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 June 1, 2009 3:51 AM. The previous post in this blog was Reaching the limits of human knowledge. The next post in this blog is Port of Portland top brass are paid well. 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, June 1, 2009

Feelings, nothing more than feelings

I see that the opponents of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor have been worrying out loud (they don't do much in silence) about the likelihood that her "feelings" will influence her judgment on the High Court. Well, gosh, that's what Supreme Court justices are all about, isn't it? In most of the cases they take, the law isn't clear, and so they do their best to reach the right result based on analysis, logic, history, context, and yes, "feelings." That's the way it goes -- always has. Don't you think Justices Thomas and Scalia have "feelings" about the way things are supposed to work in our society, and under our legal system?

If it came down to a choice between following Judge Sotomayor's "feelings" and following those of some of her soon-to-be-colleagues on the Supreme Court, I'd take hers in a New York minute.

Comments (21)

I think Justice Scalia allows his right wing feelings to trump his judicial sense to the point where he seems almost demented.
He says that torture isn't cruel and unusual punishment because the detainee isn't tortured to be punished - it's to get information.
That's convoluted and absurd, making the argument fit the wishes of his hunting buddy Dick Cheney.

Scalia bristles when people ask him about Florida in Election 2000 but let him bristle all he wants. History will note how the right wing Supreme Court justices tossed the law books aside to make sure their boy got the gig.

Sonya Sotomayor is being attacked for her comment about white men, and this is fascinating. Does the GOP really want to argue this based on their ferocious stand against racism? Really?

I flipped around the dial the other day looking for sports radio, and I heard Lars worrying if white men will now have separate drinking fountains because racism is keeping them down.

Some people never miss an opportunity to look ridiculous.

Finally, we have to do better than the justices in that Connecticut case of Kelo vs. the City of New London, that ruled the standard for a government to seize private property is the belief that the new use of the property would generate more tax revenue for the government - something the government could also set. They expanded the reasons for eminent domain to the point where private property is meaningless. The politicians don't even have to use the "blighted" word. They can just say an area is depressed and can do better, then seize private businesses in favor of - not bridges or freeways - but other private businesses of their liking.

I doubt the justices had any feeling in their brains the day they came up with that.

My 2 cents: Kelo vs. New London was deplorable, but in some ways it presented a similar issue for judges (and Justices)at the appellate level who are tasked with determining whether lower court decisions are legal. SCOTUS' majority went way beyond this obligation, and gave us a great example of judicial activism so deplored by rightists. Santamayor is being defamed for her part in the firemen's case because of the outcome of the city's decision. In reality, she ruled on whether the city's actions were legal. She said they were. That's far less "activist" than what we got in Kelo.

She has been overturned 60% of the time on appeal to the supreme court. Doesn't that say something about her "feelings".

It's true that white men on the bench are able to completely segregate feelings from legal analysis.

Justice Harry Blackman's "Poor Joshua!" dissent in DeShaney v. Winnebago County(don't have my dusty One-L books with me, so I'm relying on the Internets for cite-checking) was the height of Vulcan logic. I can't find any womanly "feelings" here, can you?

"Poor Joshua! Victim of repeated attacks by an irresponsible, bullying, cowardly, and intemperate father, and abandoned by respondents who placed him in a dangerous predicament and who knew or learned what was going on, and yet did essentially nothing except, as the Court revealingly observes, ante, at 193, "dutifully recorded these incidents in [their] files." It is a sad commentary upon American life, and constitutional principles - so full of late of patriotic fervor and proud proclamations about "liberty and justice for all" - that this child, Joshua DeShaney, now is assigned to live out the remainder of his life profoundly retarded. Joshua and his mother, as petitioners here, deserve - but now are denied by this Court - the opportunity to have the facts of their case considered in the light of the constitutional protection that 42 U.S.C. 1983 is meant to provide."

From FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_sonia_sotomayors_opinions_have.html

May 28, 2009
Updated: May 29, 2009
Q:
What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Have Judge Sotomayor's decisions really been overturned 80 percent of the time as Rush Limbaugh stated on May 26?
A:
Three of her appellate opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Of the majority opinions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored since becoming an appellate judge in 1998, three of them have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. That's a reversal rate of 1.3 percent.

But only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60 percent.

