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.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 4, 2006 12:55 PM. The previous post in this blog was MIA. The next post in this blog is If there's a nuclear holocaust, they'll be world champs. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Archives

Links

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

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Utterly Boring.com
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
HinesSight
Onfocus
Jalpuna
Beerdrinker.org
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
Sansego
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
Mireio
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
{AE}
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Althouse
GirlHacker
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Frytopia
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
StumptownBlogger
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 Drink.com
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion
LoveSalem

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
Misterblue
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
Twisty
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
Pinktalk
Mellow-Drama
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Rosenblog
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Blort
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
Maukie
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
KGW-TV
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
KOIN
Willamette Week
KATU
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB
Topix.net - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
KPTV
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

Music-Related
The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Seal
Sting
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Saturday, November 4, 2006

All Joe

When we were growing up in the Down Neck Newark schoolyard, there was an expression about anybody who was getting too exuberant: We'd say that such a person was "getting all Joe about" whatever it was that was exciting him. I never caught the etymology of the term -- I hope it's not too obscene, since I'm blogging about it.

Anyway, that's exactly how I'd describe the Democratic Party establishment as we head toward the mid-term election. They're "getting all Joe" about getting at least a piece of Congress back.

I hope they're right, but I won't believe it until I see it on Wednesday. I still have this nagging feeling that the only way to get this country back from the creeps is going to be out on the streets. We'll see.

Comments (28)

Yeah, Urban Dictionary includes a similar usage, too:

In Philly, "joe" originally meant "extra hype." If someone were to be overly excited or anxious about something, you would tell them "stop actin' joe." However, over time it came to just mean "actin' stupid."

I don't think there's much to get "all Joe" about. As Hertzberg says in the recent New Yorker, in every race the Democrats are "carrying a bag of sand". It'll take a landslide to give the D's a small majority in the house, given today's demographics and the redistricting the R's have been able to do. And that's to say nothing of the tactics that have given the Republicans the last two presidential elections, and the conversion of much of the country to unauditable, unrecountable computer-based voting.

"Unaudited computer-based voting" ? Kinda like Washington States unaudited stealing of votes in 2004 which included dead, mia, prisoners, illegal aliens, etc. which gave the Governor race, after 2 recounts finally to Christine Gregoire.

Doesn't matter which party is in charge, the other party always complains. After all, complaining is a true sign that you are doing something?

Can't say I'll tell my kids that Republican's are evil and Democrats are the answer to our problems such as...

• continually low unemployment
• adding of new jobs, consistently
• incredible run of low interest rates which mean more people can afford their own homes
• Low inflation
• Increase of tax revenue, due to the robust economy
• Federal moneys available to fund all of Potter and company's Pet Portland projects
• prevention of terror attacks in US

I just can't wait for the Democrats to solve all of these problems.


"Doesn't matter which party is in charge, the other party always complains. After all, complaining is a true sign that you are doing something?"

That's pretty cynical, and maybe with justification. Close elections (and I guess that's what we have to look forward to) create a lot of tension. Realistically, even without criminal conduct, an accurate vote count is not possible under any voting system. (I've received two ballots in the mail for the last two Multnomah County elections, including this one. I've used only one and have done what I can to get this mistake corrected, but am I alone?) A statistically meaningful margin of victory would make this problem (and the partisan accusations that go with it) go away, but it is less and less likely to happen. Meanwhile, a black box voting system will certainly present a temptation to those who control it, whatever their party affiliation.

Carol, it's true that there was a lot of partisan griping about the fairness of the last few elections. But the problem with unauditable voting goes well beyond being just a partisan issue.

Ars Technica put out a terriffic article last week on the problem. Please go read it - the more people that know about the severity of the problems, the better the chance that it'll get fixed.

In summary, the article makes important distinctions between retail and wholesale fraud, and between detectable and undetectable fraud.

The problems with the Washington vote were generally at the retail level and were largely detectable: it takes a lot of work and substantial risk of jail to work up a hundred fraudulent registrations, and an extra hundred votes isn't (usually) decisive anyway.

