Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 11, 2006 11:40 AM. The previous post in this blog was Emilie Boyles's "clean money" -- it's half gone. The next post in this blog is Amanda's "clean money". Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

The elephant in the room

Now that we've seen what's been happening with Portland's new taxpayer financing system for political campaigns, can you imagine what goes on in some places around the state with vote-by-mail? How many people sell their ballot and signature? How many people just turn it over to someone else and let them do the voting? How many people use duress to gain control of helpless people's votes?

No, wait, I forgot, this is Oregon. Human nature doesn't apply here. There's no fraud -- there's no sense in even looking into it. Everything's fine... vital linchpin... creative class... we love dreamers... shake up City Hall...

Comments (41)

Bill Bradbury will assure you ...

Everything will be fine.
Breathe deeply.
It'll NEVER happen.
Now go back to sleeeeeeep.

I do know of a family with a father and four voting age daughters. During the 2004 election, the daughters and the mother all gave their ballot to the father to fill out. In addition, a couple of neighbors also gave their ballot to the father to fill out for them. All in all, he ended up filling out 10 ballots.

Casting a ballot fraudelently is a class C felony. You can go into the federal penitentiary for that one. No comparison to what's happened here, in a new system with undefined penalties.

We check the signatures on the ballots. On every single ballot. So to do what Jack suggests, someone would have to fill out the ballot completely for you, then you'd have to wait while the ballot is sealed, then sign outside where, printed in big letters, is CLASS C FELONY.

Final point: you have to consider the alternatives. In most localities (precinct voting), you need not show an ID and your signature is not verified at all.

Oregon's system has flaws, but fraud is not one of them. It's less prone to fraud than what goes on almost everywhere else. I've looked--there is simply no evidence of any fraud or duress taking place. I'm happy to look more, but at present, no evidence.

I worked on the vote by mail campaign back in '98, and I don't even remember how these questions about potential abuse were addressed? This posting gives me a case of ---'hmmmmmmm'

I've looked

Really? And where would that be?

I'm sure people sign their envelope and then have someone else blacken the dots on the ballot all the time.

But Paul's point, Jack, is that unlike Portland's voter-owned-elections system, there are clear penalties for fraud in vote-by-mail. Another thing to consider is one person voting for his mom or whatever couldn't have that much of an affect--in order to pull something off (like one person directing a team of others to buy ballots, etc.), you'd have to have people organizing it, and I'd suspect that the penalties for directing a large scale fraud in the VBM system would have very severe penalities indeed. Racketeering, fraud, etc.

You can assign the death penalty to voter fraud, but if there's no enforcement -- if indeed the very nature of the system makes enforcement impossible -- there will be corruption. And no one's even asking how widespread it might be.

The question isn't whether there is fraud -- undoubtedly there is. The question is whether there is more fraud than under regular polling-place voting, and I haven't heard a convincing argument for that. It's much harder to orchestrate systemic fraud when everyone votes individually, by mail, than it is to make ballot boxes from certain precincts disappear, or restrict the number of polling places in precincts where you want to suppress the vote.

It's much harder to orchestrate systemic fraud when everyone votes individually, by mail, than it is to make ballot boxes from certain precincts disappear, or restrict the number of polling places in precincts where you want to suppress the vote.

Sorry, I'm not buying that one. At all.

Maybe it is more difficult to "organize systemic fraud" in the vote-by-mail system, but that does not mean fraud is less. I find it easy to believe that in households across the state individuals are pressured to vote a certain way, have their ballots taken by parents/spouses/children, etc. These individual acts are fraud, and aggregated together could pose a much greater "systemic" threat than ballot box misplacement.

Er, why's having someone fill out your ballot, then having you sign it, fraud?

You could bother to ask them how to vote on everything, then fill it out yourself, and then sign it. But as long as you're giving it to them, receiving it back with knowledge that it was the person you trusted to fill it out, then signing it -- saying, "these are my beliefs" -- why's it fraud? Fraud is pretending that something's true that's not true, right? It's true that you, as a registered voter, are choosing to cast your vote in the way the balalot was marked.

In fact, most elections people ask someone who takes the time to pay attention to who's running for Supreme Court or Soil and Water Conservation District, whether you have vote by mail or not.

