Down With Reinhard!

Babies shouldn't be having babies

2006-07-30T17:55:00.000-07:00

Backers of the abortion parental notficiation initiative have been successful in gathering the requisite number of signatures needed to qualify for this November's election. This fall, Oregonians will vote on whether a young girl would be foreced to share medical information with a possible hostile family environment. Unsurprisingly, Dave's latest column emotionally manipulates personal tragedy and hardship to make the case for creating another barrier to legal, lawful abortion.

Look, I'm fine with Dave using his alloted editorial page space to discuss various efforts to outlaw abortion. He's a conservative, and abortion is the conservative's pet rallying issue. (If there were no abortions being committed, how could conservatives possibly get elected?) Now that it's on the ballot, the volume of the discussion on the parental notification initiative will get ratcheted past 11 as state and national conservative groups go overboard and bombard Oregon's voters with propaganda and rhetoric to turn out conservative voters in hopes of electing conservative candidates. But so what. There's one iniative like that on every ballot. (Measure 36, anyone?)

Dave taking a stand for parental notification is hardly a brave stand. It was to be expected. And I'm sure if you were to ask Dave why he opposed abortion, his reply would invariably include the phrase "pro-life." But, I don't know, I kind of wish Dave would be a little more, you know, consistent. I mean, given his most recent editorials that were barely nothing more than cheerleading rah-rah pieces encouraging the death and destruction Israel is reigning upon Lebanon, it's quite clear that Dave supports an ideology of militarized, efficient murder. And that negates any claims he would have of being "pro-life."

And what of this parental notification bill? Isn't it odd that the decision-making process of perhaps the one most major medical procedure a patient may undertake can't be undertaken by a patient and their doctor? Doctors are sworn to a vow of secrecy, but if this bill is passed, would be forced to share incredibly private information with a third-party. Wouldn't this crack in the wall of doctor-patient privilege eventually lead, through whatever psuedo-populist rhetoric championed by the conservative cause at the time, to the eventual dissolution of said priviledge? Until the day comes that everyone's entire medical history is available on some easily-accessible database?

Let's take a moment and consider some of the language Dave uses in this column. He says that the bill "would allow exceptions when notification wouldn't be in the best interest: the small number of young girls who are or may become vicitms of fmily abuse. (Italics mine.)" Who would make this distinction? Would the simple act of sharing this information potentially turn a stable, healthy family environemnt into a dangerous, hostile one? And besides, if you give the anti-abortion crowd an inch, they'll take a mile. South Dakota passed a parental notification law that included all sorts of exceptions. That led to the eventual passage of their draconian anti-abortion law passed year, in which exceptions weren't even allowed for rape or incest.

Do you see why passage of this bill could be dangerous to women's future rights for reproductive choice in Oregon?

Proponents of this bill say that it's unfathomable that girls should be haved to face this decision-making process alone. I agree, to a degree. However, it's also unfathomable that girls get raped by their father or stepfather. It's unfathomable that the same supporters of this initiative rail against the teaching of birth control in our public scools- which would be the most sure-fire way of limiting the number of unplanned preganancies. (Something, naturally, that Dave doesn't mention in his column.) And its also unfathomable to consider that, if this bill passes, some girls would be in such a desperate situation that they would have to resort to illegal back-alley abortions, in which no parental notification would occur. Unless, of course, the girl were to die during the procedure.

I oppose this inititiatve as it involves placing limits on individual's abilities to make decisions regarding their freedom and indiivudal liberty. Babies shouldn't be having babies- is anyone really going to argue against that? And don't give me any crap about "fetus rights" either. As long as fetuses are attached to the mother, than that is all that they are- clumps of tissue attached to a host.

Certainly the numbers of abortions should be reduced, but placing a number of limits on a woman's ability to receive a legal, lawful, and safe abortion is going to reduce the need or numbers any. In the end, a committed effort to public education and family planning that is conducted in an unpatrionizing manner which encourages healthy relationship-building (both with potential partners as well as family members) would be the best steps to take to limit the number of abortions being sought. And let's not forget, if abortion were ever to be completely banned in this country, nothing would stop rich women or wealthy duaghters from traveling abroad to get one if they wanted.

For poor girls unwilling to share such medical conerns with a dangerous family environemnt, the only option available would be the back alley.

You know how to get peace in the Middle East?

2006-07-28T23:33:00.000-07:00

Dave spells it out for you in his latest column: sit back and allow Israel to blow the heck out of whoever the hell they want. And then just let peace settle over the region. Obviously, that's a recipe for certain success in creating a "new Middle East," the mantra that Condoleeza Rice has been repeating over the past few days. Yes, let's just allow Israel to decimate Beirut and turn one-fifth of Lebanon's population into homeless refugees. That won't alienate our Arab allies in the region AT ALL.

If Bush isn't going to put any of America's military muscle to stop the wanton killing that's occurring in the Middle East, he should re-visit that veto of stem cell research he signed last week. Given his ineffectiveness to act as a world leader and stop the indiscriminate bombing and deaths of Lebanese and Israeli civilians, he really shouldn't be calling stem cell research "murder."

Remember the time when the U.S. represented the interests of Israel by also engaging in good-faith discussions with Israel's Arab neighbors? I mean, for all of Carter's supposed pessimism, it appears that he was the only President to manage the unthinkable- hammer out a peace deal between Israel and a neighbor-state committed to Israel's destruction, Egypt. And now Israel's incursion into Lebanon has put severe strains on this relationship between Israel and Egypt.

Because remember, this is the "new Middle East." It appears that the Rice Doctrine of enacting diplomacy entails dragging her feet and stalling as long as possible so as the neo-conservatives can get their gun-crazy 'might makes right' jollies off while giving lip-service rhetoric as to why an immediate cease fire actually threatens peace in the region. Obviously for a "new Middle East" to emerge, you have to go through a period of carnage and massive death and destruction. It kind of reminds me of the quote from Donald Rumsfeld in the early days after the invasion- "Freedom is messy. Free people are free to do whatever they want." That may not be the exact quote, but its along those lines. Obviously, in the neo-consevative rationale, what happens, happens, and though they may claim the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world, it would be inappropriate to actually use this power. For peaceful reasons, that is.

Sidney Blumentahl writes a scathing expose on this latest ineffective U.S. foreign policy for Salon.com, and details the Rice Doctrine further. Besides the U.S. deserting its historical role as protector of Israel by being a good-faith negotiator, the Rice doctrine also includes:

Rather than emphasize the paramount importance of Lebanese sovereignty, presumably a matter of concern to an administration that had made a nation's sovereignty Exhibit A in the spread of democracy in a "new Middle East," Rice has downplayed or ignored it in favor of an uncritical endorsement of Israel's offensive against Hezbollah, which has destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure, made refugees of about 20 percent of the Lebanese, and treated the Lebanese government as a contemptible irrelevance. Rice's trip was calculated to interpose the influence of the United States to prevent a cease-fire and to give Israel at least another week of unimpeded military action.

Let's also not forget that if the President did, say, want to send our troops in and make a big show of kicking Hezbollah ass, he kind of can't because he sent them all to Iraq, thus tying his hands on any forceful U.S. military action as long as that pointless war continues. So that's another reason why Dubya is keen on letting Israel fight terrorists while we stand on the sidelines. Dave appears to have side-stepped this point in his column, however.

Dave may think Israel engaging in activities that will alienate and sever relations with surrounding Arab nations will somehow bring peace to the Middle East. For the rest of us sane folk, we realize that if you hold this neoconservative pipe-dream under just the slightest bit of scrutiny, you'll realize that it's completely ridiculous.

Bombs are fallin'! Let's knock the bathroom wall in!

2006-07-23T22:01:00.000-07:00

As things continue to heat up in the Middle East, with no diplomatic solution to the crisis between Israel, Hezebollah, and Hamas in site, Dave takes an opportunity to admit that he isn't very handy when it comes to household remodeling projects.

Neat-o.

I've heard conservatives accused of changing the subject when things aren't going their way, but this is simply ridiculous. To be fair, however, I have noticed that both Dave Reinhard and his left-wing counterpart David Sarasohn intersperse their more seriously-minded columns with tales and travails of their domestic life and the insights they've gleamed from daily living in Portland.

That's all fine and dandy. But perhaps the space for Reinhard's straight-outta-Everybody Loves Raymond fluff piece might have been further inside the Sunday O's Opinion section, and not under the picture of bombed-out Beirut that graced the main page?

And does anybody else find it a bit interesting that Dave didn't take his Sunday column- which ultimately has more readership, I would imagine- to continue to make his case for Bush to assist Israel, either complicitly or by merely standing out of the way? Perhaps Dave's realizing that Bush's "scorched-earth" policies over the past half-decade have yet to lead to a further instabilized world, with Islamist terrorists being able to increase their range of attack inside of Israel and, by proxy, us.

So Dubya's war on terror has made the world more of a safe haven for terrorism? Well, golly, sounds like it's time for a column on bathroom tile, and ignoring reality....

Peace in the Middle East? Dave, What are you Talking About?

2006-07-20T17:05:00.000-07:00

It appears that Dave has returned from catching wide-mouthed Chinook salmon on his fishing trip, and such has time to weigh in on the fact that the Mideast has gone to hell in a handbasket. Some how, I'm sure, Dave feels that the New York Times is behind this one, but in the meantime we have his latest column in which he weighs heavily on the recent actions that have been carried out in the Middle East, ultimately coming in defnse of Israel.

Shockers! Who would've saw that coming? Look, I'm not saying that Israel has no right to defend itself and protect its borders. If it exchanges land for peace that's exactly what it should get, peace. Instead, Israel has been on the receiving end of numerous attacks from foreign-government nuzzled terrorist groups on two fronts- both by Hamas in the Palestinian South and by Hezbelloh, attacking from a militarized zone in Lebanon on Israel's northern border.

Dave asks a lot of questions. I count twelve question marks, as he makes use of the "lazy columnist" tactic of filling half his column up with queries, a rhetorical device that causes readers to glaze over the rest of the column, lacking any interest as to whetehr Dave even has a conclusion or not. However, amongst all his questions, the one that isn't asked, the elephant Dave's side-stepping in the room, is How could this have happened?

Invading Iraq was supposed to create a "beacon" of democracy, remember? Or has Dave forgotten? He can easily ask Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the other architects of the failed "democracy exportation" experiment. Elections have happened in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Palestine, with the end result being nothing except democratically-elected headaches. The Taliban is on a resurgence- again- in Afghanistan, with actions being undertaken against them by U.S. and Afghan forces this past month. Nearing the five-year anniversary of 9/11 and we still haven't been able to run out the nest of vipers that allowed the planning and committing of that event to happen in the first place?

After the Lebanese elections, there was an uprising that pushed out Syria's occupying forces, after nearly three decades of influence. Conservative pundits bellowed, declaring democracy was thriving and Dubya was simply better than Jesus. However, a year later, it has become clear that the popularly-elected Lebanese goernment has no sway over Hezbollah, who have continually defied United Nations resolutions by continuing to attack Israel from the same land that Israel had pulled out from in 2000. Indeed, with members of Hezbollah sitting on Lebanon's parliament and holding their own private militias, it appears that Lebanaon presents a classic case of minority factions engaging in actions in which the rest of the population have to suffer for.

And let's not forget last winter's Palestinian elections, in which the old Palestinian Authority regime was replaced in favor of a Hamas-led ticket. From the on-set this government was met by acrimony by Israel, to nobody's surprise, who cut off all economic support to the Palestinain people. This may have cut off some funds from finding their way into the hands of terrorists, but at the same time condem millions of non-terrorists forced to live and starve in abject poverty and dehumanizing conditions. Gosh, no wonder Palestinians lobby rockets over the border and making daring excursions to kidnap Israeli soldiers! When you're of such an insignificant size being trampled by an elephantine nation, it could be aruged that the only steps you can take are simialr to the ones Palestine has.

On the flip side of the editorial page in his syndicated column, Thomas Friedman writes "I don't see the U.S. promoting any more elections in the region, for now. The Arab democracy experiemnt is on hold- because if Islamist parties can't be trusted to rule, elections can't betrusted to held." Uh, no shit, Sherlock? Seriously, all the rhetoric espoused by the ideologues as they clumsily grabbed power over a half-decade ago was so divorced from reality, they might have pused for Operation Magic Wands, which they could use to wave over the region and magically transform centuries of in-fighting and bloodlust in a blink of an eye. Instead, we have our soldiers bleeding on the sands of Iraq as the tinderbox that once was the Mideast has been blown to high heaven.

What course of action does Dave think is the most appropriate? That the United States should "continue to do nothing to get in Israel's way." These are pretty sober words, forcing the reader's introspection on Dave's words of inaction. That is, until when you turn the editorial page to see Jack Ohlman's political cartoon. Since it takes a couple of days before his cartoons are available online, I'll describe it:

The setting is a town square on a Old West movie set. Above the various saloon and business doors, however, the signs read 'Hezbollah', 'Israel' and 'Lebanon.' Bodies are strewn about, covering the square. In the middle of this scene stands Condoleeza Rice, wearing a typical sheriff's ten-gallon hat and a thick moustache. In the balloon, she asks "....Am I late?" This is exactly the scene that would be carried out if Dave gets his wish of the U.S.- who is, after all, fighting proxy through Israel in the first place- continuing to "do nothing to get in the way."

Of course, the U.S. needs to get in Israel's way. And in Hezbollah's. And in Lebanon's. And Hama's. And Palestine's. The current situation is the exact reason for a mutlilateral coalition to tamp down any "hot" battles and gave an opportunity for diplomacy to allow itself to work. Not for optional, voluntary, misguided pre-meptive wars into a countries that pose no threat. However, with the treasure and lives expunged in the foolhardy war in Iraq, the U.S. lacks the international credibility to take a pro-active leadership role in scaling back the hostiltiies in the mideast. Nor does it sound as if the conservatives want to. (Conservatives try to avoid war? That's a good one.) Indeed, conservative pundits are bandying about the phrase 'World War IV' while discussing this current bat-shit storm in the Mideast in hopes of making the situation palatable to the wider American consciousness, and their hopes of finally attacking Iran and Syria would be realized.

