PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline in this blog landed in my mind after I had talked to some of my past lobbying colleagues who are contending with one of the toughest legislative sessions ever.

In general, they say “it sucks.”

There are at least two reasons:

• The session is operating in a “virtual” sense – that is, neither citizens nor lobbyists are allowed inside the Capitol building and, thus, everyone uses only phone, e-mail, texts or on-line access (through a contract the state has with Microsoft Teams) to communicate.  The reason, of course, is the pandemic.

• Looking a bit like Congress, which is not a compliment, legislators on the right and left at the Capitol don’t like each much and often would rather loft criticisms than solutions.

Here is how one of my lobby friends put it.

“There are so many process issues and how the lobby participates in a virtual session is beyond challenging.  I could go on and on about how stupid this virtual session is, but the biggest thing for me being locked out of the building, is the energy I no longer get from being inside the marble walls.

“Sessions are always hard.  They are exhausting and intense.  But, this year, everyone just sits and stares at a screen all day long.”

I am not asking for sympathy for lobbyists.  They are doing their job as representatives of the clients who hire them.  They choose that line of work. 

But, what they do need is recognition about how tough the job is when personal interaction does not occur.  Members of the public need it, too.

As I reflect on my 25 years as a state lobbyist, the one task that made me successful was this:  The ability to talk personally with each of the 90 legislators, some more than others, of course, but with all 90 during a six-month legislative session.

The personal contact was designed to achieve two things – first, for me to listen to their perspectives (listening is an important, though often lost, credential in the lobbying business) and, second, for me to impart perspectives from my clients (another important part of lobbying).

When personal interaction is lost, the results are not as solid.

Now, the Oregonian newspaper reports that the Legislature is considering allowing virtual hearings in the future, even with the pandemic in the rear-view mirror.  That will be a good change for citizens if they can figure out how to navigate the on-line system – especially for citizens who would have to travel long distances to get to Salem.

But, for lobbyists, I suspect they yearn for a return to the ability to engage in personal interaction.  If I was there, I would.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

John F. Kennedy wrote the book “Profiles in Courage” to tout political leaders of his day.

If he were alive today, he would devote a chapter to Liz Cheney, the U.S. Representative from Wyoming who would not lower herself to fawn over Donald Trump. 

So, her colleagues, aimless Republicans, voted yesterday to strip her of her leadership postion in the U.S. House.  They did so only by a voice vote in a private meeting with no opportunity for anyone to speak for Cheney.  And they performed this “cancel culture” ritual just moments after railing against “cancel culture” on the House floor.

This reminds me that one of my partners in the firm where I worked for almost 25 years often tried to convince me that the Republican Party, under Donald Trump, had gone way off the rails and would not soon recover, if ever.

I demurred, suggesting that Trump was an outlier and that, eventually, the party would return to its conservative roots honed under President Ronald Reagan and other similar national figures.

I was wrong.

Look only so far to what happened to Cheney.

She wouldn’t countenance Trump’s “big lie” that the election was stolen from him by President Joe Biden, so Cheney was tossed over the side.

Now, without her leadership position, she intends to lead the anti-Trump Republicans.  In her commitment to do so, she is showing noteworthy political courage in the face of the Trump scourge. 

“I will not sit back and watch in silence while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law,” she said on the House floor.

A couple commentators made these points on the day before Cheney lost her job.

FROM FORMER U.S. SENATOR JEFF FLAKE:  “It seems a good time to examine how we got to a place where such a large swath of the electorate (70 per cent of Republican voters, according to polling) became willing to reject a truth that is so self-evident.

“This allergy to self-evident truth didn’t happen all at once, of course. This frog has been boiling for some time now. The Trump period in American life has been a celebration of the unwise and the untrue. From the ugly tolerance of the pernicious falsehood about President Barack Obama’s place of birth to the bizarre and fanatical fable about the size of inauguration crowds, to the introduction of the term “alternative facts” into the American lexicon, the party’s steady embrace of dishonesty as a central premise has brought us to this low and dangerous place.

