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

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

To order, click here.

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

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 4, 2010 8:22 AM. The previous post in this blog was Snakes in the artificial turf. The next post in this blog is Cancel those loft projects. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, January 4, 2010

Dirty pool

The voter's pamphlet has arrived at our place for the upcoming Oregon tax increase election -- Ballot Measures 66 and 67. It's a pretty thick pamphlet for just two propositions, but even a quick perusal turned up some shenanigans. Check out the first argument "in opposition" to Measure 66:

The first argument "in opposition" to Measure 67, on page 75, is identical.

As you can see, these are really written by the folks who are in favor of, not opposed to, these measures. That's just wrong, and this sort of thing has been going on for a while. If the state can't stop people from abusing the voter's pamphlet with deliberately confusing material, then maybe we ought to dispense with the pamphlet and turn the whole debate over to the blogosphere.

Comments (38)

Not only is that the first argument in "opposition" for each measure, it's also the last. Strains credulity to believe that purely by coincidence, the order of the opposition arguments has one that is not really in opposition as the first and last argument in the section.

Can one file a lawsuit over this type of thing? Who am I kidding. There will be zero accountability.

This is an outrage. The entire referendum should be postponed on the basis of this alone.

Why waste a protest effort when the AG in the tank.

This is an issue that I am deeply conflicted over, as I feel that the taxes will hurt local businesses, and yet I have kids in school and I'm seeing budgets strained to the breaking point (and that's in David Douglas where they've managed their money well).

But shenanigans like this make me lean more toward the No side, just because I hate being manipulated.

Nothing but Salem pornography....92 pages of filth!!! What did it cost to print and distribute? And more, why a special election in January for only 2 bogus measures? And what's the cost of the special election?

Mad as hell....don't wanna take it anymore, but what can we do about it?

The appalling silliness in this leaderless state is unacceptable....what a sorry mess.


Call David Douglas up and ask for the all funds budget, they probably wont want to give it to you but insist. Then divide that number by how many kids are in that school to get the per kid money that is spent. Next multiply that number by the number of kids in a classroom.

When you are done, ask yourself where all the money is going because it sure isn't going to the teacher and teaching your kids.

Next, find out how many non-teacher positions are being paid in the school and you'll get the answer as to where the money is going. Don't let them pull the building maintenance with you either, they've already admitted that hasn't been being done.

The Voter Pamphlet is garbage. There is no adult supervision of the content. The cited example, fraudulent as it is, is no better or worse than the rest of the "arguments" for and against.

What ever the numbers are, the David Douglas district will shine brightly by spending much less on administration and more on education as to what the Portland School district spends.

My kids have 18 months left before they will have graduated from the PPS. It was pure luck not design that their education turned out as well as it did.

The organization that filed those misleading arguments calls itself "Our Oregon".

The voter pamphlet arguments were filed by Our Oregon's Director Kevin Looper, but the plan was probably hatched by the their Communications Director, Scott Moore.

The reason I suggest this is that it looks like it was pulled off by someone with inside knowledge of how to take advantage of the system. Scott Moore got his job with Our Oregon after serving for as "Chief of Communications" for Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.

That job would be a great opportunity to grasp exactly how the Sec. of State's policy for interpreting ORS 251.260 for error checking the pro/con arguments works (apparently they interpret it to only allow them to ask whether a mistake was made - but not to recategorize "intentional mistakes").

That job would also be a great way to nail down the logistics for filing your arguments so that they would end up as the first and last for each measure (how long do you need to queue up in order to be first, and where do you need to stand to be last without missing the filing deadline).

Some of you also might remember Scott Moore from his days.......

wait for it.....

....writing for the Portland Mercury on campaign integrity issues. He wrote numerous pieces about alleged violations of signature gathering laws.

Since then, it seems all the complaints that came out of Moore's investigative article have been dismissed. Of course, this occurred AFTER Moore had successfully parlayed his story about them into a full time gig with the Sec. of State.

See related BO adulation:

What did it cost to print and distribute? And more, why a special election in January for only 2 bogus measures? And what's the cost of the special election?

Because the "no" side petitioned for there to be an election. You can ask them how much it costs.

If we could just eliminate the "initiative" process once and for all, the legislature would be forced to do it's job and we wouldn't be saddled with one unconstitutional or unworkable initiative after another. Mob rule blows...