The problems Allan L is referring to, and what the linked article tells us is possible right now, is undetectable wholesale fraud. One highly motivated and marginally skilled person with access to a single voting machine could theoretically alter vote totals for entire precincts, counties, or even states and no one could ever prove it had been done, much less correct the count. We're potentially looking at undetectable changes to tens of thouands of votes.

It's not a matter of Republicans and Democrats... the problem is so serious that the Greens could steal a US Senate race in Georgia, and no one could prove it had been stolen.

So please don't dismiss this as the raving of sore losers. Some of what you have heard may be just that, but there actually are real and serious problems to be addressed.

If we didn't have the political will to get the voting problems fixed after the 2000 presidential election, it's obvious that we never will. Just one more way we're sliding toward becoming a cheap 1960's banana republic.

I still have this nagging feeling that the only way to get this country back from the creeps is going to be out on the streets.

I couldn't agree more. Too many races will be won by "democrats" who twist themselves so out of shape to present an image they think will win...that they resemble, oh, I dunno, Joe Lieberman?

And the folks who have a death-grip on profiteering from the system? You may tickle them, but they ain't lettin go...

It reminds me of the Ballot Measure 46/47 debate...REAL reform? Mon dieu, get the smelling salts! We've gone too far...

Jack:

STEP AWAY FROM THE MOLOTOV!

Why not wait and see what happens?

Maybe the Democratic Landslide will come true, and your faith in the voting system restored.

If the D's fail to capture the House or Senate, pray tell how mainstream Americans will benefit from mob rule (assuming that's what 'in the streets' means).

Based on what I've seen on Portland's streets, I'd take a pass/move to Canada.

As long as most Democrats trip over themselves trying to be Republicans, I don't see what difference it will make if they gain a majority in the House of Representatives.

For instance, Sen. Kerry's comment that a lack of education might lead to duty in Iraq was a perfectly logical statement of fact. Young people go to college to better themselves, to increase their prospects, and to enhance their earning potential. (I don't think you will find "preparing you to serve in the military" as an academic program on most university websites. People don't try to get into Harvard or MIT because it will mean their local recruiter will want them as cannon fodder.)

But the Democrats (and Kerry himself) all want to sound like Sen. McCain on this issue and can't seem to find any comfort in the light of reason.

As long as the Democrats behave this way, I think we can all say they might as well be Republicans, maybe liberal ones like Hatfield and others. To have a true alternative party would be something else again and would be doomed to the "third party" syndrome. If it doesn't "quack like a Republican" then it doesn't deserve election.

America's mantra.


I still have this nagging feeling that the only way to get this country back from the creeps is going to be out on the streets.

I couldn't agree less. What drives this country these days is greed, total unadulterated greed. Greedy people don't go on the streets, too much to lose, those who lost any hope in the correctability of the system, those hungry or desperate do, if of sufficient numbers.

We are far from losing the faith in the ability of the system to self-correct; the country is not hungry or poor.

Moreover, streets are only good when there is an overriding consensus within the society that the system must go (as was the case in Eastern Europe), lacking this streets only provoke useless violence. Trust your deeper instincts, you don't want to face Humphreys of this world when they are ordered to meet you there.

What gives me hope is the sense that even creeps seem to be uneasy these days with the degree of their own creepiness.

The GOP doesn’t really ‘own’ too many issues they’ve sold voters on over the years, including financial responsibility, foreign policy, economic development, limited government, etc. I don’t think it’s responsible for the press or any of you to assume that Dems are chameleons because they want to talk about these issues.

Put your critical thinking caps on for two seconds and tell me how that makes any friggin' sense? Dems are trying to show people you don't have to spend hundreds of billions, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, get thousands of our soldiers killed, look the other way when your buddies profit off this occupation, and infuriate the world with our actions. The Bush Doctrine has been anything but a strong foundation for National Security... be it now or years from now. Why wouldn’t a Dem want to key in on this issue, if only to prove that diplomacy, not a ‘Kill-em-all!” foreign policy, is more viable option?