FROM WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST MAX BOOT:  “Trump’s misconduct was of an entirely different order of magnitude. Far from responding to an attack on the United States, he facilitated one by welcoming Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“He fired FBI Director James B. Comey for not pledging personal loyalty and Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not squelching an investigation of Trump campaign ties with Russia.  He took numerous other actions that could have been charged as obstruction of justice if special counsel Robert S. Mueller III had been free to indict a sitting president.

“Trump declared war on his own government, maligning honorable civil servants as agents of a nonexistent “deep state.”  He demonized political opponents as “treasonous” and called the press “the enemy of the people,” borrowing a phrase from Joseph Stalin.  He lied at a record-setting pace (The Post Fact-Checker recorded 30,573 false or misleading statements over four years).  He tried to use military aid to blackmail Ukraine into helping him politically — and fired a U.S. ambassador to that country who was seen as an obstacle to his nefarious designs.

“Finally, and worst of all, Trump refused to accept the 2020 election and instigated a violent insurrection to stop Congress from certifying his opponent as the winner.”

Now, even as Trump is out of official power, national Republican “leaders” (if that’s what they are?) appear to be expressing fealty to the old president.  That is bad for the country, especially if Trump finds a way to rise again.

What’s needed is a Republican party that doesn’t bow at the altar of Trump – or perhaps even a third party that I will label “centrists.” They won’t have much chance to win national elections, but perhaps can exert just a bit of rational thought into public policy debates.

It is not an exaggeration to suggest that, if Trump wins, the future of American democracy will be at stake.  In New York magazine, writer Jonathan Chait put it this way:  “The fate of American democracy is the biggest issue in American politics.”

Liz Cheney knows that today more than ever.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

A story in the Oregonian newspaper caught my attention the other day because of what it conveyed about a sometimes short-sighted Oregon Legislature.

Here are excerpts from the story.

“When wildfires burned through Oregon last fall, many people didn’t receive a local emergency alert or evacuation message, which left them scrambling to evacuate safely.  State officials have since approved a new emergency alert system meant to fix that.

“The system, called OR-Alert, would operate statewide, rather than in individual counties, ideally improving communication in the event of a disaster.”

Perhaps true, but the issue is this.

When the Executive Branch embarked on a plan a number of years ago to create a statewide emergency alert system, it did so because the country learned, in the 9-11 disaster, that emergency services personnel couldn’t talk to each other, nor could members of the public potentially affected by a disaster receive advance word of it.

So, the objective in Oregon was to create what came to be called the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network, or OWIN for short.

A request-for-proposal was circulated and two potential vendors responded – Harris Corporation and Motorola.  And, in a tough and open competition, Harris won the contract.

But, then, the Legislative Branch balked.  No one knew the reason for sure, but it might have been because some legislators didn’t want to invest money in the new system despite the rationale for it.

After last season’s fires, excerpts in the article above make it clear the Legislature should have acted when it had a chance to do so years ago.  Of course, hindsight is great and it often is better than foresight.  Further, I don’t blame legislators, in total, for the decision not to proceed because, if nothing else, some of those who had misgivings were my friends and had a rationale for not proceeding.

Am I biased?

Yes, my lobby firm represented Harris Corporation and we worked with the company throughout the bidding process.  Harris, of course, proceeded on the basis of its own, impeccable emergency communication credentials, but it was my privilege to provide a political context for the process.

Harris won the contract.

After the award, Motorola balked by going to the Legislature to try to overturn the Executive Branch decision.  The effort was unsuccessful.

But, the Legislature then didn’t move ahead with the full OWIN project, deciding, instead, to embark on a far smaller interoperable communications plan, one that didn’t provide statewide coverage for emergency services personnel, or for the public.

Now the price is being paid for being a day late and a dollar short.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Government processes move slowly.

It’s the reality, by design, for several reasons:

• A slow, deliberate process allows time for compromise somewhere in the middle – though compromise doesn’t occur enough these days as both sides, or all sides, yell on street corners, figuratively, in an effort to get acclaim and attention.

• A slow, deliberate process provides time for the general public to get involved if it chooses to do so.

• A slow, deliberate pace acknowledges the reality that government, whether at the federal, regional, state or local levels, is large and cumbersome.