These two aren't citizen initiatives. The legislature passed the two bills; the people just demanded that they get to vote on them.

I noticed this - anybody with a brain would - and just thought it was funny.

Although it was no more over-the-top than the continual weird candidates who use their space to talk about an agenda unrelated to public office, coy statements like these (and the accompanying checks) should be returned to the sender with the observation that they must be submitted to the appropriate category to be included.

Maybe they just couldn't make themselves refuse a couple of $500 payments.

This is why I prefer the League of Women Voters' paper.

Mob rule blows...

Aren't you referring to the same "mob" than elected these jackasses in the legislature?

Will giving the voters less authority really make them more responsible voters?

Wouldn't removing a check on legislative power encourage less accountability?

Our legislature picked this special election date so it could play "chicken" with the voters.

These measures are retroactive to 2009, so if they were on the May primary ballot the results would have come in too late to collect the 2009 tax increases (since most everyone files and pays on or before Apr. 15th) without a huge mess on their hands.

And there will probably be a mess even if it passes now as some businesses do not have funds set aside for a retroactive tax hike - (expect struggling businesses to go under if this passes).

The legislators should have pro-actively put it up for a vote in Sept or Nov of 2009, but they didn't want to take the chance that it would fail and require them to scale back spending sooner. Setting the date for January allows them to keep spending for another 3-5 months as if these taxes will really be collected. It also allows them to escalate the threat of "dire cuts" because they will have already spent disproportionately for 7 months based on anticipated new tax revenues.

The legislature should have permitted itself to write the ballot titles in a ransom note font.

You've been listening to the initiative hating public emoployee left too long.

The Legislature itself has been far more destructive to Oregon than the initiative system.

Without the initiative system the Legislature would have done even more damage.

The Legislature, two sesssions ago, diverted $250 milion from the lottery to Milwaukie Light rail.
A voter initiative would have justifiably killed that boondoggle.
But despite the propoganda from the public empoloyee union opponents of the initiative system, it's too hard to get measures on the ballot.

I'm not sure I understand Jack's complaint. The ballot argument reproduced above doesn't explicitly call for a Yes or No vote -- that would, admittedly, be abusive. This one simply lays out factually what a Yes vote means and what a No vote means. I don't see how that could be considered abusive, unless you first make a subjective value judgment about the group that sponsored it. And I likewise don't see how the state could decide such matters without making subjective value judgments. Granted the system is imperfect, and it behooves voters to read any paid argument skeptically. But would policing content questions, as Jack seems to suggest, really be an improvement?

This one simply lays out factually what a Yes vote means and what a No vote means.

Yeah, right. And I'm the tooth fairy.

And they just happened to be both the first and last person that submitted an argument in opposition of both measures.

i know what i am voting for and sorry i will not be tricked into voting for something they later will claim and say i didnt know what i was voting for.i read the voters pamphlet and understand fully what i am voting for.i am not stupid.

Jack, do you really, truly think the state should be in a position to say, regarding the above example, "We're sorry, but we don't think your case against this measure is forcefully worded enough to be included in the opposing arguments section"? Is that what you're proposing?

Again, I don't think I'd object if the state were empowered to reject an argument "in opposition" that explicitly and unambiguously urges a Yes vote. But anything further than that would be just too much of a gray area and would give state officials latitude for far greater mischief than the extremely mild (and, I insist, not really factually dishonest) subterfuge Our Oregon is engaging in here. I think most reasonable, intelligent people would regard this particular example as being well within the bounds of normal political rough-and-tumble. And yes, I would feel the same way about a similar tactic by the other side (there's probably one in that book somewhere).

At the top of the column it says "Argument in Opposition." Every person or entity posting anything under that heading should have to include an unambiguous statement that he, she or it is opposed to the measure in question. If they won't do that, they shouldn't be allowed to post. It's really not that complicated.

Same thing on the "Arguments in Favor."

Getting rid of the Voter's Pamphlet entirely is another possibility. Given the garbage that it's become, and given that anybody who can afford to post there probably can post their thoughts on the internet, that might not be a bad idea.

(there's probably one in that book somewhere)

If you find some similar abuse on the other side, let us know.