Once again, you're just making things up "I heard this story of..." or "I bet there's a lot of fraud." Show us the evidence of fraud.

There -- a perfect example of the Oregon bureaucrat mentality.

From all I've heard, there is RAMPANT fraud with vote by mail, although I believe none of it is necessarily organized by the candidates. It's more a case of, through intimidation, ignorance or passivity, one person in a household taking control of multiple ballots. It's happening A LOT... and I do not believe the same thing would happen at a polling place... Even if the dominant old man tells you who to vote for, when you get into the booth, you can do what you wish... If you can't summon the time or effort to go to a polling place, you probably shouldn't vote, anyway

I recognize that my example above, while true, is purely anecdotal...

still... is unlikely the mother and the daughters would have driven to a polling place and voted. They didn't really care to vote. But when the ballots are mailed to them, they can just give them to their father, and he essentially gets to vote more than once.

Maybe in the end, vote by mail is still a better system. I just think it is ripe for fraud.

I, for one, (at though it matters) am a fan of vote-by-mail. Yes, people can fill out ballots for one another. Yes, illegal aliens can get drivers licenses and then voter registrations. Yes, there are challenges. However, you can't argue with the fact that - especially in a state with the initiative process - voter turnout and intelligent vote casting are both far higher than in polling-place states. You can sit down with a big cup of STFU (that poster is priceless) and your voter's pamphlet and read about each petition and understand each vote before you cast it. You can read each candidate's statement before casting that vote. And you have three whole weeks in which to complete this process.

I don't care aout the nostalgia of going to the firehouse with your neighbors and yadda yadda. We're too busy a society for that. That argument's a loser. The fraud angle's a problem, but it's no different than the groups in polling-place states that hand out "cheat sheets" for voters for when they go into the booth. That happened all the time in SC, where I done come from. A church would give it's parishoners (especially those who couldn't read) the "answers". Or a special interest group or whatever. Vote by mail at least gives the voters the chance to read what everyone's saying and who's supporting what (often a hint for me on ballot initiatives).

There will always be a small element of fraud. Enforce the law very publicly to dissuade the fence-sitting fraudsters to limit the effect and keep the great system Oregon has.

But what do I know? I'm just pimping for the Eastside Guy.

It would be extremely difficult to fraudulently collect and cast enough individual ballots to make a difference. Certainly that type of fraud is bad, and we should investigate it, but to condemn vote-by-mail you have to compare it to the alternative, and the alternative is worse.

Making a few ballot boxes disappear from liberal or conservative precincts -- and there are actual examples of this happening in American history -- can change a close election. But even if you don't buy that, it's pretty common for the ruling state political party to put fewer polling places in precincts with large majorities of the opposing party. When I lived and voted in Virginia, the voting lines in northern VA (where all the liberals go to escape the confederacy) were literally 45-60 minutes long, yet in Richmond there were no lines at all. That has a serious impact on voter turnout.

Vote-by-mail takes away these opportunities for fraud, which I think are worse than one person possibly bullying his family of four into turning over their ballots.

I think mail fraud is no worse than precinct fraud, and I think centralized (polling place) concentration of ballots offers greater upside to fraud.

I don't share your worries for mail ballot fraud, Jack. Real Oregonians, and other wild westerners, are too busy punching cows to drive 50 miles into town to vote. The precinct reminiscence is more strongly popular with natives of Eastern City machine politics. (And fraud worries more strongly ingrained in them, too. I voted in Chicago under (the real) Mayor Daley a couple times. I easily doubt my vote was counted.)

For me it is all in the category of cancels-itself-out. I swear there are idiots who go vote without knowing anything. They might as well flip a coin. And in effect, they do -- ignorance is a bipartisan suffering. As many vote stupidly left as vote stupidly right, so they cancel each other out. The winning margin is among those who have a mind a candidate could conceivably change.

I don't see that the fraud danger is increased.

On the up side, add the argument that vote by mail increases voter participation, up as much as 15 points, from 70% turnout to 85% turnout in some cases. Some surveys to investigate this found the new voters are social lepers who are embarrassed or incapacitated to go out in public. And they split their votes left and right in the same percentages as 'normal' people, so, no advantage in the increased turnout.

