OSU grad student not welcome in "marketplace of ideas"

Prior to landing his plum job as the conservative columnist at The Oregonian, contributing two columns per week (if that), David Reinhard worked in the Reagan administration as the special assistant to the assistant secretary of energy for conservation and renewable energy. I know what you're asking, and yes that does make Reinhard's efforts to blame (partly) for the roll-back of the Carter administration's forward-thinking energy policies and helped land us in the energy crisis that our nation finds itself in today. So, hat's off Dave!

I bring this up, not because Dave's most recent column concerns our nation's "addiction to oil" or about Dubya's investigation into record oil company profits. Rather, his column deals with another science controversy- that of the reaction to a paper by Daniel Donato, an OSU graduate student, that found that logging fire-damaged forestland can turn out to be damaging to the future health of forests. Donato's paper, to the dismay of the logging interests that sponsered it, found that unmolested portions of land from the Biscuit Fire grew back faster and healthier than logged portions of land. This paper caused quite a commotion on the OSU campus, as faculty attempted to silence its foundings and prevent its publication in the nature journal Science. Donato's findings also contradict the proposed bipartisan salvage-logging legislation sponsered by Reps. Greg Walden and Brian Baird.

Dave begins his column with his beef that opponents to Walden-Baird's bill are taking their cues from a study produced by an individual who doesn't even have a master's degree in science. That's funny, considering that the degrees Dave received are a bachelor of arts degree from Albright College and a master's and doctoral degrees in history at Pennsylvania State University. That's right, Dave hasn't studied a lick of science in his collegiate career, but seems to feel that he is in the position to tell us that we should ignore the results of a study from somebody who has.

And what's the difference if Donato hasn't received his master's degree yet or not? Once his degree is conferred, does that add any special weight to his report's findings? I mean, it's kind of like attending a speech given by Bill Gates, a Harvard drop-out, about business development and wise financial investment, only to have Dave advise us to ignore Gate's advice?

Anyways, Dave proceeds to go into statistical muckedty-muck. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on statistics and biology here- and neither should Dave. (Anytime you want to talk history, I'm all ears, Dave!) In his confusing rhetoric about 71 percent of forestland versus 41 percent versus 56 percent, the reader yawns and flips over the Letters to the Editor column. How is Dave going to try to make a point and convince readers when he loses them two-thirds of the way through?

I admit, though, I managed to make my way through it. And caught this doozy:

The fact is this figure [71 percent in Donato's study] has nothing to do with Walden-Baird bill. It allows logging to begin 90 days, not two years, after afire, windstorm or other catstrophic event and before seedlings have sprouted. It actually mitigates the mortality problem that Donato highlights.

Right, cause if you clear-cut the land and not allow the forest to naturally regenerate itself, there will be no signs of an unhealthy forest. Nifty, eh?

The main point here is, of course, money. And the fact that OSU's Forestry School's primary source of funding is from interests who would prefer to have Donato's findings squelched, can you really be surprised? Wouldn't it be a little irksome to have logging interests fund studies to show that logging helps forests, only to be welcomed with the opposite conclusion? Indeed, the logging interests who's hopes on a big payday ride on the passage of the Walden-Baird bill threatened to have the funding cut to the team of OSU grad students that revealed the conclusions opposite to the industry's liking. Throw in to two Northwest Congressmen beholden to these same logging interests, and the result is their 'bipartisan' salavage bill, which swaps the national interest's- healthy forest land- in exchange for a special interest, the logging industry.

Over-all what I find interesting is that Dave is taking the side of those who wish to censor the findings of Donato's report. Now that it's too late to halt the publication of the report in Science, Dave, a non-expert, is taking up the effort to dismiss the report as "weird science." Conservatives love to talk about the "marketplace of ideas", in which Donato's report certainly belongs, whether it ruffles feathers or not. For Dave to dismiss it is to show him as the true conservative hypocrite that he is.

A Case of Patriotic Whistle-blowing

Do you remember in 2002, when Time magazine named Cynthia Cooper, Sherron Watkins, and Coleen Rowley as "Whistleblowers of the Year." Without the efforts of these brave women, the lies and cover-ups of Enron, the large-scale fraud of WorldCom, and the massive incompetence at the FBI, that allowed to the 9/11 attacks to occur, would never have seen the light of day. By exposing these dealings, each woman set off massive government investigation, leading to criminal convictions as well as to institutional reform. Their recognition by Time was well deserved.

