HinesSight

No bike helmet for this free (headed) spirit

Darn. My outrage over a front page story in today's Oregonian about a proposal to require every bicycle rider to wear a helmet has been cut short.

There's no better blog subject than my righteous indignation (RI).

So it was sort of disappointing to learn that state Sen. Floyd Prozanski has backed off his notion of an Oregon adult bike helmet mandate (those under 17 already are required to wear one).

Sounds like other bloggers beat me to the RI.

The Eugene Democrat says he's still all in favor of helmets. In fact, he says he survived a bike crash in June with nothing worse than a sore shoulder and cracked helmet.

But Prozanski also got a pounding this week from bloggers responding to news reports that he intended to introduce a mandatory helmet law in the 2009 Legislature.

Ordinarily, as a proud progressive who recognizes many opportunities for appropriate government action to make our lives better (like passing Measure 49, a welcome Prozanski proposal), I'd be in favor of a vehicle safety regulation.

But my wife and I frequently ride our mountain bikes in central Oregon's Camp Sherman area – carefully avoiding any hint of a mountain by sticking to paths that are as level as possible.

The closest thing to a highway that I ride on is the dirt road from our cabin to the Camp Sherman store. Sometimes I'll pass a car or two on my 2-mile ride to get a newspaper in the morning. No big deal.

I feel perfectly comfortable, and safe, in my cap. Even more so, when we venture out onto the forest paths and the graveled Camp Sherman bike trail. (We've named our own favorite route the "Creeks and Coffee Trail"; check it out if you're in the area.)

Yes, many mountain bikers wear helmets. But our sedate off-road style doesn't require them. No jumps. No daredevil downhill descents. No blasting at full speed in between tall timber.

So we'd hugely resist a law that said "thou shalt wear a helmet." We have helmets. We wore them the first few times we went mountain biking. Soon we put them aside, not seeing any reason for them.

I took the Oregonian poll on the subject. Surprisingly, the No's were only at 52%, with 48% supporting a universal helmet law.

Well, there's some science on my side. A Scientific American article says that it's "Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists."

At any rate, I doubt that Oregon will see an attempt to mandate helmets for adult bicyclists. Sen. Prozanski seems to have gotten the message from riders who prefer to choose for themselves what to put on their heads.

Murderous insanity of right-wing talk radio

Right off the bat I suspected that the man who killed two people in the Unitarian church shooting would be a devotee of Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. And I was right.

I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but when the news reports said that Jim Adkisson railed against the Unitarian Universalist congregation for being "liberal," including its advocacy for gay rights, I recalled all the hate speech that spews daily from the right-wing blabbermouths.

Savage is the worst of these nuts. He's off his rocker, yet has the gall to write a book called "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder."

That book was found in the killer's house. A review of the book (found via a Google cache) shows that there's good reason to hold Savage partly responsible for helping push a deranged guy over the right-wing edge.

"You will not have a nation unless you awaken to the reality that America has become pacified; America has become feminized; and America is being compromised from without and within," Savage warns. "You cannot let them get away with this. Can America be saved? Is it too late? I believe that with God's will and with your determination to confront the mental disorder of liberalism whenever and wherever it is found, America can both survive and thrive."

The best-selling author and top rated radio talk show host of The Savage Nation not only diagnoses the mental state of liberals, he tells his readers what to do to counteract the ravages wrought by their deranged states of mind and exposes the methods by which they impose their demented agenda on the American people.

Liberalism, he writes, is "made in much the same way as a sausage - it's a blend of fascist, Communist, and socialist ideologies from twentieth century Europe, with a pinch of Nazism, all ground together, yet retaining the flavor of its various parts."

This is sick.

I'm sure Adkisson thought he was being a patriot when he shot up the Unitarian church. Actually, of course, he demonstrated that the real Americans are those who stand up for the ideals this country was founded on – including freedom of speech and tolerance of diversity.

There were heroes in the church that day, but they were all on the liberal/progressive side. Greg McKendry died when he stood up and blocked a shotgun blast with his body.

Meanwhile, Savage, O'Reilly, and Hannity sit on their asses in air-conditioned studios and rant on about how selfish demented liberals are destroying America. Hopefully this tragedy will cause a lot of listeners to realize how dangerous these guys are.

Their hate speech divides America. That's what they want – division, because it helps their ratings when right-wingers flock to hear how, well, right they are. No wonder the Unitarian church was so threatening to Adkisson.

