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 October 8, 2007 12:30 PM. The previous post in this blog was City of Portland debt update. The next post in this blog is What'll they think of next?. 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

Monday, October 8, 2007

Send a message to Bush: Yes on 50

Last week, the Chimp vetoed a bill that would have increased federal cigarette taxes to pay for children's health care.

Sound familiar, Oregonians? It does to me. In addition to telling Big Tobacco where to stick their greasy advertisements, I'm looking forward to telling the White House what I think of it, by voting yes on Measure 50.

Comments (52)

The revised bill made it so families earning up to $83,000 a year could be eligible. If this bill were targeted at the poor, President Bush and the Republicans wouldn't oppose it. But it isn't. It's a new, radically expanded middle-class entitlement that would cost WAY more than the $60 billion congressional projection. The veto was a good thing. As will be the failure of measure 50.

Thanks for that important clarification, which really sways me. Tobacco companies are great, as is Bush.

So it's no longer about the issue, it's about who's on which side?

Amazing that during the 6 years of his presidency when the GOP controlled Congress, Bush could not find a single spending bill that was so large that it justified a veto. Not one! And the national debt soared so high that it even rivaled Ronald Reagan's record in expanding the national debt. But with Democrats in control of Congress, Bush finds a bill that spends too much money -- on children's health!

Great idea. Let's just keep expanding the nanny-state.

Do Liberals ever believe in taking responsibility for themselves?

Ever??

Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley -- two of the most conservative Republicans in the U.S. Senate -- are among the sponsors of the SCHIP bill that Bush just vetoed. Are they (gasp!) now to be labeled (gasp!) with the hated "L" word?

After hearing how the Medicare prescription drug coverge now costs in the TRILLIONS to provide drugs, without means testing, to seniors of every income I have to believe this will be just as bad. On that note the Chimp has apparently finally awaken from his foolish fiscal coma.
Veto good, another massive dependency entitlement bad.
Why can't we get good policies to do the right things without the inexcapable blunder of going way to far?

Do Liberals ever believe in taking responsibility for themselves?

Ever??

do corporations making a product that has only one net effect--killing and disabling most regular users--ever believe in taking responsibility for themselves?

Ever?

Why can't we get good policies to do the right things without the inexcapable blunder of going way to [sic] far?

News flash: "the right things" costs money. I know, it's hard to believe, but true.


Bush is dispassionate and unbelievably uncaring for any social remedies for the lower and middle class citizenry.

No on 50, leave the Constitution alone!

Eco,

A hammer, used regularly and recklessly, can seriously maim and kill. Should we start taxing hammer sales?

Moreover, it's not like I care that tobacco is being taxed. It's the fact the money will go to yet another wasteful, bureaucratic entitlement program for those who don't even need it.

Why don't we just tax everyone at 90% and let the government pay for everyones food, shelter, clothing, transportation and health care? Oh yeah, that'd be communism and it DOESN'T WORK!

So Dave, it's the "right thing" to dole out freebies to irresponsible parents?

Great message to send: "Don't worry about actually taking care of your own kids, big government is here to pay for everything."

No wonder our prisons are predominantly stocked with lower-class citizens.

leave the Constitution alone!

Sorry, the Oregon Constitution makes itself easy to amend, and voters have added all kinds of stuff to it over the decades. And that's fine, because items are as easy to take out as they are to put in.

The problem with sin taxes is that they are about as regressive as taxes can be....nothing like taxing the poor to pay for middle class health care.

A hammer, used regularly and recklessly, can seriously maim and kill. Should we start taxing hammer sales?

yes, it *can*. but, a hammer has many effects, most of them benevolent and useful.

a cigarette has only one effect--it kills or disables the regular user (and last year, at least 400,000 bystanders.)

Why don't we just tax everyone at 90% and let the government pay for everyones food, shelter, clothing, transportation and health care? Oh yeah, that'd be communism and it DOESN'T WORK!

actually, that's not how Communism works at all.

"So it's no longer about the issue, it's about who's on which side?"

Yep. It's now politics by ad hominim, rather than actually considering the benefits and consequences of the proposals.