Washington Post opinion column Jennifer Rubin wrote about this last weekend:

“President Biden came into office promising to be a decent, competent and normal president.  ‘Normal’ in part entailed no incendiary tweets, no self-dealing for him and his family, and no staffing government with unqualified hacks.  If those are the criteria, then he has succeeded.

“But ‘normal’ also means patient, often tedious and sometimes imperceptible statecraft.  You pass legislation.  The economy takes a couple steps forward, seems to hesitate and then continues on.  The opposition party takes definitive stances on everything in proposed legislation, and then the White House tries to pick off allies.  Major legislation takes months, not days or weeks.”

Further, Rubin that, “in foreign policy, you steel yourself for mind-numbing negotiations and plenty of play-acting.  Especially if you are inclined to use a full array of international tools (e.g., economic, diplomatic) and rely in part on coordination with allies.”

After he reached the 100-day mark in his presidency, Biden has continued to seek major, transformative legislation.  But, to quote Rubin, “he is the proverbial tortoise who steadily moves ahead, pounding away at his message, talking to Congress and reaching out to the country at large.”

Let me turn to reflect on the situation in Oregon for just a moment – the state where I worked in and around government for about 40 years.

Things are designed to move slowly.

For instance, if an individual piece of legislation is introduced, here is what happens to it on its way toward passage:

• First, the legislative concept is put into a draft bill form by members of the Legislative Counsel Office, which functions much like a law firm for the Legislature.
• Second, when the concept is final, it is introduced as a Senate or House bill.
• Third, from there, the bill, if it is heard, goes through at least five steps – and sometimes more – before it is sent on to the governor.  [Of course, not all bills are considered for hearings and, if not, don’t become law.]
• Fourth, in the first chamber – either the Senate or the House – a bill, if it is to move forward, is scheduled for a “public hearing.”  Then, if it still going to move, it is scheduled for a “work session.”
• Fifth, any bill that passes a House or Senate committee goes to the full chamber for a vote.
• Sixth, if the bill passes the first chamber, it is sent to the second chamber where the process starts again.
• Seventh, if the second chamber passes the bill, it heads to the governor who has three options – sign it into law, allow it to become law without his/her signature, or veto it.

So, slow movement.

Back to the Biden pace.

For me, two things are true. 

First, Biden understands a lot about government given his long tenure and he is able to move confidently slowly through the process.

Second, I remain concerned about his tendency to rely too heavily on government solutions to every problem.  For me, that was true with Biden’s Democrat predecessor Barack Obama who, with Biden at his side, also turned too often to government.

Despite this latter point, I am glad Biden is in the White House, given the alternative.  At least, as columnist Rubin writes, we don’t have to deal with “incendiary tweets, self-dealing for Trump and his family, and staffing government with unqualified hacks.” 

We now can have real debates about policy, including about the role of government in those policies – despite the slow pace of the process.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Kerry Tymchuk, executive director of the Oregon Historical Society, performed a solid service in his most recent “Director’s Corner” column.

Based on information provided by a resource called The Oregon Encyclopedia, Tymhuck listed films and TV shows that had been filmed in Oregon over the years, as well as top Hollywood stars who had made a mark here.  [Tymchuk is a friend of mine and a former partner in my old lobbying and PR firm.]

Filming in Oregon contributes to Oregon’s economy and I say that as a past deputy director of the Oregon Economic Development Department where one of our operations worked hard to sell TV and film location scouts on Oregon.

The rationale is more that Oregon connections to Hollywood, though that can be interesting.  When films and TV shows are shot here, Oregonians work on the shows.  And sometimes there even are slots for extras.

Here is Kerry’s list of Oregon Hollywood connections:

• The General, a classic Buster Keaton silent film was shot in Cottage Grove in 1926.

• Animal House, a highly-rated satire about fraternity life at the University of Oregon, also was shot in Cottage Grove, this time in 1978.

• One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was shot mostly in Salem.  It was based on a book by Oregon novelist Ken Kesey.  The film won Oscars for Best Film, Best Actor and Best Actress.