Becuase that's what they want. Nothing short of global war involving every country occurring on George W. Bush's watch is a worthwhile legacy. Thatis why Victor Davis Hanson is using the phrase "World War IV," believing that the Cold War was the Third World War. That is why Reinhard states that the U.S. should do nothing but "continue to get out of Israel's way" even though such a tactic would only make the situation on the ground worse in the mideast.

Such a hopeful series of events would bring the mideast to a veritable standstill, accomplishing nothing but an even more increasing cycle of violence and destrutction. On the domestic front, conservatives would continue to exploit the situation to the same extent as they always do. With every election they would cry in mock horror, "You can't change leadership during a time of war! Think about the troops!" Which they would continue to send off to die in a cynical attempt to create "peace" and "democracy."

This is Dubya's legacy. You create foreign policy in a vaccum, divorced from reality, be prepared to reap the rewards. Sometimes it may take a few years for foreign policy miscues to bite you on your ass, such as Dubya ignoring the Mideast situation during the past half-decade, except, of course, to give lip-service to a "road map for peace." Sometimes, the consequences of foreign policy mistakes may take generations to make itself obvious, such as the aftermath of imposing the Shah on Iran or of abandoning the mujahdeen after the Soviets were chased out of Afghanistan.

To be fair, these foreign policy mistakes weren't all Dubya's fault. No, he was just the latest in a long line of Presidents continuing the same mistakes. Even if Israel- with the U.S.'s complicitness or no- succeeds indestroying Hezbollah, how many young terrorists will rise up to replace those murdered? I'd wager two for each one.

Oh, and Condi Rice's chances of becoming the next President? They have all but disappeared...

Like a certain President....

2006-07-18T22:08:00.000-07:00

Dave has gone AWOL.

Oh, I'm sure he has merely taken a sumemr recess to go fishing in Alaksa, which he has mentioned doing in past columns. And to be sure, the lack of his right-wing clap-trap has made reading the Oregonian sufferable.

So, in the meantime, I just want to point out the whole idea that invading Iraq would pave the way for democracy in the Middle East and take the wind out of the jihadists' sails has gone along quite swimmingly!

Still no column from Dave today

2006-07-13T14:29:00.000-07:00

I guess Dave's been having trouble finding stuff in the New York Times to get pissed off about.

No column from Dave today

2006-07-09T17:26:00.000-07:00

Today's Oregonian lacked a column by Dave.

I bet he's poring through the Sunday New York Times trying to find the latest thing that pisses him off.

Continued Hollow Outrage over the Patriotic New York Times

2006-07-07T18:14:00.000-07:00

Boy, Dave sure is pissed at the New York Times.

After taking a column off to champion liberal causes, Dave returns, in his latest column, to New York Times-bashing. Using language employed by President Bush, who called the New York Times "disgraceful," Dave calls the Times' disclosure of the Swift program, which secretly tracks millions of international financial transactions, during wartime a "crime."

Boy, Dave and other conservatives really want this Swift controversy to be there version of Plamegate one year later, don't they? Perhpas it's because they feel they can never go wrong with controversies that involve "Swift" in the title, but this is too much. One summer ago, all everyone could talk about was whether or not Karl Rove or other higher-ups in the Bush administration had outed the identity of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame, to Washington Post columnist Robert Novak in political retaliation for Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, for writing a critical 2003 op-ed piece in the New York Times of the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. Lest anyone forogt, Novak published Valerie's name, and she became the most highly visible undercover CIA agent ever, jeopardizing her efforts to curtail nuclear weapon proliferation in the Middle East, and endangering the lives of CIA agents on the ground during a time of war. But to the Bush apologists, what Rove, Novak, and the indicted Scooter Libby did or didn't do doesn't equal a "crime." Instead, it was Wilson and his wife who were targeted by the right, saying that the White House shouldn't have been discusing that "stripe" of people, and that Joe Wilson had some "'splaining" as to how his wife got into this mess. Indeed, conservatives' cries to trie and execute Times executive editor Bill Keller sounds similar to Wilson's wishes to see Karl Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House in hand-cuffs.

And now the right professes outrage that the New York Times- as well as the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times- has revealed that the governemnt has been examining millions of Americans' finanical records without any oversight or anyone's knowledge? Oh, what hollow outrage, indeed.

One year later, there's not that much public buzz about these financial transaction revelations. There is no Swiftgate to rival last summer's blockbuster Plamegate. Oh sure, you have the hard-core apologists from Hillsboro and other red parts of the country writing letters to the editor demanding criminal charges be placed against the liberal "elites" at the Times. But then you have Richard A. Clarke and Roger W. Cressey, former counterterrorism officials under Presidents Clinton and Dubya, inform us in a June 30, 2005 New York Times op-ed that the financial transactions were a "secret the terrorists already knew." In that piece, Clarke and Cressey write:

Terrorists have for many years employed nontraditional communications and money transfers- including the ancient Middle Eastern hawala system, involving couriers and a loosely linked network of money brokers- precisely because they assume that international calls, e-mail and banking are monitored not only by the United States but by Britain, France, Israel, Russia and even many third-world countries.

And, for some reason, I would put more stock into the words of two former counterterrorism experts than from some hick from Hillsboro, but that's just me.

So terorrists aren't even using the methods that are being tracked under the Swift program. Oh sure, Dave may point out that the "government started talking about monitoring international banking right after 9/11" and then the Bali bomber was caught in 2003, as well as a Brooklyn man picked up in 2003 and charged with terror charges. However, what Dave doesn't offer any evidence for is that these men were caught with the Swift program. Just having two sentences next to each other doesn't connote a cause-and-effect pattern. Instead it merely offers the flimsiest of cases.

Dave asks, rhetorically: if the terrorists knew about the finanical monitoring because the government talked openly about it, why then did the government urge the Times not to run the story? Obviously because the government wanted continued unfettered access to millions of individuals' financial records with little or no oversight. Ostensibly, it's to "fight terrorists" and if you and I aren't terrorists then we shouldn't worry too much about our finanical records being looked at, right? Well, that's the same thing the government said about the wiretapping revelations- "it's only when one party is overseas" became "its only domestic calls when someone associated with al Qaida is involved" to "okay we have a large databnak of millions of phone records- so what?" And we're supposed to trust these guys with our bank records?

I'll tell you why this is front page news, Dave, since you're so inclined to ask. I, for one, had no idea that the government had unfettered access to my bank records. Though there may not be much there for the government to look at, and I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that they grabbed this authority, the fact that there is no oversight on this program is chilling. It could be argued that in a day of near constant surveillance, with a camera on every block and in every store, we shouldn't be worried about giving up any more privacy. I'd argue the flip side. In such an age, shouldn't we demand to hold onto the last vestige of what amounted to privacy in America? I am not a terrorist. The government should not be allowed to examine mine, or any of my neighbors', financial records unchecked. That's why it's front page news.

In the last half-year, due to various stories broken in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and, yes, the Wall Street Journal we have learned that our government has done the following: listened in on American's phone calls without a warrant; practiced "extraordinary rendition" sending prisoners, sometimes foreign citizens, to other countries to be tortured; gathered phone record data from nearly every major phone company to compile a large database; and, now, that the government has been examining millions of Americans' financial transactions. All of this has been lacking any oversight whatsoever.

Well, not whatsoever. It's quite clear that the New York Times and the rest of the media has been providing oversight by informing the public of essential information regarding far-reaching programs that infringe on the lives of nearly every American. Its obvious that the media was hood-winked into supporting Dubya's disastrous Iraqi Adventure, and they are now willing to take principled stances by reporting on the excesses of an arrogant administration that is entirely dismisive of the Constitution. Is there anything more patriotic than the New York Times?

David Reinhard, champion of liberal causes?

2006-07-03T14:21:00.000-07:00

Maybe it's been the lousy week, two weeks, six months, past year that the conservatives have been having, but in his latest column Dave becomes a champion of a liberal cause: a Congressional resolution to increase production of natural gas, perhaps the cleanest (non-green) energy source, submitted by a liberal Democratic Congressman from Hwaii, and co-sponsered by Oregon's Rep. Peter Defazio.

David Reinhard, champion of liberal causes? Who knew?

Anyways, have a good weekend. I'm getting prepared for my flag-burning party tomorrow...

Surprise! The New York Times pisses of David Reinhard!

2006-06-29T17:20:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-25T17:28:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-06-23T11:05:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-06-18T23:26:00.000-07:00

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"

2006-06-16T18:20:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-11T18:18:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-06-08T17:39:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-04T18:59:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-01T18:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Extra! FAIR to oversee David Reinhard's columns!

2006-05-28T16:43:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-05-25T17:04:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-05-21T18:03:00.000-07:00

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?????)

2006-05-18T18:43:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-15T23:42:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-11T17:04:00.000-07:00

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!

2006-05-07T18:32:00.001-07:00

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

2006-05-04T20:18:00.000-07:00

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.

OSU grad student not welcome in "marketplace of ideas"

2006-04-30T17:07:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-27T18:14:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-04-26T17:25:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-04-21T08:51:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-04-16T17:36:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-13T17:05:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-09T15:14:00.000-07:00

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....

2006-04-06T18:43:00.000-07:00

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.)

2006-04-02T17:48:00.000-07:00

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....

Where's David?

2006-03-30T23:43:00.000-08:00

Another Thursday, and another conspicuous absence of a column from Reinhard in today's Oregonian. What gives?

I don't want to sound as if I'm complaining here. I mean, it's nice to be able to read the editorial page of The Oregonian and not feel your brain rot from Reinhard's blowhard rhetoric. But still, the fact that he now earns his income writing one column per week really just grinds my gears....

Demonization of Teachers (Cont'd.)

2006-03-26T18:20:00.000-08:00

Drat. He's back.

It's been a disappointing week from Reinhard. He had no column in Thursday's Oregonian, and this week's Sunday column is basically a re-hash of the same column from three weeks ago. To quote Napolean Dynamite: "Gosh." Two columns a week shouldn't be that hard right? That's all Dave has to do to earn his hefty salary- and he can't even do that?

Seems kind of hypocritical for him to write columns saying that teachers are overpaid, isn't it?

I'm tempted to copy & paste my response from three weeks ago (I mean, if he can do it, why can't I?), but let's examine Dave's latest:

He begins by acknowledging his column from a few weeks ago in which he cited an article in the Portland Tribune (!!!) that compared school districts in Austin, Texas and Portland, two similar cities, and pointed out that Austin schools spend less money per student, yet have a lower student-teacher ratio and longer school year. He also addresses the reaction to that column: readers pointing out that Austin has a lower standard-of-living than Portland's; others cheering Dave for bringing the subject up; and others 'not caring' about the numbers he writes about. Funny. Dave glossed over the points I raised in my response to him a few weeks back: that Portland's teachers earn the national average salary for master's degree holders; that Portland's spending-per-student fall in line with the national average for cities of comparable sizes; and Portland's funding-per-student is nearly $2500 less what Cleveland spends on its students, although Cleveland's population is 75,000 people smaller than Portland's.

No. Austin's funding-per-student rate is lower, therefore Portland tax-payers are getting screwed!

Dave's inisistence on relying on 'averages' is a cheap way to hide behind 'fuzzy math.' As I pointed out in my earlier response, Portland public schools pay less per student than the national average. An anonymous commenter points out the fallacy of relying on averages:

He might think for a moment about how misleading averages can be unless supplemented by additional info. If Paul Allen and Dave were in the same room, for example, their average net worth would be in the zillions of dollars, but I don't think Dave could then quit his job and live off his wealth.

Could it be that some of Portland's wealthier schools actually end up skewing the district's over-all average? If we were to remove those schools, would Portland's funding-per-student come to a closer match with Austin's?

There is no individual per- school funding provided by schoolmatters.com (just districts as a whole) so that information is not available, but what if this supposition were correct? Middle-class families and neighborhoods have proved, historically, to fight to protect 'their' school and deny any cuts in funding, programs, or services for the schools that best provide for their middle-classiness. That means if cuts, or closures, are to be made, they will be made at the expense of schools in lower-class neighborhoods that are traditionally neglected in the first place.

How fair. How democratic.

Dave and his ilk would argue that a more democratic solution would be for teachers to take across-the-board cuts in salary and benefits, a solution he offers in his column. This is where the demonization of teachers continues. Again, Portland's school teachers get paid the national average of master degree earners. And we need to ensure that teachers in our community are financially secure- if you were to be served by your child's teacher behind the counter at Plaid Pantry duing the weekend or in an evening, wouldn't you wonder about the quality of your child's education? Besides, in the past few years, teachers in Portland have agreed to a pay cut, a reduction in benefits, schools being closed or combined, and were willing to work ten days for free to make up for budget shortfalls. (Which flies in the face of the traditional conservative ethic that you 'get paid the value of your work.')

Obviously, to Dave that's not enough. He seems determined to see just how much blood is possible to get from these stones...

And the most galling aspect of Dave's rhetoric is his insistence in referring to it as a "crisis." As if a $57 billion shortfall and 11 possible closures are anything but. I know it's oft-repeated, but healthy schools are essential for healthy neighborhoods. People, that is middle-class families, aren't going to want to buy houses and spend their incomes in neighborhoods that have overburdened, deteriorating schools. This explains the "demographic change" the Oregonian made mention of in an unsigned editorial that reduced enrollment of Portland's public schools from a high of 80,000 to a stabilized 46,000. Obviously, school closures are necessary when the enrollment is cut in half, and Portland may be full of "hip, edgy" childless twenty-and-thirtysomethings currently. However, as my "hip & edgy" friends marry, buy houses, and settle down, they're increasingly doing it outside of Portland, as Portland is looking like a less attractive place to raise a family.