What's with the half-fast partial approaches? Why not get down to universal health care and be done with it? If kid's deserve decent health care, so do their parents. If either of them deserve decent health care, then the geriatrics do, too.

Personally, I'm sick of the sickos wrapping themselves in the "poor kids" propaganda. Around these parts, such approaches tend to make me look to see what part of the West Hills gang will be benefitting. Y'know, like Dan Saltzman's phoney campaign "for the kids" which pumped up the bottom line for the non-profit his wife ran, while the decisions his staff made at the Parks Bureau consistantly and blatantly empoverished the very same children of access to public park space by catering to middle-aged white guys from out of state.

"For the kids" is now the code phrase for "scam". Our children are, in reality, being coopted.

Coopted to fuel the phoney campaigns of phoney "do-gooders".

Man, Jack...You sure are intent on helping OHSU pay off that tram *rimshot*, aren't you?

Yes, doctors are bad. Only soldiers and death are worth paying for.

Dave J said,
"News flash: "the right things" costs money. I know, it's hard to believe, but true."

I know. That's why it's important not to go too far on too many things. It's hard to do the right things well when billions or trillions are recklessly spent on too many policies with too many people entitled to them.
There really is no justification for having the government provide health insurance or prescription drugs for those who can afford it themselves.

And why can't proponents of this new excessive program see that it will turn out just like the prescrition drug coverage debackle? Insuring those who make $60, 70, 80k or more?

Eco:

"Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production."

Curious how the description I made earlier differs from the fact stated above.

Whatever his motive was for the veto, I believe he made the right choice for the people of America.

"I believe he made the right choice for the people of America."

Not for the uninsured children of America. They will die and suffer needlessly in our obscenely rich country w/o SCHIP.

The arguments in favor of the veto, like too many other Bush arguments, are rooted in a corporatist ideological commitment to extreme lasseiz-faire economics.

Bush and his apologists justify depriving poor children of health care on the grounds that some slightly less poor children might get health care as well. Oh dear, what a catastrophe that would be! We better just throw the baby out with the bathwater and veto the entire program.

People who make even $60-$80K can't necessarily afford the crushing premiums, co-pays, exclusions, adhesion clauses and deductibles erected by the American insurance racket between the American consumer and his health care.

"Do liberals ever believe in taking responsibilty for themselves?"

The insane rantings of a depraved American psychotic.

Our government bails out huge corporations when they fail to pay their employees' pensions, but lets children die to make a stupid "Government Helping People is Always Bad!" ideological point.

Chris: We are a filthy rich country that proudly denies our own children health care. Any guesses why some non-Americans might consider us more barbaric and dangerous than the Sunnis and Shi'ites?

"Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production."

Curious how the description I made earlier differs from the fact stated above.

isn't it? especially when in a real Communistic system, the government doesn't own the things you described (and so can't hand them out). it also can't "tax everybody at 90%", because no redistribution of income is necessary.

good lord, another Wikipedia savant.

Civilized countries all have health care safety nets for their children. Most Americans agree that we should join the ranks of the civilized, at least in this regard. In this they are eminently rational. Health care investments in the young have HUGE quantifiable payoffs to society, even if you are enough of a moron that you only care about the $$. Life is rough, and good sense is going to triumph on this issue soon.

People who make even $60-$80K can't necessarily afford the crushing premiums, co-pays, exclusions, adhesion clauses and deductibles erected by the American insurance racket between the American consumer and his health care.

Well, it seems thats really the problem that we should be addressing then, eh? Maybe then everyone could afford health care. Honestly, I dont see a problem with the system of the past that patients paid based on their income or ability to pay. But then Mr. Kaiser had to screw it up for everyone.


Sam writes...
"The insane rantings of a depraved American psychotic."

Then, Sam writes...
"Our government bails out huge corporations...but lets children die to make a stupid "Government Helping People is Always Bad!" ideological point."

Obviously Sam is ENLIGHTENED, as opposed to us so called "American Psycotics." I wish I could be lacking in prejudice like Sam.

