Burl Ross's blog

Jan Reed (letters 4/19) wonders just how bone-headed we Oregonians can be, what with the no sales tax, the kicker law and the lowest corporate taxes in the nation.

Here's how bone-headed: In 1996 we Oregonians passed the "double-majority law", voting to give Oregon NON-voters a vote equal to our own! Yes, we wisely voted that our own well-considered, well-researched "yes" vote on any new tax measure should not really count any more than the non-considered, non-vote of the lazy, apathetic or even dead guy who doesn't vote at all. The lazy and/or dead guy didn't vote for this law -- we did.

That's how bone-headed Oregonians can be.

Oh, and Measure 37.

Burl Ross

Using the Republican's own definition of an impeachable offense ("He lied!"), George W. Bush could be instantly impeached if only he was asked this one simple question: "Why don't you know who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame?"

The routine answer from the President -- "I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation" -- besides being hilarious ("You mean, Mr. President, there is an ongoing investigation into why you don't know?"), would indicate Mr. Bush lied when he promised HE would find and fire anyone involved.

A typically snide George Bush response such as, "Who says I don't know? Heh-heh-heh!", would let slip that he lied to us about not knowing.

Any response by the President to this simple question would provide grounds for his impeachment (by high Republican standards).

In last week’s “Citizen’s View” David Wade decried the preponderance of leftist/liberal/lefty/left-leaning/left-wing/Hollywood-liberal movies like “Crash” at the Academy Awards. “Conservative films,” he proclaimed, “can also be thoughtful and compelling!” Okay... name one, I thought. But Mr. Wade declined to do so.

“Come on conservatives and independent thinkers!” he implored. “Stop grousing and step up to the plate and fight” for “films which challenge their (Hollywood liberals) comfortable beliefs!” After pausing momentarily to note the first-ever concurrence of the words “conservatives” and “independent thinkers” in the same sentence, I read on, curious to know which of the many undesirable (I guess) “comfortable liberal beliefs” Mr. Wade would have us “step up” and cinematically challenge. Tolerance? Civil rights? Religious freedom? Environmental protection? Fiscal responsibility? Public education? Liberty and justice for all? Mr. Wade wouldn’t commit.

Liberals like me "just don't get it", says Paul Hoffman (The Oregonian letters page, 2/8/06), and he is right. If, as Mr. Hoffman claims, radical Islam is the world's greatest terrorist threat, why then did President Bush invade the secular country of Iraq and create a training ground for future radical Islamic terrorists there? I don't get it.

I also don't get how you can decrease the deficit by increasing the deficit, or how you help more poor people by cutting programs to help poor people, or how a President can say wiretapping "requires a court order" (April 2004) at a time when he is actively wiretapping without a court order and not get impeached for breaking the law and lying about it.

Liberals just don't get it.

The Oregonian has now printed two Burl-bashing editorial letters from Bush supporters enraged by my "negative comments" about the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Like their hero, these writers apparently do not read, since my letter made no mention at all of the war or terrorism, commenting only that the Oregonian's received letters were running 101-3 against the Bush administration.

Thank you for the opportunity to report this fact one more time.

Too bad you won't read it.

Burl Ross

I can't even read David Reinhard any more. The only topic he writes about is what he thinks liberals think, and he's wrong every time. I already know what I think, thank you, and I will tell you truthfully and clearly what I think I think if you really want to know. Why doesn't he just comment about what we say we think? Does he think we aren't telling the truth about what we think? Since when are liberals shy about saying what they think? My theory is that he judges liberals as he judges conservatives and himself, and that is that if they are saying it, it is a lie. While this formula works unfailingly with Republicans ("culture of life" equals pro-war, pro-death penalty -- the examples are well-known and endless), it is of no use when applied to Democrats who will actually say what they mean, in your face, whether you want to hear it or not. Just try to get a liberal to lie about what they think, to say they are pro-censorship, anti-choice, pro-poverty, anti-education or pro-taxcuts for the rich, and see how far that gets you. If David Reinhard insists on telling us what liberals think, he should try quoting one, which he never honestly does.