"According to SCOTUSblog, a 60 percent reversal rate is actually lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for the past five years. In 2008, for example, the Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases it considered.Indeed, one of the darlings of judicial conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito, also had a share of his opinions dismissed or overruled by the Court before he himself was appointed to that bench"
So much for that talking point Richard/s

It's as though these commentators aren't familiar with the whole concept of the common law. Most of Anglo-American tort and property law derives from "rank judicial activism" or judges deciding close cases over the years where the law is unclear, relying on analogies to other laws, policy considerations, and even equitable considerations.

The Anglo-American tradition even has a long and venerable tradition of having courts of equity, whose whole point was to decided cases based on what was fair, quite apart from legal precedents, which would often work harsh results.

These conservative critics seem to think judges are statutory interpretation robots and that all statutes are clearly written to cover every possible situation. Their calculated ignorance of any legal history is galling.

Bill McD & Don - Kelo was atrocious activism, but it was a 5-4 decision pulled off by all the Lib heroes plus swinger Kennedy. Majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy. The Wise Latina will just give us more - after all, now it's precedent.

Bill MacDonald, I completely agree with you on the dreadful Kelo decision. Just to keep the record straight, however, that was a 5-4 decision, with Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia and O'Connor dissenting, and the empathetic majority consisting of Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Kennedy. I am unenthusiastic about Sotomayor, but the country elected Obama and an almost bomb-proof democratic majority in the Senate, so Sotomayor it unfortunately probably is. Expect more Kelo decisions. Original Bob

How was Kelo " judicial activism" exactly? The US Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which found that the local government's action was valid. That is to say the SCOTUS did NOT overturn a local government action based on the Constitution, which, last I checked, is the opposite of judicial activism.

This use of the term "judicial activism" has really just come to mean "decisions I disagree with." That's fine to disagree with Kelo, but let's not call a decision that affirms the lower court's decision and affirms the local government's decision "judicial activism." That's judicial restraint.

The political reaction to Kelo has been strange, with more conservative types being pissed off that the Supreme Court failed to interpret Constitutional rights broadly. Ironically, the takings clause is the only part of the Fifth Amendment where we see conservatives clamoring for the courts to strike down government actions as unconstitutional. I'd fall out of my chair if I heard these same "tough on crime" conservatives calling for more robust interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Self Incrimination Clause, the Due Process Clause, or any other part of the Fifth Amendment besides the Takings Clause. These folks weren't exactly hailing Miranda.

Let's happily strike the phrase "judicial activism" from our vocabularies as vapid and devoid of much content.

"Activism" is not simply reversing lower courts or disapproving Government action - it is the creation of rights not grounded in the Constitution, or rejection of rights clearly enumerated there, by the tendentious discovery of "emanations," "penumbras" and whatever else is necessary to achieve the desired result. In Kelo, the initial unconstitutional "activism" occurred at the local government level (exercise of powers in violation of the takings clause, etc.) which was then ratified by an equally "activist" state supreme court - The Supremes (or 5/9ths of them, which is enough) then agreed - I call that "activism," although I admit that this may no longer be the most useful term. (And I do find myself in agreement with some of the rights based on these emanations & penumbras, although I'm not comfortable with the way they were arrived at.) It's not a simple "affirmation=OK, reversal=activism=bad" formula.

Yes Anon; let's get back to broader-or is it acutually more narrow? Constitutional construction all round.

As for feelings, my experience is that people who are in touch with theirgs generally are more capable of independent thought; to say they don't know the difference between the personal and the professional is not accurate. Yet it is the kind of thing that goes on in Portland (and elsewhere, I guess) ad nauseum to justify keeping maleable, less independent, types on the bench.

I was speaking with a retired vocational counselor who testified as an expert witness for years. We agreed that the judicial system in this country seems to be something other than a truth-seeking process. When I said I looked forward to the day that serious systemic problems will come to light, he said, "It will be bloody".
It already is.

This Kelo backlash is totally bizarre to me. Knock down 25 homes to build a football stadium even though the displaced people will no longer be able to afford living in the city? No problem, core eminent domain. Force a homeowner to install a cell tower for the benefit of a private telco in their yard although it completely ruins the view? Easy case, definitely eminent domain. Tear down some run-down houses to change an unemployment rate that was double the rest of the state? No way, civil rights violation, get the pitchforks and torches.

Tongue in cheek Dave C? This is what we get when we declare economic development a public purpose?

Many lawyers are so out of touch with people who fight government agencies that have been captured by industry or just bureaucratic unreality.

Lalawethika,

I strain to follow your logic. I stand by my point that your and other's use of the term "judicial activism" really just means "decisions I don't agree with."