My point. I was OPPOSED to the bailout of Pension Plans. (which would have cause an incredible amount of gnashing of teeth by employees of those corportations... after all Sam, the bailout WAS FOR THE CHILDREN)

And I can, at the same time, believe it or not, be OPPOSED to this insane proposal to give more money to the government to provide/manage healthcare. Let President Bush, Hilary Clinton, whoever you want to name take control of this and we'll be deeper into a mess than ever before.

I'm not falling at the feet of the Healthcare models offered in Canada, Europe, South and Central America, or even Cuba. My spouse's family members, who are citizens of other countries, don't quite jump up and down about their health plan as thought of by many.

Lastly, now we've added a second call to action to the "It's for the children." with "they will die and suffer needlessly in our obscenely rich country w/o SCHIP." Quite honestly, it's seldom about either...

Sam said,
"They will die and suffer needlessly in our obscenely rich country w/o SCHIP."
This type of comment appears to be from a misataken beleif that a lack of free insurance is the same as a lack of health care. This country has long mandated that the sick have access to health care. So let's stop pretending we are talking about health care. This is about free insurance paid for by others.
Now, how is it that children will die without SCHIP or free insurance?
Insurance that covers many who can afford it despite the rhetoric to the contrary. Yes there are co-pays and deductables, but there are millions of Americans who pay for the level of health care they can afford.
There are not children dying in this country from lack of insurance.
In fact here in Oregon there are 10s of 1000s or more who qualify for the Oregon Helth plan but do bother to sign up.
I'll ask again, why can't proponents of this new excessive program see that it will turn out just like the prescription drug coverage debackle? Insuring those who make $60, 70, 80k or more?
Why can't we have safety net soley for those needing one?

There are not children dying in this country from lack of insurance

Like the chimp says, you just go to the emergency room. (And then, when the bill comes, ignore it.)

Wait a minute folks, The bush-man may have been correct in vetoing this bill. The good old US of A may not be able to fund a Children's health care program, we are too involved in making sure all ILLEGAL ALIENS are afforded their RIGHTS under our constitution for FREE education, medical care, social security, housing and the like.

Thanks big "w" for all your doing in keeping our priorities straight.

"This type of comment appears to be from a misataken beleif that a lack of free insurance is the same as a lack of health care"

US hospitals are profit-driven and routinely refuse to perform expensive life saving procedures for uninsured patients that would be performed if the patients had insurance. How do you get health care in this country? You have to have a valid insurance card. Have you tried to get seen by an MD at an ER without such a card? If you did, you would realize that my "beleif" is not "misataken": YOU NEED HEALTH INSURANCE TO GET HEALTH CARE, PERIOD. Uninsured people simply do not get the same level of care as insured people. Ask anyone who works in the health care field.

"There are not children dying in this country from lack of insurance."

Whatever. Keep your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand and live in La-La Land if that's easier for you. The rest of us are stuck here in reality, in which the insurance industry controls health care and controls who lives and who dies.

"Insuring those who make $60, 70, 80k or more? Why can't we have safety net soley for those needing one?"

Because $60, 70, 80K or more will not cover sky-high premiums, deductibles, co-pays, plus other living expenses, especially when your insurer denies your child care after happily accepting your payments. Again, why is it OK to deny poor children health care on the grounds that some slightly less poor children will get health care too? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Isn't it preferable to err on the side of providing more health care to children?

No, it is preferable to make stupid ideological points about the evils of the "nanny state." You people are psychotic.

"Let President Bush, Hilary Clinton, whoever you want to name take control of this and we'll be deeper into a mess than ever before."

Yeah, there is no mess at all with Kaiser, HealthNet, Unum Provident, and MetLife having control of health care. It would be terrible if public officials, politically accountable to we the people, were involved. Better to let the CEO's, accountable only to their shareholders and bottom lines, decide whether our children live or die.

Great veto and I'll be voting no on M50. I don't see any reason to expand the nanny state anymore. I can pay for my kid's health insurance just fine and I would expect other parents to do the same.