The talking heads and pundits love to perpetuate that passive, hand-wringing straw man. And they quite literally piss their pants when Dems go on the offensive, offer specifics (not the talking points we've become so accustomed to in the last 6 years), or demonstrate what people have been asking for in a politician.

Why shouldn't this be a mandate on this President, his nodding Republican enablers in Congress, and the entire facade of modern conservatism? The GOP botched the chance of a lifetime... the white house AND congress in hand, and a chance to show Americans what they had without Dems in the way. Well, we saw the goods, and no one is impressed.


"As long as most Democrats trip over themselves trying to be Republicans, I don't see what difference it will make if they gain a majority in the House of Representatives."

Yeah, right. Six years ago, lots of voters saw no difference between Bush and Gore, and so they voted for Nader. And here we are.

As one who voted for Nader 6 years ago, I don't take the blame. He's been ahead of the curve on just about every issue. I actively campaigned for Nader and toward the end of the campaign, Gore was co-opting the campaign. Nader is a populist leader; but the news media made a cariacature out of him, then believed their own b.s.

Gore lost for himself; he even lost his home state. And looking at the funny business in Florida and with Jeb Bush and Fox News, it seems amazing that scapegoating Nader became "the answer". Says a lot about our simple-minded electorate, imo. Would Gore have kept us out of Iraq? I doubt it. The Patriot Act was on the table and habeus on the decline during the Clinton era. GWB just makes the decline obvious to more people. And that, I think, is a good thing.

That's caricature.

Would Gore have kept us out of Iraq? I doubt it.

That's just bizarre.

Caricature, indeed: of a Nader voter.

The pressure was on Clinton to bomb Iraq. Remember all the no-fly zone stuff in December 1998?

I still have this nagging feeling that the only way to get this country back from the creeps is going to be out on the streets. We'll see.

"The creeps" are those who do not see the world the same way you do. Calling them names like this displays a regrettable lack of respect for diversity.

As to "going out on the streets," you're talking about something like 0.005% of the population. If that small fraction goes "out on the streets" and does something illegal, all they're going to "get back" is a quick trip to jail.

Government officials who love wiretapping and torture are creeps: "An annoyingly unpleasant or repulsive person."

Peaceful demonstrations are legal. Eventually, with the shabby conduct of this administration, the numbers of people who will feel the need to use this option will be much greater than the tiny percentage you cite.

There is no jail space for that many people.

Government officials who love wiretapping and torture are creeps: "An annoyingly unpleasant or repulsive person."

So suppose I said, in response, that government officials who refuse to do what it takes to protect us from Al Qaeda are wimps. Has this exchange gotten us someplace useful?

Ever hear the phrase, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact?"

"So suppose I said, in response, that government officials who refuse to do what it takes to protect us from Al Qaeda are wimps."

Who is "refusing to do what it takes to protect us from Al Qaeda"?

Or are you suggesting that warrantless wiretapping and torture protect us from Al Qaeda? If so, how?

Who is "refusing to do what it takes to protect us from Al Qaeda"?

Or are you suggesting that warrantless wiretapping and torture protect us from Al Qaeda? If so, how?

"Warrantless wiretapping" is the NSA listening to calls where one end is here in the USA and the other end is an Al Qaeda operative outside the country. You don't want us to listen to calls like that?

Or, let's say we catch a terrorist who knows where a nuke is hidden in an American city, about to go off in a few hours. What do you want us to do? Read him his rights? Are the lives in that city more important to protect than the terrorists'? Or aren't they?

We are protected from Al Qaeda when we find out what they are trying to do before they do it, and can prevent them from doing it.

""Warrantless wiretapping" is the NSA listening to calls where one end is here in the USA and the other end is an Al Qaeda operative outside the country."

No, "warrantless wiretapping" is the NSA listening to calls WITHOUT A FISA WARRANT.

"You don't want us to listen to calls like that?"