So, part of the required boilerplate for each argument would be a statement along the lines of "Such-and-such-entity urges a Yes vote on Measure 66." That sounds like a reasonable suggestion, though there may be some unintended consequences. I wouldn't mind if the legislature at least considered it.

I still think, Jack, that you protest too much. It's worth noting that Our Oregon (and other supporters of these measures) did not seek this "special" election and its attendant waste of time and money. Rather, it was foisted upon us by wealthy, mostly out-of-state interests (Loren Parks et al.) and ideologues of the far right who will not have to live with the consequences either way, and who have, for at least the past decade, been making Oregon their personal political laboratory. Of course, it's partly Oregonians' fault for taking direct democracy to such an absurd length and for not demanding more fundamental change to a tax system that favors the affluent to a greater degree than any other state save Washington (this will still be true if M66 and 67 pass). I think under the circumstances, true grassroots entities such as Our Oregon, which are trying to bring just a tiny bit more balance to this ridiculously unbalanced system, deserve to be cut a little slack.

"You can abuse the system all you want, as long as you're on the blue side." How very Oregonian.

MarciaFS, in regards to your "ideologues of the far right......making Oregon their personal political laboratory"-how absurd. I think you would have to agree that for most of the past three decades most political laboratory work has been controlled and administered by democrats in major party offices and the legislature. I think you know the truth, but you're spinning. Good try. Fellow demo.

true grassroots entities such as Our Oregon

Keep digging that hole, Marcia. Our Oregon is a union front, isn't it? Where does it get its money? Oh, that's right -- it won't say.

I guess I see Jack's complaint but when I reread the posted argument, my eye stops on the initial bolded line and the disclaimer that appears in each and every one of these statements:

This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255

...nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

Absent a "(listed sponsor name) urges a YES/NO vote on Measure __" rule -- which sounds like a decent idea -- these guys don't seem to have abused anything but Jack's patience.

No, it's worse than that. People read an argument that's clearly slanted toward the "yes" side, and then they look up and see that it means "opposition." So they vote "no" when they really mean "yes," and vice versa. That's deliberately misleading.

Oooh, that's interesting, I had not considered that possibility.

If, in fact, people BUY the facetious argument though, and vote accordingly, doesn't that provide the punishment for the crime? I mean, we're presuming that Our Oregon wants yes votes based on our interpretation of their statement. If their trick is too clever by half and they wind up getting hoisted on their own petard, isn't that enough of a check on these sorts of false arguments?

(I wonder if there's any way to know if many people actually (a) buy the faux arguments and (b) cast their vote based solely on them.)

The Secretary of State should allow the Chief Petitioners for an initiative or referendum to put the first and last arguments in the voters pamphlet for the side they are advocating (a "yes" vote on an initiative, a "no" vote on a referendum). The SOS should then choose two opponents to the initiative or referendum and allow them to submit the first and last arguments for the other side. That way we could stop this nonsense, without violating free speech rights.

Alternative, the SOS could allow the Chief Petitioners (and designated opponents for the opposite side) to choose the order in which the statements would be printed. No more "first come, first served" line gerrymandering.

But the best thing to do is simply eliminate both the voters pamphlet arguments and the ballot titles, and go back to the way Oregonians voted in past decades - a voters pamphlet that contains the text of the measure and a ballot with a "yes" and a "no" box.

If people don't take the time to read the measure, that's too bad for all of us, but we should demand more out of ourselves than allowing voters to make their choice by relying on the dumbed down spin from proponents and opponents, coupled with a Cliffs Notes ballot title prepared by the spin doctors in the legislature or the attorney general.

Boy, Oregonians sure are spoiled. People elsewhere would kill for a voter's pamphlet.

I surely disagree with this argument as well:

"But the best thing to do is simply eliminate both the voters pamphlet arguments and the ballot titles, and go back to the way Oregonians voted in past decades - a voters pamphlet that contains the text of the measure and a ballot with a "yes" and a "no" box."

The text of most meaningful legislation is a dense mass of changes to existing statutory language, which is impenetrable to anyone but the drafters and those who are promoting the changes. Throwing that in the laps of voters is simply asking for "No" votes on everything that can't be boiled down to a two or three-word slogan (esp. loaded ones like "God hates queers." "Taxes bad.")