Michael Savage, who claims to be able to diagnose liberalism as a mental disorder, recently claimed that in 99% of autism cases, "it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."

Of course, it isn't. Which led to a firestorm of protest from parents of children with autism and others. Major advertisers on his radio program jumped ship, which makes me feel a lot better about Home Depot and Aflac.

Savage called autistic children "brats, idiots, and morons."

Clearly, this is an instance of the pot calling the kettle black. I like the advice of Rebecca Estepp, an advocate for those with autism.

"Michael Savage is spectacularly uninformed about this major national health crisis," Estepp said. "His comments were beyond insulting and are tantamount to blaming parents for their child's cancer.

"Perhaps 99 percent of his listeners should stop tuning in."

The Amazing Dog Hair Net Seed in Ear Preventer

I want to say, "Order now! Call the toll-free number within the next 30 minutes and we'll send you three, yes three, Amazing Dog Hair Net Seed in Ear Preventers for the price of one."

Except…we don't have a toll-free number. And this afternoon I paid $1.95 for a package of three hair nets at the Sisters, Oregon drug store.

So since Laurel and I would be re-selling them over late night cable TV for, say, $19.95 (plus shipping), you're better off buying them on your own if you want a more or less workable way of keeping seeds out of your dog's ears.

Here's Serena modeling our invention. I came up with the concept. Laurel did the final design work, figuring out how to use a plastic bag twisty tie to fasten the hair net under Serena's chin.

Our motivation for coming up with the Amazing Dog Hair Net Seed in Ear Preventer was having to make a rushed trip to a veterinarian office on Saturday, just before their closing time.

While on a walk with Laurel, Serena had run through some tall dry grass, likely chasing a chipmunk. She started shaking and tilting her head, the tell-tale (and obvious) sign of a seed in the ear.

Laurel was told by the vet that this can be a serious problem.

For one, the seed might work its way farther into the ear canal and possibly puncture the ear drum. For two, a dog can be driven so crazy by the irritation that the frantic head-shaking bursts some blood vessels. (There's probably "for three" and "for four" also, but this was enough to convince us that a quick trip to the vet was necessary.)

The PetClub UK web site has some good information on the subject. However, we didn't find a whole lot useful under "What can I do to prevent this from happening?"

The most obvious solution to prevent these problems occurring is to stop your dog from entering grassy fields. Stick to short, lawn-type grass and pathway walks or forested areas where grass seeds will be at a minimum.

By cutting your dogs hair, particularly around the toes, feet, arm-pits and ears you will have a much higher chance of spotting the seeds, and the seeds will have less chance of being able to cling on.

Carry out regular checks. Every day if possible, particularly after every walk you should check your dog for these. You may have difficulty spotting the smaller seeds, so comb your dog with a fine brush to doubly make sure nothing is clinging on.

A final note from PetClub UK: This is a serious problem that affects thousands of dogs around the UK and the world every year. Vet practices are often inundated with the same occurrences year in year out. Help them, help yourself and above all, help your pet. Check regularly and be aware!

Sure, that's good advice. But if you live in the country or frequently visit areas with tall dry grass, like we do, the advice to "stop your dog from entering grassy fields" isn't practical.

That's why we came up with our invention. Though it needs refining (version 1.0 slips off the ears fairly easily and needs to be re-positioned), it's better than nothing.

If anyone has a better idea, share it via a comment. Our dog's ears will be grateful.

How to survive a Measure 37 vested rights hearing

Yesterday Marion County held a public hearing on the Ridge View Estates (a.k.a. Laack subdivision) application for a vested rights determination.

Meaning, LeRoy Laack hopes to show that he's done enough work on the 43-home, 217 acre project to be able to continue on with it, even though Measure 49, which was voted in last November, prohibits more than three homes on high value farmland or groundwater limited land – which this property is.

The Salem Statesman Journal had a front page story on the hearing today, "Arguments churn at vested rights land-use hearing."

Well, not just arguments. My stomach also. Fortunately, before I left home I remembered that every hearing that's been held on the Laack subdivision has been hugely long.

Most Measure 37 cases are complex. This one, unusually so. So I presciently packed: (1) a ultra healthy low-fat muffin, (2) two granola bars, and (3) a bag of almonds.