By Dave referring to it as a "crisis", the concerns of middle-class families are ignored in favor of divisive rhetoric, and the actual crisis continues unabated.

As Dave's erstwhile colleague David Sarasohn pointed out in his column last week, even though the states of Oregon and Washington may share a border, they couldn't be further apart when it comes to funding schools. As Oregon is besot by the (easy) demonization of teachers, and a do-nothing legislature willing, it appears, to watch the state's only urban school district fail, Washington's legislature just put $30 million into a program to help high school students meet graduation requirements.

Thanks to Dave and other pessimistic nay-sayers scoffing at Portland public school's "crisis", it may appear that the best place to have your kids go to school in Portland is Vancouver.

The editorial page gods be praised!

2006-03-23T22:43:00.000-08:00

So I walked into my local Plaid and picked up today's Oregonian, dreading the stomach-churning bile, the teeth-gnashing, and the mix of utter confusion and despair caused by Reinhard's columns that await me each Thursday.

However, lo and behold!, upon opening to the editorial page there was nary any evidence of a self-righteous conservative blowhard to be found! Rather, in his typically reserved space, was Maureen Dowd's latest. Saints be praised!

So, what is the meaning of this? I've gotten used to such a routine that when there is a break, I'm flabbergasted. Did Dave suddenly wake up and realize the citizens of Portland would benefit from a (hopefully permanent) hiatus? Could it be that this blog is actually (gasp!) accomplishing its mission statement?

If anyone has this and can provide some sort of scoop on why Dave's missing a column this week, please send info my way....

Viewing the Iraq War with Red State Spex!

2006-03-21T04:24:00.000-08:00

First off, I have to give props to Bill McDonald over at Portland Freelancer for scooping Karl Rove's memo to Reinhard explaining Dave's latest column defending the Iraq War three years later. It explains, in detail, the mechanics of a Republican-apologist columnist. Kudos.

Secondly, is it just me or did Dave, in this column, reveal himself to be a Tom Tomorrow-like caricature, viewing the current situation in Iraq with Red State Spex? I mean, seriously, Dave uses 732 words to come to a conclusion that we all ready knew: he supports this war. (No shit!)

Ultimately, the most disgusting aspect of Dave's column is the ending, in which he describes the Iraq war as being "noble and winnable." With this choice of words, Dave betrays himself as being unfamiliar with war. Wars are never noble. Necessary, perhaps. Unavoidable, sure. But never "noble." Especially not a war that was rushed into on faulty information (or lies, if you will) with little public debate. Not a war that was used for political gain by Republicans, at the expense of over 2,300 lives of our bravest troops. If there was ever a definition of a "noble" war, this current debacle in Iraq is far from it.

What's also ridiculous is Dave's contention that the events in Iraq aren't a "true civil war." As Terry Crawford points out in a letter in Monday's Oregonian, a definition of "civil war" is: "1. A war between factions or regions of the same country, 2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization . " That is present-day Iraq in a nutshell. Perhaps Dave doesn't think this is a "true civil war" because it doesn't compare to the American Civil War, fought 140 years ago. However, as the Bush administration has repeatedly compared the 'global war on terror' (which, in their arguments, Iraq is the main battlefield of) to the Civil War and World War II, it appears Dave is on the opposites of the administration in that regard.

As I write this, the main headline on Yahoo! News is "Insurgents storm jail, 28 killed." Each day this past week, Yahoo! News has reported an average of at least 30 Iraqis being killed. Some at the hands of insurgents, some at the hands of secterian-aligned militias, and others at the hands of U.S. troops. (Perhaps the worst result of this botched experiment in 'exporting democracy' is that the pain and suffering currently happening in Iraq isn't the fault of Saddam Hussein, but rather is the fault of the U.S.'s presence there.) One must truly be blinded by ideology not to come to the conclusion that such a high daily number of fatalities represents a symptom of civil war.

Of course, Dave would have an easy answer in regards to this fact: the 'underreporting' of positive stories by the media. For example, he cites Ralph Peters, who wrote a column at RealClearPolitics.com and voices the opinion that the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra ushered in the birth of the Iraqi army. "They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian," Peters wrote. "And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success." Funny, Peters seems to be the only one who states this opinion, as for nearly every other account of events after the mosque bombing indicated the inability of the Iraqi army to intercede in the murderous secterian rampages throughout the country, bequeathing poer to religious militias. Indeed, the army stood idly by as Iraqis, from different factions in the same country, slaughtered each other in the street. But remember- this isn't a "true civil war."

But what do I know? I'm not in Iraq. I write this in Portland, thousands of miles from these events. Besides Peters, who Dave points out 'has been there', notorious liar Victor Davis Hanson is also cited- again he 'has been there.' Perhaps I should heed the opinions of these two men, as they provide a perspective that I can't share? Or perhaps I could take the word of former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who on the same day that Reinhard's column was printed, was quoted by the BBC as saying: "It is unfortunate that we are in a civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knws what civil war is."

Poor Dave. Talk about bad timing. His column was obviously timed to coincide with 10,000 anti-war demonstrators marching through the streets of Portland. But along comes Allawi to discredit his rhetoric.

In the end, I am a staunch supporter of a free and democratic Iraq. Heck, if the entire world was free and democratic, you'd find no complaints from me. But I am also a staunch supporter of competency, strategy, and a realistic plan to accomplish possible goals. Using the lives of American soldiers for political gain and making statements that they'd be greeted with "flowers and sweets" smacked with just as much of disingenuosness three years ago as Dave's tired rhetoric does today.

Talkin' 'Bout Russ's Resolution

2006-03-16T20:06:00.000-08:00

I see Dave got his Karl Rove-approved marching orders.

Dave's latest column mocks Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush. As The New York Times pointed out on its front page- "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry To Bush's Base"- its obvious that Dave, forever the loyal soldier, is giving his two cent's worth.

The funny thing is that I agree with the headline that accompanies Dave's column- "Stop cowering and vote on Feingold's resolution." And this is what Republican strategists are counting on. I mean, when you go American Research Group you find that 70% of registered Democrats agree with passing a resolution to censure President Bush for authorizing wiretaps without obtaining court orders. Yet, as Premptive Karma points out, only four Democratic Senators have signed on in support of Feingold's resolution: Kerry, Boxer, Harkin, and Menendez. I know I'm going to sound like I'm parroting Reinhard here, but: nice leadership here, guys.

Democrats, especially those in high profile leadership roles, have been consistently knocked around for failing to take a stand on their principles. Whether its the triangulating Hillary Clinton or the 'nuanced' John Kerry, they seem unable to make their points and stances as clear and resounding as the Republicans do: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. And has been shown by the past five years, once Republicans take a stand on an issue, they stick to their guns. It can be spelled out for them repeatedly just how wrong-headed their stances are, but that doesn't stop them from standing by them.

Now a Democratic Senator is taking a principled stance- that the President broke the law and should face the consequences- and is finding scarce support from other Democratic Senators. This, in turn, creates a field day for Dave and other conservative pundits.

Dave states that other Senate Democrats aren't backing Feingold's resolution because "it reflects his party's views of the National Security Program." That's what he would like you to believe. Feingold's resolution doesn't deal with the program, as Republicans and Democrats alike agree any efforts to intercept communication by al Qaida is essential. Instead, the resolution deals with the fact that the President considers himself above the law- something that Republicans worked themsleves in a tizzy about a decade ago. The law requires that the administration needed to go to the FISA court to obtain warrants for wiretapping; the administration felt that the law didn't apply to them. In short, the administration thumbed their noses at the rule of law. That's what Feingold's resolution is about- that the President simply can't openly and knowingly break laws.

For simplicity's sake, Senator Feingold should break it down similar to a math formula: 'If failure to getting a warrant is against the law, and the President failed to get a warrant, then the President broke the law."

Dave and his conservative ilk argue in favor of a 'unitary executive' theory- a President unimpeded by laws. However, by allowing this, or any, President unchecked powers opens the door of unrestrained government growth and influence on the individual. This argument is a radical departure from the core tenet of Reaganism, which he made plain in his farewell speech in 1989: "Man is not free unless government is limited."

Presidents that flaunt laws are the opposite of this sentiment. Call it anti-Reaganism, which Dave, who I'm sure was a dyed-in-the-wool Reaganite twenty years ago, now argues in favor of.

Dave states that Democrats don't support Feingold's reolution as "it highlights its weakness on war-on-terror issues." Funny, cause when you glance at the results over at pollingreport.com, you'll find that Republicans are currently at a low point on terror issues in the public's eye, only five points above the Democrats, who are at a high. For some confounding reason, considering that they were running the show during 9/11, Republicans have used war-on-terror issues as a suit of armor to hide behind and prod a cowed populace for support. Now, after years of increased carnage in Iraq, the extraordinary damage inflicted on a mjaor metro area by Hurricane Katrina, and a proposed sale of key ports to Middle Eastern "allies", its almost as if a wise young child has opened the eyes of the populace to point out that the Republicans suit of armor is, indeed, invisible.

The fact remains that this is the perfect time to introduce a resolution to censure the President. Bush's approval ratings are in the tank (the latest Pew results have him with a 33% approval rating), his political capital is shot, and is left on the defense, looking for support from an increasingly shrinking echo chamber. Although I don't expect Feingold's resolution to go far, there is one accomplishment that Dave himself is aiding the Senator in: and that is getting people rto talk about censuring the President. There has been an 'Impeach Bush' campaign around for awhile, but it has been in the hands of former attorney general Ramsey Clark, who, and I'm speaking as a liberal, is nuttier than a jar of Planter's. Feingold's resolution gives any discussion of censure an air of legitimacy. The more its mentioned in the media, the more the average non-politically aware person will ask: "Resolution for what? What does 'censure the President' mean?" Not good questions to be asked if the President is only polling a favorable majority in three states.

The conservatives want to use this resolution as a means to rally their base. In that Times article, there is a mention of an email that Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer, sent out to Republicans: "Impeachment. Coming your way if there are changes in who controls the House eight months from now."

Aren't the Democrats aware of this and using similar tactics? Regardless of how far Feingold's resolution goes, with a minority status in the House and the Senate they have no chance at either censuring or impeaching Dubya. However, if the Democrats can create the idea of how events would be diffferent if they were in control, then their base will be just as frothed up going into the mid-terms. But that's not going to happen with Feingold getting such lackluster support from lackluster 'leaders.'

So let's keep talking about Russ's resolution. And please help the Senator's resolution for censure.

An actual, practical kicker compromise

2006-03-12T14:53:00.000-08:00

Well at least he used the word "compromise."

In his new column Dave takes on Oregon's "kicker"- the state constitutional amendment that redistributes unpredicted revenue to corporations & individuals that generated the revenue- and tries to find a solution that appeases both kicker opponents and pro-kicker supporters.

Before we analyze Dave's column further, I'd like to explain the kicker for those readers who may be unfamiliar. Imagine this following scenario: a family of four wants to plan on taking a vacation in two years. After looking at their budget, they come to the conclusion that the funds they'd have saved will only allow them to spend a weekend in Astoria. However, two years go by and in the meantime, Dad gets a promotion, Mom gets a better-paying job, Little Billy gets a paper route, and teen-ager Suzie becomes assistant manager at McDonald's. If their increased money were to be pooled together, they'd be able to take a week-long vacation to Disneyland, plus get the braces needed for Billy and pay Suzie's community-college tuition. But as the decision was made two years ago to go to Astoria, Dad sticks to his guns, with funds to be distributed piece-meal between family members to purchase souvenoirs, the children's needs be damned.

Replace Astoria with "predicted revenue," the family with "state's economist", and Dad with the "kicker amendment" and you have a close approximation of what this stupid law does to Oregon's finances. I don't have a good analogy for the corporate interests that will receive $200 million from the state's kicker, but in the end Oregonians will receive a check for $150. While that is great, it is impossible to purchase pothole-free roads or healthy schools for $150. Similar to Billy and Suzie, needs will be ignored that could be fixed by pooling or earmarking unexpected revenue instead of being "kicked back" piece-meal to individuals.

In the end, the kicker is nonsense. It is the only kind of law in the country, which has been on Oregon's books since 1979, and provides a selfish "me-first" sentiment rather than a coomon-sense "rainy day fund" for unexpected revenues that every other state has. In his column, Dave sates that Oregon is a "state prone to boom-and bust revenue cycles." There couldn't be a more simpler explanantion as to why the kicker should be repealed. It prevents Oregon from conserving funds to prepare for the future, allowing the state to be extremely susceptible to economic setbacks, as the disastrous 2001 recesion proved.

But Dave, a fan of the kicker as that means an extra dinner for two at McCormick & Schmick's this year, wants to talk "compromise." His idea? Allow the Legislature to have access to the $200 million being kicked back to corporations (two-thirds of which will leave the state) in return for slashing the state's capital gains tax and distributing the corporate kicker into a general rainy day fund. When you think about Dave's proposal for more than two seconds, you realize, as a compromise, it doesn't make sense.

First, capital gains taxes have no connection with the unexpected revenues being distributed through the kicker. None. Its just been on Dave's mind this week, so he connects the two together in his 'compromise.' As I've all ready pointed out, capital gains tax cuts benefit the investor class, with the occasional household earning less than $100,000 making an average of $14 through these cuts. It's a hand-out to those who don't need one, and the tax cut alone won't cover all the revenue lost. And any revenue generated would pale in comparison to the amount needed to fund the gaps currently plaguing the state, which raises the concern of insisting that the corporate tax kicker be deposited into a rainy day fund. Why insist that the money should be saved for the future while ignoring the problems of the present? A rainy day fund makes sense, but we need to make sure school districts are healthy and there are no glaring holes in local government's budgets.