You don't give voters enough credit to read and understand measures for themselves, or to talk with each other to understand the import of the measure they are voting on. We should collectively (left, right, R, D, conservative, liberal whatever) expect more from ourselves than simply saying things are "too complicated" and thus relying on the slogans found in the voters pamphlet statement or the half-truths in the ballot titles, especially the ones written by the legislature. If that means more time is spent in our high schools on how to read laws and what it means to be a voter, than great. But the voters pamphlet is actually a disservice to voters - it doesn't educate, it obfuscates. And the same type of slogans you fear (I'd add in "devastating cuts" "it's for the children" "help our seniors" "giant corporations and the wealthy") are in every damn voters pamphlet statement. Whether its three words or 300, spin is spin, and that's all the voters pamphlet statement amounts to - and taxpayers pay for it.

Full disclosure, I am a proponent for the Measures.

I admit some ambivalence to cross-posting arguments, partly, I suppose, because of bias, but also in part due to an explanation I received form SOS folk during a prior election cycle.

When a cross-posted argument appeared in the chunk of arguments I agreed with, I was as annoyed as many of you all are. I got on the horn with the SOS, and a staffer politely explained that when filing an argument, it's both the responsibility and choice of the writers to select "For" or "Against". Every bit as much as it's their choice what to write, it's their decision where to put it, and they've paid $500 to do so.

Essentially, it's a strategy that, over the years, both "sides" have employed.

Should there be restrictions? An argument could be made for that if one envisions a greater and greater percentage of arguments being cross posted. But then, what happens when a highly satiric argument is submitted? Should not the writer then be allowed the choice where to post since it's likely that w/ her/his piece, the placement IS essentially part of the piece.

So, while annoying, it something that CAN be done; it is something that's done by both sides, and thru the course of election cycles we'll all apparently take turns being irritated.

I'd also add that many of us that go thru this cycle of irritation go thru it not because we are evaluating the package of arguments to determine our vote, but because we are thinking strategically. We already know how we're voting.

We're not really wondering if this is "fair" or "proper;" we are wondering how this affects Jane and Joe voter.

...and if you're at that point in your political passion, it doesn't take alot to make you really pissy.*

'not throwing stones here... I've been there!

CCK -- actually, having been a writer in one form or another for a long time, I'm acutely aware of and have studied closely how to communicate information honestly, without spin, in a way that people will read and understand. And statutory language -- or worse yet, changes to existing statutes proposed as an initiative -- is about the worst possible way to communicate information to voters. Many measures would have to be accompanied by a complete set of the Oregon Revised Statutes to give readers a fair shot at determining the what they mean, sometimes along with some court opinions.

Of course the voters' pamphlet is full of spin arguments - but note, they DO follow the complete text of the measures (See pages 9-12 and 47-50), and they are clearly labelled as arguments for/against. Moreover, the fees for those argument statements help pay the freight to put the entire pamphlet, with the complete text, in voters' hands.

But your argument that the voters' pamphlet doesn't educate is simply not true -- anyone who wants to read the text of the measures can do so in the voters' pamphlet, and the whole point of education is to give kids the ability to sift through and weigh "spin" -- the proponents/opponents best attempts at persuasion. I guarantee you that far more people are reading and considering the arguments than have even tried to read the text of the measures, even though they have to flip past that text to get to the arguments.

And therein lies the problem - far more people are reading the arguments rather than the text of the measures - why would we want to encourage that? The arguments rarely promote a true understanding of the measure. I completely disagree that the whole point of education is to give kids the ability to sift through and weigh spin - the point of education should be to get voters (kids or otherwise) to understand the result of a yes or no vote on the measure. The arguments simply don't do that, and are a poor substitute for a read of the measure itself, and if need be (which will be likely for most voters), resort to some publication or discussion group from someone the voter trusts. But that's not what you get with the Voters Pamphlet. It is devoid of honest discussion or analysis of the measure, and is instead filled with mindless drivel from both sides.

And why would should taxpayers support it? I realize that there is a $500 fee to help defray the costs, but the fees do not completely cover the publication costs. It seems to me that if taxpayers are going to pay for something to be sent to voters, it ought to have some meaning and serve to educate. The arguments in the voters pamphlet do not serve that purpose.

"People elsewhere would kill for a voter's pamphlet"

What, their out of toilet paper?


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

Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria 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