully the lesson will be learned.

And so Dave devotes a column to Janet Folger, the "spunky life of the pro-life party." It was going to be "good," Dave relishes, as she was going to be addressing crowds at Portland colleges that were sure to be unfriendly, due to the "abortion by demand" mecca that is Portland.

And what does 'abortion by demand' mean? It's yet another linguistic ploy used by conservatives that conjures up a table full of liberals, knives and forks in each hand, chanting Oliver Twist style, 'We want abortions!' Regardless of the fact that it's outlandish, it's effective demonization. Most liberals are guided by the credo offered to me by a friend: "I'm always going to support choice, and hopfully that choice will be made on the side of the baby." Notice, however, that the support of choice is paramount- that's what it means to be an American, after all.

I saw the fliers advertising Ms. Folger's presence coming to PSU, and thought it would be interesting to attend. I wanted to learn how "abortion rights actually limit choices." (I could see the situation playing itself out- "I have an unplanned pregnancy, can I get an abortion?" "No! Don't you love having choices available?") Sadly, I'm not an overrated second-grade hack of a pundit, so I was unable to attend.

But it sounded entertaining, though. Absolutely hilarious. A comedic performance on par to anything from Roseanne Barr in her pre-Tom Arnold days. At least that's how it comes across in Dave's description. The part about receiving definitions of what is and isn't a fetus from a three-year old? Priceless! "Look, mom, babies!" the three-year old exclaims upon seeing a model of a fetus. I bet the whole crowd was ROFLMAOing, if you know what I mean. And I think you do.

But this redefinition of what a baby is got me to thinking. In the future, as I pursue having a family, I hope the mother of my children won't mind if I remove the fetus from her womb in tuck into its crib and feed it formula. Because it is, after all, a baby. Right?

Oh, but Janet Folger belives life starts at conception. That's great! So, instead of celebrating our birthdays, we should just trace it back nine months and celebrate our conception days? Dave, news flash: we celebrate our birthdays because that's when we were born and we received a birth certificate acknowledging our entrance to the world. This whole idea is fundamentalist-based muddying of the issue. All of us have been celebrating our birthdays our whole lives. Now because some fundamentalists have decided to win points in the culture wars by saying "Life begins at conception" we have to re-think our traditional customs? That's un-American!

And that's exactly what this woman is all about. A quick Google of her brings up her book, "The Criminalization of Christianity" a guide for 'Christians to get their country back' (funny considering that they run our entire freakin' country!); winning the cultural war for life, liberty, and family (not , however, the 'pursuit of happiness'- that's so 18th century, and doesn't fit in with Dobson-Folger-Reinhard 'strict disciplinarian' model of letting you know what's right for you and your family); and warning against the 'prayer police' which makes as much sense as liberals demanding abortions.

Here's the thing, though: Folger and other 'leaders' of the conservative, fundamentalist movement don't really want to have Roe v. Wade overturned abortion to be made illegal. Sure, their followers do, and that's exactly why they want to keep abortion legal. If Roe were to be overturned, there wouldn't be a subject nearly as galvanizing to keep the faithful self-righteously indignant. If Roe were to be overturned, the need for Janet Folger would disappear, and she would cease making her millions selling silly books about how America is becoming a 'threat' to Christians.

I wish I could've gome to that presentation. If I had the opportunity, I would've asked her the following questions:

"Ms. Folger, prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, did you participate in marching in any anti-war marches, knowing that thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians would die in such an invasion?"

"Ms. Folger, are you opposed to the President's 2007 budget that calls for the slashing of funds for services that keep poor people warm and fed, and will kill thousands of our most vulnerable?"

"Ms. Folger, do you believe that the Plan B morning after pill should be approved by the FDA to be offered for sale over-the counter, thus preventing thousands of abortions?"

In fact, I think I will send her these questions to her via email. If she answers 'no' to any of those questions, then the only word that can be used to describe her is 'hypocrite' and she has no room to counsel anyone on depriving the rights of a woman to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother or not.

Health Savings Accounts: the 'psuedo-reform'

In his most recent column, Dave takes the time to extoll the virtues of Health Savings Accounts, th private accounts Dubya touts as the main tool to reform our nation's failing health-care system. Is it just me- or whenever conservatives come out in support of one opinion, does the contrary opinion seem to make itself the more clearer and correct option? I mean, considering all the sqwaking by conservative pundits that Bush's domestic spying program is legally justified, doesn't that make it apparaent that it's obviously illegal as all heck? Anyhoo...

Okay, so let's say you're like two-thirds of the country who claim to be "extremely" or "very" satisfied with your traditional PPO or HMO health plans. Suddenly, your employer switches to the David Reinhard-approved Health Savings Accounts. These accounts are portable, and can designed to meet individual consumers' needs. Everything is peachy, right?

Well, hold on for a moment. Here's the deal on health savings accounts: if you're a healthy, middle-to-upper class white single male, you probably all ready have one, and they fit perfectly into your life. For every one else, not only are costs of health insurance transfered onto the individual consumer, but the burden and risk of these accounts are, as well.

As Dave points out, 3 million people have signed on to new HSAs since 2003, an incredible amount. But it is unrealistic to view these accounts as the major overhaul solution to insure the 45 million people who currently lack health insurance. Eventually, the number of those enrolling in HSAs will level, drawing off healthier, wealthier workers from traditional insurance plans. In turn, this would leave those traditional plans weaker and more vulnerable, full of poorer, sicker people as a result. This will, in fact, raise premiums for those who can't afford neither then or HSAs.