And secondly, having the ballots in the voters' hands two weeks before election day has done wonders to stop the last-minute media shock-news attack ads. I went to listen to Gordon Smith a few days before the election one time, and put my ballot envelope sticking out my shirt pocket where he could see it. Cooled his vitriol and speciousness jets. Finally, I get some respect. I: voter.

(Plus, those two weeks give opportunity to correct registration mistakes in time for the election, like if you didn't get your ballot in the mail when everyone else got theirs. Get down to the election office and suss up the problem.)

I do object to paying the postage stamp. The envelopes should be pre-paid return. But it hasn't cost me postage yet, I've always hand-delivered mine to the library drop boxes or the county election office itself, where a bunch of oldtime sentimentalists seem to congregate on election day and roast politicklets. I save the 39 cent stamp, it only costs me about 4 bucks in gas. I gotta start biking.

Final word on vote by mail -- two words: Paper trail.

Enforce the law very publicly to dissuade the fence-sitting fraudsters to limit the effect and keep the great system Oregon has.

Wake me when that starts.

It has always amazed me how accurate our lottery system is, yet we cannot make voting similarly secure? Well, (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) Why not delegate the security of our vote by mail process to the Lottery Commission. Better yet include a lottery number selection option on each ballot qualifying the ballot for a lottery drawing for say, a million bucks? You think ballot recipients would entrust their responsibility to another? But seriously........................


Y'know... I kinda agree with Tenskwat.

There will always be opportunities for fraud. However, with mail-in ballots, that fraud is far more intimate and close-to-home. With precinct fraud, it's more "systematic".

Yet, I suspect that with mail-in ballots, we get more ignorant voters voting. When they had to exert the energy and take the time to go vote, they often didn't if they were ignorant enough. Now we have far more ignorant voters actually voting than with precinct voting. Plus, that ignorance is magnified by the "intimate voter fraud".

I'm for returning the vote to to voter booths at the precinct level. I don't care if it does mean that fewer people vote, at least a larger proportion of them will be voting with some level of knowledge about what it is they do.

Personally, I feel the whole country should move to vote by mail. Given the choice between that and the cryptic and vulnerable Diebold machines, it's the former... hands down. Plus, when you take into account the number of voting site 'irregularities' that occured in 'key' districts in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere, it's even more startling.

Voter participation is simply higher with mail-in ballots. As our cities become more spread out and people commute farther, it's harder for folks to vote during the day near their place of employment... which is often out-of-district anyway. If you're in the middle to lower income brackets, you're likely to have a tougher time taking off work to go vote.

Fraud exists in every form of voting. If we want to ensure our democracy is healthy, participatory and fair, vote by mail is our best choice at this time. I also strongly support the idea of a 'Voters Holiday' to increase participation every November, especially at polling places.

Think about it.

voting fraud is a huge problem but why limit your ire to vote by mail? the precinct system is hardly a model of purity. even with paper ballots. and electronic touchscreen machines with no security are a far greater threat.

"...the cryptic and vulnerable Diebold machines..."

What about the "cryptic Bradbury machine?"

"Voter participation is simply higher with mail-in ballots. As our cities become more spread out and people commute farther, it's harder for folks to vote during the day near their place of employment... which is often out-of-district anyway. If you're in the middle to lower income brackets, you're likely to have a tougher time taking off work to go vote."

I doubt it's any "harder" to vote now than in the early 19th century - even with those damnably inconvenient polling places.

"Fraud exists in every form of voting. If we want to ensure our democracy is healthy, participatory and fair, vote by mail is our best choice at this time."

Missed the logical basis for this - unless it's:

"Personally, I feel the whole country should move to vote by mail."

I think a number of posters have missed the point on the vote fraud issue.

The real opportunity for fraud is in the counting house; i.e. the county clerk's office where the ballots are received. If you don't believe me, ask yourselves why the vote count is ALWAYS late in Multnomah County in close, important elections? When a vote needs only a few hundred votes to go the way the ruling party wants it to go, that's when the ballots start coming in late.