Of course I do. If there is probable cause to believe Al Qaeda is involved in a call, the NSA should have no trouble obtaining a warrant from a secret FISA court, as required by an obscure little law called THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. They can even do it up to 72 hours after the fact, under the FISA law.

"Or, let's say we catch a terrorist who knows where a nuke is hidden in an American city, about to go off in a few hours."

Or, let's say I'm Darth Vader, and you're Obi Wan, and we settle our differences with an epic light saber battle instead of arguing on a blog. You seem to have the real world confused with James Bond and "24," spinning fantasy scenarios as a justification for torturing everyone the government deems a "terrorist." Surely you know that torture is an ineffective means of obtaining accurate information, since the torturee will say whatever he thinks the torturer wants to hear in order to make it stop. Ask John McCain. Or do you just want to torture for fun? Have a good time, but keep in mind that China will have the moral high ground to do the same to you when you're captured.

"What do you want us to do?"

Abide by the Constitution and Geneva Conventions, rather than peeing our pants in fear of Muslim terrorists and throwing all our principles out the door.

"We are protected from Al Qaeda when we find out what they are trying to do before they do it, and can prevent them from doing it."

We don't need illegal wiretapping or torture to accomplish these goals, just a president who pays attention to memos with titles like "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE U.S."

"We don't need illegal wiretapping or torture to accomplish these goals, just a president who pays attention to memos with titles like "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE U.S.""

Well said.

"You don't want us to listen to calls like that?"

Of course I do. If there is probable cause to believe Al Qaeda is involved in a call, the NSA should have no trouble obtaining a warrant from a secret FISA court, as required by an obscure little law called THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. They can even do it up to 72 hours after the fact, under the FISA law.

This was being done (and is still being done, thank God) by the NSA. Which means that it's quite likely to be a massively computerized operation in which it is not practical to get these FISA warrants, not even 72 hours afterwards.

"Or, let's say we catch a terrorist who knows where a nuke is hidden in an American city, about to go off in a few hours."

< deleted irrelevant lame attempt at sarcasm >

Surely you know that torture is an ineffective means of obtaining accurate information, since the torturee will say whatever he thinks the torturer wants to hear in order to make it stop.

I hear people saying this a lot, but it seems to be based only on what they want to believe. What's your evidence for believing this? My guess is you don't have any.

Or do you just want to torture for fun?

This kind of nastiness is totally unnecessary and reflects badly on your character. What I want to do is protect American lives from the terrorists. And if the terrorists create a situation where either it's either them or innocent Americans that will get hurt, I choose the terorists.

Have a good time, but keep in mind that China will have the moral high ground to do the same to you when you're captured.

China doesn't need no stinking "moral high ground." China's not worried about that. But China's a nation, and they want their soldiers treated well, and they will reciprocate if we do the same.

What does Al Qaeda do with their captives? They cut their heads off live on TV. Al Qaeda does this regardless of what we might or might not do to captured terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. You think Al Qaeda's going to sign up for the Geneva Conventions?

"We are protected from Al Qaeda when we find out what they are trying to do before they do it, and can prevent them from doing it."

We don't need illegal wiretapping or torture to accomplish these goals, just a president who pays attention to memos with titles like "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE U.S."

First off, that memo did not say where or when this "strike" was supposed to occur. There wasn't a whole lot to act on there. Bin Laden had been determined to strike us since he issued his charmingly-titled "Fatwa Against Jews And Crusaders" sometime in the late 1990's.

And then you assert what we don't need in order to fight the terrorists. And I ask again, how do you know? Offhand, I don't see a reason to recognize you as an authority about how to fight this war.

"Which means that it's quite likely to be a massively computerized operation in which it is not practical to get these FISA warrants, not even 72 hours afterwards."