Now add Mary McCarthy to that list.

McCarthy, you see, was the career CIA offical who failed to pass a lie-detector test (don't they learn how to pass those things at the CIA?) and was revealed to be the source that led to the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning articles detailing secret CIA prisons in foreign lands that suspected terrorists were sent to be possibly tortured. I say "possibly" because nobody really knows, for sure, what happens at these secret prisons run by the CIA, but that seems the most likely scenario. So little information has been released to the American public about the CIA-run prison complex, that's hard to say for sure what's been going on there.

But it must be bad. And it must've been something that the administration wanted to keep secret, because as soon as the story broke last November, the administration and Congressional Republicans ordered an investigation. Not into the prisons where the CIA was doing God-knows-what in our name, but in the fact that the story was broke due to a 'leak' in the first place.

In his new column, Dave nitpicks the case of Mary McCarthy. I find it of interest that he needs three paragraphs, by which time he all ready pre-empts the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson and Abu Ghraib scandals, to delineate what McCarthy was the leaker of. Instead, he spends much hand-wringing in attempting to explain why we should be upset at McCarthy's leaking. You see, in Dave's mind, if we are to be inflamed at the outing of an undercover CIA agent by the administration, we should be just as incensed when the CIA leaks undercover nefarious global torture centers carried out by the administration.

I know, I know. Such is the tortured logic in David Reinhard's mind, but that is the argument he attempts to make, thanks to the help, of course, of GOP talking points.

I had an argument with a friend about the case of Judy Miller. He maintained that Miller didn't need to give up the sources she had who outed Valerie Plame (who was since revealed that it was Karl Rove), liking her position to being a whistle-blower. I maintained that Miller never was a whistle-blower, but that she had served as a puppet and an instrument by the administration to discredit an ambassador who blew China-sized holes in their case for war in Iraq and outed Plame, who worked as intelligence gatherer on the issues of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. With her pro-war stories in the New York Times in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq and her stint in jail instead of co-operating with the Fitzgerald investigation Miller was complicit in threatening the security of our country. There is simply no way she should be lauded by the press as having any sort of ethical backbone. And she definitely was not a whistle-blower.

As it turned out, the revelation of Plame's identity was carried out at the bequest of President Bush, the same President Bush who had said, "This is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials." When he wasn't playing semantics with the press, Bush and Cheney orchestrated the smear campaign, selectively leaking information which they hoped would 'discredit' Wilson's claims, and allow the rush to war to be continued, unabated. Well, Reinhard explains that:

When any president decides to declassify classified information -- and presidents have the inherent authority to do so -- the information is no longer classified. In brief, there's a difference between a president declassifying material and unauthorized government workers deciding, on their own and in secret, to declassify top secret programs.

Got that? Again with the tortured logic. It appears that he's trying to make the case that there ws nothing ever wrong with these leak, which raises a number of questions: why did Bush play such semantic games with the press? Why is Libby even facing criminal charges? Why has Rove been in front of a grand jury five times? If the leak was okey-dokey because the president allowed and 'declassified' it, why did he do nothing and let Judy Miller rot in jail? There is a running trend of how the Bush administration treats the women who have helped them- similar to their recent treatment of Katherine Harris, former Florida Secretary of State who has gotten the shaft by both Dubya and Jeb in her Senate campaign, they turn their back to them at their moment of need. Ladies, word of warning for you if you're thinking of helping out theRepublican Party: be prepared to feel as used as a two-dollar whore.

But, back to McCarthy. Dave likens her leaking to treason, and in proof that she's not a 'typical' CIA agent he offers the following evidence: she gave money to Democrats. Horrors! Can you believe it? Yes, it's true! She gave $2,000 to John Kerry, and another $5,000 to the Democratic party of Ohio in 2004. Somebody check her wallet- she's obviosuly a card-carrying member of al Qaida!