• The Way West, shot in Oregon, won a reputation as one of the worst westerns ever made despite the fact that it starred Hollywood icons Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum and Richard Widmark.

• Clark Gable, the Hollywood legend, once lived in Portland and worked at Meier and Frank where he met his first wife.  Of course, he moved on to fame and fortune elsewhere.

• Keiko, the Orca whale, brought huge crowds to Newport after starring in the move “Free Willy,” even though, unfortunately, the film was not shot in Oregon.

This list does not include another film shot in and around Astoria where I once worked for the Daily Astorian newspaper.  It was the Goonies, which used locations on the coast, as well as in town.   The movie still appears frequently on publicly available cable channels when my daughter often calls me to say she is watching it again for who knows what number of times.

As Kerry Tymchuk wrote, “fascinating and extensive history of films and TV shows” being shot in Oregon “will have you craving for popcorn.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I have a friend who says he has no time to discuss golf rules, which he finds complicated and time-consuming.

That’s why I like to talk to him about those rules.

But no argument with his disposition.  But, here, my second recent blog about golf, is another often-misunderstood issue regarding the game I love.

It is this:  What is meant by the handicap number assigned to each golf hole?

Most golfers think that, for example, the #1 handicap hole means that it is toughest hole on the course.  And that toughness proceeds from the #2 hole on to the #18 hole; thus the latter is the easiest hole.

No.

Well, I guess that could be true, but it is not the right definition of “handicap assigned to a hole.”

From the Internet, here is the actual definition of what the handicap number means:

“The number one handicap stroke hole is assigned to the hole where the bogey golfer needs an additional stroke in order to halve the hole with a scratch golfer.”

There, got it now?

Well, for me, yes, sort of.  The definition is tougher to remember than the one that focuses just on the toughness of the hole.  And it also is difficult to explain to others in my regular golf groups.

Golf rules and definitions are complicated.  Too much so, for my taste, in some cases, as is this one.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The one word headline on this blog is all I need to muster to commemorate solid action by the Biden Administration.

Finally!

The Administration is taking the first steps to obliterate one of the most obscene actions of the perverted Donald Trump.  It was his effort, an unfortunately successful one, that will stand in history as obscene and egregious….to separate children and their parents at the U.S. Border.

Call it what it was:  Kidnapping.

I have written about this before, hoping that the Biden Administration would take action to overturn Trump.  Now it has.

So, I devote this blog to the Washington Post summary of the action that appeared under this headline:

Massive family reunification effort starts with a mother and son at the border

Now for the article.

SAN DIEGO — Three years, seven months and four days after U.S. immigration agents separated her from her child, Sandra Ortíz was walking through the San Ysidro border crossing Tuesday when she spotted Bryan Chávez.

“My son!” she cried. “I missed you so much!”

They held each other quietly in the center of the pedestrian plaza, the frenzy of the border a blur around them.

Ortíz and Chávez were among the thousands of families separated by the Trump administration in 2017 and 2018 under a policy intended to deter migration. Now they were among the first reunited under the Biden administration — the start of a massive relocation of parents deported by one U.S. president and returned by another. In total, more than 1,000 families are expected to be reunited.

Ortíz, 48, from central Mexico, had packed her bag days earlier: three outfits, a pair of shoes and the birth certificate of her son, whom she hadn’t seen since they were separated at the border in 2017, when he was 15. He’s now almost 19.

Chávez eventually moved in with relatives in Southern California, where he enrolled in high school. Ortíz was deported alone to Mexico.

In the days leading up to the reunification, she could barely sleep.

“I keep thinking about what it’s going to be like. How will I react? How will he react?” she said Monday. “He’s not the same boy I remember.”

U.S. to begin reuniting migrant families separated under ‘cruel’ Trump policy, DHS secretary says

They’re one of four families to be reunited this week as part of what government officials and immigration lawyers describe as a trial balloon — a test to find the most effective ways to return parents to their children without reviving the trauma they experienced when they were separated. And so it was with some reservation that the lawyers working on their case told Ortíz that the process would involve her returning to the same border crossing where she had been separated from her son.

“Hopefully it’s not a triggering event,” said Carol Anne Donohoe, Ortíz’s attorney, of the law firm Al Otro Lado.