'You just want to increase government spending!' the pro-kicker critics will respond. That is not what I want. Government spending should not sprawl, un-checked. At the same time, if our state and local governments can't provide essential needs and services, then what's the point of continuing to slash budgets? For example, consider the decreasing number of state troopers in Oregon as the methamphetamine crisis escalates. To aruge that more money, if its available, shouldn't be made available for State troopers is patently ridiculous.

So Dave's 'compromise' has been exposed for what it is: a sop to the wealthy investing class while tying ordinary Oregonians' hands from being able to fix funding problems that plague them on an everyday basis. Here's an actual practical compromise that could be applied to the kicker:

Keep the kicker in the constitution. As much as I hate it, I must admit I enjoy the occasional check in the mail. I'm a few DVDs short in my Cuba Gooding Jr. collection. However, amend the kicker law and make it so that if there are any funding shortages for key government budgets- such as school districts and the Department for Human and Health Services- those shortages should be filled from the unexpected revenue before anything is kicked back. Also, increase the amount that revenues need to exceed projected amounts to three percent. And earmark five-percent of returns to a rainy day fund. With this compromise, the infrastructure used by both individuals and corporations to generate such returns will be kept healthy, and ensure the generation of future revenue. Plus, everyone would get a check back, though it may be for $135 instead of $150. But money coming in the mail is always a good thing, regardless of the amount. Especially if its unexpected.

I mean, Dave could still have dinner for two at McCormick's for $135. He just may not be able to order the special.

Dave & The Capital Gains Tax Cuts: Premature Congratulations

2006-03-10T00:17:00.000-08:00

During his confirmation hearing new Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said, "It's unusual for a tax cut to completely offset the revenue loss." But here we have Dave with the headline of his new column reading "The 2003 capital gains tax cut has paid for itself."

Indeed, Dave gleefully points out the fact that the capital gains tax has deposited $47 million unforseen revenue into the government's coffers. How did this happen, exactly? Well, when you consider the fact that the capital gains tax cut overwhelmingly is titled in favor for the wealthy- only 6.6% of households making less than $100,000 earn any capital gains income- it could be summed up very simply: when rich people pay less taxes they have more money available, either to spend or to invest.

In a letter to the Senate Finance Commitee last Feburary, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote: "[I]ncreases [in capital gain realizations] might suggest a large behavioral response to the tax rate cut - except that realizations also increased by 45 percent in 1996, before the rate cut. Thus changes in realizations are not necessarily the result of changes in taxes; other factors matter as well." So investors did take advantage of the lowered capital gains tax cut to sell some assets and buy others looking to make a return, but that's what the investing class does. Any stimulation in activity would naturally follow such a tax decrease. However, considering that, according to the IRS, of the 92 million tax returns for individuals earning less than $50,000 in 2003 (representing 70 percent of total returns), only 15 percent filed a return with dividend income. The share of the total tax benefit given to these individuals was 7.8 percent and the average tax cut was $14. That means that the capital gains tax cut means diddley-squat to the average reader of The Oregonian.

Anyways, $47 million in the US Treasury is good. At least we're seeing something in return for Bush's economic policies. Considering that these policies have reduced government revenue by $870 million since 2001, you might think that $47 million is a nice start, but Dave shouldn't be patting himself on the back just yet.

Dave's column is a retort to tax cut critics. He's attempting to state: "See? Tax cuts do stimulate the economy." However, any qualitative connection between capital gains tax cuts and economic improvements are tenuous at best.

Just as are the examples and the illustrations Dave uses to make his argument. The jobs situation, for example. Dave practically crows about the "2 million [jobs created] in the last year alone." Never mind that last year's job creation represents a gain of 1.5%, which is absolutely horrible. This rate is less than half the 3.5% job-creation rate of similar business cycles. The standard job-creation rate would've brought the U.S. 4.6 million jobs. But as Dave seems to actively welcome low standards, I can see why he'd settle for 2 million instead. Dave points out that 200,000 jobs were created in January, the same month that saw the lowest number of employed American workers since last May, which was the last time the unemployment rate was over five percent.

Now, I'm not stating that the job situation in the United States is particualrly bleak: we still have Bush's ever-expanding federal government to provide worthwhile employment opportunities. Let's examine the sluggish private-sector growth under Bush: in the fiscal years from 2001 to 2006, two million jobs were created in the private sector, but 1.495 million of those were due to increased defense spending. Non-defense discretionary spending created 1.325 million jobs, and mandatory spending created even more jobs. How would our country's employment numbers look without the Defense Department's budget being continually jacked up? For all the hand-wringing conservatives do over the "socialistic" policies enacted by Franklin Roosevelt in creating jobs sixty years ago, they are now conspicuously silent on a similar course of action being taken by the Bush administration.

And isn't it fabulous that Dave is citing Oregon's honourable Senator, Gordon Smith, as the bearer of such good news regarding the capital gains tax-cuts? The same Senator whose idea of a bold stand is that he's against hate crimes? Dave quotes Senator Smith as saying, "Freedom works, and it's even filling government coffers." As it turns out, Senator Smith has been taking extracurricular trips down to the Virgin Islands in an attempt to protect a millionaire's tax dodge (and netting himself a cool $47,000 in the process), which I'm sure is a high priority for the Senate Finance Committee.

Looking to Gordon Smith for sound tax policy advice is like taking quail-hunting lessons from Dick Cheney- it just doesn't make sense. If there's an Oregon Senator who should be listened to in regards to sound tax policy, it should be Ron Wyden, who's even been heralded in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal for his "fair & flat tax" proposal.

Dave can gloat about the "hard numbers" in regards to justifying the capital gains tax cut all he wants, citing the Congressional Budget Office in doing so. However, he better ignore the other hard numbers from the CBO: that if Bush's tax cuts are declared permanent, it would cost the government $3.4 trillion in revenue over the next ten years.

Dirty, Rotten Teachers

2006-03-05T23:56:00.000-08:00

In his latest column, Dave tackles the issue of student funding in Portland and comes to the conclusion that we spend too much on students. At $7,921 per-student in Portland, Dave believes that is far too much, and that we should just knock it off.

*Of course*, the reason why our spending per student is so "high" is because of teachers. Those dirty, rotten teachers. With their salaries that fit with the national average of master's degree earners and benefits packages bargained for in lieu of pay raises- all adding to the misery of spending $8000/student in Portland.

I don't understand Republicans. It seems the concept of public school teachers being able to live comfortable, middle-class lifestyles is "quaint" and "old-fashioned." It hearkens back to a by-gone era, like the 1950s. Which is, of course, where Republicans would prefer to lead us with all their other policies and legislation. Just not for teachers' salaries. For that they'd prefer if teachers lived with the homeless at Dignity Village. Of course, that would be granting teachers too much dignity.

Republicans base their perspectives in ideology and, like all ideologues, they find that these perspectives fail to compute when applied to the real world. 'Market-based' solutions are sought in situations in which they don't apply. If you read between the lines, its clear Dave is calling for one in regards to Portland Public Schools. Perhaps something similar to what was posted on over at NW Republican:

What if... before the end of the current contract, the board of PPS was approached by a group of accredited non-union teachers (just, say, as equally qualified as those they've got now, large enough to replace all current union teachers) who said: "We'll work for 15% less in total compensation."
Call it a "bid" for the contract.

Although that creates an interesting hypothetical situation, we should acknowledge the realities of school funding, and the lack of it. And that is the community as a whole suffers when funding per student is decreased.

For the sake of full disclosure, I must admit that my father was a public teacher. Although that may explain partly why I'm not sympathetic to Reinhard's point (its mostly because he's a blowhard and a lousy writer that I disagree with him) I also bring a personal perspective to this issue. Some fifteen years ago or so my father had to take a second-job to make bills meet during the recession that occurred under the first Bush administration. After a day of teaching high school, he worked behind the counter at a convenience store. Besides having no time available to be a father and commit to family life, he also was unable to concentrate on creating lesson plans and grading homework. Working another job while teaching full-time was a detriment to not only his children, but also to the children of the community he taught in. Think about that, and think if we want a similar fate to befall Portland's teachers.

Another thing: although Dave makes an issue of the 'alarming' amount paid per school in Portland, I went to schoolmatters.com and looked around for a little bit. Yes, Portland spends more than other cities with a similar size, but most of these cities- from Nashville to New Orleans to Sacramento- spend an amount per student within the $7,000 to $8,000 range, with Portland finding itself near the top of that range ($7,921). And these cities pale in comparison to the amount spent by Cleveland per student ($10,200)- with 75,000 fewer residents. Even if Portland wanted to spend the average national amount per student, it would have to increase its funding $1,200 to $9,136. And as this column is about decreasing Portland Public School's funds, you know that's not going to be proposed by Dave.

Dave can make a stink about how Portland spends too much money due to greedy teachers all he wants. But if nine percent of Oregon's $666 million tax "kicker" was earmarked to Portland's schools then the $57 million funding gap would be covered and the topic would be moot. And besides- is the amount of funding per student even an issue? Is any amount "too much" for our kids? Wouldn't it be a mark of pride to point out that we spend more on our children's education then other communities? And a mark of shame if we spent less?

Just askin'.

How about making the Trailblazers Portland's?

2006-03-03T19:36:00.000-08:00

In his latest column on the Blazers seeking public money, Dave sounds suspiciously like the letter I sent to John Carzano a couple months back. John warned Marlins management to not leave their cars while in Portland to get a pulse of whether Portland wants major-league baseball or not. In response I wrote to John:

Obviously, it appears, they shouldn't read the Sports section of The Oregonian, either. They just might get the feeling that their prospective interest in bringing their business to our city- and the number of jobs and revenue that would accompany a relocated major league sports franchise- is not wanted.

Dave wrote something similar to this in his column. But that is where me and him part ways.

I'm not sure what point Dave is attempting to make in this column. Is he against the Blazers seeking public funding, or does he support it? As it's typical for Reinhard to take the "rock-the-boat" stance in the editorial pages of the biggest newspaper in blue-state Oregon, what stance is he going to take in regards to billionaire Paul Allen approaching the community with his hat in hand? Perhaps Dave took the temperature of the blogosphere first. As various entries from the lefty side make it clear that they'd have no qualms saying "Sayonara" to the Blazers, well then, Dave couldn't take that stance could he? So he comes out in favor of public support for the cash-strapped Trailblazers.

And is that really surprising? My "spider sense" started tingling when hestarted a paragraph by saying "As a free-marketeer..." What, exactly, does that mean? It seems the current-day's interpretation of "free market" means public subsidies of corporations, legislation titlting favorably for business interests, the minimization of regulations that protect the community and decreases the influence of labor. In short, selling out every resource and every person of the community in support of the dollar and to maximize the profit line of a company based, usually, either in another state or in another country. I mean, as Dave points out: "The city no longer boasts a Fortune 500 company..."

Sorry, Dave, but a true free-marketeer would come to the conclusion that the Blazers are done. Kaput. Put a fork in them. If they're bleeding millions due to mismanagement, then the market dictates the franchise either folds or moves to another locale. The only way a "free-marketeer" would support the local subsidization of an organization consistenly in the red is if they're one of these new-fangled George W. Bush apologists for incompetence and insist that the public bail out dying industries to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

But what about the jobs? Didn't I make that point to Carzano regarding the Marlins? If the Blazers leave town, the economic hit on Portland will be huge, and there is no denying that. However, I find it highly ironic that Dave writes his column illustrating the economic benefits of the Blazers, and how it would be in Portland's best interests to keep them in town, on the same day that the main headline of the Oregonian read: "Oregon gets kicker shock". It turns out that $666 million of tax profits reaped by the state, a huge windfall by any standards and is more than enough to fill any gaping holes of any unfunded budgets (like, oh I don't know, school districts struggling to keep their heads above water), are going to be sent back to indivudal tax-payers and out-of-state corporations. So I don't need for Dave to counsel me on economic "benefits" of the Blazers' presence- obviously our state, and Portland by default, is doing plenty enough right. I have a $150 check headed my way, and there is a hammock that I've been eyein'. Screw you, PPS!

Look, call me old-fashioned but I believe that private money should support private interests, and public money should support public interests. They may be called the Portland Trailblazers, but everyone knows who the owner is. It's not Portland, it's Paul Allen, the seventh richest man alive. But perhaps, just maybe, the opposite could be true. Maybe the city of Portland could own the Trailblazers.

I know it's an idea that could be dismissed as radical, as it's rooted in history and pragmatism, but imagine if the Trailblzers were a publicly owned, non-profit corporation, that had shares available to purchase by stockholders (citizens of Portland and outlying areas). Imagine if a favorable lease at the Rose Quarter could be re-negotiated, and limits were in place as to the number of shares of the team any one holder could have. A consortium of wealthy Oregon businessmen could provide the financial backing to get the dead weight of the Blazers off Paul Allen's hands (so he could go buy the Sonics), and after the IPO, serve as the club's board of directors. With a direct interest, minus any divdends as any profit would be split between the team and the local community, Blazers fans would be compelled to go to home games, fill the rafters, and be committed to the franchise playing in one of the west coast's smaller media markets.

Sounds pretty fanciful, pie-in-the-sky stuff? Hardly. I'm simply applying the business model used by the Green Bay Packers, who are publicly owned and are one of the most storied and respected franchises in all of football- even perhaps out of all team sports. The Packers play each season in a small town of a population of 100,000, yet consistently sell out each home date due to their regional interest and appeal.

The Packers' formula for success found its roots in the populist and progressive mind-set of 1920s America, when small communities gathered resources and worked together to find solutions to problems. The Packers' model allows benefits for all- a profit for the team, and professional football excitement for the fan/stockholder. The Packers' formula flies in the face of the mind-set of the modern-day "free marketeer", in which communities are held hostage to bail out private, millionaire investments that go sour.