Here's a clue to you, Dave. Some people actually become 'public servants' because they wish to, oh, I don't know, serve the public. In McCarthy's case, she obviously felt that the public needed to know the information regarding the secret CIA prison/torture complex. Maybe it was a moment of clarity, but she must've felt that the American public deserved a right to know what was going on in their name. Obviously, Dave comes from the standpoint that what that the public doesn't know can't hurt them.

Which is why I salute Mary McCarthy as the patriot she is.

More Mannix & Parks: What Republican Should a Good Democrat Vote For?

In last Sunday's column, Dave follows up on the Kevin Mannix-Loren Parks column from the prior Sunday, as if he didn't realize that NOBODY CARES.

So Mannix is in bed- figuratively, you dirty-minded readers- with ex-Oregonian Parks who makes a living counseling impotent men on how to regain their sex life. Parks makes millions through his patented brand of sex therapy and, in return, funnels hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the campaigns of three-time loser Mannix.

Memo to Parks: it doesn't frickin' matter how much of your fortune you blow on Mannix, no one's going to vote for him all ready! Study up on your history- if he lost to Kunlogoski in the 2002 gubernatorial election, why should he stand half a chance running against an incumbent guv? It's like putting lipstick on a pig, for chrissakes!

Sheesh!

But Dave does detail the email Parks had sent him in response to his first column:

"You are not being fair!" [Parks] started off, and ended by telling [Dave] what he really thought: "I think you've done a miserable job of being an unbiased reporter."

Okay, two things here: first, Loren, Dave is a columnist and if you've read his columns over the years you'd know he doesn't understand the meaning of 'unbiased.' Obviously, to be a columnist at The Oregonian you can just make shit up and not have it connected to reality in the least. (Hence the existence of this blog.) And secondly this would be a surprise, if the Willamette Week hadn't just done a front-page story last week detailing the near-"Brokeback" relationship between Parks and Mannix, which included Parks' deep disdain for the O. I guess he's going to show no mercy for it's token conservative columnist either.

Anyway, Dave goes on to talk about how Parks is now funding an independent campaign- completely unconnected to Mannix!- of negative radio ads that attack Mannix's opponent, Ron Saxton, and frame Saxton as a "close friend" of Neil Goldschmidt who is a) the most influential and important Oregon politican over the past twenty-five years and b) a child rapist.

Newsflash! Republicans are acting mean! Thanks for the heads-up Dave!

Obviously, Dave is voting for Saxton in the primary and is using his personal 'bully pulpit' to defend his candidate. Nothing wrong with that, but it provides the perfect segue...

I recently changed my voting registration to Republican. It's something I've been thinking of doing for some time. It appears that the only way to have bat-shit crazy initiatives (like outlawing divorce to protect the 'sanctity of marriage' or having all homosexuals be registered with the state or forced to move into camp-like 'communities') be taken seriously is if they're sponsered by conservative Republicans. Also, I get to vote in the Oregonian Republican primary.

Why should this matter? Am I not more vested in the outcome of the Democratic primary? I've admitted on this blog a number of times that I'm a Kulongoski supporter, but I would have no problem supporting any of the Democratic candidates for Governor. That said, why not cast my vote for the worst Republican candidate in the primary- the candidate that stands the worst chance of winning over Oregon's Republicans in the Governor's race? Being said, who, exactly, is that? Let's examine the options...

1. Kevin Mannix. As I've pointed out repeatedly, Mannix is a three-time loser for state-wide office, who's banking on the clout of having some measures he sponsered passed about a decade ago. Mannix had the foresight to help pass Measure 11 just before violent crime rates dropped all over the country, yet has been unable to parlay this feat into electoral victory. A one-time Democrat, Mannix does hold populist sway on the more rural 'red' parts of Oregon, whose residents shake their fists in impotent rage at the 'tyranny' imposed by Multnomah County, without realizing that if it wasn't for MultCo's economic base, Oregon's 'red' sections would have no local markets for their products nor money for their schools.

