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....