Didn't liberals learn anything from welfare? When you subsidize bad decision making you don't improve anything, you just get more of the same. The more money you hand out to people who aren't responsible the more irresponsible people you'll get. I know the bleeding hearts always want to help but 50 years of data shows that handing money to people who aren't responsible doesn't make them responsible. They just sit on the couch watching Oprah until the next handout appears in their mailbox.

Ratso is correct, and I'm surprised no one else is really discussing this...the cigarette tax is a regressive tax...it hits the poor and undereducated because they are the ones statistically who smoke. If we are going to tax for children's healthcare, why aren't we taxing other big business and true luxury items? Why not for every Mercedes, Lexus, Hummer or yacht that is sold, a tax is attached to aid those less fortunate that they are. I can dream, can't I?

Lets tax beer and microbrews. Yeah...that would go over well....

I meant wine and micros....

Andy: Didn't liberals learn anything from welfare? When you subsidize bad decision making you don't improve anything, you just get more of the same. The more money you hand out to people who aren't responsible the more irresponsible people you'll get. I know the bleeding hearts always want to help but 50 years of data shows that handing money to people who aren't responsible doesn't make them responsible.

So providing the same handouts to health care corporations has gotten us responsible decisions from that sector? And, for that matter (getting back to the original thread) shielding tobacco companies and their killer products from liability for so many years, likewise produced responsible behavior?

I don't think I need to reply to Sam, the people above have done it for me.

Who, aside from maybe the hospitals and insurance companies, won't agree that health care in America is broken and needs to be fixed? Instead of forcing others to pay for someones care, I would much rather work to get the cost of those premiums down so that person can afford them on their own. There are so many sweetheart deals and policies in the medical field that hurt the average person, why not work to abolish those? Or maybe work on changing the tax code and all the other things that make a person 'poor' so those people can afford care?

I'm middle-low income myself, have been all my life, as well as my extended family. From what I've seen, most poor people are perfectly content with where they are. Sure, they'd like a better life, but they'd rather not work for it. And of course there are those who wish to make a better life for themselves, like me. Guess what? there are tons of programs available that have helped myself and others like me. Throwing money at problems is never a good idea.

It's pretty funny how liberals want cheap or free health care, yet the only solution they see is government based. How about Wal-Mart's $4 prescriptions? or $9/mo. birth control? Still hate the company? Yeah, I thought so...

Also, everyone here is talking about the deals these corporations are get, bailouts and such. I don't see how by not supporting one, you're supporting the other. I don't support free health care and I don't support corporate bailouts. I imagine most of the other more conservative people on this blog would agree with me. Corruption and corporatism are not conservative values; they're values of the so-called Republicans running the show at the moment. Someday we'll have our party back.

Something has to change. And I see nothing wrong in covering families earning as much as 85k. After a mortgage, Halliburton high fuel prices, car, food insurance, taxes, etc it can be hard to pay a $600-800 a month health insurance bill. Small business and large business have problems with health insurance costs.

Paying for some kind of change (whether it is this vetoed bill or another proposal) can be the subject of debate but somethign has to give. I can't see the current system standing up much longer. I know people who have been ruined by health care costs. insurers are writing policies to exclude ccoverage. Using excuses to deny coverage. Keeping premiums level by touting HSA policies (a true scam, and a pain in the ass, I can assure you).

I have misgivings about using sin taxes, to fund long term government committments. But I favor sin taxes as good public policy. And I use tobbaco occasionally, and drink booze. I had the same misgivings about the lottery and Indian gaming. And look at the bright shiny world those have brought us.

Measure 50 should be passed. Have you who use the Oregon Constitution's being sacrosanct as a "reason" to justify voting no looked at some of the stuff in the Oregon Constitution? yeah, it is an important document, but for crying out loud, it has had stuff added to it and yanked out before, and it covers a lot of pretty onbscure stuff. This would not be an unusual item to put in it.

Joey says: "Guess what? there are tons of programs available that have helped myself and others like me. Throwing money at problems is never a good idea."

So we should only spend money on solving your problems, and the hell with everyone else?

Andy says: "Didn't liberals learn anything from welfare? When you subsidize bad decision making you don't improve anything, you just get more of the same."