Plus, I had a wheat bagel just before the hearing started, fortifying myself at the nearby Beanery coffeehouse.

So I was pretty well prepared for a lengthy session. But after the Laack contingent had made their case, and our Crag Law Center attorney (Ralph Bloemers) had started his own presentation, the churning within my stomach had begun to equal the churning within my argument-filled mind.

Digging into my backpack, which I use as a briefcase, I managed to chomp through some of my eats without attracting too much attention to myself (sitting in the front row, I decided to pass on the granola bars, not wanting crunch, crunch to become part of the official record via the tape of the hearing).

Soon, I also dug into it to retrieve the testimony that I'd prepared on behalf of our neighborhood's Keep Our Water Safe committee and Friends of Marion County.

In my not-so-humble opinion, it's a work of vested rights determination literary art. But that could just be my ego speaking.

Figuring that those into reading these sorts of documents, all two or three of you in the blogosphere, might find some of what I wrote helpful in another legal situation, I'll share the submission: Download marion_county_claimant_laack_not_vested_blog_sharing.doc

The hearing ended with the applicants getting three weeks to submit more info. to the hearings officer; then we get three weeks to respond to their submission; then Laack, et. al. get three more weeks to respond to our submission about their submission.

This case will come to an end someday. Not soon, though. I suspect I'll be filling my backpack with more food before all this is over.

Obama’s right-on Iraq policy: not lost in translation

I'm really enjoying how McCain and Bush are squirming, now that the Iraqi prime minister has endorsed Obama's timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from his country.

They've been chanting the mantra "no timeline, no timeline" for so long, and bashing Dems at any mention of setting a date for withdrawal, it's become almost a sacred policy position.

Yet Bush also has said that the U.S. goal is to have Iraq stand on its own. So neither he nor McCain can publicly chastise Nuri al-Maliki for expressing ideas that mesh with Obama's.

But al-Maliki surely has gotten an earful privately from administration mouthpieces. That's why he tried, not very persuasively, to back away from his interview with a German publication, Spiegel.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in an interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Oops. Too honest. Bring out the tried and true excuse: I was misquoted.

Only problem: al-Maliki wasn't. Spiegel is sticking by its version of the conversation. The New York Times is on the same translation page.

And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama's position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki's comments by The Times: "Obama's remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

But what would you expect? The Bush administration lies about almost everything. So it figures that they'd try to cover up these truthful comments by the Iraqi prime minister, pressuring him to disavow what he said.

Thing is, the truth eventually wins out. As I'm confident it will this November.

Voters will reject McBush. We'll have a President Obama who will carry out what both Iraqis and Americans want: a well thought-out withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Salem Art Fair purchases reflect my sophistication

I'm such a patron of the arts. Well, once a year anyway – when Laurel and I visit the marvelous Salem Art Fair, which opened today and continues through Sunday.

Here's two artistic creations that I brought home this afternoon. I'm deeply pleased with them.

I'd set out for the fair this morning with a primal intention: to find a coffee cup. We only have two that possess the correct vibe (and capacity) to hold my pre-meditation dose of caffeine, which, after thirty or so years of meditative practice, I've found is the main cause of the uplift that I feel.

You'd think it'd be easy to find a coffee cup at an art fair as large as Salem's, but over the years the number of potters has diminished. The artistic offerings are much more eclectic now, which is all to the good.

But it means that someone, like moi, whose sophisticated art collecting has centered around coffee cups, has to work harder to find just the right one.

This mood-elevating yellow cup (especially on gray wintry days) was spotted after pawing through a storage bin at a booth that the artist told me contained additional colors that weren't on display. The sacrifice I made for art, kneeling down on the hard Bush Park ground while holding up a plywood door, added to the satisfaction I got from my purchase.

I like the unevenness of it. Anyone can make a round cup, but it takes an artiste to fashion a irregular one. The artist told me that someone once said that her style was a cross between Martha Stewart and Fred Flintstone.

A good observation. I replied that I enjoyed the look, because it did seem like something that could have been hammered out in a prehistoric cave – to drink saber toothed tiger blood, or such.

Then, I made an impulsive buy. I hadn't realized that what was missing from my life was a bamboo pen holder until I saw the one in the photo. As its creator gave me change for the $10 bill I handed him, he told me that the bottom comes out of it, so the bamboo can be folded up.

