Extra! FAIR to oversee David Reinhard's columns!

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. Let's say that David Reinhard becomes the managing editor of The Oregonian. Columnists and associate editors are free to write and contribute whtever they'd like, but Dave has the final say on the content of what appears on the pages of The Oregonian. Everything is sailing along smoothly, and Dave thinks that he's doing a heckuva job.

One day, columnist David Sarasohn walks down to a Starbucks on S.W. Broadway for a mid-afternnon "pick me up" of a latte and a cream cheese danish. While he's there enjoying his snacks, a fellow sidles up and introduces himself to Sarasohn as a member of FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and expresses concerns that the editorial content of The Oregonian may be a little bit one-sided. The FAIR member asks Sarasohn to contact him if he notices a trend of The Oregonian losing its objectivity in its reporting and sliding towards a conservative, one-sided view of news and opinion, and hands Sarasohn his business card. Sarasohn returns to his office and shares this encounter with his colleagues. Word buzzes around, and it quickly reaches Reinhard's ears.

What would Reinhard's response be? Well, according to his new column concerning Mayor Tom Potter's reaction to the FBI attempting to recruit a source in City Hall, I would assume Reinhard would simply shrug it off. No big deal, right? This seems to be the message that's coming across from Reinhard to Potter in his column: "Look the feds are the feds, and as we've recently found out they spy on everybody all the time. Why should City Hall be any different?"

Contrary to what Dave purports in his column, if this hypothetical situation I described above were to occur, I bet Dave would be pissed. And judging by the reaction of Mayor Tom Potter this past week in reponse to the news of the attempted recruitment by the FBI, that would be a fair word to describe how the mayor must've felt.

Dave defending the feds muscling in on local politics at City Hall? What an unusal stance for a supporter of "limited government" to make, huh? Well, similar as to how one respondent pointed out the anti-free market stance Dave took regarding the film of "The Da Vinci Code," its become quite clear that you just can't tell where Dave is coming from. The only thing consistent about him is his inconsistency. It would be safe to call him, yes, a flip-flopper.

Here's a thought: if the feds want to investigate City Hall, how about stating a reason? Dave bemoans the fact that the Mayor is attacking the feds for "just doing their job" and argues that the actions taken by the feds is akin to the "community policing" trumpeted by Tom Potter. Well, here's the thing- anytime a policeman or detective visits a business, especially one that has had no problems in a trouble-free part of town, and suggests contacting him if trouble arises, it has a psychological effect on those attmepting to run the business. Are they being watched? Are they in trouble? What the hell is going on? Those might be the first few questions that roll through their mind.

With the number of revelations by whistle-blowers to the national press over the past year and change, I would wager that if any employee at City Hall thought some corruption was afoot, they would not be afraid to contact authorities or, yes, even the local press. (Of course, Dave would then have to write a missive on how such whislte-blowing should never have occurred.) Portland should consider itself lucky that it has a corruption-free City Hall (the tram vote notwithstanding). For the most part, local government has been very transparent and responsive. Contrary to Dave's statement that the mayor's actions indicate that he has "something to hide," it appears that the mayor is upset that any shroud of guilt is being placed on City Hall at all.

If it's oversight Dave seeks, I would hardly leave that up to the feds, who appear to lack oversight themselves. Remember, Portland pulled out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force because the FBI didn't want any local oversight over what, exactly, it was doing. And Dave expects for us to turn around and allow the feds to have oversight on local politics? Please.

The day that will happen will be the day that FAIR has oversight over Reinhard's columns.

Hayden: A colossal failure lacking credibility to head the CIA?

I got to admit, when I saw the words "Credibility Gap" and "Hayden" in the same headline above Dave's latest column, I nearly choked on my early-morning coffee. Could Dave actually be coming around to his senses, taking a stand against Bush's pick to be the next head of CIA?

That was simply a case of wishful thinking. Of course Dave, good Bush apologist that he is, stands behind Dubya's pick to head the CIA. The "credibility gap" Dave is referring to refers to Senator Ron Wyden, who in discussing Hayden's nomination stated: "General, having evaluated your words, I now have a difficult time with your credibility."