Still, imagine if a similar model could be adopted in this situation- we'd actually be able to have the Portland Trailblazers.

Spreading the Grief

2006-02-27T20:47:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spitting on Tom McCall's grave

2006-02-24T08:13:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oregon Republicans' gubernatorial realities....

2006-02-21T00:23:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ironic Argument in Favor of Domestic Spying

2006-02-16T23:49:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With friends like these.....?

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

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

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

The irony knows no end.

Deconstructing Janet

2006-02-14T02:19:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Savings Accounts: the 'psuedo-reform'

2006-02-10T08:53:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using tragedy to promote an agenda, Lesson 2

2006-02-06T22:44:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006-01-31T13:11:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pontificating on Kendra James.....

2006-01-27T19:58:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The false argument of "choices"....

2006-01-22T22:08:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrisy? Fugghedaboutit....

2006-01-19T20:00:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Curious Case of Brandon Mayfield

2006-01-15T15:45:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006-01-12T20:11:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives for Alito? Puh-leeze!

2006-01-09T00:01:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What self-respecting righties should do....

2006-01-05T19:28:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, of course Dave is apologizing for him.

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

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

true_slicky

You are not scared enough, dammit!

2005-12-11T12:59:00.000-08:00

BOO!

Boo, boo, boo boo boo! And a nasty "Bleargh!" as well!

Reinhard scored the front page of Sunday's commentary section in the Oregonian, doing what Republicans do best: getting people scared over nothing.

He thinks it is abhorrent that the public is not more scared. After all, THE TERRORISTS ARE EVERYWHERE!

Or so says Evan Kohlmann, who gave a frightening speech (discredited by the Oregon US Attorney at the podium) at the Sheraton last week that Reinhard attended. Our favorite ditto-head peed his pants out of fear of the terrorists, and so should we, he says.

"The paradox is that the better job law-enforcement does the more complacent the public becomes." Why, exactly, is this a bad thing? Complacent citizens make good consumers, which makes rich men richer. Why does Republican Reinhard have a problem with that?

Presumably because we are not being "vigilant" in noticing the threats to our "homeland." Reinhard helps us with out vigilance by listing the names of browner people than he, and the names of Islamic organizations to fear.

"The targets are here at home," he says. Really? Where? Since the World Trade Center towers were destroyed, I don't remember seeing any terror attacks in America.

"We're fighting them in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them here," remember, Dave?

My only guess is, if he can frighten enough Oregonians before 2006, a Republican might have a shot riding on Bush's very tattered coattails. That is Reinhard's typical political play: use disinformation and fear to try and sell the public something they don't need and they don't want.

Praise the dead Ditto-head!

2005-12-08T11:10:00.000-08:00

Reinhard’s latest piece of excrement that masquerades for a column praises John Holmason, someone Reinhard has never met, for something he heard his stepmom say.

He “believed 100 percent in what he was fighting for,” she said.

Reinhard dedicates a full quarter of his column to make the point that the Lance Corporal should be honored not just because of his service, or his enrollment in the military, or his fighting for the US, but also, because he was fully and thoroughly brainwashed.

He then bounces around in seeming incoherence, reciting bullet points from the RNC counterattacks against Democrats about the war, with no bother to craft them together into one story.

“In brief, how do embrace (sic) the Democratic defeatism du jour and not tell the family of a dead soldier that their loved one has died in vain?”

You can't. Troops have died in vain. We can either keep pretending that they didn't, and let more troops die in vain, or we can apologize to the troops, and their families, and impeach George W. Bush.

What Reinhard and other RNC propagandists are unwilling to accept is that the Democrats have been right about this from the beginning. Their current defense goes like this:

“Well, now that it’s proved that you’re right, we can’t act like you’re actually right, or it would dishonor the troops!”

Bullshit.

The troops deserve to know, more than the rest of us civilians, exactly how this war started. They have the right to know they are acting as mercenaries for the oil industry, so they can choose whether to continue in that capacity or not. Some will stay. Others, who would leave, are being swindled into risking their lives; and that is not just wrong, it is plain evil.

Bad Republicans! Bad, Bad Republicans!

2005-12-06T11:13:00.000-08:00

In Dave’s most recent article, he attempts to play conflict mediator between quarrelling Republican candidates for Governor Ron Saxton and Kevin Mannix. It appears that he’s trying to end the smear campaign between the two of them. In doing so, he overlooks one key point: Saxton and Mannix are Republicans. Smearing their opponent is second nature.

Dave has every reason to be concerned about any possible nastiness between the competing Republicans. The primaries for Governor may not be for another half-year but this year’s Republican primary appears that it will be every bit as nasty as 2002’s. The Republican candidates- Saxton, Mannix, and Lane County Commissioner Jack Roberts- did such an effective job decimating each other in that year’s race to see who could come second to Democrat Ted Kulongowski, that Mannix prevailed with an underwhelming 35% of the votes cast in the primary to secure the Republican nomination. With two-thirds of registered Republicans in the state effectively voting against him, and his vanquished opponents offering the most listless of support, Mannix faced an uphill climb to restore Republican rule to Mahonia Hall.

As someone with a vested interest in Republican rule of the state, Dave attempts to put an end to the political infighting before it develops into a re-run of 2002. The issue at hand dividing the Republicans? Former Democrat governor and mayor of Portland, Neil Goldschmidt.

As reported in the Portland Tribune- never thought I’d be citing a story from there, but that’s besides the point- Republican lawyer Mark Foster has formed a PAC called Worried Oregonians to oppose Saxton’s candidacy due to Saxton’s close personal and political ties with the disgraced former Governor. However, as Foster was a lawyer for the Bush-Cheney Recount in Florida in 2000, and for the Oregon Bush-Cheney Voter Integrity Project of 2004- he should know that close ties with unsavory characters doesn’t matter when it comes to a Republican candidates’ integrity. In fact, with Governor Ted’s victory, it proved that both parties can be immune from such associations.

Instead, Dave writes that Saxton’s ties with Goldschmidt- if you’re looking for a Republican victory for Governor- will leave you ‘deep down in the dumps’ which has to be either the worst word choice ever, or just a sad attempt at alliteration. Dave does highlight Saxton’s connections with Goldschmidt (Goldschmidt’s wife, Diana, actually, who Saxton served as a personal lawyer), but also highlights Mannix’s connection with Neil, with a 1999 Mannix quote in the Statesman Journal: “[G]ov. Neil Goldschmidt and Vera Katz convinced me to run for the House . . ."

There has been no politician with such a singular effect on Oregon politics over the past half-century as Messr Goldschmidt. His influence is far-reaching, with everyone from Multnomah County Sherriff Bernie Giusto to former Mayor Vera Katz to former Republican Senator Mark Hatfield benefiting from the Goldschmidt touch. A brilliant and pioneering urban planner who served as Secretary of Transportation in the Carter Administration, Goldschmidt has left an undeniable mark on Oregon’s politics. A legacy that has since been sullied, due to last year’s revelations of improper sexual relations with the daughter of a City Hall employee during his stint as mayor. (These revelations were scooped by the Willamette Week, who broke the ‘worst-kept’ secret in spring of 2004. You would think that if Dave was as connected with the Republican elite ‘loop’ in Oregon as he makes himself out to be, he was more than likely aware of this secret, and conceivably could’ve scooped the Willy and won himself a Pulitzer. Why The Oregonian as a whole dropped the ball on le affair Goldschmidt is both astounding and puzzling.)

Dave accuses Worried Oregonians and their Rove-ian tactics of being ‘cheesy’ and ‘advises them to fold up their tents,’ similar advice he should’ve given to the Swift Boat Liars. But as the Swifties never went away from the Presidential Campaign in 2004, why should Worried Oregonians, despite their negative effect onthe Republicans’ chances, fold up? If they have some concerns, shouldn’t their first-amendment rights be observed?

Dave takes the chance to target Governor Ted, and has his usual list of Republican complaints. I’m going to admit: I am squarely in Governor Ted’s camp. Any Governor- or elected leader- who takes it upon himself to attend every funeral of an Oregon soldier that died in Iraq earns points in my book. Governor Ted has worked resiliently to bring corporations and jobs into economically under-served parts of the state. His insistence on pushing through civil-unions and auto emissions legislation under fire from the other side demonstrates the mark of a strong, decisive leader willing to take the side of what’s morally right rather than the side of what’s currently popular. Though I have concerns about the State’s fiscal situation- and would hope the Governor raises an issue of the corporate “kicker” sending hundreds of millions of Oregon tax-dollars to out-of-state corporations- Oregon’s schools and economy are a marked improvement then they were four years ago. So Dave isn’t going to vote for him. Big surprise.

Dave ends his column with a barb of Governor Ted- by appointing an experienced and effective Goldschmidt to the State’s higher-ed post- recycling the ‘same ol’, same ol’ Democrats. Occasionally, Dave can be humorous. But him making this point when the Republican front-runners for Governor are Kevin Mannix and Ron Saxton is just too rich….

true_slicky 12.06.05

Kill the Darkie!

2005-12-01T11:40:00.000-08:00

I have a hard time discerning whether Reinhard is a flat-out racist in his Dec. 01 article, or if he is using racism to justify the killing of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the founder of the Crips.

First he excoriates everyone who has risen to the Crips' founder's defense, and identifies them as "Snoop Dogg, Jesse Jackson, all the usual suspects."

Funny choice of phrase, that. Are they "all the usual suspects" because they are black? Or because they are liberal? Not knowing Snoop's political views myself, I can only surmise it's because they're black, and belong in a lineup, that Reinhard calls them "all the usual suspects."

But then he rises to the defense of three Taiwanese victims of Williams at the end of his column, and the nine children and ten grandchildren left between them.

When, in Reinhard's career, has he ever stuck up for poor immigrants? When has he ever given a damn about anyone that is not rich, white and Republican?

Now is one of those times. So let's look at his new, altruistic motives: he is taking up the cause of the victims because he wants to see an imprisoned man die.

Vengeance, plain and simple. Williams' life spent in prison is not enough. His redemption, and his work on numerous anti-gang books over the last decades, is not enough. His pioneering of anti-gang programs for youth, orchestrated from jail, is not enough.

Reinhard wants this man dead.

No matter what the murderer does after the crime, there is no chance for forgiveness, Reinhard implies. How very...non-Christian of him.

Why does he devote an entire column to calling for the death of a human being? What kind of sick, sadistic man is Reinhard? The murderer is in prison for good. He has done good things while being in prison, even being nominated for Nobel Peace Prizes.

And still, Reinhard wants him to die.

Imprisonment is not enough. Redemption is not enough. He must DIE, he says.

Yes, he committed horrible crimes. Yes, his victims died unjustly. But this is no reason to increase his punishment beyond what is necessary.

Life imprisonment ensures he will not kill again. The streets are safe from Williams.

It is not enough, Reinhard says. He must DIE.

I seriously doubt Reinhard would have come out so vehemently for the death of a white man. Or a rich man. Does he fear the poor minorities of America so much that he wants to kill them one at a time on Death Row?

Dave pulls a turkey on John Murtha

2005-11-26T17:57:00.000-08:00

Even without the extra helpings of turkey, mashed potatoes, and pumpkin pie, it would’ve been hard to stomach Dave’s column on Thanksgiving slamming Congressman John Murtha, and his plea to bring the troops home from Iraq.

Perhaps Dave’s not aware, but there is a new consensus forming in regards to Iraq. Somebody should wake him up and tell him. When the Senate votes by an overwhelming 79-19 margin that 2006 should be a ‘year of transition in Iraq,’ when a retired General from the far-right Hudson Group circulates a document titled ‘What’s Wrong with Cutting and Running’, when, as Reinhard’s infinitely superior counterpart David Sarasohn points out, 57 percent of the American people feel that this administration was ‘dishonest and reprehensible’ in how it led us into the Iraq war- that’s a solid footing for a new consensus developing saying that the current Iraq policy needs to be re-examined and some possible solutions need to be proposed. But along comes Dave with his trade-marked Republican pratice of playing partisan politics. Rather than discussing the quagmire Iraq has become, Dave instead chooses to smear a 37-year decorated Marine and Vietnam vet, who just so happens to be Democrat.

It seems awfully repetitive to state that Reinhard’s case is weak. But it is. As columnist E.J. Dionne pointed out: “[Bush] attacking Democrats who voted with him on the war and now have grave doubts about his policies, as Murtha does, is hardly a way for the president to buy himself maneuvering room in Iraq. It will be difficult for Bush's acolytes to cast Murtha, who regularly stood up for the military policies of Republican presidents during his 31 years in Congress, as some kind of extreme partisan or hippy protester.” Reinhard proceeds to do exactly that- attempt to portray Murtha as the hippiest of partisan leftists that the Democrats have in Congress.

This hippie Murtha was referred in the past week as a ‘patriot’ by Dick Cheney. In fact, Congressman Murtha might be the only Congressman to be able to call the Vice-President a ‘friend.’ The senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Murtha became known for his opposition to defense cuts, and his willingness to draft troops, if necessary. With strong ties to senior military officers and The Pentagon, it is little wonder that, as the Seattle Times points out, when Murtha spoke, people listened.

But Reinhard diminishes Murtha’s track record, using quotes when he refers to Murtha as a ‘hawk.’ Funny, I do the same thing when I refer to Reinhard as a ‘patriot.’

Reinhard points out that Murtha didn’t even vote for the resolution in the house that he proposed. Well, of course not. Why would he vote for a GOP-proposed, watered-down version of an amendment whose sole purpose for being proposed was to make him look bad? That would seem kind of silly, wouldn’t it? What Reinhard fails to say is that Republican leadership of the House forced Republican House members to stay late in the evening on Friday the 18^th- an evening that most Congressional leaders were hoping to leave town early for their Thanksgiving holiday- to vote on an amendment that smacks of political posturing. When Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass, yelled out “You guys are pathetic, pathetic!” at the Republican leadership, he sure hit the nail on the head.

Dave, ironically, goes on to list the various reasons why we can’t pull out of Iraq currently: it would risk creating a failed state; it would embolden terrorists. Funny, I could’ve sworn that’s what the Democrats were warning about before the Iraq invasion occurred, and were scoffed at with various dismissive comments such as “our troops will be there for weeks, not months”, “oil profits will pay for the invasion’, and, my favorite, “our troops will be greeted with candy and flowers.” Now, we’re supposed to take Dave seriously when he advises us to buck up for the long, hard slog? That any talk of immediate redeployment- even if its for the sake of making Iraqis realize that, golly, its their country and they better start standing up to take care of it- is too soon, despite the fact that a new consensus is forming that leads to an opposite conclusion? In his warnings that we bit off more than we can chew when it comes to invading Iraq, Dave sounds awfully like a Democrat, circa 2002.

Dave says: “We need more real debate on U.S. policy in Iraq. Not the fake debates of news conferences and talk-show chatter. Not more hollow talk or political sniping. We need debates of consequence and accountability. We need people to vote on their brave proposals. Why? Because the stakes are too high in Iraq in particular and the war on terror in general.” It would be nice if Dave followed his own advice, and abstained from partisan gain-saying. Otherwise, it’s impossible to take him seriously.

Dave gets his kicks from naked ten-year old chicks

2005-11-21T15:38:00.000-08:00

During the summer, Dave wrote a piece that defended Judge John Roberts’ decision that constitutionally upheld Washington D.C.’s Metro police decision to search, hand-cuff, and put into a paddy wagon a 12-year old girl who ate an illegal French fry in a subway station. After writing last month that Dubya had the right to choose any nominee he wants, now that Harriet Miers has been refused an up-and-down vote by the Republican-run Senate- why do these obstructionists insist on not giving Bush’s nominees a vote?- Dave defends in his Sunday, November 20 column Judge Samuel Alito’s decision to uphold the strip search of a ten-year old girl in Pennsylvania.

That’s Dave for you. Attempting to take a high-road “moral values” stance while insisting that, yes, indeed, the framers of our Constitution wouldn’t bat an eye of such an intrusive police-state actions as the strip-search of a ten-year old girl.

Dave attempts to discredit an anti-Alito ad from “something” called the Coalition for a Fair & Independent Judiciary. (I may not be sure, Dave, but this “something” sounds like a coalition that promotes a fair and independent judiciary. And you know they’re biased when they use words like “fair” and “independent.”) Dave calls this ad a “Borker”- a reference to Judge Robert Bork, a failed Supreme Court in the 1980s. To “bork” is to “destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy" and, to Dave, the Coalition for a Fair & Independent Judiciary are taking the low road in making an ad that focuses on Judge Alito upholding the strip-search of a ten-year old girl.

But, the problem is, Dave admits that “technically, Alito did vote ‘to approve the strip search of a 10-year old girl.’” The only conclusion one can make is that Dave is wasting- again- precious space in The Oregonian that could better be utilized by an ad for Marion’s Carpet Warehouse or something.

But, Dave continues on with his specious argument. You see, the girl in question was the daughter of a drug-dealer. And, in Samuel Alito’s opinion, they are not covered by the U.S. Constitution. And Dave concurs.

The issue at hand is not the psychological trauma and scarring that this girl will have to deal with the rest of her life. The issue at hand is if the search warrant was legally issued, and the “scope of search authorized by the warrant”, a quote provided by Judge Michael Chertoff, current homeland security director.

Judge Alito found a “commonsense and realistic” reading of the search warrant, and found a Supreme Court precedent that required just such a reading. This reading was contained in the warrant’s language that “the magistrate intended to authorize a search of all occupants of the premises.”

So far Dave hasn’t quieted any concerns that a possible Supreme Court Justice Alito would seek to limit the over-zealousness of an out-of-control state apparatus with callous disregard for American citizens’ privacy in an attempt to build a criminal case against them. Dave neglects to discuss the warrant in question, simply Alito’s interpretation of it. For all we know, Alito may just be reading into the warrant what he needed to create a legal argument in favor of Officer Groody, who may have just been a sick pervert who got his kicks from naked ten-year old girls. Considering that Judge Alito’s opinion didn’t match that of the court’s majority opinion, it appears what Dave is describing as a flagrant and obvious case of legislating from the bench- you know, your standard conservative’s pet peeve.

Dave cites the dean of Lewis and Clark’s Law School, Jim Huffman, who says that Judge Alito is committed to the “precedent and principle of stare decisis.” However, your typical newspaper reader isn’t going to be familiar with legal terms or read Latin. For all we know, stare decisis may simply mean a “decisive stare”, a legalese way of saying that Alito likes to give his opponents the “evil eye.”

Dave tries to conclude with the reasoning that officers needed, in the midst and haste of an investigation, to search those in the house, as drug dealers may give contraband or evidence to them in hopes to those persons will not be searched. Regardless of the actual scope (not after-the-fact interpretation) of the search warrant, and regardless of what kind of effects strip-searches may have on ten-year old girls.

So, freedom of speech expressed by adults for adults in the ways of stripping and live sex shows should be constitutionally banned. But strip-searches of ten-year old girls? That’s fine and dandy. Such is the bizzaro world that conservatives live in….

David Reinhard- al Qaida sympathizer?

2005-11-19T02:08:00.000-08:00

Dear lord.

Just when it seemed Dave’s disingenuous lack of credibility couldn’t reach any lower, along comes David with this nadir.

Veteran’s Day is a day to celebrate our troops, and the sacrifices they have made- in President Bush’s case, protecting Texas from Oklahoma during the Vietnam War. This holiday is not to be politicized by any President. The only thing a President should do is lay a wreath at Arlington Cemetery- not a duty to be left to Dick “five deferments due to more important things in Vietnam” Cheney. But in Dave’s world, the politicization of Veteran’s Day is fine and dandy.

No wonder our Iraq policy is a joke.

Dave states that Bush “stopped turning the other cheek and himself into a punching bag when called a liar.” Does he mean that Bush will stop using such slime tactics as using proxy groups- the Swift Boat Vets, say- to do the dirty work for him? Bush is now going to take on the critics that he claims are “revising history?” Oh, this will be a good one.

Who was it that said “we don’t need the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?” Could it be that despite all the tough-guy posturing of the neoconservatives who planned Dubya’s Excellent Iraqi Adventure, they were just afraid of a two-bit broken down tyrant on the other side of the planet whose neighbors weren’t even threatened by? (Sadam wrote romance novels, for crying out loud!) How’s that for “historical revisionism?”

Dave goes off on the issue of “patriotism.” Bush must be succeeding in the “thrust or parry”- interesting words to describe such an impotent administration- with his critics, because the critics accuse Bush of “criticizing their patriotism.” Since his critics say that, Bush must have the upper hand. Or something like that. Here, he makes his point clear with this gem: “The fact is that, since 9/11, we've seen far more Americans accusing other Americans of questioning their patriotism than we've seen Americans questioning other Americans' patriotism.” Yeah. Read it five times, and get back to me if you understand what the heck he’s saying.

He then cites Max Chambliss shamelessly comparing Max Cleland- a man who give three limbs for his country- to Osama bin Laden merely because Cleland wanted to ensure workers’ benefits in the creation of the single most largest government expansion in our nation’s history, as an example of Bush critics using the “questioning patriotism”, uh.... defense, I guess? I’m having trouble following Dave’s point here. If Dave’s attempting to argue for the Republicans’ sake, the citing of the slander of a Democrat war hero makes no sense to me. (And to further befuddle Oregonian readers- who Dave must simply view in a contemptuous manner- he cites Kerry voting for then-Defense Secretary Cheney’s defense budget in the early 90s. Again- point, please?) Perhaps I should check the National Review online and see what Dave read the day before. Perhaps then I’d get a better idea…

Dave writes: “…the left spends months saying Bush lied us into the war using bogus intel, an impeachable offense. Bush finally responds by noting the Clinton administration, foreign governments and Democrats all said Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction.” Disingenuous as usual. Dave fails to note that Bush is quoted as saying Clinton had “the same intelligence as I did.” Stop and consider that the intelligence Bush made the decision to go to war on was many years- if not nearly a decade- old you have to ask, again, what point is Reinhard making? Clinton looked at the intelligence and came to a conclusion: “Whoa. Saddam’s an evil dude, but nearly as bad a threat as he thinks he is. A concerted effort of sanctions, inspectors, and no-fly zones that drop bombs now and then will keep him in line. Saddam’s threat will reduce- and we won’t lose a single American life!” And that’s exactly what happened. Then, years later, Bush looked at Clinton’s old intelligence and came to a conclusion: “Whoa. This Saddam’s a bad dude, much bigger then he actually thinks he is. Our only choice? Invade. We’ll say we’re ‘spreading democracy’ years after the fact or something.”

I’m not revising history here. I am merely illustrating what the difference is between a pretty darn good President, and a mediocre one.

So, now that Reinhard brought up the dreaded specter of Clinton, you knew what was coming next. That’s right. 9/11. And they say Democrats have no new ideas.

The decision to go to war is the most important decision a President makes. Before making the decision, he must review all the facts, and examine all intelligence before making a decision that could cost the life of a single troop. Instead we had Cheney at CIA and Rummy at DIA bolstering a case out of thin air- modern-day illusionists. We had inspectors on the ground- and Bush told them to get out of the country as they were in the way of our bombs. But instead of laying criticism at Cheney, Rummy, or Bush, who does Dave target? Jay Rockefeller, the leading Democrat on the Senate Committee, because, somehow, it was his decision that led us to war. No, I kid. It’s because Jay is quoted as saying “can we afford to take that chance [of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction]? We cannot!”

Sadly, Jay was wrong. And so were a lot of other people. Vice President Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.” Powell said before 2001, “We have kept Saddam contained, kept him in his box.” They went on to “historically revise” these statements after 9/11. And let’s not forget Rumsfeld’s infamous “We know where the weapons are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” This comment was wrong, either purposefully or naively. The key difference here, Rockefeller has since apologized for making wrong comments, and has refocused his efforts in a forward-thinking strategy to end this mess in Iraq and get our troops home. Rumsfeld still hasn’t apologized for being so incredibly wrong in regards to this war.

Rockefeller was responding for an Iraq invasion push that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz- the policy makers- were making. There was no debate, besides Robert Byrd’s speech on the floor of the Senate. There was only a head-long rush to war without an examination of the intelligence. Why? Because any dissent in the argument for war was viewed of being “unpatriotic.”

And that brings us full-circle. Reinhard incredulously quotes Samuel Johnson- "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" and states that Johnson would revise his saying, since “criticzing my patriotism” is all the rage these days. Considering that George W. Bush has started this unnecessary and ideologically driven war, resulting in a waste of an upwards of $200 billion; cost the lives of over 2,000 of our bravest American troops, most who are kids; morally bankrupted us, as we now have a “Vice-President of torture”; enflamed Muslim hatred around the world at the United States, considering a majority of Iraqis view the presence of U.S. troops as adding to the instability and insurgency; our continued presence in Iraq after the deposing of Saddam can only be viewed as an occupation to Iraq’s war neighbors; and al Qaida has thousands of new recruits, I can only come to one conclusion: the policies and the governance of George W. Bush is simply anti-American, supports terrorism, and assists al Qaida in their attempt to kill Americans. Any supporter of George W. Bush is a terrorist supporter and al-Qaida sympathizer.

How’s that for “questioning one’s patriotism?”

The...other cartoonist

2005-11-18T12:11:00.000-08:00

Reprinted from http://myverybrain.blogspot.com/

Reinhard: The O's Other Editorial Columnist

And I mean no disrespect here to the consistently funny and sharp Jack Ohman, nor do I intend to diminish the profession of political cartooning. In fact, I wish I could do it...

Why is David Reinhard on the payroll? Seriously and politics aside, we're talking about a hack-tacular clown who simply recycles either RNC talking points or what he read the day before on National Review (NRO); I can't recall him producing an original thought or position in the past year, or anytime prior for that matter. Before finding NRO on my own, it's possible that Reinhard's biweekly musings would have served a purpose, but now that I know that it's there, I'm really puzzled by his continued employment.

If The O wants a conservative voice I say they save the money and continue pumping work from the NRO stable and save a buck or two. If they really want their own in-house conservative, I'd sooner recommend Darth Hick, an old haunt to this site, for their copy.

Anyway, the big picture point here is that David Reinhard does not provide service to The Oregonian's readers.

Still, while I'm hear, I do want to note a problematic mode of thinking revealed both in today's column by Reinhard, but also among our president's sometimes over-eager apologists. The crucial thing here is the point of view adopted in casting President Bush as a victim of politics. Never mind that, given how hard the GOP plays the politics game, this is absurd on its face. The bigger issue is the potential for this mentality to rally around a sinking ship means to the GOP as a party.

If I had a suggestion for GOP-folk, it would be this: do not defend every last thing this man does; and, no, freaking out on Miers isn't sufficient, politically, to demonstrate a thinking approach to the Bush presidency. Bush is a lot of things, but he's the victim of absolutely nothing that he, or his minions, have not directed at others. As I've argued before, Bush's problems in the polls are not the result of his critics attacks sticking. At present, the Bush administration is getting its ass kicked by reality. Moreover - or at least as I see it - Bush politics and policy have long enjoyed an uncomfortable relationship with reality so, on a deeper level, the sinking confidence in his presidency relates pretty directly to the end of the public's trust in his assurances that all his grand plans - and they've been nothing if not grand - will pan out all right.