I said, "If I ever decide to go on a knapsack tour of Europe, your pen holder is coming along." He thought that was a fine idea.

Here's my final, and most significant, art fair purchase from Firebelle Metalworks of Portland: a three-stone tres cool Chinese'ish rusted metal piece. It's going outside my office window, where I'll be able to glance up from my laptop and contemplate whatever the heck it means.

Stones suspended in air spoke to me. What they've got to say will unfold, I suppose.

We went to the Salem Art Fair with some friends from Seattle, Ron and Rita. They go to quite a few art fairs and they say that Salem's is the best.

Absolutely. The giant oaks and other trees in Bush Park provide shade and a beautiful backdrop for the art. The free music on the main stage is high quality, and the food…well, it's what you'd expect.

Not too healthy, by and large. Heart-clogging deep-fried Elephant Ears still are being sold by the downtown Rotary club, which I used to belong to. For lunch I had a vegetable egg roll and a great $3 baked potato topped precisely as instructed (not too much butter and sour cream, medium with the cheese and chives).

If you're in the vicinity of Salem, head to Bush Park Saturday or Sunday. We're going again tomorrow ourselves. Not a whole lot goes on in sleepy Salem, but the Art Fair is one weekend when the city wakes up.

In praise of expensive stuff

Kudos to my daughter, Celeste, for defending $350 sunglasses in a comment to my post about her company, Barton Perreira, being mentioned in a New York Times story as being "a brand coveted by aficionados."

Another commenter gave me grief for talking about such apparent excess so favorably. Heck, I want some Barton Perreiras. What are my chances of getting a free pair from Celeste if I talk them down?

[Note: actually they can cost quite a bit more than $350.]

Anyway, I agree with what my brilliant, insightful, well spoken child (a chip off of the genetic block, for sure) said:

Interesting comment about it being unethical to spend $350 on sunglasses. Being in the luxury market, I actually think we are more ethical than all those cheap stores that sell $10 sunglasses that you have to throw away or don't feel bad about losing.

The whole point to more expensive clothes, accessories etc. is that they are made to last and the buyer will keep the sunglasses for many years instead of our toss-away mentality in the US. I personally buy one nice handbag, one nice pair of sunglasses, one nice pair of shoes maybe every year or two and keep them until I wear them out.

So who is more ethical, the person who buys tons of cheap crap and throws it away or the person who buys one "expensive" item and cherishes it for years?

Right on, Celeste. Once I get my pair of Barton Perreiras I'll cherish them forever. Or at least until I see some sunglasses that I want even more.

But seriously…you're right. I just dug through my closet and found a shirt that I bought at the Neiman-Marcus in Dallas when you worked for them right out of college.

I remember, when I visited you, that I felt I had to buy something in the men's department, even though all of the clothes seemed ridiculously expensive. If I recall correctly, the shirt cost $50 – big bucks in 1993, or whenever it was.

It's a Bugatchi Uomo. Black, with cool hidden buttons. I don't quite look like the guy on their web site when I wear it, but I definitely feel more stylish and…I don't know what to call it…quality – as in the Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance sense.

Or, maybe not. There's really no need to reach for philosophy to explain why something expensive often feels so good. Like Celeste said, there's a difference between crap and quality. That's about all there is to it.

Lastly, concerning the notion that it's unethical to spend money to sustain a lifestyle above that of the poorest of the Earth's poor: unless you're walking the walk, don't talk the talk.

If you're really doing that, what are you doing on a computer, commenting on my blog post?

Nothing wrong with Obama coming to the middle

I'm a Libra. I like balance (though I don't believe in astrology, I'll unashamedly use it to make a point).

So I think it's great that Obama is moving more toward the middle of the political spectrum, now that he's secured the Democratic presidential nomination.

A few days ago I read a great column in the Portland Oregonian by some woman whose name I can't remember. I'd be quoting it like crazy, but my wife took our newspapers to the recycling center today, screwing up my blog post research.

Regardless, I'll unashamedly use the columnist's ideas as if they were mine (this must be a shame free evening for me).

Here's the deal: Obama has been saying all along that this shouldn't be a nation of red states and blue states, of Republicans and Democrats, of rich and poor, of whites and blacks – all those dualities that separate us from each other.

People love that.

So where are we going to come together? In the left wing of the American house? No. It's going to be in the center, by and large.