“I think it’s all going to come flooding back to me when I’m there,”Ortíz said. As she walked to the immigration office, she imagined agents handcuffing her again and leading her away.

But this time, they processed her quickly, accepting her humanitarian parole paperwork, leading her to the pedestrian bridge. Chávez was waiting in a red shirt and black jeans and holding a bouquet of balloons that said, “Best Mom Ever.”

Ortíz and Chávez had fled their village in Mexico’s Michoacán state, where it seemed as though everything that could go wrong did. Her husband disappeared in 2010; his body was found two days later with bullet wounds. Then the local cartel delivered the body of their teenage neighbor, Chávez’s friend, dismembered in a bag. And then they began trying to recruit Chávez.

“That’s when we decided to go,” Ortíz said.

It was October 2017. The Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy wouldn’t be officially implemented until April 2018, but authorities had already begun separating migrant families at the border.

Ortíz and Chávez turned themselves in at the San Ysidro port of entry and requested asylum. Two days later, she says, they were taken to a nondescript office.

“They told me to say goodbye to my son, that I wouldn’t see him again,” she said. “And then they took him away.”

Ortíz was detained for more than a month with other mothers who had been separated from their children. Like Ortíz, most were unable to communicate with their children during their time in detention. She said Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers told them their sons and daughters would be put up for adoption.

Eventually, Ortíz was told that she had failed her “credible fear” interview, the first step in gaining asylum, and would be deported. She asked for her son to be deported with her, she said, but officials told her it wasn’t possible.

After Ortíz was sent back to Tijuana, she called her older son. José Arturo had migrated to the United States years earlier. He told her that Chávez had arrived in Southern California and the two of them were living together.

Ortíz took a bus back to Michoacán. She moved in with her parents on the outskirts of their town. For weeks, she refused to go outside. She made video calls to Chávez, but they mostly just stared at each other and cried.

“I assumed, ‘This is it. I’ll never see him again,’ ” she said.

Ortíz found a job harvesting lemons, earning about $10 per day, three days per week. She and Chávez settled into a routine of about two video calls a week. She charted his progress from call to call.

First he was learning English. Then he was enrolling in advanced-placement classes. He moved in with his sister, Yeritzel, who had migrated separately to the United States. Then he was graduating high school early. He told Ortíz about his prom and his first full-time job. He ended almost every call by saying, “We’ll be together soon.”

But when he hung up the phone, he said, he would tell his friends: “I wish she was here for this.”

President Biden promised during his campaign last year to reunite families separated by the Trump administration. When he was elected, Ortíz began to wonder whether a return to the United States might be possible.

Al Otro Lado, the law firm, had contacted her and told her to be patient. But her lawyers grew frustrated with the pace of the reunification process.

“We had to keep telling our clients to wait and wait and wait,” Donohoe said.

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to process the first few returning parents at the border. Ortíz’s flight to Tijuana — her first time in an airplane — was booked. So was a coronavirus test and an appointment with Customs and Border Protection in San Ysidro.

“We are reuniting the first group of families, many more will follow, and we recognize the importance of providing these families with the stability and resources they need to heal,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told reporters Sunday.

A small group of lawyers and advocates, including Donohoe, made arrangements for about three dozen parents, among the first group slated to return. The challenges were many. The passport process in Guatemala, for example, proved painstaking. Some parents had limited cellphone access and could be reached only once a week. Others had developed a deep mistrust of the United States after their separations and worried that parts of the reunification program might be a scam.

Another group of advocates was charged with finding hundreds of separated parents who have not been located since their deportations. Four-hundred and sixty-five remain “unreachable.” A fraction are probably living with the children in the United States, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

In June 2018, a judge ordered the Trump administration to reunify separated families within 30 days, and hundreds were. But by then, hundreds more had already been deported without their children.

Because the Trump administration kept little contact information for the parents they had deported, advocates were left to fund radio advertisements that aired across Central America.

“If you or someone you know was separated from a child at the border with the United States between 2017 and 2018,” the narrator of one ad said, “this information will interest you.”