2. Ron Saxton. A one-time Portland school-board member and Republican candidate for Governor in 2002 who lost to Mannix in the primary, Saxton has traditionally painted himself as a 'moderate' in the past. That's what happens to Republicans who reside in MultCo- they lose their ideological blinders and realize that progressive policies aren't so bad. (Unless you're like Dave, whose job resides on having those blinders firmly in place.) As such, Saxton's critics from inside Oregon's Republican Party have tied him with the epithet 'liberal' like it's a bad thing. Obviosuly, Saxton thinks it is, as in this primary season he has gone out of his way to show he is arch-conservative with a vengeance. He's aligned himself with the Grover Norquist 'no taxes, drown the government' school of thought, flip-flopped on land-use issues from 2000 (protecting land-use planning) to 2004 (protecting property rights), and has flip-flopped on his immigration views, claiming support for Bush's guest-worker plan a week after opposing it. The endorsed candidate of choice by Lars Larson, Saxton is trying to make himself big & mean enough by May to win the primary.

3. Jason Atkinson. As a state legislator from Central Point, I don't know a lot about Atkinson. And that can simultaneously work both for and against him. From what I've seen/heard about him, it's clear that Atkinson is young, articulate, and carries himself like a future governor. And he has a rabid band of net/grass-roots activists who hail him as the next messiah (as Atkinson openly courted conservative bloggers to help spread his 'namebrand,' so to speak). If he was only able to illicit more of a response than a quizzical "huh?" from the average voter, Atkinson might have more play in this campaign. Although there is a good chance he'll get a number of votes from being the "other" in the primary, there is no way Atkinson is going to carry MultCo's (not to mention Washington and Clackamas counties') Republicans, so no matter how he polls in Oregon's 'red' expanse that is his home environs, he doesn't have a chance this time around. Also, I was unable to locate an independent un-biased break-down of Atkinson's voting record, which offers me no clues on what kind of leadership he'd offer besides a a few self-serving quotes from Atkinson himself and from the Atkinson for Governor Blog Network.

So, those are the candidates. Now who is a good Democrat to vote for? I'm tempted to vote for Mannix and help get him on the ballot again so he can lose for a fourth time. But Mannix did run a tight race against Kulongoski in 2002, and I can't downplay his support in rural parts of Oregon who are comfortable with him, his creepy relationship with Loren Parks not withstanding. Lars' switch of endorsements from Atkinson to Saxton pissed off the Kids for Atkinson Club, and I find it kind of hard to believe that Republicans, or Democrats, would take this new version of Saxton seriously. And I don't really want to throw my vote away, as every Republican who votes for Atkinson would end up doing.

So conclusion? I'm voting for Saxton this primary. Go ahead and vote for Kulongoski, Hill, or Sorenson- my decision is hardly tantamount to an endorsement. But if Saxton gets on the ballot, Republicans will see him as the RINO he is, and Democrats will have no problem ignoring him next fall....

Defending Rumsfeld's enablers.

Well, it's good to see that Dave got his Karl Rove-approved talking points memo.

In his latest column, Dave touches on the recent controversy of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld being criticized by seven former Army generals who suggest that Rumsfeld should resign. Typical for a conservative attack, Dave points out that the number of former generals criticizing Rumsfeld is pretty small- "six or so in a universe of thousands of retired and active-duty generals." By using this rationale, Dave sidesteps the qualitative argument- pay no attention is to why these generals are speaking out agaisnt Rumsfeld- in favor of the quantitative argument- "look how many generals aren't criticizing Rumsfeld!"

Never mind that, similar as to how some may consider it treasonous to speak poorly of the President, many career military men, who have been trained to follow orders and refuse to ask questions, would consider it treasonous to speak poorly against the Secretary of Defense. At the same time, these career military men surely can't be happy with the mess of the military Rumsfeld has mananged over the past five years. Under Rumsfeld's watch, he allowed the greatest army in history to get bogged down in an insurgency-fueled civil war, stretching the ranks incredibly thin, and leaving are army in a position unable to deal with global trouble spots as they develop. For all the neo-cons' posturing, it should be pointed out that it's due to Rumsfeld's incompetent handling of the army, a military option for a nuclear-armed Iran is currently not possible. By refusing to speak up against Rumsfeld as he royally fucks up the United States army, these "thousands of generals" Dave refers to are, in effect, enabling Rumsfeld through their silence.

Which makes Rumsfeld's critics even more brave and patriotic.

Also, it should be reminded to Dave, Rumsfeld twice offered Bush his resignation during the scandal over detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld wouldn't have done that unless he had an inkling that he was doing a lousy job.

As John Perr pointed out on a recent blog post, Rumsfeld has failed the "Les Aspin test." Les Aspin was Clinton's first Secretary of Defense who was hounded by Congressional Republicans and forced to resign after 18 Army Rangers were killed in Mogadishu, Somalia as Clitnon attempted to clean up the mess that the first President Bush had left there.

It only took 18 American soldiers to die for Clinton to lose his first Defense Secretary. 18! Surely as soon as the 19th soldier was killed in this wholly optional and unnecessary war- and completely botched- war in Iraq, Rumsfeld's head should've been on a platter. I mean, to quote George Clooney from "Intolerable Cruelty": "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Right?

As always, the onus should be on Dubya. Because, remember, he's "The Decider."

Kevin Mannix & Loren Parks: Who Cares?

In his latest column, Dave analyzes the ethically-challenged relationship between Republican gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix and his main supporter, Loren Parks. In which I have to ask a question, which I'm sure Oregon's progressive community would collectively ask: who cares?

Granted, the relationship between the holier-than-thou Mannix and such a seedy character as Parks isn't of interest. Each new detail is delicious, but it's a story that 'broke' some time ago on blueoregon.com. Even the revelations that Mannix, during his term as Chair of the Oregon Republican Party, would personally pocket funds raised for the Party has been common knowledge for some time. So, again, I'd have to ask Dave: why do you think anyone would care enough about this topic for you to opine on it now?

I mean, what is Dave attemtping to accomplish with this column? Is he trying to clear Mannix's name? Attempting to illustrate that Mannix's financial shenanigans are on the straight and narrow? Casting in as good a light as possible the connection between the devout Catholic Mannix and the millionaire Parks, who made his fortune using sex therapy to help male adults with erectile dysfunction? If Dave was trying to do any of those things, he failed. Of course, it doesn't help much when he writes such lines as the following:

One wealthy man is responsible for more than half of the cash Mannix has raised this campaign. This would be unsettling if he were a Ron Saxton or Jason Atkinson supporter or a Democratic sugar daddy.

Okay, first the point he's trying to make, on one hand, is definitely obvious. Saxton, Atkinson, or Democrat supporters wouldn't be funding half of Mannix's campaign. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Secondly, as Dave wrote "this would be unsettling...." the inference is there that since Parks isn't a 'Ron Saxton or Jason Atkinson supporter or a Democratic sugar daddy' then having him fund more than half of Mannix's campaign isn't unsettling. Which, of course, I call bullshit on.

Candidates shouldn't be bank-rolled by single donors. Elections shouldn't be the playthings of moneyed interests. (Ha!) I'm not sure if Dave intended his column to be an argument in support of publicly-financed state-wide elections in Portland, but that's the conclusion I come to after reading it. There's a furor over the current 'publicly-owned' elections in Portland, in which cnadidates have to raise $5,000 from 1,000 donors before receiving $150,000 in campaign funds from the city of Portland. Imagine if Mannix actually had to make an attempt to run a campaign by going on the stump to carry the favor of Oregon voters through face-to-face mettings and 7 am pancake-breakfast fund-raisers. It may put him in a position where he learns the issues that are important to Oregon citizens, rather than spending time in the Plato's Cave-like echo chamber that is the Oregon Republican Party. Instead, Mannix gets to rely on unlimited funds coming from a sex freak- who doesn't even live in Oregon, but in Las Vegas- thus making his campaign much easier, which is why he appears to be lazy and coasting to an eventual third-place finish in the primary.

Because, after all, we are talking about Kevin Mannix here. And if I were to ask one question for Dave to answer, it'd be: why does the Republican establishment in the state of Oregon continue to back a three-time loser such as Mannix? Yes, he's helped pass initiatives through- Measure 11, for example- but the good things about iniatives as that they require a concerted effort by a team of like-minded individuals. Regardless of how much influence on the initiative Mannix had, the initiative couldn't have been passed without the help from others'. So it's hard to grant the passage of Measure 11 simply to the presence of Mannix. When you look at the actual campaigns Mannix has run for state-wide office, Mannix is a three-time loser: losing twice to Hardy Myers for Attorney General, and, of course, losing out to Governor Ted in the 2002 Governor Race.