Columnist Clarence Page (who I was able to locate online) talks about "Barack Obama and his surge to the middle."

In recent weeks the likely Democratic presidential nominee has taken that risky road. He has softened or abandoned his earlier positions on a parade of issues, including wiretaps, abortion, trade with Mexico and Canada, gun control and public funding of his own campaign.

Liberal bloggers, like Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post, have howled that Obama's selling out the left. But, viewed another way, he's buying into the middle. He's reaching for what former Secretary of State Colin Powell has called the "sensible center," that big, broad place in the political middle where most American voters live.

Good for him. When I listen to Air America, the progressive talk show network, it drives me nuts to hear so much airtime being devoted to whether Obama is acting exactly the way lefties want him to.

He caved in on FISA! He's willing to modify his Iraq withdrawal plan! He called for more faith based initiatives! He said there's an individual right to own guns!

So what? I happen to agree with him on most, if not all, of these issues. And I'm a good example of a long-time unaffiliated voter who recently turned into a Democrat just to vote for Obama in the Oregon primary.

Even when I disagree with Obama about some issue, I keep telling myself: "He's not perfect, but he's so much better than McCain." Unless all those aggrieved lefties plan to vote for McCain, they should shelve their criticism of Obama.

Jonathan Freedland has another nice take on Obama in his "Obama's shuffle to the right suggests this man is ruthless enough to win."

In this light, Obama's U-turns look different. They suggest that he is determined not to be just another principled loser - and the Democrats have had plenty of those. The clearest illustration came in Obama's most blatant reverse. He had promised to stay within the system of taxpayer-funded campaign finance, which would have obliged him to stick to an $85m spending limit. Once it became clear he could raise, and spend, many times that amount, he broke his pledge. Sure, it was unprincipled. But it suggested a man bent on winning and ruthless enough to make sure he does. That's the standard operating procedure for Republicans. For Democrats it takes some getting used to.

Oh, yeah, give me ruthless. Give me triangulation. Give me moving to the middle. Just don't give me four more years of a Republican president.

My daughter is in the New York Times! (sort of)

Since my favorite (and only) child is the sales director for a high-end designer eyewear company, my eyes snapped to attention when I noticed a New York Times story today: "Love Your Sunglasses (Should I Know You?)"

I hoped to read that the demand for expensive sunglasses wasn't going the way of expensive homes: down. Reassuringly, the story said that "statement sunglasses are one luxury that consumers are still willing to splurge on."

Whew! Good news. Even better was what I came across a few paragraphs further on.

"Sunglasses aren't armor anymore — they're not about saying don't touch me," said Ed Burstell, the vice president for cosmetics and accessories for Bergdorf Goodman in New York. Among the more rarefied labels at Bergdorf are Bulgari, Bottega Veneta, Alexander McQueen, Marc Jacobs, Chanel and Barton Perreira, a six-month-old brand coveted by aficionados.

Barton Perreira! That's the start-up company my daughter works for!

Coveted by aficionados. That's a killer blurb. The New York Times reporter should be sent a pair of sunglasses, though likely that'd run afoul of some silly ethics rule.

Lacking ethics myself, and playing the Pitiful Dad card, I immediately emailed my daughter a congratulations on the story, not so subtly mentioning that I too am an aficionado of designer sunglasses – yet somehow lack a pair of Barton Perreira's.

Which, since they cost around $350, isn't surprising.

Anticipating that a pair could be coming into my life soon (I'd wear them in trendy Salem, Oregon hot spots, assuming I can find any, so this would be a valid marketing expense for Barton Perreira), I spent some time today ogling the current collection.

I sort of lean toward "Voyeur." But my daughter can surprise me. Just three months to my birthday, Celeste! However, every day is Father's Day, isn't it?

I’m hot. Global warming is to blame.

It was 90 degrees today in Oregon's generally temperate northern Willamette Valley. Last month we reached 100 degrees, breaking records for this time of year.

I had to do some field mowing today. It was hotter than I wanted it to be. Who do I blame?

Global warming! And the climate change deniers who love to say, "Sure, we're getting more hurricanes (or tornados, floods, heat waves, melting sea ice, etc.) but there's always been natural variations in the weather."

Newsweek's Sharon Begley demolishes that argument in her persuasive piece, "Global Warming is a Cause of This Year's Extreme Weather."

It's heartwarming (bad choice of words, given the sweat on my brow) to have Begley tell it like it is.