The local, in-home 'fraud' or 'coercion' that Republicans were always whinging about is minor compared to the big daddy cheating that goes on in the big cities of our country. How about San Francisco (ballot boxes found floating in the bay) and Seattle (Dem. Gov. candidate loses in two vote counts before finally pulling out a squeaker of a win - thanks to King County (Seattle) Election Department)?

I'm sure other posters here can cite cities in their own experience with similar late-results swinging elections to the way the big guys (unions, developers, politicians) want. When vote results come in WaaaaaY too late, suspect fraud!

Don Smith. Maybe you forgot, or not a long-time Oregonian; we had voter pamplets also before mail voting. You could study the issues and candiates before you voted just like now.

We still get voters pamplets in the mail before the election. When did that change?

Did you make any point at all?

Just wondering...

You know, in West Virginia, we still do it the old fashioned way - trading whiskey or fried chicken for votes. No joke.

Sigh. Jack, I am a social scientist. Where have I looked? At all the data available. My report is available at the secretary of state's website (but was not funded by them--it was funded by a group that was predisposed to find widespread fraud in Oregon).

Where else would I look? At anecdotal tales like those cited above, or silly "from what I have heard" statements?

I investigated the six, yes count them six cases of identified "fraud" in 2004 raised by the two political parties, both of which have volunteer election monitors and employ lawyers and activists dedicated to rooting out cases of electoral irregularities. Of those six cases in 2004, 4 were "junior" situations and 2 looked to be fraud.

If such RAMPANT intimidation and a LOT of ballots being cast by one person, don't you think we find at least ONE instance of this being reported? ONE?

mac - there are vote counting monitors in the County all night. The ballots are all counted electronically. There is virtually zero chance of a stolen election. MC is late because it is the largest county and has a large proportion of ballots that come in on election day.

Last point: there is on evidence that VBM increases turnout. I know we cite that urban legend constantly, but it's wrong. VBM increases turnout among regular voters in lower intensity elections (example: the upcoming primary), but it does not expand the electorate.

As I said, there are problems with VBM, but fraud is not one of them.

I am a social scientist.

Me too. However, I also understand human nature, which escapes some people.

The real opportunity for fraud is in the counting house; i.e. the county clerk's office where the ballots are received.

Amen to that...just look at the craziness up in King County last time around. We havent really had anything that bad in Oregon yet, but its certainly possible.

Tensk -

I don't buy the "too busy to drive 50 miles to vote" argument. First off, how many people actually live 50 miles from a town? Not many. It may seem like it, but it's really not many. Secondly, I grew up in a very rural setting, and from my experience, election day was looked upon as almost an honor to participate in. To be honest, a lot of folks looked forward to it because it was an opportunity to run into some far-flung folks that they hadn't seen for awhile. And if a person can't find a few hours once every couple of years to participate in our democratic process, then I don't have much use for them.

I don't understand how fraud is so easily accomplished at the polling place. Seems to me that controls could pretty easily be put into place to keep ballot boxes from ending up floating in the SF Bay or taking a header over Multnomah Falls.

I think the question of fraud at the counting house is a legitimate question in a machine jurisdiction. I recall the late Ace Hayes, editor and publisher of the Portland Free Press during the 1990s, saying that if you wanted to control a place-a state or local jurisdiction-you put your people in key positions all over the place. It looks like that is what has been happening with the Goldscmidt oriented leadership. So we have problems coming from the top. Yet we keep thinking we can get someone at the top to solve them.

People who think another layer of controls at the top will solve this kind of problem need another walk around the block imho. Regulators don't always do their jobs in the public interest; they can be captured by certain of the regulators. When Latifeh Kennedy went to the Oregon State Bar about some lawyers who used the court system to rip off a couple of million dollars worth of her land on SW Terwilliger and in Clackamas County- and personal property, the Oregon State Bar investigator told her to call John Grisham, writing a "he said, she said" CYA report, although the matter is very well documented. And the front man rip off artist is ascending in the AG's office.

You think you're gonna get a fraud investigation in this state?

Correction: ...they can be captured by certain of the regulated.

A paper record of voting is the number one safeguard, and the only virtue of vote-by-mail, which is otherwise a flop. Only increased voter turnout would justify it. And guess what? It hasn't happened.


No wonder.

One way to assure the integrity of the record might be to require the ballots to be marked in something other than erasable pencil.