So, who cares? Who cares about this loser that the Oregon Republican establishment continually props up to help split the vote and grant election wins to the Democrats? Who cares about Loren Parks, and his seedy sex world that I'd prefer not to think so much about? Who cares about possible money laundering and other financial shenanigans being committed if nobody's going to vote for Mannix anyway?

I can understand why Jason Atkinson supporters feel like they're getting the shaft. Sure they may come across as self-righteous, but at least they don't support a candidate who is a three-time loser. Yet.

The "chicken-salad" approach to immigration

Let's get one thing straight concerning the immigration bill that recently stalled in the Senate. The bill co-sponsered by John McCain and Edward Kennedy did not offer blanket amnesty for the 11 million immigrants who would be the target for such legislation. Yes, the Senate bill offered the ability for immigrants to reach U.S. citizenship- after a number of hoops were jumped through. It would've required fines and back taxes to be paid by immigrants who have been here for a number of years, would allow the ability for those seeking a green card to remain as guest workers in our country, and would force newer immigrants who are currently undocumented workers to return to their home country and legally re-apply to the immigration process. This is a far cry from Reagan granting, with a stroke of the pen, immediate citizenship to 3 million immigrants in 1986.

That said, it is ridiculous for Dave to call the Senate bill in his latest column 'weak-kneed.' The bill was (unusal for a piece of legislation offered by the Senate) well thought-out, pragmatic, and cool-headed, a far cry from the draconian HR 4437 offered by the waste-of-space Congressman Jame's Sensenbrenner. Sensenbrenner's plan to deal with immigration? Round up the 11 million immigrants and force their return to their home countries, build a 700-mile fence along a portion of the U.S.-Mexico border, and make it a felony for anyone to 'help' a illegal immigrant. In short, Sensenbrenner's law is as ridiculous as it is mean-spirited.

But what else could you expect from the Congressman who threw a tantrum on live national television, cutting off the power to Democrats holding hearings on the Patriot Act last summer while they were being filmed by C-SPAN? Nice to know we have such level-headed individuals as Sensenbrenner introducing legislation to deal with such convoluted and emotional issues as immigration reform.

Dave's latest column is the latest in his public love letters to radio host Hugh Hewitt. (Why don't you go ahead and marry him all ready, Dave?) This column is in support of something that Hewitt calls the 'fences and carrots coalition.' Yes, I know it sounds pointless, and upon finishing the column you come to the realization that Dave isn't offering anything to the public debate regarding immigration reform except mealy-mouthed wishy-washiness. It's nice to know that Dave doesn't have the 'stomach to split up families' and that he cheers the fact that immigrants are coming here to provide a better life for their families. Upon reading this, one hopes that Dave doesn't cross paths with Lars Larson any time soon, as Lars is liable to chew Dave up and spit him out.

Dave says that, unless we have another solution, it's time to listen to Hewitt's "fences and carrots" coalition, though he doesn't do a good enough job describing what new-fangled approach this coalition provides. Something about how we need the immigrants to stay but we also need to strengthen our borders. It's as if Hewitt combined portions of both the House and Senate bills and dresses it up as if it's something altogether new. (It kind of reminds me of an old saying about chicken salad...) I've always maintained that until legislators, pundits, voters, and protestors start demanding that hefty fines are levied against companies that hire illegal, undocumented workers (and I'm talking about a million-dollars plus), as well as the billion dollars necessary to invest in Mexico's economy (including dramatic economic reform, as most of Mexico's economy is condensed into the possession of a minority) than rational discussion about how to deal with the immigration 'crisis' can be had.

Until then, the current dialogue is nothing but loud sqwaking voices, unwilling to tackle the issues at the heart of the matter, in exchange for sound-bite offerings to provide short-term 'solutions.' This includes Hugh Hewitt's "chicken-salad" coalition, and Dave Reinhard's parroting of such.

On Foxworth & O'Reilly

Just because this is the "anti-Reinhard" blog doesn't mean I need to necessarily disagree with ol' Dave on each point for every column. Yes, I agree that Chief Derrick Foxworth should resign over the scandal involving salacious emails sent to a police bureau employee under his command that he carried an affair with. Being said, I don't agree with the high-minded morally self-righteousness inherent in Dave's column. I mean, the "facts" (as so far the events being described in the local Portland media can only be described as alleged) sound incredibly similar to the civil case brought against Bill O'Reilly in 2004. (Remember the "falafel" ol' Bill wanted to use to scrub down his producer in a shower?) Dave never wrote a column describing O'Reilly's actions as being "abusive" and "degrading" and demand that O'Reilly step down from his spot on FOX News's "O'Reilly Factor."

So, Dave feels some actions are inappropriate for some, but is silent when those actions are committed by someone who Dave shares a similar ideological viewpoint (and who, I imagine, Dave holds in high esteem). I would call that a text-book example of a 'double standard.' Some may argue that, as Dave points out, Foxworth is a public employee, hired by the city of Portland to oversee it's police department. He has a position of power, and if these allegations turn out to be correct, abused this power for the short-term gain of an illicit affair. Considering, again if these allegations are true, that Chief Foxworth could be in a position to make judgements in a domestic violence situation, his judgement could no longer be trusted. I agree with Dave on these issues, and I feel that any man with integrity, which I believe Chief Foxworth has regardless of this scandal, should step aside. Quietly.

But because of these issues- public employee, position of power, inability to trust to do the job- why do I make the comparison between Foxworth and O'Reilly? I mean, wouldn't O'Reilly's producer be in a position of power over O'Reilly?

The same standards should be expected from all in the public eye. Some may argue that Foxworth's position is more important than O'Reilly's, and thus demands different expectations. Some would argue (as I'm sure Bill himself would) that he carries just as equal position in society as a chief of police. He probably would view himelf as a member of the "fourth branch of government"- the media- and as such is providing a service to the public by demanding accountability and providing oversight in the public forum of the other three government branches. Considering the colossal breakdown of the duty that's supposed to be carried out by the national media, is it of no surprise that O'Reilly, who has made a career of being a bullying mis-informer, was 'outed' as a perverse degenerate who abused and degraded a female employee? Even an employee that was supposed to be his superior?

Simply put, for Dave to speak poorly of Foxworth- in effect trying him in public by means of his column- while not doing so for Bill O'Reilly smacks of duplicitousness.

Luckily for Dave this scandal erupted this past week. Otherwise, he might have to waste space in the Daily O writing columns defending the Homeland Security official caught online sending salicious and pornographic emails to an undercover cop posing as a 14-year old girl. Or, even worse, Dave might have to defend President Bush, who was outed this past week by former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby as the "Leaker-in-Chief".

Thankfully, the ridiculous and flat-out stupid actions taken by our police chief provided ol' Dave with the ability to ignore matters of consequence. Foxworth's scandal carries all the markings of a small-town scandal it's almost a cliche: misuse of public equipment, sexually provacative emails, a waffling and seemingly ineffective mayor, etc. A small-town scandal, perfect for a small-town hack of an opinion columnist....

Saddam's "smoking gun" of a paper trail....

Well, it's taken David a couple of weeks, but he's getting caught up on recent news. Well, actually he's getting caught up on news from a couple of weeks ago. Specifically, in his latest column, Dave discusses the release of Saddam Huessein's documents by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence due to pressure from Congress and neo-conservatives. As luck would have it, similar to every piece of information released by the Bush administration thus far that has been cherry-picked for greatest partisan advantage, these documents incontrovertibly lead to the conclusion that Saddam had relationships with and supported al Qaida. Or at least Dave would have you believe.

That's interesting, considering that President Bush himself said that there aren't any connections between Iraq and al Qaida.

However, as Dave's appeared to be hiding under a rock the past couple of weeks, he relies on the efforts of the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes to help co-write his latest column. Specifically, Hayes writes of meetings between Saddam's and Osama's reps to broadcast a radical preacher's speeches in Iraq.

Broadcasting the speeches of a preacher? Is this the "mushroom cloud" Condoleeza Rice warned us of as they whipped the country into a pre-war frenzy?