It's almost a point of pride with climatologists. Whenever someplace is hit with a heat wave, drought, killer storm or other extreme weather, scientists trip over themselves to absolve global warming. No particular weather event, goes the mantra, can be blamed on something so general.

Extreme weather occurred before humans began loading up the atmosphere with heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. So this storm or that heat wave could be the result of the same natural forces that prevailed 100 years ago—random movements of air masses, unlucky confluences of high- and low-pressure systems—rather than global warming.

This pretense has worn thin. The frequency of downpours and heat waves, as well as the power of hurricanes, has increased so dramatically that "100-year storms" are striking some areas once every 15 years, and other once rare events keep returning like a bad penny.

And here's something that speaks to my overheated psyche:

Global warming has left its clearest fingerprint on heat waves. Since the record scorcher of 1998, the average annual temperatures in the United States in six of the past 10 years have been among the hottest 10 percent on record. Climatologists predict that days so hot they now arrive only once every 20 years will, by midcentury, hit the continental United States once every three years.

Fortunately, both Obama and McCain have the smarts to recognize that global climate change is for real. Unfortunately, we and the planet have had to put up with almost eight years of Bush, the anti-reality president, who's had his head in the scientific sand on this and many other issues.

Since ten acres hasn’t killed me, a condo can wait

Many couples about our age (late 50's, early 60's) are contemplating condo life, the travails of home ownership not meshing with their view of what retirement, or semi-retirement, should be about.

Well, notwithstanding my occasional lustings for a potted plant on a deck, rather than ten acres of natural Oregon land in the lower reaches of the south Salem hills, we're following the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" adage.

And believe me, maintaining our tree, brush, and grass filled property (with enough remaining poison oak and blackberry vines to keep my wife's sprayer busy) sometimes feels like dying, one step removed.

Yet, not so strangely, delightfully so.

Because there's a joy in exerting yourself to almost your limit. This can be done at an athletic club, jogging trail, bicycle ride, or what not, but I find that hard work like field mowing – my current preoccupation – possesses a sweaty satisfaction lacking in other sorts of activities.

When people trade the complexities of a house and yard (or house and acreage) for the simplicity of a condo, they're gaining in some respects but losing in others.

One thing they're missing (and I really would miss my annual field mowing, even though I love to complain about it) is physical exercise. Whether minimal with weeding flower beds, or maximal with the exertion needed to handle my walk-behind DR Field and Brush Mower in tall grass on bumpy sloping ground, home chores help keep an aging body healthy.

I remind myself of this when I'm soaked with perspiration and covered with grass clippings after tackling the areas of our land that need mowing for fire prevention and aesthetic reasons.

Here's a before photo, a field that's on my to-do list for next week.

And here's an after photo that shows some of my weekend work (along with a dog sniffing out field mice, who, I strongly suspect, aren't big fans of my mowing).

When I finish a workout at the athletic club, I'm not able to stand back and admire what I accomplished. Because, nothing was, other than exercising. But after every field is cut, I love to put the DR mower on idle, take some sips of water, gaze at where I've been working, and think… beautiful.

There's a lot to like about a potted plant on a condo deck. It's just not the same as an acre or two of freshly cut grass. The sweat-soaked t-shirt I've got drying outside testifies to that.

Am I living with a terrorist?!

I just read about the FBI's proposed new policy of finding terrorists by using racial and ethnic profiling. Ever on the alert, I decided to take a closer look around our neighborhood for suspects.

Didn't have to go far. There she was, sitting on what I now recognize as a prayer rug, right by our front door, clad in a semblance of her native Islamic garb.

Thank you, Attorney General Mukasey. My eyes have been opened.

I'm now seeing some disturbing resemblances. That nose…that dark facial hair…

What’s wrong with flip-flopping?

I'm trying to get my head around the current craze for screaming "Flip flopper!" at political candidates who change their minds.

Hey, flip flopping works for me when I make pancakes. They don't cook as well when you cleave to consistency and let the batter lie where it lays until one side is burnt and the other is half done.

Obama's remarks on Iraq have stimulated the latest media flip flop feeding frenzy.

Oh my God! A presidential candidate is open to adjusting his policies based on new information and further thought! Can we trust him?! Shouldn't his ideas remain frozen in place, like George Bush's?

Of course not. Life is nothing but a testimony to flip flopping.