And with good reason, too. As a director for the Natonal Securtiy Agency, Hayden oversaw the warrantless survelliance program of United States citizens. This program has led to a huge database of millions of Americans' phone calls, tracking traffic and patterns in a supposed effort to "fight terrorism." These phone records, mind you, were forcefully collected from phone companies by the federal government without a court order or the issuing of any warrant. Qwest was the only company that resisted the federal government's intrusion into their customer's privacy, early reports indicated, which raises the question: if the database of phone calls created by the federal government was legal, couldn't they have used court orders to demand Qwest to hand over these records?

But wait, I'm ahead of myself here. To begin with, Bush informed American voters that any time he was talking about a wiretap, that required a court order. As he said that, he was lying, as his administration, with the help of Hayden, had begun the implementation of the warrantless wire-tapping program of American phone-calls. This program was revealed to the general public last winter, and Bush ostensibly declared that the only phone calls being wiretapped involved those between a U.S. citizen and of foreigners, 'allegedly' terrorists.

I use the term 'allegedly' as not one single terrorist has been caught using this warrantless surveillance program. Not one. Oh, and also, the claim that the only calls being tapped were between the U.S. and overseas? That's anotehr lie, as the revelation of this database proves. That, and the fact that ABC News has reported that government officials are tracking their phone records in an attempt to reveal sources. When you consider that Hayden's brainchild has now led to the FBI claiming that all journalists' phone records are 'fair game,' leading to an undeniably chilling effect on political discourse, I don't have time to listen to Dave's hogwash about Senator Wyden's "credibility gap."

When you consider that Jack McCafferty, a conservative commentator, notes that Hayden's brainchild has brought this country "one step closer to a dictatorship" then it should be pointed out that its not just Democratic Senators that feel there is a "lack of credibility" with General Hayden. Sheesh, it reminds me of a recent Tom Tomorrow cartoon, about the "revised revised revised" story. Are transcripts of individual phone calls going to be released next?

But Dave says "we're in a time of war." Against who? Us? Why is this administration so intent on fighting a war against Americans? Our border is so porous that hundreds enter our country illegally every day, and Hayden's NSA is more interested on who we're calling? Contrary to Bush saying that Hayden is the "right man at the right time"- the same thing he said about Porter Goss 19 months ago, by the way- Hayden is not the right man to head the CIA. As a director of security, Hayden has been a colossal failure.

Of course, that never prevented Paul Bremer from receiving the Medal of Freedom.

Seriously, the Da Vinci Code is fiction. Everyone got that?

In his latest column, Dave tackles an important subject that deals with such fundamental questions about what it means to be an American. What price is freedom worth? How much liberty should be sacrificed for security? And is it appropriate for the federal government to have a databse of billions of individual American phone calls?

No, wait, I'm sorry. In his latest column, Dave is discussing something more important: the Da Vinci Code. Isn't it just like a Bush apologist to change gears and focus on a topic of little consequence whenever the administration is faced with bad news. So the administration lied about not gathering data on domestic calls placed in the United States, who cares? A new movie's come out claiming that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (oops, did I jsut spoil it? nah, EVERYONE's read the book) and fathered a secret bloodline, and that simply raises Dave's hackles!

Sigh. There should've been an eleventh commandment in the Old Testament: Thou Shalt Never Have a Representation of Jesus Christ in the Popular Media. Ever. Because all that's going to do is piss off the same group of people, gathering under the crowd of racism.

These are the same groups that formed world-wide boycots when Monty Python's "Life of Brian" was released in 1980. It appeared that the Pythons angered their messiah so much by suggesting he wanted the cheesemakers to inherit the earth, that the only option they had left was to picket movie theaters and have some theater-lacking county councils in England ban it in its entirety. These were the same groups that derided Martin Scorsese's, who is a devout Catholic, "Last Temptation of Christ" as being "pornograhpic" and hurled molotov cocktails into a Parisian theater in which the film was being shown. I guess the demonstrating efforts by Christians had evolved from simple picketing in 1980 to home-made explosives by 1988.

Now its 2006, and the same group of people are pissed, attempting to prevent people from seeing a film adaptation of a book that, as I stated earlier, EVERYONE has read. Seriously, folks- what's the big freaking deal? A total ban in Greece was sought by the Greek Orthodox church, but was overruled by the Greek Supreme Court on freedom of speech grounds. A Christian group in India was nearly successful in pushing it's ban in India, until the Indian government sought a disclaimer at the beginning of the film by its producers. Which begs the question: why does a piece of fiction need a goddamn disclaimer?

The da Vinci Code is a goddamn story, and not too terribly a good one, clever one, or original one. (See the plagarism suit leveled at Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown.) I'm afraid that the only people who take Brown's mish-mash of historical half-truths and religious lore, added with a splash of modern airplane paper-back thriller style of writing, as truth are the same folks who wonder why the U.S. government continues to keep the Ark of the Covenant locked away in a spacious warehouse. Shouldn't we unleash its awesome power on al Qaida?

But Dave takes issue with the disclaimer Brown inserted at the beginning of the book, in which Brown states that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." For those of you who have read this novel, which would be EVERYONE, you'd realize that the characters visit such locations as The Lourve, Saint-Sulpice, Temple Church, King's College, and Westminister Abbey. It would make sense to be as historically and detailed accurate as possible. What the disclaimer doesn't say, however, is that the conspiracy in the novel is accurate.

Dave ends his column by saying, "It's often said that anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of intellectuals. We're about to see if anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of moviegoers." I wonder how Dave views the anti-Semitism that is so prevalent throughout Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

In the end, Dave may not have to worry too much about the insiduous effects of "The Da Vinci Code." Given the cool reception the film received on its opening night at Cannes, including open laughter at one of the film's pivotal scenes, it appears plausible that the film may fail, not because of the Christian-planned boy-cotts, but simply because it's a bad movie.

Governor's race decided- Saxton wins! (Oh really?????)

Spin spin spin.

That's what Dave is trying do in his latest column regarding Tuesday's primary election results. In fact, I'm sure if you put your ear to the newspaper you just might hear a faint voice saying, "Be afraid Democrats. Be very afraid."

Why? Because Ron Saxton secured the Republican nomination for governor. To Dave, this means the Democrats should be quaking in their shoes, as Saxton is the man to lead Republicans to their first governorship victory in twenty years. To me, Saxton's primary win just means that the Republicans are going to lose with somebody else this time around, instead of the Loren Parks-funded uberloser Kevin Mannix.

You see, a primary victory, although securing the major party's opposition, doesn't really mean nothing. Especially when you consider that only 38% of registered Oregon voters participated in the primary. Dave crows at the poor showing Governor Ted received in Tuesday's primary, with the incumbent guv only receiving 54% of the votes cast. To Dave, this means that "a full 46 percent of the governor's own party" voted against him on Election Day.

Talk about fuzzy math!

According to Oregon's Secretary of State website, 1,260,497 votes were cast for governor in the 2002 general election. Of those votes, 618,004 were cast by Democrats. Now, if the 38% turn-out on Tuesday equaled the same percentage of turn-out for both parties, and that number is applied to the 600,000+ Democrats who voted in November 2002, that means only 234,841 Democrats voted in Tuesday's primary. Of that vote, 108,027 voted against the incumbent governor. You know, when you look at the actual numbers, Kulongoski's "poor" showing on Tuesday looks pretty dismissive. As well it should.

The fact remains that incumbents maintain an advantage in nearly every election, if for no other reason than name-recognition alone. Primary elections are a horse-race for high political knowledge voters- those who care and are knowledgable about the issues enough to be willing to volunteer on campaigns for a candidate they believe in. Voters with low political knowledge tend to not participate in primaries, if they even know its occuring, thus explaining low percentage turn-outs for primaries around the country. (Oregon's 38% is higher than the 10% that turned out in Texas's primary, or the 13% that turned out in North Carolina's, as The Oregonian points out in another editorial.) The primary is the only chance for an upstart challenger- a Jim Hill or a Pete Sorenson- to unseat an incumbent, but they face an uphill climb to do so. Now that he's successfully weathered the challenge of the primary, it's time for the Democrats to coalesce around the Governor.

Dave makes the claim that Saxton doesn't need to revert to the center to win the election in November as he's all ready there. Let's not forget Saxton's poor showing in the 2002 Republican primary, finishing third behind Mannix and Jack Roberts. What explains the surge to victory this time around? By capturing the Republican base, taking strong stands on limiting abortion, restricting immigration, and seeking the endorsement of Lars Larson. As he captured the Republican base to secure the nomination, Saxton needs to test the waters of centrist Oregon politics.

But to Dave, that's no problem. Saxton all ready represents the center, as he supports Oregonian's stances on property rights (Measure 37) and opposition to gay marriage (Measure 36). But guess what? So does Kulongoski.

Kulongoski has said that Oregon's legislature should "work out" any state constitutional issues that might be present in Measure 37 to respect the will of the voters. Although he stands with Oregon's voters' decision to ban homosexuals from getting married, he has pushed for a civil unions law, so that an entire group of Oregonians in committed, loving relationships aren't on the outside looking in, which speaks to Oregonians' belief in fairness. Besides every economic indicator improving under Kulongoski's watch, he also reformed the public employee retirement plan. This upset many public employees, without a doubt, but it's hard for any fiscal conservative to find fault in that regard. And the former Marine has been very vocal about his opposition to the war in Iraq, both to Dubya personally as well as to Oregonians. Neither Dave nor Ron can question the patriotism of a Governor attending every funeral for soldiers whose death not even the President will acknowledge.

I've said before, Teddy K. has been a good governor, not a great one. But incumbents are only voted out if they are invovled in scandals resulting in low approval ratings, such as Ohio's Governor Bob Taft, or commit high levels of incompetence and bungling decision-making as recently trounced Multnomah County Commission Chair Dianne Linn. Dave and Ron will find this out the hard way come November.

Thoughts on the Primary, 20 Hours Before Results

No surprises here.

In his latest column, Dave endorses Ron Saxton as his choice in the Republican primary for Governor. Anyone who's read his column on a regular, and unfortunate, basis knows that Dave has no love lost for the Mannix/Parks camp. He makes that clear here and here.

However, with his recent column, I wouldn't be surprised if the letters written in a sense of outrage to The Oregonian this time around are written from the poison pens of incensed fellow Republicans. Both supporters in the Mannix and Atkinson camps are not going to be too pleased with Reinhard's endorsement of Saxton, and I'm sure they're going to let Dave know. And this is also why I think Saxton won't win the general election.

I find it very unlikely that Saxton's campaign, if he were to win, would be able to reach out to Mannix and Atkinson supporters. Saxton is a Republican who has always drawn support from Republicans in Portland. Portland Republicans are a different breed. The issues that are a priority to them are not the same issues that are priorities for Republicans in rural, sparsely populated sections of Oregon. This is why Saxton has morphed into this rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing talking-point regurgitator this time around- it's his effort to reach out to the Republican voter's in Oregon's "red" districts. However, just four years ago Saxton was viewed as a liberal Republican lacking the necessary leadership skills to run as the Republican's nominee for Governor. Saxton might be wearing a big, scary mask but I suspect, contrary to what Dave believes, that Oregon's "red" voters will continue to be distrustful of the liberal lawyer from Portland, and would be hesitant to vote for Saxton for Governor.

If Oregon's conservative voters had to choose between a Democrat and a Republican in Name Only, I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of them, if they vote at all, would opt out for former Bend ex-Republican legislator Ben Westlund, who's running as an Independent.

Dave may cite Governor Ted's "woeful" ratings, but Kulongoski still leads the pack on the Democrat side, and a majority of Oregon voters have consistently preferred a Democrat to be governor rather than Republican over the past year.

I guess the only issue that needs to be resolved is if supporters of Jim Hill and Pete Sorenson will back Governor Ted for another term when the general elction approaches. If the primary turns out to fracture the Democrat vote as much as the Republican primary seems to fracture that vote, then I think the governorship really could be up for grabs. So this is my final word and plea to Democrats (from a registered Republican)- as primary results are announced tomorrow night, please let's coalesce around the Democrat primary winner. Hill, Sorenson, Kulongoski- either of them would make a good governor. Let's not forget this key piece of information, regardless of how much time you may have spent working and volunteering for a candidacy that failed to win.

Democrats, let's please not forget to see the forest for the trees.

Defending a War of Attrition

In his latest column, Dave attempts to rally the 31% giving Bush favorable job approval ratings in Portland over the war in Iraq. (Actually, as only 25% of Multnomah County voted for Bush in 2004, wouldn't that drop his approval ratings in Portland and surrounding areas to something like 12 or 13%?)

Dave quotes from an al-Qaida terrorist's papers seized in Iraq, who bemoans that "recruitment is down" and that they're losing the "hearts and minds of Iraq." Dave uses this as proof that the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq.

One problem, though. For all this "woe is us" that Dave cites from disillusioned al Qaisa experts, the violence in Iraq shows no signs of letting up. In fact, April 2006 was the second consecutive month of over 1000 deaths of Iraqi civilian and security forces. With 410 deaths through 11 days of May, it can be stated resolutely that this month will probably see the highest number of deaths of Iraqi civilians and security forces.

Luckily, according to Dave, the U.S. succeeded in averting a civil war after the Golden Dome bombing in Samarra. The high number of Iraqis killing themselves with lower numbers of U.S. troops getting killed? Purely coincidence. No civil war here!

Dave also offers up a quote by Gen. Barry McCaffery, last seen criticizing Donald Rumsfled a couple of weeks ago. Dave quotes Barry as saying:

The Iraq army is "real, growing, and willing to fight," he writes. "They now have lead action of a huge and rapidly expanding area and population. . . . The recruiting now has gotten significant participation by all sectarian groups to include the Sunni. . . . This is simply a brilliant success story."

Great! Sounds peachy! One problem, though: Dave provides no context for this quote. Just how large and how much numbers is the Iraq army growing? In September the U.S. military commander in Iraq, Army General George Casey, claimed that only one Iraqi army unit was a "fully capable" unit— that could plan, execute, and maintain counterinsurgency operations with no help whatsoever.

If there is only 50 troops in the Iraq army, that is indeed much better than none. But that's a far cry from an independent army large enough to secure its own country and borders. Having quotes like this without context don't hold up inside a vaccum, unless, of course, they're Republican talking points.

Gen. McCaffrey ends his report by stating: "There is no reason why the U.S. cannot achieve our objectives in Iraq." Which is awesome, except for one problem. Three years later, I still don't know what the U.S.'s "objectives" are. The Bush administration has yet to make that clear to me. Did we invade Iraq to tear down statues? Or was it to turn al Qaida in Iraq into a "daily annoyance to the Shiite government," albeit an annoyance that is still successful in killing both Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops on a daily basis?

The fact remains that this is a war of attrition. For every handful of "insurgents" killed, an IED takes lives of U.S. soldiers, as yet two more were killed yesterday. Iraq is a country awash on chaos, and contrary to what Dave would have you believe, the increase of violence between Sunni and Shittes post Golden Dome-explosion can only be described as a civil war, unless you're willing to mince words. Politically, Iraq's in just as much of a mess, with intra-party squabbling allowing armed bands of militias to commit horrors throughout the streets of Baghdad, and beyond. Is this what the "last throes" of the insurgency looks like?

Lies.com offers a graph that compares the number of U.S. deaths in both Iraq and Vietnam. At this point in both wars, the numbers appear to follow a similar path, with perhaps more troops lost in Iraq at the same moment than in Vietnam. The third year of the war in Vietnam, however, saw a huge uptick in deaths, upwards of 500, with huge increases as the war dragged on for a decade. If this trend turns out to be followed in Iraq, Dave will be remembered for what he truly is: an enabler of murderers with no support for our troops.

Take a break, Dave!

In today's Commentary section of The Oregonian, there is nary a sight to be seen of a column from David Reinhard. Which can only mean one thing: Dave's on yet another hard-earned vacation from phoning in his columns. Hope you're enjoying a little R&R, Dave!

Will Dave have any columns later this week? Guess we'll just have to wait and see....