Does this mean you favor ending funding for the war in Iraq?

No more tuxes. No more tuxes. No more tuxes. No more tuxes.

Let me say it again so all of you can understand.

NO MORE TUXES.

Greg C

I did spell that right didn't I. Hmm I'll just go check in at WWW.RNC.ORG and then get back to you.

"So we should only spend money on solving your problems, and the hell with everyone else?"

I guess I should have elaborated a bit more on my comment. The first program I took advantage of was free public education. First Chief Joseph Elementary, a decent school, then Ockley Green Middle School and Roosevelt High School, two of the "worst" according to many. I put "worst" into quotes because I really did get a pretty good education from all three schools. The teachers were all very good, and very willing to see someone who wanted to succeed do so. That right there is the key word, want. I wanted it, I worked for it, and I got it. The vast majority of the other students, the ones who are bringing down the test scores and giving the schools a bad name, they didn't wantit. How do you give someone something they don't want or care about? All the money in the world won't raise the test scores and give those people a quality education if they don't want it, will it? I wanted it, I got it. It was available, I took it. More money would not have changed the situation *at all*, we had all the resources we needed.

The second program I took advantage of was the Business Education Compact. I was out searching for these programs and I was willing to try to learn what was taught in school (as well as study hard in my free time). As a result, I was offered a paid internship at Intel. After that, I went on to Hollywood Entertainment's store support department. Finally, at 23, I found my passion in politics and decided it was time to go back to school. I'm now working toward my bachelors degree with the use of private grants and student loans.

So, to recap, public education, and a school to work program run by a private organization. They were available, they were effective, and they worked for be because I wanted them to. I'm not special, anyone could follow in my footsteps if they had the desire.

I'm not going to help someone with no desire, drive, and motivation to help themselves.

I'm not going to help someone with no desire, drive, and motivation to help themselves.

yeah, i really wish infants and preschoolers would get off their butts and earn a living. buncha lefty liberal socialists, all of them.

oh, and by the way, any post that ends with "so, to recap" is about 500 words too long.

You're joking, right?

You're joking, right?

that was my thought about your post.

by the way, the topic's "health care for children" and Measure 50.

I guess what's obvious to some, others fail to see. Parents are responsible for their children until they're 18 years of age, right?

My post was following the conversation in the comment area, but also tied into the topic; albeit slightly.

Parents are responsible for their children until they're 18 years of age, right?

that's ideal. but what happens when the parents, despite having jobs, homes and love, cannot afford ever more costly health care for their children?

That's a problem that you and I both agree we need to address. The difference is you're for socialized medicine, and I believe we can find a way without creating another expensive government entitlement program which would put this country even further in debt.

"I believe we can find a way without creating another expensive government entitlement program which would put this country even further in debt."

And that way is ... ?

Tell us your better way, Joey Link. Don't be coy. We are all on the edge of our seats.

The difference is you're for socialized medicine

government already pays for a lot of child health care, yet i'm sure you'd agree we don't have "soclialized medicine."

so, you're ultimately arguing that it's okay, but just not too much, else we'd be "Socialists."

what utter nonsense to place ill-informed gibberish over the health of children. what an entirely different world if we just all agreed to do what every other First World country does--successfully: guarantee health care for all children.

you see, you're arguing about who should pay, while the rest of the civilized world is already simply doing it.

or, we can just pay later with increased social problems, increased Medicare costs, increased prison populations, and so on. right?

do you understand that child health care is about more than treatment? that it's about the future health of the society as a whole?

do you understand that child health care is about more than treatment? that it's about the future health of the society as a whole?

They do not understand that. They are psychopaths.

"Society as a whole?" What are you eco? A socialist? A Communist? What do you want, a NANNY STATE? HAVEN'T YOU EVER HEARD OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Listen to the psychopaths: it's every child for himself. Our country is strongest when the weakest links are utterly f****d, rather than strengthened by the stronger links.


Sponsors


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
Marchigüe, 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
Gascón, 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
Marchigüe, 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

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 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: 113
At this date last year: 155
Total run 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