So Bush can just do whatever the heck he wants for the sake of convenience, laws be damned? Sorry, we're actually a nation of LAWS, not men. There is no "practical" exception in the Fourth Amendment or the FISA law; thus, it's an illegal operation. Bush could have sought changes to the FISA law, but instead he ignored the law and wiretapped domestic calls of US citizens without warrants. That is illegal. He also LIED about this in the '04 campaign, when he said: "Whenever you hear the US government use the word 'wiretap', a wiretap requires a court order. We are obeying the constitutional safeguards because we value civil rights." When he said that, he KNEW about the massive warrantless phone wiretaps he was conducting. "Creep" is a polite description of him. And why is such a "massively computerized operation" necessary? Al Qaeda cannot possibly be having contact with each of the millions whose phones were tapped.

"I hear people saying this a lot, but it seems to be based only on what they want to believe. What's your evidence for believing this? My guess is you don't have any."

You guess wrong. I believe this based on the statements of air force and army colonels who served in Vietnam and Iraq. See link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

What's your evidence for believing torture produces accurate intelligence?

"What does Al Qaeda do with their captives? They cut their heads off live on TV. Al Qaeda does this regardless of what we might or might not do to captured terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. You think Al Qaeda's going to sign up for the Geneva Conventions?"

So we should follow Al Qaeda's lead and reject the Geneva Conventions too? I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than Al Qaeda.

"First off, that memo did not say where or when this "strike" was supposed to occur. There wasn't a whole lot to act on there."

But Bush didn't act at all on Bin Laden prior to 9/11. He didn't retaliate for the USS Cole. He didn't hold a single meeting with his anti-terrorism task force before 9/11, even though Dick Clark and George Tenet had their hair on fire all summer, and specifically warned Condi about the 9/11 plans on 7/10/01 (See Bob Woodward's new book). Bush could have demanded daily updates in tracking Bin Laden's activities and diligently followed the CIA's progress. Instead, he spent another month in Crawford, the longest vacation ever of a sitting president. "Creep" is accurate.

"And then you assert what we don't need in order to fight the terrorists. And I ask again, how do you know?"

Because we have never needed illegal wiretapping or torture to win the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, etc. Unlike you, I don't place "the terrorists" on some lofty pedestal as the most powerful enemy the US has ever faced. They're not. But we give them an important victory when we cede the moral high ground and sink to their level.

"Which means that it's quite likely to be a massively computerized operation in which it is not practical to get these FISA warrants, not even 72 hours afterwards."

So Bush can just do whatever the heck he wants for the sake of convenience, laws be damned? Sorry, we're actually a nation of LAWS, not men. There is no "practical" exception in the Fourth Amendment or the FISA law; thus, it's an illegal operation.

That's up to the Supreme Court to decide, not you. And I'm hoping they give weight to the principle that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Bush could have sought changes to the FISA law, but instead he ignored the law and wiretapped domestic calls of US citizens without warrants. That is illegal.

We'll see what the court says.

And why is such a "massively computerized operation" necessary? Al Qaeda cannot possibly be having contact with each of the millions whose phones were tapped.

You have no way of knowing how many calls were tapped, or even why they were tapped.

I believe this based on the statements of air force and army colonels who served in Vietnam and Iraq. See link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

Interesting. But not convincing. Applebaum is a liberal reporter and the Wa. Post is a liberal paper. And even in that article, there are clearly differences of opinion among those doing interrogations.

What's your evidence for believing torture produces accurate intelligence?

You're the one making the assertion that "torture never produces useful information." Therefore you are the one who needs to show evidence. I'm willing to believe that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

"What does Al Qaeda do with their captives? They cut their heads off live on TV. Al Qaeda does this regardless of what we might or might not do to captured terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. You think Al Qaeda's going to sign up for the Geneva Conventions?"

So we should follow Al Qaeda's lead and reject the Geneva Conventions too? I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than Al Qaeda.

This was my answer to your point that if we don't treat prisoners well, how can we expect our adversaries to treat prisoners well? I was pointing out that Al Qaeda is not going to be influenced by how we treat prisoners, given Al Qaeda's oft-demonstrated depraved disregard for human life.

I think we should hold ourselves to the highest standard that's consistent with victory. And no higher.

But Bush didn't act at all on Bin Laden prior to 9/11. He didn't retaliate for the USS Cole.