And that brings us back to Reinhard's thinking and what it means for the GOP. Reinhard, based on today's column, intends to go down with the ship. But conservatives have a choice. Just because Bush believes some, or even perhaps most, of what you believe, that doesn't mean you owe him undying fealty. Personally, and as an admitted non-conservative, I view him as not only a lousy president, but as an impatient, petulant man who doesn't understand policy and who shows little interest in learning about it. Even so, this isn't arguing, in my mind, that he doesn't support valid policy concepts, but it's arguing that his intellectual and habitual limitations mean that he's less likely - and putting on my "liberal cap" again, I'd go so far as incapable - to put translate those policy concepts into working policy.

In other words, giving up on Bush doesn't mean giving up on the ideas with which he's associated. I'd think that's readily apparent to anyone, but, based on some of the behaviors I see, a fair number of conservatives don't get that.

Dave teaches us about credibility.

2005-11-14T11:39:00.000-08:00

A point needs to be made, again, about David Reinhard’s timeliness. For a Sunday opinion column, Dave had a number of events from the past week to write about. For example, he could’ve spun the success of the Democrats in the first post-Plamegate election on Tuesday, or he could’ve written about how the week’s deadly explosions in Jordan necessitated continued support for Dubya’s unending “war on terror.” Instead, what we are treated to is this column, detailing an event that happened nearly eight months ago!
In short- boy misses flight from LA to Portland; boy’s name matches one on a terror “watch list”; boy is able to catch later flight to Portland; boy calls father before catching the Portland- bound flight; father contacts the media; the media awaits boy upon arrival at PDX. Oh, and the boy’s father was Shahriar Ahmed, a prominent leader in Portland’s Muslim community.
Reinhard attempts to make a case that Shahriar Ahmed, a visible leader in the Muslim community- a leader that works as a bridge between Portland Muslims and the FBI- lost credibility as he trumped up “bogus” charges over the incident at LAX. However, there was an incident at LAX: the name of Shahriar’s son- Shehab- matched a name on the terror watch list.
Reinhard writes: “And here's what did not happen: Ahmed wasn't on the watch list or put on it. He was not told he couldn't fly home; he was allowed on the flight he wanted to be on after providing ID. He wasn't yanked out line or taken to a special room for questioning by government agents. In fact, government agents -- TSA personnel -- were not involved in any of this. “ Nowhere prior to this paragraph did Dave state that either Shahriar or his son make claims that such events had happened, so this paragraph appears to be disingenuous. What was stated was that Shehab’s name matched one on the terror list - the UCLA student is quoted as saying "To know that the government puts me on the list as bin Laden and whatnot . . . that's scary”- but he was allowed to fly home. (False matches have happened before, remember. Somehow Senator Ted Kennedy’s name had brought positive matches as well.)
Does Shahriar’s reaction deserve the Reinhard treatment many months later? Would not any father react in a similar manner- a point that Reinhard admits to, albeit at the end of his column, after lambasting Shahriar for his actions repeatedly throughout?
Most fathers would not have connections with the local media, but due to Shahriar’s standing, he did. In a decision fueled by irrational emotion, he used them. Shahriar is not at fault for the local media’s inability to follow-up a story. An opportunity was missed by Reinhard to rant on the death of investigative journalism here, as a simple phone call to LAX would have given reporters at channel 6 and 8 the conclusion that there was no incident to report and that they were responding to a hysterical father. However, if reporters fail to follow up any leads in today’s non-stop media barrage, then they fail to do their jobs.
But transferring fault onto Portland’s listless local media would detract from Reinhard’s goal of attempting to besmirch Shahriar Ahemd’s credibility as a leader in Portland’s Muslim community. And “credibility” is the issue here, as Reinhard attempts to make the case that Shahriar has lost his. Reinhard’s conception of credibility, and how it is lost, is- to me- a funny thing. As I wrote in an earlier post, “The lies by Bush, Cheney, Rove & Libby have led to the deaths of over 2,000 of our bravest American soldiers. When that happens, you lose credibility.” Reinhard has used the op-ed page of The Oregonian as the means to make his case apologizing for the actions of the Bush administration over the past five years. Dubya has had many opportunities to apologize for the mistakes he has made, but his continued arrogant insistence that he has done nothing wrong has led to an increase in the number of Americans who have lost credibility in our country’s leader.
Reinhard writes that Shahriar apologized for his emotional over-reaction to his son- albeit sheepishly, months later, and only when confronted by Dave. The reason why Shahriar didn’t apologize sooner? He wanted the issue to go away. Is that why we haven’t heard an apology from Dubya for dragging us into an ill-conceived and poorly-executed war in Iraq? Is Dubya waiting for the Iraq issue to eventually go away as well?
Reinhard attempts to give Oregonian readers a lesson on credibility: if you apologize, you aint got none. But if you don’t, then you have credibility to spare. Sorry, Dave, I aint buying it….

White House attack? With what? For what?

2005-11-10T23:43:00.000-08:00

You can’t accuse David Reinhardt of being timely. It took two weeks, but after his fascination with psychic environmentalists comes Plamegate, and how it’s causing the Republican Party to sink like a stone. As he gave himself plenty of time, you would think his offering would be better than this.

Dave begins by stating that October 28, 2005, was a “bad day for Democrats” because Scooter Libby was indicted, and not Karl Rove. Fitzgerald had said, “Had witnesses testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, we would’ve had indictments in October 2004, not 2005.” Considering how things went for Democrats in the first post-Libby indictment, one could only imagine how 2004’s presidential elections would’ve played out. In such a scenario, Kerry would’ve been elected- but don’t worry. Ol’ Dave would be here to remind us what a “bad day for Democrats” that would’ve been as well.

Republican leaders are asking why Rove continues to work at the White House. To quote Trent Lott: “Should political advisors be making policy?” Harry Reid was forced to close the door of the Senate to take Republicans to task- and rightfully so. Is it the fact that the Democrats are showing some signs of actual leadership- showing that, yes indeedy, they do have balls- that upsets Dave so much?

Dave recommends the White House go on a counteroffensive, something that they “try sometime.” Swift Boat Vets, anyone?

What does Dave mean by stating that the public will “inevitably” come to the conclusion that Bush lied? Of course it was inevitable, Dubya has done nothing but lied his entire political career. From running for Congress in 1978 to his days as Governor to currently occupying the White House, the only constant for Dubya is the fact that he has been a pathological liar. Presently, a plurality of poll respondents indicate a historic low approval rating for the President, a high percentage believe that Libby knowingly misled Fitzgerald’s investigation, and that Plamegate is of more importance than the Lewinsky “scandal.” (As Plamegate has to do with national security, I can understand.) The lies by Bush, Cheney, Rove & Libby have led to the deaths of over 2,000 of our bravest American soldiers. When that happens, you lose credibility. The Democrats “raising a stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA link”- Trent Lott’s words again- have nothing to do with the White House’s low approval ratings. The fault lies entirely on themselves.

Dave says that the “real tragedy” of this whole affair as that White House members discussed people of such “stripe” as Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. I bet there are over 2000 families that would beg to differ….

Dave brings up some good questions: If that was the “real” tragedy, why did administration officials in the White House discus Joe and Val at all? Why was Valerie exposed? Why did Libby lie and obstruct Were they trying to hide something, and if so, what was it? Does Dave offer any answers to these questions? Of course not. As the apologist he is, he ignores them….

Wilson reported, no matter how Dave tries to spin it, that he found no evidence of Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium in Niger. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief-of-staff, has detailed the Cheny-Rumsfeld “cabal” in the White House that pushed for an invasion into Iraq- did Dave miss this bit of news? Cheney would regularly go into the CIA, view the raw information, and choose that which supported his assertion that invasion was necessary. Rumsfeld relied on the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency to help bolster his case. And let’s not forget Tony Blair’s “dossier” of outdated information claiming that Saddam was an “eminent” threat. So after the policy-makers cherry-pick and rely on outdated info, there wouldn’t be room for Joe Wilson’s report that has contrary findings. As such, rather than having an open ear at the State Department, Pentagon, or the White House, Joe had to turn to the op-ed page of the New York Times, months after the fact, about a little thing of Saddam’s lack of weapons, or attempts to seeking weapons. How many American lives were lost during those months? Dave cites the fact that the Senate found “no evidence” that pre-war intelligence had been politicized, even though contrary intelligence wasn’t included and CIA officers complained of Cheney’s meddling. Of course the Republican-run Senate committee would come to such conclusions. Sen. Roberts and company wouldn’t be expected to portray Cheney in a bad light, could they?

Then Dave makes a spin for the absurd. Despite spending nine paragraphs attempting (horribly, might I add) that the White House had not manipulated intelligence, but if they had they would not be alone, as Clinton administration officials said same thinga. Once again David retreats to the tired “blame Clinton” ground. Sure, Clinton and other officials stated that Saddam was a “bad man”- which he was. But they did not manipulate intelligence to make a case for war- because there wasn’t. Big difference. Then Dave uses pre-invasion statements of high-ranking Democrat Senators- John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller- warning about Saddam after seeing the same out-dated and cherry-picked intelligence used to make a case for war. If the intelligence was manipulated to only bring one conclusion- which it was- why is it such a surprise that Kerry and Rockefeller came to that conclusion? Dave is playing a disingenuous game of “gotcha” here, one that I can play as well. Who said that Saddam Hussein is “bottled up” and “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction?” Why, that would be none other than Dick Cheney and Colin Powell in early 2001. Of course, after 9/11 they’re singing a different tune…

Dave ends his latest prattle by saying the White House should “fight back” against Rockefeller’s, the high-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, supposed hypocrisy. One problem, though. When Republican leaders are raising questions about his political advisor, when the indictment of his Vice-President’s chief of staff pushes his Supreme Court justice off the front page, when a free-trade talk allows him to flee the country shortly after the indictments of administration insiders, when the international community snickers when he says “We do not torture”- I have to ask: what does Dubya and the White House have to fight with, or, even, for?

In his latest column, David Reinhard comes across looking like a disingenuous apologist. Yet again.

true_slicky 11.11.05

Back on the attack!

2005-11-10T13:30:00.000-08:00

RNC Memo to All Dittoheads: ATTACK!

In Reinhard's latest article he paints the liberals as miserable, wallowing in their defeat because of the Plamegate scandal.

Uh, maybe he doesn't actually TALK to any liberals, but the many that I know were really happy about this.

Anyway, he tries to make it sound like we were all boo-hooing over Karl Rove not being indicted, sore losers that we are, crying and weeping that the master propagandist is not being even censured for lying the country into a war. Liberals just go too far sometimes, dont they?

Completely ignoring Harry Reid's new testicles, Reinhard makes liberals out to be whiners on the losing side of Plamegate--and to prove it, he goes off on a rampage of attacks on Joseph Wilson that have nothing to do with the outing of his wife, a CIA agent.

Why bother defending yourself, or your corrupt party, when you can change subjects and go back on the attack?

The Thesis Problem

2005-10-27T12:17:00.000-07:00

In an attempt to conquer his ongoing thesis issue, Reinhard asked a question at the outset of his article on Thursday. I will quote:

"What accounts for Rosa Parks' special place in American history? The sheer magnitude of what this seamstress precipitated by refusing to move to the back of a Montgomery bus -- a 381-day bus boycott organized by a little-known Baptist minister named Martin Luther King, a Supreme Court victory that struck down second-class status on the public bus system and, ultimately, the rebirth of a region and nation enslaved by Jim Crow? Of course."

Of course, I was not the only one who had to read that sentence twice to understand what Reinhard grammatically meant.

The dash makes the reader think that the question has been answered, and reinhard is breaking into another thought. We should know better by now.

Reinhard and his clunky grammar. It is one way to make yourself stick out on the editorial page--but not the best one.

Cut and paste, cut and paste...

2005-10-23T14:24:00.000-07:00

Reinhard's latest piece of crap is three short mini-editorials that really have nothing to do with one another. Apparently, as Reinhard was cut and pasting from the latest RNC memo, he couldn't find enough filler to string them together into one column.

Article 1
My favorite part was when he described the "taxpayer-paid politicos law." It is reminiscent of his use of "en passant" the other day. Unfortunately this use is not contradictory, but it is incorrect. Most normal people (who understand English grammar, which would qualify them to work in the newspaper business) would have said "taxpayer-paid politician law" or "political law."

Not Reinhard. In order to make up for his 7th-grade comprehension of the English language (why fund public schools anyway?) he likes to throw in big sounding words and use them incorrectly.

"Politicos" is a plural noun for politician. The closest approxamation to what Reinhard said was "the taxpayer-paid politicians law."

The object of "taxpayer-paid" is "law," while the noun describes what kind of law it is. "Political" is a good adjective to use to describe the noun "law," while "politician" would be an adjectival use of a noun. But plurals cannot generally be used as adjectives, and especially not here.

Article 2
Using SAD as a cutesy acronym could have merit in an editorial, but it is a SEASONALLY affected disorder, implying it comes around yearly. None of the issues Reinhard tritely terms "SAD" to conservatives (Meirs' nomination, gas prices, Katrina) happen yearly, and his metaphor becomes useless and pointless. I would advise Reinhard to leave off the metaphors and stick to similes, but he wouldn't understand the grammatical terms.

Article 3
I am genuinely confused by the inclusion of the "stirring" announcement that a Catholic high school was closing its prom. I can only assume that since his article was title "Conservatives, Campaigns, and common sense" that this must be the common sense part--but he devotes less than 150 words to the subject, giving him enough time to describe the situation and praise it, but he does not bother to justify it or argue for it in any way.

This goes back to Reinhard's problem with a thesis statement. Editorials are read because the author states a premise, brings up all sorts of facts or quotes, and then uses them to defend the thesis that they have stated. This is why these are called opinion pieces.