I'm sure a supporter of the Griswold v. CT decision, from which Justice Douglas' famous penumbras emanated, would argue that the "original activism" was the CT legislature passing a law banning use of contraceptives--just as you argue the "original activism" in Kelo was the City of New London's use of eminent domain.

If there is going to be any principled definition of "judicial activism" it has to be whether a court strikes down a law or action of another branch of government, and judicial restraint is when a court does not strike down a law or action of another branch of government.

Face it, your definition is not principled. So let's all just ditch the phrase "judicial activism" and argue about whether a decision is good or bad on the merits.

I can't find any womanly "feelings" here, can you?

I think you hit the nail on the head, Scott. This whole "feelings" business is primarily a ploy to unsubtly insinuate that Sotomayor, as a woman, is somehow untrustworthy to sit on the high Court because she might be excessively prone to feminine bouts of feeling and passion.

Anon - as I said, I don't think the phrase "judicial activism" is very useful, so I won't bore everyone with a lengthy defense of my definition. But I think you are confusing "judicial activism" with "judicial review" - by your definition (when "a court strikes down a law or action of another branch of government"), every such action back to and including Marbury v Madison represents judicial activism. I say some do (including necessarily Marbury, because it was a case of first instance for the Court) and some don't - once the principle of judicial review was established by Marbury, you then look to the Constitution to see if reversal by a court is required. And I believe the doctrine of judicial review for constitutionality was used quite sparingly for the next century & then some. But some branch of government will determine constitutionality of statutes and practices, and Marbury successfully claimed that authority for the Judiciary. It is, however, an authority that must be grounded in the language of the constitution, and if it goes beyond that, I'd call it "judicial activism." You may call it what you wish, but I find a principle behind it, even though I don't always agree with the result. And I'm afraid it's probably obvious I haven't looked into the roots of this stuff in quite a while. Now, off to see if my hero Dr. House is on TV. Thanks for the discussion.

The good news is, barring any past failure by Ms. Sotomayor to pay taxes, she's going to be confirmed easily. We just need to tolerate some breathless coverage by cable TV news and a few Senators posturing as con-law experts and this will all be over. My guess is that she gets at least 75 votes to confirm.

Dave C, maybe you're kidding. On the off chance that you're not (in which case, yikes), when the state takes property from one private citizen and gives it to another, yes, that's a big deal. And its a big deal no matter who the original owner of the property was. An expansion of the power of eminent domain beyond its limited and necessary scope infringes the rights of all of us.

genop, you're correct. Alito's reversal rate is 100%. One out of One and that was a 5-4 vote. Sotomayor is 60% (3 out of 5). If you were a betting person, who would you bet had the best chances of being overturned. Think about it.

I'm not a betting man, but my take on the reversal rate as a qualifying factor is that it is worthless. A good debater can argue either side of an issue persuasively. It does make a convenient and misleading talking point suggesting she's out of step with the conservative majority. (Thank God) A fair minded conclusion from your stats suggests that Sotomayor has more real life experience than Alito had before the SCOTUS - which I see as a plus.


Sponsors


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

In Vino Veritas

Chloe, Pinot Grigio, Valdadige 2013
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir 2013
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio, Friuli 2013
St. Francis, Red Splash 2011
Rodney Strong, Canernet, Alexander Valley 2011
Erath, Pinot Blanc 2013
Taylor Fladgate, Porto 2007
Portuga, Rose 2013
Domaine Digioia-Royer, Chambolle-Musigny, Vielles Vignes Les Premieres 2008
Locations, F Red Blend
El Perro Verde, Rueda 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red 2
If You See Kay, Red 2011
Turnbull, Old Bull Red 2010
Cherry Tart, Cherry Pie Pinot Noir 2012
Trader Joe's Grand Reserve Cabernet, Oakville 2012
Benton Lane, Pinot Gris 2012
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Reserva 2008
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2012
Pendulum Red 2011
Vina Real, Plata, Crianza Rioja 2009
Edmunds St. John, Bone/Jolly, Gamay Noir Rose 2013
Bookwalter, Subplot No. 26
Ayna, Tempranillo 2011
Pete's Mountain, Pinot Noir, Haley's Block 2010
Apaltagua, Reserva Camenere 2012
Lugana, San Benedetto 2012
Argyle Brut 2007
Wildewood Pinot Gris 2012
Anciano, Tempranillo Reserva 2007
Santa Rita, Reserva Cabernet 2009
Casone, Toscana 2008
Fonseca Porto, Bin No. 27
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

The Occasional Book

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: 315
At this date last year: 168
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