The whole country was asleep at the wheel prior to 9/11. The USS Cole was struck on 10/12/2000. Bill Clinton was President at that time, not George Bush.

Instead, he spent another month in Crawford, the longest vacation ever of a sitting president. "Creep" is accurate.

Bush-hatred is not a policy.

"And then you assert what we don't need in order to fight the terrorists. And I ask again, how do you know?"

Because we have never needed illegal wiretapping or torture to win the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, etc.

Wiretapping was not possible during the Revolutionary War.

I don't know why you're so sure we didn't do anything you'd disapprove of in WW II. We interned a lot of Japanese back then, just for starters.

Unlike you, I don't place "the terrorists" on some lofty pedestal as the most powerful enemy the US has ever faced.

Unlike you, I don't speculate inaccurately about other folks' motives.

But we give them an important victory when we cede the moral high ground and sink to their level.

We give them victory when we refuse to do what we need to do to win.


"That's up to the Supreme Court to decide, not you. And I'm hoping they give weight to the principle that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact.""

I'm hoping they give more weight to traditional principles of liberty and freedom that have endured for hundreds of years than to something Richard Posner extracted from his rear end last week.

"We give them victory when we refuse to do what we need to do to win."

You still have not convinced me that warrantless wiretapping and torture are "what we need to do to win." How much time is left on the clock, anyway?

Speaking of "victory," congratulations Speaker Pelosi!


Sponsors


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

In Vino Veritas

Louis Jadot, Pouilly-Fuissé 2011
Trader Joe's, Grower's Reserve Pinot Noir 2012
Zenato, Lugana San Benedetto 2012
Vintjs, Cabernet 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White 2012
Rainstorm, Oregon Pinot Gris 2012
Silver Palm, North Coast Cabernet 2011
Andrew Rich, Gewurtztraminer 2008
Rodney Strong, Charlotte's Home Sauvignon Blanc 2012
Canoe Ridge, Pinot Gris, Expedition 2012
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir Rose 2012
Dark Horse, Big Red Blend No. 01A
Elk Cove, Pinot Noir Rose 2012
Fletcher, Shiraz 2010
Picollo, Gavi 2011
Domaine Eugene Carrel, Jongieux 2012
Eyrie, Pinot Blanc 2010
Atticus, Pinot Noir 2010
Walter Scott, Pinot Noir, Holstein 2011
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
Coppola, Sofia Rose 2012
Joel Gott, 851 Cabernet 2010
Pol Roget Reserve Sparkling Wine
Mount Eden Chardonnay, Santa Cruz Mountains 2009
Rombauer Chardonnay, Napa Valley 2011
Beringer, Chardonnay, Napa Reserve 2011
Kim Crawford, Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Schloss Vollrads, Spaetlese Rheingau 2010
Belle Glos, Pinot Noir, Clark & Telephone 2010
WillaKenzie, Pinot Noir, Estate Cuvee 2010
Blackbird Vineyards, Arise, Red 2010
Chauteau de Beaucastel, Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Northstar, Merlot 2008
Feather, Cabernet 2007
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Alexander Valley 2002
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2002
Trader Joe's, Chardonnay, Grower's Reserve 2012
Silver Palm, Cabernet, North Coast 2010
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone 2009
Santa Margherita, Pinot Grigio 2011
Alamos, Cabernet 2011
Cousino Macul, Cabernet, Anitguas Reservas 2009
Dreaming Tree Cabernet 2010
1967, Toscana 2009
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009
Lello, Douro Tinto 2009
Quinson Fils, Cotes de Provence Rose 2011
Anindor, Pinot Gris 2010
Buenas Ondas, Syrah Rose 2010
Les Fiefs d'Anglars, Malbec 2009
14 Hands, Pinot Gris 2011
Conundrum 2012
Condes de Albarei, Albariño 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2007
Penelope Sanchez, Garnacha Syrah 2010
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2007
Atalaya do Mar, Godello 2010
Vega Montan, Mencia
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2009

The Occasional Book

Maria Dermoȗt - 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: 115
At this date last year: 21
Total run 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