The rest of the Opinion section is full of writers who can craft arguments to defend positions they have stated; Reinhard sticks out as the least talented writer on the staff. He is not capable of what is demanded of high school English students.

He does not state an opinion in this article. He does not craft an argument. At best, he collects dittoes from the Conservative Movement. You could get as much from flipping past Fox News a few times every day.

People don't read the newspaper to relive the joy of flipping through channels they dont want to watch. They read the newspaper (and, more importantly, the editorial section) to examine issues and to observe debate. Reinhard has no skills in this arena, and I can offer no more eloquent proof than the editorial printed under his name today.

En Passant indeed

2005-10-20T15:32:00.000-07:00

Reinhard's newest polemic rant is about the inadequacy of positive coverage in Iraq. This could not be because there is a distinct lack of positive events, Reinhard claims. "Why are our successes there given the silent treatment?" he bemoans in Thrusday's Oregonian, which featured the Trial of Saddam Hussein on the front page.

Silent treatment, indeed.

This is classic Republican hyperbole: claim that what all the ditto-heads are repeating is getting no coverage, and shame the media outlets into letting them repeat themselves ad nauseum. Unfortunately, this tactic works.

Rather than deconstruct every point in his article, as I am usually wont to do, I will merely question the most glaring, obvious linguistic cock-up in the article.

"Something more than a stingy en passant acknowledgement would seem in order."

What?

This obscure chess move, which relates to a pawn being allowed the opportunity to pass an opponent when it is on the 5th rank, but risk capture on a square that it skipped, is not known to many. Knowing the phrase myself, I can see it as an abuse of both the English and the French languages, and a perversion of the greatest game of logic as well. How fitting that Reinhard should choose to screw all three.

En passant is not used by the passing pawn that looks backwards to the invisible square. It is by the pawn that wishes to go diagonally forward into the invisible place that his opponent has jumped over. Reinhard is intending it to mean a backward-looking, retrospective glance. But that is not the character of the move or of the phrase. By misusing it for his intended purpose, he has done another one of his ironic blunders, accidentally landing his metaphor squarely where he is, rather than where he claims to be.

"Something more than a stingy en passant acknowledgement would seem in order."

Something more than an acknowledgement of a point that nobody is currently on, while you jump onto that unused square and rant and rave about it. Yes, that was your column today, Reinhard. En passant indeed.

Reinhard is a Greedy Bastard

2005-10-16T13:58:00.000-07:00

We all knew that Reinhard was a greedy, selfish Republican. The extent to which his greed could overtake his sense of common decency, however, was not seen until Sunday's article.

He completely ignores the purpose of the Portland City campaign finance law. He does not mention the new ability of people to run for office regardless of their financial prospects. He only proposes wasting city money because, well, he can.

Simply because there is a loophole in the system that would allow someone to take advantage of it is not reason enough to take advantage of it. Reinhard does not propose running for city council in order to try and win, but only to be a drain on the city's finances.

Way to go, fiscal conservative.

Ignorance
Reinhard ignores some basic facts about the campaign finance program:

1- The law is meant to help people of limited financial means to run, not rich and greedy bastards like Reinhard.

2- The law provides money for advertising, posters, commercials, and the like, the costs of which are too high for the poorer candidates to supply. Reinhard proposes using all of this money on doughnuts; presumably, he is not fat enough.

3- While mentioning the requirement for access to city funds (1000 people donating 5 bucks to your campaign) he does not propose doing this in his own campaign. Presumably, he understands that after his editorial this Sunday, nobody would give him money so that he could waste taxpayer funds.

By ignoring this last point, he tries to overlook the flaw in his argument: the law is constructed so that jackasses like Reinhard can't jump on the ballot just to waste money.

Faulty Thesis
Reinhard suprisingly used a thesis statement at the beginning of his article. Bravo, dittohead; the next step is to make a thesis and defend it.

The thesis is that in a left-leaning city, a right-wing zealot can use city money to run for office, even though he has no chance of winning.

He uses this thesis as proof of the program's futility, but does not address the main purpose of the program: to allow everyone to run, and put their ideas into the mainstream, regardless of clout or finances.

Isn't it a good thing that people who would otherwise not be listened to can get a forum for their ideas with this law? Any reasonable person would see this is an advantage of the program, but Reinhard uses it as the centerpiece reason why the program is flawed, without actually defending it.

Instead, he makes an assertion, and moves on to his poor attempt at satire.

Now, on to the quotes:

Moment of Candid Hypocrisy
"Suffice it to say, this is not an easy pot of free dough to pass up."

Just like a Republican. Milk the government for funds whenever you can, and then bitch and moan about having to pay taxes.

Unforgiveable Writing Flaw
"That's particularly the case for someone who thinks this money should go, instead, to vital -- and we're constantly told 'under-funded' -- government services. Or someone who believes, with Thomas Jefferson, that 'to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinion which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'"

This sentence pair leads one to believe that the money should instead go to Thomas Jefferson. Still having trouble with that subject-object pairing, Reinhard?

Surprising Moment of Truth
"My fellow Portlanders, I am that man, and it would be sinful and tyrannical to compel our city's lefties to fund the propagation of my right-wingery."

I completely agree. It is sinful and tyrranical that in order to get the city';s only daily newspaper, I have to fund the propagation of his right-wingery.

Fire this hack, editors of the Oregonian. Find a conservative with some actual writing skills to replace him.

Ditto, dittohead

2005-10-13T07:57:00.000-07:00

Not feeling that his article last Thursday properly conveyed his complete lack of ability to prove a point, Reinhard has returned to the editorial pages of the Oregonian with another contradictory article.

The headline: "How doth thou disappoint me, Miss Miers?"

The opening paragraphs: a veritable thesaurus, a waste of space using dozens of adjectives for disappointment.

The body: Get over it, Conservatives. Bush made a good pick.

The conclusion: The Right is sounding as wimpy as the Left.

Got that?

Most editorials (at least professional ones, where newspapers pay people to print their opinions) involve a statement of position, and then arguments supporting that position. Many times, a headline is used to convey the position that will be argued. Reinhard's editorial does not bother with anything so trite; he rants on both sides of the issue, never taking the time to argue for either.

As I asked one week ago today, the last time he printed an article on harriet Meiers, how does Reinhard feel about her? This article seems to be another draft of his Thursday article, offering nothing new, and is just as flawed: it has no functional thesis, and does not bother attempting to craft or defend one. This guy is a joke.

Writing Flaw #1
Reinhard uses 9 synonyms for two words in the first paragraph, without any attempt to have repetition serve his point. It is merely a way to inflate his word count.

Writing Flaw #2
The third paragraph switches point of view 7 times. Is this a neutral article about what conservatives think? or is this about what Reinhard thinks? Comparing the two needs separate paragraphs. Situating them in alternating sentences is jarring and juvenile.
(Did you see that? Proper synonym usage. Both "Jarring" and "Juvenile" added to my point. Make note, Reinhard.)

Doublethink Attempt #1
Reinhard describes the "conservative commentariat" as "whining and narcissism. There's an unbecoming air of 'we know better' superiority and arrogance. There's the snarky snideness and condescension when it comes to Bush. And, finally, there's a failure to offer viable alternatives."

Surprisingly, I found myself agreeing with Reinhard. This is what I see anytime I turn on Fox News, or read Reinhard's editorials. But he follows this up with, "It's all so very Air America."

This is nothing new. Conservatives have been whiny, narcissistic pricks since Reagan was inaugurated, and refusal to listen to viable alternatives is a hallmark of the Bush Administration.

Cataloguing well documented (but often ignored) Conservative flaws in order to chalk them up to the faults of Liberals is a bald-faced attempt at doublethink.

Doublethink Attempt #2
"One of conservatism's attractions has always been its adult acceptance of the world we find ourselves in rather than a juvenile insistence on the world of our fantasies."

Greedy bastards like Reinhard fantasize about a world where no one pays taxes, the rich keep all of their money, and they don't have to pay wages to the lower classes that they live off of. They have been fantasizing about this for decades.

Now that this sick fantasy is coming true, they are deriding anyone who wants "wages they can live on without starving" or "schools to educate their children" or "health care so they don't die" as liberal fantasists.

The truth is that conservatives are the fantasizers, and its attraction was never about taking the world as they found it. It is attractive to greedy, rich bastards because they want to keep as much of their own money as possible, humanity be damned.

Writing Flaw #3
"Sorry, but Bush has earned the right to want his pick to have a good shot at confirmation."

Another one of those sentences that has to be read a few times to understand, because Reinhard has difficulty in constructing "subject-object" pairs.

So, Bush has earned the right...to want something. He has not earned the right to have something, but he has earned...the desire. No one can begrudge him this desire; after all, he has earned it.

Conclusion
I will now bring all of my points together, and relate them to my thesis statement, visible at the beginning of this article. (Take note, Reinhard--basic article writing skills.)

Reinhard's laughable attempt at an editorial is a waste of space on the Oregonian's pages. They could have explored another issue, or the Meiers appointment from a new perspective. Reinhard merely offers another confusing ramble on two sides of the issue, without arguing any specific point.

Why does such an intellectually vibrant city as Portland have such an idiot on the pages of its newspaper?

juris PRUDE ence

2005-10-09T12:13:00.000-07:00

What, exactly, is the problem Reinhard has with pornography?

In his Sunday article he does not explicitly deny his own use of pornography. The reader is left to assume, then, that he does view pornography on some limited level. (Watching cable and seeing the Rockstar billboard count as low-level pornography, don't they?) The level of ponogrpahy that Reinhard finds acceptable, and views on a daily basis, is left to the reader's imagination.

Yet he describes "live sex shows with masturbation and sexual intercourse" as "nauseating."

Logical Flaw #1
Because Reinhard finds an extreme form of pornogrpahy to be nauseating, it should be illegal, he concludes.

If someone wants to masturbate in front of someone else, that is not against the law. Voyeurs abound; people pay to enter the Ace of Hearts, a club where they can have sex in front of each other. These acts are not condemned by Reinhard's nausea.

It is only when someone pays someone else to engage in this viewer/viewee relationship that "nausea" has set in.

Reinhard's problem, then, is that someone is making money off of this relationship, not that the relationship exists. He never addresses this monetary linchpin to his nausea in his article.

Logical Flaw #2
Reinhard finds the length of the judicial opinion to be proof of the shaky ground it stands on.

The distance from the Bottle Bill "can be measured in the length of the majority opinion. It says something that it took 21 dense pages to show" the majority opinon, Reinhard writes.

Justice De Muniz's short dissent, Reinhard continues, is obviously more logically coherent, since it is shorter. Sound bites encompass the complexities of a case much better than long winded opinions, it seems.

Of course, this is coming from a man whose favorite argument consists of "You're wrong. I'm right. End of story." This logical flaw is not surprising in Reinhard, but is noteworhty because of its patent absurdity.

Logical Flaw #3
Reinhard says this judicial opinion is what people "do best if they lack restraint or common sense: reason their way into anything they want."

This coming from a dittohead? You're looking mighty black there, Mr. Kettle.

Logical Flaw #4
Reinhard proposes a constitutional amendment to ban live sex shows because "you need not be a Victorian-era Oregonian to understand that such conduct demeans viewer and viewed alike."

Now we must ban all activities that are demeaning? With a constitutional amendment?

That is the exact reason why the Oregon Supreme Court ruled the way it did. We cannot legislate morality. Anybody in power would then have the arbitrary authority to decide what is moral and immoral, and what is legal and illegal.

I find that Fox News "demeans both viewer and viewed alike." Does that mean there should be a constitutional amendment banning Fox News?

About Face, Dittoheads!

2005-10-06T14:50:00.000-07:00

Reinhard has proved me wrong--in a very humorous way.

Instead of reacting how I predicted and ejecting glowing praise for Harriet Miers, Bush's latest Supreme Court Nominee, in his Thursday article Reinhard has obeyed the latest RNC marching orders to act disappointed in the pick.

But the rest of the article is filled with glowing praise about Miers' qualifications. What gives? Is she a good nominee, in Reinhard's view, or isn't she?

LOGICAL FLAW 1
He starts the article with his usual parroting of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and when he begins putting forth some actual arguments...they are all in favor of Miers.

"There is, for starters, the statement she made Monday," he says. He quotes her statement and follows it with, "Those words mean something," praising her perceived judicial ideology. Okay, are you happy about Miers or not, Reinhard?

LOGICAL FLAW 2
Reinhard cites "the fear conservatives have about the paper-trail-free Miers," which seems to be the point of his article. His headline was, after all, A DISAPPOINTING PICK. So she is a disappointing pick, right?

Wrong.

"A few things suggest those fears may be unfounded," he says, and then goes on to belittle the fears that are supposed to be the purpose of his article in the first place.

LOGICAL FLAW 3
Reinhard ends the article by quoting Leonard Leo, executive of the Federalist Society, and pointing to his praise of Miers as reason that conservatives should like Miers. Wasn't this article about...a disappointing pick? Could Reinhard, maybe, cite some reason she is disappointing?

Nope. "When Leo talks, conservatives should listen and cheer up a tad. Even in their legitimate disappointment."

So Reinhard has successfully accomplished two contradictory goals in this article: he has dutifully followed the RNC right-wing talking points, and he has blindly embraced Bush's pick for the Supreme Court.

Why does the Oregonian continue to employ someone who does not even understand the concept of a thesis statement?

Prediction: Another Fawning

2005-10-03T14:24:00.000-07:00

I will laugh my ass off if Reinhard's next article is what I think it is.

Harriet Miers has been nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Within the next few days Reinhard will surely appear on the big O's editorial pages, telling us what a qualified nominee Miers is, how great she would be as a judge, and how awful Democrats are for suggesting anything to the contrary of what Bush thinks.

Predictability is the finest hallmark of mediocrity.