I loved being married to my first wife. Until we decided to get divorced. Flip flop (just like John McCain).

I liked the Honda del Sol that I owned quite a few years ago. Until the detachable top started squeaking and interior rattles appeared. Flip flop.

So it goes. For all of us. An AP story notes that voters are forgiving of flip flops, probably because they're so much a part of their own lives.

And though there can sometimes be criticism about shifting positions, voters usually forgive and forget. For one thing, a willingness to hone policy, add nuance or even change one's mind — especially when new information comes to light — is not in itself a bad quality in a leader.

Give me a flip flopper over a flop any time. Instead of being led by a politician who's driving straight into a policy brick wall, I'd rather see some smoothly executed U-turns.

Oregonians in Action still up to its old deceptive tricks

Having failed to achieve the asphaltization of Oregon through Measure 37, now that Measure 49 has been approved by an overwhelming majority of voters, Oregonians in Action is up to new deceptions.

And, not coincidentally, fund-raising.

Someone who knows that my wife and I are interested in water issues sent us a June 13, 2008 mailing from OIA. It's filled with Dave Hunnicutt's usual over-the-top hyperbole.

Last year I wrote about the lies Oregonians in Action was telling about Measure 49. So it isn't a big surprise that OIA is spewing half-truths and untruths about a couple of well-related bills that were drafted for the 2007 state legislature.

The bills, HB 2564 and HB 2566, addressed real problems. We live on ten rural acres and have a well. Everyone in our neighborhood does.

We've heard the horror stories, lots of them. Wells that were fine for decades until nearby over-development sucked them dry. Deepening is expensive. Sometimes saline water is reached. It takes a lot of time and trouble to prove that a newly dug neighboring well is the cause of your problem.

But in the fund-raising letter, OIA denies that there's any problem with residential wells in Oregon. The first lines set the deceptive tone.

Here we go again! The Oregon Legislature is preparing another assault on rural property owners in the 2009 legislative session. But this time, the legislature is taking a different tack. Instead of focusing on your property rights, the legislature is considering taking away your water rights!

Two exclamation points and a bunch of boldface type in the initial three sentences. That's the OIA style. Spread the B.S. strong and deep, the truth be damned.

HB 2564 would require that meters be installed on new wells, not old ones (though the Water Resources Commission would have the authority to do this – unlikely as it would be). Yet OIA says:

And don't be fooled into thinking that House Bill 2564 only applied to new water uses. That's wrong – House Bill 2564 applied to every Oregon family who gets water from a well.

No, Mr. Hunnicutt, you're wrong. At least, it sure seems that way from my reading of the bill. Again, HB 2564 only lays out the possibility of existing wells being required to have a meter. So it's false to say that it applies to all wells.

Here's a more blatant lie.

Why did the Legislature want to put a meter on your well? So they could tax you for your water and tell you how much water you can use!

More Hunnicutt fancifulness. The guy has a great imagination. Especially when he's out to raise money for Oregonians in Action by scaring people. Tax water? Show me the evidence, Dave.

And you'd think that the attorneys at OIA would realize that Oregon law already tells residential well users how much water they can use: 15,000 gallons per day. Meters would simply document whether this amount is being exceeded.

Plus, the words "your water" point to another untruth. The water under your land isn't yours. It belongs to the state of Oregon. That's a fact:

In 1909, the citizens of Oregon authorized the state government to manage the allocation of surface water. In 1995, the Oregon Legislature added ground water management. Under these laws (the "Oregon Water Code") all surface and ground water belongs to the public. It is the job of the Water Resources Department to manage this water for the protection of existing water uses, the environment, and future needs. The Department works to ensure a sufficient supply to meet the needs of Oregon´s growing economy and quality of life.

How different truth, like the paragraph above, sounds in comparison to Oregonians in Action verbiage. Here's another examples of lies in Hunnicutt's letter.

But the environmental extremists have decided that it is bad to allow people to live and work in rural areas, so last session, they convinced the legislature to introduce House Bill 2566.

This bill would require a permit before a residential well could be dug. Just like you have to get a septic permit, or a driveway permit, or a construction permit, before you build a rural home. Gosh, what a non-invasion of liberty.

I'll end with one of the few bits of unvarnished truth in the OIA letter.

That is why I am asking you to make a contribution of $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50, or $25 to Oregonians in Action.