OK, here's how to really make verification work:

(1) Every registered voter would be given a unique ballot identification number. VBM ballots have this number preprinted on each ballot. But ability to associate the ballot identification number with real names would be extremely guarded, perhaps needing a court order.
(2) The numbers themselves would have some built in safeguards, checksums, or the like, so it's not easy to manufacture new ones, and of course we would have to assure the total issuance of ballot numbers, matches registered voter totals. Retired numbers (moved, deceased, etc.) periodically become a public record, again without the name association.
(3) A private internet access password would be supplied with VBM materials, but would only appear on a carbon copy of the ballot, and not actually sent in with the ballot.
(4) Through the password and ballot identification number, anyone could verify their recorded vote, and would be offered a chance to answer and record a simple yes / no question like "I agree that all of the votes that have been recorded for this ballot number are correctly recorded". This answer is also public.
(5) Without a password, the ballot numbers, the record of the vote for that number, and the answer to the "I agree" question would be a public record and internet accessible. And this is the database that is actually counted for totals, and we would provide everyone some tools to do their own counting, statistics, etc. - all the stuff that computers are good at.
(6) Non-returned ballots, rejected ballots, retired ballots, etc. would be so-noted in this database. If rejected, the reason for rejection would be indicated.

Obviously, since not everyone is internet saavy, we would have to add some provisions to increase the participation in the verification part of this system:
(7) Designates for every major party that fields candidates, plus non-affiliated, would be allowed to supply a return envelope in the voter's pamphlet for sending in the vote record and password. The party takes care of the checking and the "I agree" part of it.

The hope is that the database would accumulate a significant "I agree" checkoff within a week or so of an election, prior to the SoS certifying the results, and that the number of ballots voted that have no response or "I disagree" below the margin of victory.

I think it would be most helpful if we could all, City Auditor included, admit that the human condition is, on occasion, animated by a certain, er, shabby resivouir of venality.

That's why we have laws. And, enforcement.

We don't shut down the banks, because there are bank robbers. We don't make woman wear burkas, because there are "evil doers".

We don't remove the stop signs, because people run them.

And, at least not yet, we don’t support throwing out the baby with the bath-water. As a policy choice, anyway...

Yeah, '50 miles' is a bit of an exaggeration and not many people live there. And rural comity is more strongly civics minded, very true.

What are people's comments on this aspect: VBM lengthens the time available to vote.

For 50 miles or whatever reason or conflict, a lot of people cannot all get in to vote on one day, and especially because it's a weekday, a workday. In vote by mail there is two weeks to find time to sit down and do it.

Variations on this side of it have called for making Election Day a holiday off work, or for voting on the weekend, all weekend, etc.

Or does having vote by mail's two weeks only increase the opportunistic time for deviousness and fraud?

The whole country needs vote by mail, P.D.Q. for ending the corruption of the touch-TV voting.
But notice which group seems to sense a threat to them and are resisting, outright suppressing Oregon's success story, the most strenuously. The politicians, that's who. Ask your Rep. or Sen. if they ever spoke up for Oregon's own balloting best, back at their job in D.C. Okay, ask them if they ever spoke up for death with dignity. Likely they have.
But not have for vote by mail.
Small evidence, there's more, but why oh why does the politician 'class' so despise VBM?


I understand human nature, also. And what my study of absentee balloting nationwide and VBM in Oregon indicates is that that vast, vast majority of citizens take the vote quite seriously and do not sell or broker their vote.

There is simply no evidence of widespread fraud or intimidation in Oregon or in other absentee ballot states. That's the evidence, much as your intuitions or beliefs about human nature might indicate the contrary.

Tensk-you are precisely right, but have the wrong solution. If we're worried about inconvenience, rather than individualizing the act of voting, we ought to be celebrating this special moment in civic participation by making election day a national holiday.

That addresses Jack's concerns about VBM fraud; it addresses other concerns about how VBM an absentee systems erode civic capacit; it addresses concerns about verified voter IDs.


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
MarchigĂĽe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
GascĂłn, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
MarchigĂĽe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Marc Maron - Waiting for the Punch
Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria DermoČ—t - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 5
At this date last year: 3
Total run in 2017: 113
In 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics