Surprise! The New York Times pisses of David Reinhard!

Way to piss off David, New York Times.

In his latest column, Dave makes it quite clear that he's upset with the New York Times reporting that the Bush administration has instigated an international program to monitor the movement of millions of dollars through financial transactions, ostensibly to track terrorism. Indeed, Dave gets pretty close to calling the New York Times treasonous for interferring with issues of "national security."

Ah, national security, the big ol' bugaboo. If those two words weren't able to exist, what cloudy rhetoric and half-baked ideology would conservatives have to hide behind?

Reinhard's anger wouldn't come across as self-righteous and self-serving if it weren't for the following: the U.S. Treasury has announced on numerous occasions that it is tracking the movements of large sums of money from groups with terrorist connections in an effort to "follow the money." Oh, did I forget to throw in the word 'publicly?' Yes, that's right. The U.S. Treasury has publicly announced that they are following huge financial sums from groups with terrorist connections. This has led to the closing and seizure of Al-Barakaat companies, a company widley suspected of funding al Qaida actions, in four cities: Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle and Columbus, Ohio. Indeed, the U.S. Treasury department has listed nearly one hundred people or groups suspected of associating with or funding terrorist-related groups.

Again, this is all public knowledge as the Bush administration prides itself in making itself look strong on terrorism by continually telling the terrorists exactly what they're going to do. Remember revealing that they had caught and al Qaida operative, and was using him in undercover work in the summer of 2004? Wouldn't it seem like announcing the use of an undercover al Qaida agent would be counter-productive in actually fighting the war on terror? Indeed, the British, who the operative was working with, begged the Bush administration not to reveal the use of the operative. What the British weren't aware, though, was that there was a bigger war that was being fought at that time: the war against John Kerry. And revealing the undercover agent, even if it made him useless, prevented Kerry on getting any momentum on the issue of fighting terrorism.

Yeah, like we can really take this gang of idiots "seriously" on the subject of fighting terrorism.

So, if the Bush administration has all ready announced that it's following the money of known or suspected terrorist groups or indivudlas, what's the big deal? Well, it appears that- surprise! surpise!- the program being used to track these transactions is also tracking millions of transactions by groups and individuals that have absolutely no connection with terrorist groups. They have poured through the finanical records of millions of individuals, with little or no oversight. Who are these people? Which records are being looked at? Nobody knows. And this gets Dave steamed. Not because of this latest onslaught on civil liberties by the Bush administration, that doesn't get Dave steamed, but instead the fact that it was simply reported by the New York Times. That just really gets Dave's goat.

However, this story wasn't broken by the New York Times alone. It was also published in connection with the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. Thank God the New York Times was one of the three papers that published it, however. As a favorite whipping-boy for conservatives, if the New York Times hadn't published this story, Dave and other conservatives wouldn't have much ammunition in gnashing their teeth and wailing against the Los Angeles Times. Could you imagine Bush and Cheney galvanizing their base by speaking against the Los Angeles Times in public speeches over the past week? Me neither. And what if neither of the Times papers had broken the story, but was scooped instead by the administration's buddies over at the Wall Street Journal. Somehow I doubt that if the Journal had broken this story alone we'd hear as much criticism and hand-wringing. Instead, I bet you'd hear hardly a peep of criticism and the administration would, instead, spin the breaking of the news in a such a manner that they had approached the press in an effort to bring more transparency to their international banking spying program.

Instead, luckily for the Bush administration, the New York Times was involved, thus painting a bright red target on them. And Dave's only too willing to help shoot at that target, saying that he's "angry" that the New York Times decided that the public should know that the government is going through their financial records.

It should be noted that right above Dave's column is an unsigned editorial, about how the Bush administration is "shootng the messnger" in regards to the banking story. In this editorial, it is written: "[Bush, Cheney, and Snow] turned yet another revelation of warrantless spying on Americans into a story about traitorous news media making it harder to fight the war." How does the media announcing that the Bush administration is going through our financial records making it harder to fight any war? These revelations have absolutely no connection with the troops on the ground in Iraq, now matter how much the conservatives in an uproar would like you to believe it is. And, also, why wasn't "See David Reinhard's column below for further examples" inserted after that sentence? Seriously, is the editorial page editor even aware of the layout?

You're angry, Dave? Quick, tell me that the government isn't going through my financial records. Or going through the records of those who have made campaign contributions to Democratic candidates since 2001, or left-leaning groups in that timespan. What's that? You can't? Then you should rethink the pedestal that you periously perch upon as you share your self-righteous anger in the pages of The Oregonian.

Look, it's quite simple. No adminsitration that ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing which stated that bin Laden is "determined" to strike the U.S. can be taken seriously to fight a war on terror. Their actions, or, rather, lack of, led to the killings of Americans en masse that Dave purportedly wants to avoid by allowing these same screw-ups to search our bank records. It appears that Bush's defense in regards to his warrantless domestic wire-tapping or financial spying is that we should "trust him." That's the same rationale he proposed in the build up to the war and the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I seem to recall Rumsfeld telling us that he knew exactly where the weapons were. Trust these guys? Not as far as I can throw 'em.

If the Bush administration is complaining about how the press, the unofficial fourth branch of government, is doing their job, then the press must be doing a damn good one. Hats off to the New York Times for breaking this story, as hopefully it will lead to increased oversight in just what, and how, the Bush administration can use the tools at their disposal.

Not One More

Well, it could've been worse. Dave could've used the two fallen Oregon soldiers of the past week as cover to explain his pro-war stance, having a column of such tired rhetoric as "We need to keep fighting so as these two deaths aren't in vain." Of course, by using the victims in this situation, the soldiers' families, as a rhetorical crutch would've brought a nasty attack from Anne Coulter. (Yeah, right.)

Instead, the soldiers' deaths gives Reinard an opportunity to wax poetic in his latest column. "Death on a battlefield is horribly arbitray," Dave writes. "Some [deaths] are worth noting not because their deaths are more important in any grand sense -- but because their deaths are, at once, exceptional and representative." In this case, the exceptional and representative deaths are of Army Spc. Robert Jones and Army Pfc. Thomas Lowell Tucker, from Milwaukee and Madras respectively.

My intent is not to politicize these soldiers' deaths. Instead I take issue with Reinhard doing some navel-gazing as two more of Oregon's best and brightest are lost in a needless war that Reinhard has been an enthusiastic supporter for from the get-go. War is a big deal, and creates divisive wounds within families when young men and women don' return from battle? Funny, that was my exact sentiment when I was protesting this war in the streets of Portland. I knew nothing but pain, death, and heartache were in store for the hundreds, now thousands, of families who have lost loved ones to Dubya's Iraqi Adventure. Not to worry, I was told, our troops will perform "shock and awe" and return home within weeks, if not months, with minimal fatalities. That line of bullshit smelled so obvious, and I thought if we could stop the momentum of war, families could be spared posible heartache. But it was not to be, as Bush and his apologists had no second thoughts of using the lives of our soldiers for political gain. What's a few thousand soldiers' lives when the privatization of Social Security or a gay marriage Constitutional amendment is at stake?

Dave waxes poetic but doesn't say the few, simple words: Not one more. Not one more Oregonian killed in this failed right-wing attempt at nation-building. Not one more Oregonian killed to support putting people like Ahmed Chalabi and Nuri al-Maliki in power. Not one more Oregonian killed in an intra-state civil war, with escalating violence being carried out by the ethnic rivalries that Paul Wolfowitz failed to recognize in his pre-war testimony before Congress. Not one more Oregonian killed in an occupation of a sovereign country, whose presence merely serves as sitting ducks for attacks and to inspire the insurgency so desperately needed by Republicans to prolong a war will never end, and will continue to be politicized. Not one more Oregonian killed- bring them home now.

Sadly, that will not be the case, as future Oregon soldiers will likely be killed as our "leaders" in Washington continue with the stalemate that they find themselves in regarding Iraq and are reduced to passing ridiculous resolutions such as that "America will triumph in the war on terror." Gosh- who voted against that? That recently passed resolution is entirely symbolic and does absolutely nothing to protect any soldier's lives. Not one. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Thank god for "strong leadership."

Dave reiterates a point made by Thomas Tucker's family as they remember their son:

To free the Iraqi people and protect his country from the threat of terrorism.

Saddam is no longer in power in Iraq, and citizens are able to participate in elections. Obviously, those are signs that Iraq is free. Granted, it took three different prime ministers before one was decided upon by the Bush administration to be Iraq's leader- one who wasn't elected by the people- but since when do votes count in George W. Bush's idea of freedom or democracy? And Iraq never threatened the United States. How could a third-rate country on the other side of the globe decimated by years of sanctions possibly pose a threat? Iraq posed just as much of a threat to the United States as Ghana does, in a non-soccer related manner of course. And before you bring up 9/11 to me, I want to point out that Iraq has just as much to do with 9/11 as Ghana did. Dubya said so himself. So why didn't we invade Ghana, and put decals on our SUVs to "support our troops" there?

I do thank Tucker and Jones for their sacrifrice. It's heartrending that their love of country and wish for service was manipulated by such obvious lunatics and their quest for power. With the clearly deranged Cheney and Rumsfeld overseeing the military, it seems quite clear that other paths to serve our country need to be considered by those looking to serve: civil service, the State Department, the Peace Corps, etc. Until rational people control the military, it needs to be asked: why would people choose to put their lives in the hands of maniacs?

Especially the 40 soldiers from Oregon who have lost their lives in Iraq. That number needs to stay where it is. The headline for Dave's column reads: "What we can say to the families of oregon's fallen." I can tell you what we can say: Not one more Oregonian death in Iraq. The pain stops here, and it stops now.

Let's just call it an occupation and stay in Iraq forever.

In his latest column, Dave attacks John Murtha and the Democratic leadership for having the audacity to demand a new direction in the occupation of Iraq. Reinhard describes Murtha's "change in direction" as a euphenism for retreat.

How can this be? What would our soldiers be retreating from? They invaded the country, tore down a statue, and liberated Iraq from Saddam. And that was three years ago! After all that, we still have thousands of soldiers on duty in Iraq, acting as both sitting ducks and as symbols to embolden the Sunni insurgency. You might think, after the kidnapping and brutal beheading of Pfc. Thomas Tucker from Madras, Dave- as columnist for Oregon's largest newspaper- would be issuing demands for our boys to return home. Would it be to much for Dave to ask why our boys from small mountain towns to need to be killed in horrible ways on the sandy desert soil of foreign lands?

But instead, there is no mention of Tucker in Dave's column at all. Great way to remember the sacrifices our state has been giving at a larger rate than others. And yet Reinhard has the gumption to routinely criticize Governor Kulongoski, who has attended every military funeral for an Oregon soldier lost in Dubya's Iraqi Adventure, and even has to alter his travel plans to attend the latest two (a soldier from Milwaukie has recently been killed as well).

Gosh, if Reinahrd, Rove, and Rumsfeld had their way in conducting this war, nearly three thousands lives of our bravest men would be wasted needlessly. We haven't reached that number yet. But if we "stay the course" it will be reached soon.

What I find interesting about Dave's argument is that its no longer supported by a majority of Americans- or Iraqis. Not only do the latest poll results show that barely a third of respondents support Bush's war, but its been two years since a majority has supported this war. But, it's an election year, so you know what that means, right? The will of the people is going to be ignored, and the lives of our soldiers will be used for political gain.

Last week the House of Representatives took a vote on "immediate withdrawal", a perversion of Murtha's call to bring the troops home. Not surprisingly, it was voted down. Then the House took a vote on an entirely symbolic amendment to "support the troops" until the "mission is done." What mission? For some reason, the definition for this was left vague. If we don't know what the mission is- how can we tell when it's done? I thought our mission was accomplished?

The most outrageous thing, in my opinion, I thought the Republicans voted for was to have "the Iraqis come up with a plan" to lead their country. The Republicans missed it- the Iraqis do have a plan. Part of that plan is for the U.S. troops to leave the country. The Democrats have debated and proposed their plan, which is to support the Iraqis' plan. In response, the Republican shoot that plan down and vote for a plan to have "the Iraqis come up with a plan." And round and round it goes.

The reason why the Republicans are being so vague and non-sensical is they don't want this war in Iraq to end- ever. This isn't a war, it's an occupation. That's why Dave doesn't want there to be a "change of direction." It's a never-ending occupation, hence the building of permanent bases there, including Camp Anaconda which is over 15 square miles. If the Republicans are going to fight a never-ending occupation to maintain their political grasp on all three branches of goverment, then they're going to need some place to house all the troops.

Political control- didn't you know that's what this occupation is all about? You thought it was to liberate Iraq, or to promote democracy? Did you even think it was about oil? P'shaw. A few thousand soldiers lives is a small sacrifice to pay for the privatization of social security and getting Sam Alito Jr. on the Supreme Court bench.

Anne Coulter- culture warrior no more?

So we've finally gotten around to Anne Coulter. I was wondering when Dave would comment publicly on her remarks that briefly caught the media's attention a couple of weeks ago or so. The Queen of Mean came out in her new book "Godless" and called the 9/11 widows "harpies" and "millionaire broads enjoying their husbands death" merely because they criticized the Bush administration's response to 9/11. And Dave doesn't like it one bit. Or at least he says so in his new column.

I must admit, I found Dave's column surprising. I was expecting Mr. Ditto to offer an apology for Anne's recent media brouhaha- a mea culpa of sorts, if you will. I was expected to roll my eyes in weariness and dissect the public figure of Anne Coulter, pointing out that her style of shock punditry adds as much to the national discourse as Howard Stern, how someone who is so clearly bereft of ideas is acknowledged as the "leading intellectual" by the Right, and how Coulter's cruel statements benefit the Democratic party, as centrist voters defintiely don't want to be on the side of hers. But instead Dave did that. Kinda.

Dave asks why Coulter had to "go ahead and do that," asking from the perspective of "someone who's lost patience with Coulter's hyperbole and cruelty -- and the unseriousness she manifests in their indulgence." (Unseriousness? Coming from the same guy who dismissed and mocked the three suicides down at Gitmo in his last column?) Dave does say that Anne's book carries strong arguments- chapters on Willie Horton (such a timely subject!) and on abortion and crime policy. (Both abortion and violent crime rates have risen under Dubya's watch. Why do I find it doubtful that Anne makes that point in her book?) But yet although her arguments are "strong," Dave claims she "spoils" them through her cruelness and gracelessness. So, are they strong arguments or not? Are her arguments null and void due to the language she uses? And hasn't cruelness and gracelessness been a hallmark of right-wing punditry for nearly two decades (see Limbaugh, Rush)?

I find this column interesting in the aftermath of Anne Coulter's appearance on The Tonight Show last week, when Jay Leno threw some softballs at her. When Jay asked her why she needs to be so "nasty" in her book, Anne replied that things were more civil when liberals owned three televsion stations, but now that there are more options there has been a "disruption of civility." Right, Anne, the suits at General Electric, owning NBC, are liberals as they secure governemtn defense funding for their military weapons divison. Disney, owning ABC, are obviously liberal as they embrace a deregulated "free market" in their attempt to Disnefy the world. And Viacom, the owner of CBS? This "liberal" company refused to run a MoveOn ad during the Super Bowl in 2004. Cause that's what liberals wouldn't do, or something.

I forget, just how often did the "liberal" media pound to death the debunked Swift Boat Liars during the sumemr of 2004, thus handing George W. Bush the election? Gosh, you would've thunk these "liberals" would've realized that putting so much attention on rumor-mongering would've hurt Kerry's chances. Maybe she and other conservative pundits are correct in stating that liberals are none too bright!

Face it, the boardrooms of every major media company are staffed with owners of MBAs. There only goal is to maximize profit- a squarely liberal idea. Do reporters and journalists tend to side on a liberal perspective? Historically, yes. But who has the final say of content? Obviously the CEOs. Anyone notice how Anne appears by herself when she visits cable talk shows, never contested by liberal authors or pundits? (George Carlin "moving to the right" on the couch doesn't count.) She could thank her enemies at the "liberal media" for such kid glove treatment.

For Anne Coulter to be complaining about the "liberal media" shows both the weakness and the lack of timeliness of her arguments. I've noticed a decrease of media attention after the firestorm that surrounded the release of her book. Could it possibly be that the men upstairs have noticed the backlash that was hurting the appeal of their conservative message? Sure, Anne's book shot to #1, but she's a name author cashing in on the role she played in Clinton's impeachment drama, trying to extend her fifteen minutes longer than the hem of her trademark short skirts. her fans bought her book, but it won't have staying power. She represents a minority viewpoint, as she describes herself as a polemicst. (Which strikes me as bizarre that she vehemently hates minorities so much.)

Anotehr thing Anne mentioned on The Tonight Show, as they discussed the 9/11 windows subject, was that the Left will no longer be able to hide behind widows and other victims. "They won't be able to use that trick any more," she said. Trick? It's a clever ruse, but I see right through it. She wants to discredit those who were victimized by the Bush administration, be it by the Iraq war, Katrina, lousy domestic policies, etc. Critics, due to Anne, will doubt going public with their stances, as they migh fear being portrayed as "tools of the Left." In short, it's a tactic that's tantamount to censorship- the only ones that has a voice are the ones that Anne approves of. Censorship is a subject Anne is quite aware of, as it's also something that she has whined about incessantly since she broke into the public's consiousness, including being censored by, of all places, the National Review. For her to promote censorship in any shape or form is egregious.

Anne tries to downplay her "meaness." One of her most common lines of defense is that I "only do what the Left does." Remember, this is the woman who stated that the only thing Timothy McVeigh did wrong is that he didn't target the New York Times building. I read Al Franken's "Lies and Lying Liars" and I don't recall him wishing any conservatives would get killed. Perhaps that's in his latest "TheTruth: With Jokes" which I haven't read yet. And I also haven't read Hillary Clinton's "Living History" yet. Perhaps she states which conservatives she wishes would get killed in that book. I doubt it, cause if she did I'm sure it would be the top story on FOX News- and the "liberal media"- for at least a month. Anne says her bew book is "just a bunch of jokes." because obviously nothing strikes a conservative's funny bone as much as the deaths of others. One just needs to read David Reinhard's last column for anotehr example. (Oh, and has Jay ever asked Al Franken why he needs to be so "nasty." No? Hmmmmm...)

In short, as I said above, Anne adds little to the national discourse. Her statements and public arguemtns are vapid and lack any substance. Investigatie reporter Greg Palast, author of the fantastic new book, has challenged a public debate with Coulter, who so far has been mum on the offer. Probably because she's aware that Palast would offer what amounts to krypton to conservatives: the truth, backed by facts.

People need to ignore her shreiking. Perhaps then she'd just go away. Dave's wised up to her act, and how it's hurting the conservative agenda. Maybe a wising up to the drug-addled diatribes of Rush will be next?

But wait, where would he get fodder for his bi-weekly regurgitation of Republican talking points? Oh yeah. He's still have the National Review.

Guantanamo Suicides: More proof that conservatives are the "party of death"

Oh, that David Reinhard. What a kidder. At the same time, there is no denying he is anything but a "flamer." No, I don't mean that in a Queer Month context, folks. I am merely stating that in his latest column about the inmates at Guantanamo Bay, his comments merely add fuel to the fire, increasing the polemic flames. A columnist wishing to have a sincere dialogue on this, or any issue, wouldn't be such a flamer.

Obviously it's clear that Guantanamo Bay isn't a subject to be taken seriously by Dave. Nor are the three inmates that committed suicide there. It's incredible that he, as a representative from the side that continually castigates the Left as being the "party of death", mocks these suicides. But nothing is as funny to a conservative as death, be it hypothetical (see Coulter, Anne + "New York Times building") or real, as Dave makes clear in his latest column.

Dave takes on the first-person persepctive of "Abdul" who writes home from Guantanamo, complaining of the ill treatment received at the hands of the American captors. Getting to eat ice cream, having arrows pointed to Mecca, Harry Potter books written in Arabic... why it's almsot worth being held indefintiely, and with no due process of the law!

If it could be determined that every Islamic prisoner being held in Guantanamo, most of them herded up in the chaos that ensued on the battlefronts of Afghanistan and Iraq, were complicit in fighting a holy war jihad, then I would whole-heartedly support holding them indefinitely in a prison. However, to do that would require a trial and conviction for each prisoner. It's something called the "American judicial process" and for all their screaming about "activist judges" it's something that Dave and his conservative ilk conveniently ignore when it doesn't suit there purposes.

Why does the Bush administration and his conservative apologists resist the increasingly vocal demand to allow prisoners at Guantanamo Bay their day in court? Because, undoubtedly, it will be revealed that some prisoners being held are, in fact, nothing more than your typical goat farmer, and the only thing they threaten America with is providing some lousy goat's cheese. When revelations like that come to pass, it would reflect poorly on the Bush administration's decision to have held these prisoners for so long without charges being pressed, and they can't have that. Solution? Continue to hold prisoners without charges being pressed, and you'll never have to risk losing face.

I was wondering how the right would spin this, and here it is. The three Islamic prisoners that committed suicide at Guantanamo are fools. How could they deprive themselves of such an earthly paradise? Why, it's practically like conservatives are lining up to enter and stay at a place that Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Rights Commission are increasingly calling to be closed down. Bush himself has voiced his desire to see the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, but that may be a political parsing of words, as Dave and otehr watchdogs take human-rights supporters to task. (And, contrary to the belief Dave intends with his column, Human Rights Watch called for Guantanamo's closing last May, which was well before the three recent suicides.)

So, here we go folks. Another example of the Right's unique ability to politicize more deaths. Have I ever told you how much they truly are the "party of death?" Because whenver they are in power, more people tend to die.

Or, in this case, kill themselves. All you can eat ice cream or not.

Debating reform of Oregon's tax policy

So, let's talk.

Let's talk about taxes, tax reform, and Governor Ted's stance on such. Oregon has some of the most unique tax laws in the country, but in this case unique isn't always a good thing as Oregon has struggled to remain afloat economically in regards to public needs, has no ability to save or reinvest surplus funds in a rainy day fund, and has been forced to slash social services at a time when the need for them is increasing.

No wonder I've heard in various discussions that Oregon's tax policy of relying on high property taxes and income taxes, lacking a sales tax, and giving millions of surplus funds back in the form of 'kicker' rebates referred to as "inane", "insane", and "dumb and dumber." (On the flip side, I have also heard that Oregon has some of the most corporate un-friendly tax laws in the country, to which I reply: "Ever heard of the $10 alternative corporate minimum tax?")

So who would know the most about Oregon's sorry financial state? No, it wouldn't be David Reinhard, but it would be Oregon's "chief executive", Governor Ted Kulongoski who has sounded the alarm about the increasing need to rehaul Oregon's tax law for some time now. Given that the state, which Governor Ted inherited at a time of severe economic recession, has petered on a precipitous economic drop for the entire time of his governorship, one might understand how the Governor could utter publicly that Oregon needs to "suspend" the kicker law and that a sales tax might be a necessary thing. Unless, of course, you're a fan of fiscal irresponsibility, as Dave makes clear in his latest column.

So, two things: the kicker and a sales tax. To anyone who's read this blog on a regualr basis, you know how much I think Oregon's "kicker" law is completely ridiculous. Oregon is the only state in the entire country that has such an inane law, which may partly explain why Oregon is consistently bleeding red when it comes to maintaing basic public services. Perhaps my biggest issue with the kicker is that people view it as a tax refund, like they paid more than their share of taxes and therfore deserve the refund. Well, they didn't. You get refunds if you fill out your income tax forms and find that one is coming your way. Oregon's "kicker" law is completely arbitrary. If Oregon's chief economist's budget projections for a biennium is off by 2% or more, then excess funds get returned, with millions being shipped to out-of-state corporations who have done nothing to receive such a surprise "windfall" check. However, this inability to create a rainy day fund- like what every other state has- creates a unique situation where Oregon is unable to prepare for tough economic times while the economy is going great. The Wall Street Journal, which may know a thing or two about economic matters (Dave take note), made this quite clear in their March 24 editorial "Oregon's Coffers Bulge but Services Suffer" (sorry, no link).

Giving money away during present great times rather than saving up for future bad times? Would that make sense for a family to budget themselves in such a manner? Then why does Dave think its so great for a state to budget itself that way?

Oh, because "we can spend our money more wisley then the state." Well, there are three things wrong with that ridiculous statement. One: as I've all ready made clear, it's not "your" money- the kicker isn't a result of tax-payers being over-charged. Two: can individuals really be expected to spend money "more" wisely then the state? No matter how big my kicker check is, it won't be big enough for me to more "wisely" fix the potholes in my street, nor buy books for my neighborhood schools, nor rent myself an Oregon State trooper. A more "wise" approach towards these needs would be to combine my kicker check with others'- which is what the state would be doing if it didn't have to redistribute them out to tax-payers! And last: how would these kicker checks be spent? Dave makes it quite clear: on Christmas presents! Yeah, because what's the problem of having less State Troopers available and more meth-heads on our streets, just as long as I can use my kicker check to buy my Aunt Jo a DVD recorder this Christmas? For some reason, I fail to see how an increase in people's Christmas purchasing power goes toward a more "wise" way to pay for the common good- can somebody make it clear to me?

Look, I'm sorry, I just don't see how the kicker makes any sense at all. And I keep hearing the same tired arguments for it, and they have yet to make a lick of sense. The only thing they do is make my head hurt from the sheer stupidity of it.

Now, a sales tax. I grew up in Washington, which had a sales tax. Somehow, the state didn't implode and go down in flames in the twenty-odd years I lived there. In fact, while I was there, my home state was able to generate a robust high-tech economy, create numerous jobs, and have a renewed commitment to first-class schools. And, somehow, they did all this with a sales tax! Oregon, on the other hand, has none of those things- including a sales tax! I'm not saying Washington's economic success is due to it's sales tax, I am merely pointing something out. The revenue that Washington collected from its sales tax has obviously been re-invested into its infrastructure, creating a robust job market and the educated emplyees ready to fill it. Oregon, on the other hand? I mean, without Nike, who is trying their hardest to live tax-free on the backs of Beaverton's infrastructure, what company or corporation is located in Oregon, supplying high-end jobs and adding to Oregon's infrastructure?

I hear some people argue that they like having no sales tax as it means that a 99 cent candy bar can be bought under a buck. But, again, considering the benefits of having a sales tax, does that argument carry any weight? I mean, consider the number of tourists that come through Oregon, shopping at the Lloyd Mall, drinking wine out in Newberg, going to see Trailblazer games at the Rose Garden- all of this money spent and the state isn't seeing a dime. We're talking millions, if not billions, of dollars here folks. You want a reduced property tax and income tax in Oregon? Fine. Implement a progressive tax on non-essential items, and you can do those things as well. And if you need an example, all you have to do is look across the border.

Dave calls for a vote on these two topics, which the Governor isn't even running on but has merely mentioned publicly, by the Legislature in the fall. That just smacks of political game-playing in the run-up to the election. But certainly debate needs to occur. Voters need to know which candidate has the best interests of Oregon's future at heart: the chief executive, who is all too familiar with the sorry state of Oregon's finances, or the other guy, who is going to toe an ideological line.

The Governor currently has the bully pulpit. It is time for him to use it. He needs to make it clear that tax reform- real tax reform- needs to happen in Oregon.

Should the Supreme Court rule on diversity in schools?

In his latest column, Dave continues to push his agenda of bashing public schools. As opposed to last time hiding behind the false argument of "choice", this time around Dave attacks race-based admissions for public schools in Seattle and Lexington, Ky. The Supreme Court has agreed to accept the Seattle public schools case, and given the current make-up of the court, it is of no surprise that Dave comes on the side of ending race-based admissions in Seattle.

Dave's argument can be summed up in the column of his headline. Kids of the "wrong" color are being discriminated against. Of course, inherent in that message is that there must be a "right" color for kids, or anyone, to be discriminated against. In this case, the rightful discrimination is against Seattle's black children, who find themselves in neighborhoods with poor and failing schools, and wish to seek to find better education in the schools of Seattle's white neighborhoods. As the editorial in The Oregonian that announced the Supreme Court's decision makes clear, Seattle has an insufficent number of good schools, both in "white, affluent neighborhoods." As Seattle has sought to maintain a healthy diversity in their public schools, they have adopted race as a "tie-brekaer" in maintaining a healthy ratio of white students to minority students.

Unfortunately, the use of this racial "tie-breaker" has led to a lawsuit filed by parents of white children who feel their children lost a position at these better schools in their own neighborhoods. Can there be a better argument for the need of a fully funded public school system, with healthy and productive schools made available in all neighborhoods? Just as much as there are failing schools in poor, black neighborhoods, I would wager there are failing schools in poor white neighborhoods of Seattle as well. Should the quality of public education depend solely on that school's neighborhood's property values? It is obviously clear that a financial level for each school in Seattle's, and Portland's, public school system needs to be identified to provide the basic fundamental services to the children of the neighborhood that it's located in. Once the funding for these fundamental needs are met, parents and the neighborhood can take it upon themselves to provide donations and carry-out fundraising for any extra amenities desired, such as a lacrosse team or band equipment.

Once neighborhoods no longer see their schools as "failing" there will be little desire to re-locate their children to another neighborhood school, possibly "taking" the position of that neighborhood's children. However, that poses another problem, that of possible unintended segregation. Some, not all, neighborhoods tend to be homogenous, with similar families sharing similar viewpoints and lifestyles living close to each other. This homogenity would carry-over to the classroom, and such a lack of diversity would stifle any creative deliberation and deprive students of an opportunity for renewed perspective of thinking on various topics. Dave, as a typical conservative, is a proponent of this stifling of diversity in the classroom, and hopes that the Supreme Court rules in favor of such. The idea I propose- of healthy, fully-funded neighborhood schools that don't require students being shuffled around- might also carry such unitended consequences.

Certainly, diversity in the classroom is a good thing. Ideally, it should'nt be forced due to schools failing in areas that need them the most. However, the question that should be asked to neighborhoods, parents, teachers, and lawmakers alike is how to continue diversity while also maintaining healthy neighborhood schools?

Dave's "illusion of choice" regarding public schools

At one point in Dave's new column regarding allowing parents in North Portland the option of moving their kids to private schools, Dave states that he doesn't want these parents to have "the illusion of choice." That's funny, considering that's what Dave argues for when it comes to health inusrance.

Look, I'm not an expert on school issues. I haven't studied the issue, and I don't know what the best options or plans are to help failing schools and districts. I feel that schools are something committed parents and communtiy members rally together for and come up with proactive, progressive solutions to save so-called "problem" schools. I too would like to allow parents every available option on the table regarding the education of their children. Being said, one of these options should definitely entail a fully-funded district meeting every performance expectation.

If families don't have the option of a secure public school district, that bodes ill for the communities in which these families reside. I find it irresponsible for Dave to condone a voucher program similar to the one used in Milwaukee, Wisconsin while Portland's public schools are on such insecure financial footing. Especailly when Dave is a proponent of such ridiculous tax policies as Measure 5 and the so-called "kicker" law- which "kicks" billions of unforseen tax revenue to out-of-state corporations while leaving Portland's, and Oregon's, public school system financially strapped.

For Dave using the concerns that were addressed by parents at a recent meeting of the Black Alliance for Education Options is consistent with his practice of using other people's tragedy to push an agenda. In this case, the "broken public education" agenda that needs to be fixed with privatization, or school vouchers, which is an oft repeated mantra by conservatives. However, in so doing, Dav side-steps the symptoms and causes of the "broken education" issue. The next legislature needs to put together a proactive school-funding plan. This plan should provide a reassessment of the effect Oregon's tax policies have on the funding of the state's public school system, and whether its appropriate to have public school funding so reliant on revenue collected by property taxes, espeically in a state lacking a sales tax or a rainy day fund. And it goes without saying that the "kicker" should either be repealed or severely reduced, with the money re-routed to shore up Oregon's public schools. Then, once parents and families have healthy and vibrant public schools in their community, they can have alternative options- "choices"- for education, such as vouchers if so desired.

Dave's argument is similar to conservatives complaining about how "broken" government is, then proceed to get elected to office so as to prove this maxim correct. By framing his argument on the issue of providing choices, the only "choice" Dave offers is this one: ignore public schools and continue to watch them fail students, just so that parents can have vouchers for private schools. And when you're only left with one thing, that's not a choice at all.

That's called an "illusion of choice."

Dave Reinhard: Do as He says, Not as He Does

In his latest column, Dave opines on Hditha, where something happened. Or maybe it didn't. Marines fired upon and killed 15 Iraqi civilians there. Or maybe they didn't. The actions carried out, or not, by these Marines besmirch America's standing in the eyes of the international community. Or maybe they didn't.

Whatever the situation that occurred last November in Haditha, there are two seperate current invetigations that are cutting through the spin and partisanship to find the answers to the following questions: did Marines commit indiscriminate murder rather than self-defense in Haditha? And if so, was there a cover-up ordered by the higher-ups inside the Pentagon?

What troubles Dave most, it appears, isn't the possibility that wanton murder might be conducted in our country's name, but rather that people are talking about it. Dave points a finger at Rep. John Murtha, the hawk-turned-war-critic from Pennsylvania who appeared on ABC's "This Week" and said the Haditha cover-up "goes right up the chain of command." Dave believes Murtha's statement was out of line, going so far as calling Murtha the "worst offender" even though no Iraqi civilians were killed by Murtha's actions. Dave's upset that Murtha has given his opinion before the so-called "truth" of Haditha has been confirmed nor revealed through the Pentagon's investigations.

As if a lack of completed investigation has ever stopped pundits and law-makers from commenting on situations and goings-on. Am I the only one who remembers conservatives calling for the heads of Bill and Hillary Clinton over some nefarious land dealings in Whitewater, before any investigation was completed? Or pressing for the impeachment of Clinton over his affair with Lewinsky, before the Starr Report had been released? Indeed, simply last week Dave commented on Tom Potter taking the FBI to task over trying to recruit a source at City Hall before any internal affairs investigations had been completed. And the lack of a completed investigation on Chief Derrick Foxworth ddin't prevent Dave from commenting on his alleged sexual liasions.

Oh, but Dave is a newspaper columnist. Murtha is a Congressman. I see. If one can potentially call for ivestigations, draft laws and resolutions, and issue subpoenas, then they should keep their opinions quiet? (Someone should've told that to Tom DeLay.) Whereas the other could potentially draw attention to the shadowy circles of all levels of power in government, they should be allowed to opine? Its a double standard, and one Dave should be reminded of.

But at least he takes the time to fill the last half of his column with a heartstrings-pulling tale of a Jeremy Russell, a Lance Corporal from Salem, who survived an attack and is back doing daily patrols in Haditha. It would be nice if this human interest story had any connections with the murder of 15 Iraqi civilians supposedly committed last November, besides sharing the same locale, but it doesn't.

At any rate, when it comes to giving opinions, it's quite clear that the only who should be doing so is Dave Reinhard, and Dave Reinhard only.