It should be noted that this message was hand-written and lacked an official seal. Also, this document was dated from the mid-90s and the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida never seemed to pick up much steam after the broadcast-preacher agreement. Dave cites other documents that purport to highlight attempts by various elements from Saddam's regime to establish connections with al Qaida, to no avail. Eventually these efforts came to a head with a June 2001 fax from the Iraqi ambassador to the Philippines stating that Iraqi is "not on speaking terms" with Abu Sayyaf, al Qaida's splinter group in the Philippines.

So Iraq was "not on speaking terms" with al Qaida and other Muslim fanatic terrorist groups by the time the worst terrorist attack on American soil was committed? If Dave meant to prove connections between Iraq and al Qaida, it might've been wiser for him to omit that one little detail, as it blows holes in the rest of his argument.

And is it just me, or is the fact that Dave is writing a column on Saddam's 'paper trail' when the hot topic over the past few weeks has been immigration mean that Dave is hoping to dodge a controversial subject in a favor of a topic that nobody really cares about?

If there were any "smoking guns" in the documents released so far, everybody would know about it by now. The fact that nobody is paying attention is testament to the fact that Dave is intellectually lazy, writing on a topic that garners little attention in an attempt to not garner any onto himself. Usually there is a smattering of anti-Reinhard letters in the paper for a few days after one of his columns assualt Oregonian readers' rationality. I'd be surprised if that's the case with this column.

Also, perhaps the nearest thing to a "smoking gun" in Saddam's paper trail is the fact that Saddam was just so weak, and the United States failed to identify him as such. As Tim Naftall makes clear in Slate:

Saddam never stopped growling, even after the destruction of his nuclear, chemical, and biological programs. And Washington fell for it. The Clinton and George W. Bush administrations could not tell the difference between the Saddam who invaded Kuwait out of arrogance and the Saddam who pretended to be powerful so he could fend off his enemies. Why didn't we see that on the international stage he was the humbug behind the screen playing Wizard of Oz?

Where's David? (Cont'd.)

On three occasions over the past two weeks there is a lack of a column by Dave in his usual time and place. Dave's columns appear in The Oregonian on Thursdays and Sundays, but besides last Sunday's re-hashing of Portland's per-student funding 'crisis', there is no Dave to be found. Honestly, I was expecting Dave to pull a similar stunt in today's Commentary section, and re-hash a column that was a few weeks old, like heralding the "kicker" that's sending hundreds of millions of dollars of an unforseen tax surplus out of state.

It's not as if there isn't juicy for Dave ot pontificate on: Alleged improprieties with city council candidates' lists of donors to receive public funding for their campaign. The continuing saga of the tram debacle. The draconian immigration bill passed by the House of Represenatives threatening the deportaion of 11 million immigrants. There have been a number of juicy topics over the past two weeks, yet Dave hasn't given his two cents on any of them. Which, in the final analysis, may be a good thing.

Perhaps Dave agreed to allow his space on Sunday's commentary section be made available to Lars Larson's hateful clap-trap regarding the immigration issue. If so, Dave has done Portland just as much a disservice as writing his usual column. At least there's some space in today's Commentary section for conservatives to rot brain cells.

It has come to my attention that otherwise sane, well-meaning, and rational liberals are siding with the rabid right-wing mouthpieces in regards to this issue, but I gotta call b.s. when I see it. These right-wingers aren' talking about imposing prohibitive fines on companies caught hiring illegal immigrants- and I'm talking upwards of millions of dollars- or about investing the $200 billion over the next ten years into Mexico's economy to make it less shitty and not have the U.S. be such an attractive, tantalizing option to sneak into. When Lars, Savage, Frist, and the lot of 'em begin discussing these subjects, then I know they're willing to discuss this subject seriously.

Like Lars, talk-show host Michael Savage has been spouting virulent anti-immigration rhetoric over the past few weeks. Savage's son owns and operates Rock Star Energy Drink. As illegals make up five percent of the workforce, I'm curious as to how many illegals have their living paid by Michael Savage's son? If anyone can find a number of illegals employed by the Savage family, could they shoot that information to me?

Oh, and if anyone sees Dave, could you tell him he's got a column to write? Unless he's come to the conclusion that Portland would be better off if his column was put on a permanent hiatus. If so, there would be no contention here....