You see, HSAs provide yet another opportunity for tax-prefered savings for Americans- and it needs to be asked just how many savings accounts the average American can afford. With 401(k) plans, IRAs, and 529 plans for education, the total possible amount of Americans' savings can exceed families' income, not to mention whether they even have an amount to save and disperse throughout these accounts.

Typical of all private insurance plans, another risk inherited by the indivudal is of never cashing in on your HSAs. You'll keep socking away left-over funds into your private accounts- possibly at the expense of other needs- but, if you're lucky, you might jsut never need to use them. Ned Flanders from 'The Simpsons' likened insurance to "gambling"- and is your health really something to gamble on? Vice-versa if you have a chronic illness, you will continually deplete the funds in your HSA to cover your expenses, and quite possibly pay out-of-pocket for any expenses over the capped limit.

But HSAs offer "choice." They're "market-based." They allow room for the "individual". All typical buzzwords for Republicans to rally around in support of any hare-brained scheme. In fact, Republicans want these accounts- which they refer to as 'the wave of the future'- to happen sooooo bad, they're willing to force tax-payers' to loan millions of public dollars for those individuals who wish to start HSAs, but need funds available to cover large deductibles. Huh. Government-subsidized Health Savings Accounts? Doesn't seem very "market-based" to me...

If you're going to have government- subsidized health care, why not just go the full ticket and have a national single-payer health care. The health care bureaucracy is weighing down some ofAmerica's best businesses, such as GM, who should be focused more on designing and building top-of-the-line automobiles and less on figuring out the most conducive health plan that fits their employees' needs. Car companies in Europe and Japan, in which health-care is provided by the state, enjoy a built-in advantage in the workplace due to our country's unwillingness to adopt a single-player health care plan.

Dave points out that "employers are on the hook" for their employees' health care plans, and shouldn't be. I couldn't agree more. We need true health care reform, offering a bold vision that allows the basic health needs of all Americans to be met, and, after that, allowing people to buy into affordable plans of their own choice for any further needs or care. Considering that this model has been enacted in every single western democracy, we don't have to look vry far for examples. Health Savings Accounts, for all its buzz, doesn't offer this bold vision. Instead, the reform they offer is to force the neediest, worse off, and chronically ill in a collapsing system with ever-spiraling costs, while those who can afford better do.

Could you imagine Republicans putting their support behind such a plan? For some reason, I find its not that hard....

Using tragedy to promote an agenda, Lesson 2

In his most recent column, Dave defends the decade-long power grab by prosecutors under Measure 11, Oregon's 'one-strike, mandatory minimum' law.

But of course he does, right? I mean, liberals are soft on crime & punishment. We'll contact the ACLU any chance we get to make sure that murderers and sex offenders can move in next door to us, right?

We especially decry Measure 11 if it entails 'a minor beef' like stabbing kids to death under Portland bridges, right?

This is the leap Dave uses to admonish Measure 11 critics that offer a 'succession of poster children' that refute and point out the inanity of Oregon's law. Never mind that 'minor beefs' would actually entail the sad case of Aaron Weight from Hillsboro, who received a seven-and-a-half year sentence for letting a friend borrow his car, that was then used in a robbery. Due to Measure 11, Aaron's judge's hands were tied and was forced to commit Aaron to a sentence that didn't fit the crime.

But never mind that. Dave would have you believe that Measure 11 critics would rally in defense of James Nelson, who as a 16-year old stabbed to death another kid under a Portland bridge. As these were the days prior to Measure 11, Nelson served ten years of an eleven year sentence before being released on parole. Which raises the question: an eleven year sentence?!?!?! For stabbing a kid to death!?!?!?!

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of James Nelson's stabbing case, but if his sentence was handed out by a judge or a jury, it illustrates the fact that if common-sense sentences had been passed out by Oregon's legal system, then the voting populace wouldn't have passed Measure 11 in disgust in the first place.

As an alternative, Measure 11 doesn't offer common-sense sentences or solutions. Judges shouldn't be passing lenient sentences on violent criminals- and didn't, for the most part, prior to Measure 11's passing. According to the FBI, there was no increase in violent crime in Oregon during1980-1995, but in fact there was a decrease. Regardless, perennial gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix joined forces with special interests (prosecutors and the prison industry) to give him an opportunity for a 'strong on crime' approach to a problem that never even existed.

I support strong sentences for violent criminals. Murderers should be locked up, and denied access to the public for a very, very long time- if ever. What I don't support is preventing judges from making the best decisions in regards to a defendant's sentence. A number of mitigating factors weigh in on every criminal case- the most obvious being a first-time offender. Why should a first-timer be treated the same as a repeat offender? That simply lacks common sense.

And let's revisit Aaron Weight. A friend abuses his trust and uses his car to commit a robbery. Aaron should serve hard time next to seasoned criminals? That simply lacks common sense.

James Nelson was a monster. Anyone who's remotely followed the Jessica Kate Williams saga has to be aghast at the callousness that Nelson and his street 'family' savagely took the life of this mentally disabled woman. While there can be no apologies necessary for the actions of the sociopathic Nelson and his 'family', neither should this family tragedy be used to promote a crime-fighting agenda that lacks in common sense.

Using personal tragedy to advance an agenda? What else could we expect from Dave? That's his modus operandi.