The immigration 'crisis' from Mexico's perspective

Look, over the past month tensions have been roused and passions enflamed over the current immigration debate. With his latest column, Dave meekly attempts to throw his two cents again, offering up a retread of the "carrots and fences" 'solution' he (actually Hugh Hewitt) offered a couple of weeks ago. While these comments may seem milder than the images of Minutemen vigilantes patrolling the Arizona border, the calls to turn all immigrants into felons and rip apart U.S. families, Mexican flag-waving demonstrators filling streets or of a Mexican flag being flown over an upside-down U.S. flag at a California high school. Each of these images conjures up a visceral reaction, while Dave preaches a more tempered and pragmatic perspective on the issue. Although more calm and even-tempered, it is still a good ways from being rooted in reality.

Why is that? Because Dave, and seemingly every other member of the 'chattering class' of pundits has ignored the reasons why we are currently embroiled in this immigration 'crisis.' Well, I will take advantage of this opportunity to offer Mexico's perspective on the current immigration situation, along with some history and national security concerns (for Mexico) included, as well as some unconsidered benefits for both Mexico and United States that currently occur as well.

Yes, it's true. Mexico has its own national security issues to deal with in regards to the immigration 'crisis'. To begin with, as it's been understood that Mexico and the United States share a porous border, that means that thousands of people come to Mexico from Latin & South America- and the rest of the world, particualrly China- to try to get into the U.S. That means that Mexican immigration officials pick up drug dealers, violent criminals, and, yes, terrorists before they even set foot on U.S. soil.

Then let's remember the lax gun laws on the U.S. southern states. Mexico has stronger gun laws, but nobody's stopping Mexicans from crossing the border into El Paso and picking up a Saturday Night Special at one of Texas's lovely mom & pop gun stores. So no wonder Mexico has recently decided to relax their drug laws, as the U.S. has done nothing to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico.

The construction of fences at San Ysidro, Califronia and in Texas has created a 'funnel' effect and has forced immigrants to try to cross at the Arizona border into life-threatening desert conditions. This has led to an increased reliance on "coyotes" over the past twenty years, who have themselves created smuggling routes for humans as well as other lucrative items. Not just drug gangs have engaged in shoot-outs & violence, there have been shoot-outs on the Tucson highway amongst rival gangs of human traffickers over territorial rights.

Then let's not forget NAFTA, making it incredibly easy for thousands of trucks to cross the border every day. At the height of winter, with fruit being imported up from Mexico, thousands of trucks pass the Texas border on a daily basis. Just a fraction of a percentage of these trucks are inspected- and guess who exploits this? That's right, the Mexican super-drug cartels, who use the poor inspection rate to help ship in tons of methamphetamine. So the next time that tweaker down the street crawls into a neighbor's chimney, thank NAFTA.

Another concern of Mexico is the flow of money, which may be puzzling. But $20 billion gets set back to Mexcio from immigrants working in the U.S. Of course, this gets the racist Minutemen at the border up in arms, but it concerns the Mexican governemnt as well. That amount is more than double the amount of the Mexican tourist trade. That $20 billion primarily goes to the most poorest regions of Mexico, some geographic centers so reliance on the remittance sent by family members in America, that if that flow of money were to be stopped, economies would collapse. What would happen then? More migration and widespread unrest.

What does this money pay for in rural, economically disadvantaged parts of Mexico? Education. This leads to the wives, daughters, and sisters of Mexican immigrant workers in the U.S. getting an education and looking around at the prospects of life in their village. The men available are hardly those to start a family with. So, this money being sent back to the U.S. has an unintended consequence of supporting family planning, and reducing Mexico's birthrate. While the current birth rate of Mexico is slowly decreasing, it in no way compares to the population explosion- Mexico's "baby boom"- that led to a doubling of Mexico's population (35million to 67 million) from 1940-1960. Indeed, a similar increase in the population during the 70s and 80s is the generation of Mexicans that are now finding themselves being "pushed" into Mexico, due to a job growth that didn't match population growth. Within twenty years, the need to migrate will be smaller (though the desire to live and work in the U.S. will remain, the need won't) and the current crisis will be a memory.

Whatever actions taken by the House and Senate to deal with the current 'crisis', 400,000 Mexicans will still need to come into the U.S. per year. No amount of fences, carrots, borders, threats (idle or no), amnesty, or what-not is simply going to put an end to that need.