A few days ago, before Ortíz left for the border, Chávez gave her a video tour of her future home, including two neatly made beds next to each other.

“How pretty,” she said, smiling at the screen, which then flashed again to her son’s face, more mature than she remembered, with a dark shadow of facial hair.

“He looks like a man,” she thought.

And then she thought: “He looks sad. He’s not the same son I had. This whole thing has changed him.”

Asked to envision the weeks after the reunification, she paused.

“Being together again will be beautiful,” she said. “But it might not be easy.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

For anyone interested in questions that involve an unimportant issue in contrast to the world’s woes, here’s one:  What to do about the fact that some pros hit a golf ball farther than ever before?

Some will say who cares.  Others will say it matters in the game of golf.  Still others have no opinion, if only because the issue is so obscure.

I say the question matters.  Perhaps that is because golf is a game I love and it occupies a lot of my time in retirement.

There have been various proposals to stem the ever-growing long distance golf shots, which, frankly, threaten the character of the came.

• The best golf pro in history, Jack Nicklaus, suggests changing the golf ball so it won’t go as far.

• Some suggest changing the nature of golf courses – make the rough grow very high and narrow fairways at the same time so the so-called “bomb and gougers” will have to tone down their shots in order to remain in play.

• Some suggest reducing the number of golf clubs a player can carry – the current limit is 14 – so golfers wouldn’t have as many options to hit the ball so far.

This is important is the sense that doing nothing could present a challenge to golf course operators and architects who will have to make courses ever longer, a threat which carries a number of environmental considerations, as well as issues for current courses around the country.

One of my favorite golf writers, George Peper, who edits Links Magazine, showed up this weekend with his perception on the golf distance issue.  Here is an excerpt what he wrote:

“So it seems we’re finally going to get some answers from the USGA and R&A on the distance question.  After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.

“Much of their recent chatter has focused on the notion of curtailing the shaft length of the driver.  Meanwhile, they’ve asked for feedback.

“Here’s mine:   Don’t simply limit the length of clubs, limit the number of them.  Cut the maximum number of weapons a golfer may carry from 14 to seven.  And not just for the pros, for all of us.

“Sound outlandish? Believe me, it’s no more outlandish than asking ball manufacturers to spend millions of dollars creating a product that’s inferior to the one they already make.

“I learned that from bitter experience.  About 40 years ago, when I was editor of GOLF Magazine, I wrote a column in support of Jack Nicklaus’s idea of throttling back the golf ball.  I made what I thought was a cogent case.  The day the column appeared, our publisher got a call from the CEO of Titleist informing him that, because of my views, he was cancelling its $2 million advertising schedule.

“For the sake of non-argument, let’s leave the ball alone and cut back the clubs.  That shouldn’t frighten the equipment makers.  After all, I’m not suggesting they stop producing 7-hybrids or 4-irons or 62-degree wedges.  The fact that we’d carry only seven clubs doesn’t mean we’d own only seven.

“Quite the contrary, I would think each of us would want to have in our garage, car trunk, or locker a complete arsenal— even more than 14—from which to assemble our desired seven.  Keep in mind also that set makeup would vary not only from player to player based upon strength and skill, but from day to day according to the challenge of the course and the playing conditions.

Peper makes solid points.

But so does one of my friends who wrote this to me over the weekend:

“Remember the U.S. Open at Merion, one of the shortest venues for an Open.  The pros had a heck of a time.  I think rather than making courses longer and balls longer and shafts longer, we need to go in the opposite direction.  Put the premium on hitting fairways, chipping and putting.”

Also good points.

No doubt the distance debate will continue, even as we anticipate finally getting some answers from the United States Golf Association in the U.S. and the Royal & Ancient in Europe.

As Peper put it:

“After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.”

Well, a final point is that, for me and many of my friends – they are old folks – the distance issue won’t matter much.  We don’t hit the golf ball far enough any more, if we ever did.  So let the debate continue.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

For anyone interested in questions that involve an unimportant issue in contrast to the world’s woes, here’s one:  What to do about the fact that some pros hit a golf ball farther than ever before?

Some will say who cares.  Others will say it matters in the game of golf.  Still others have no opinion, if only because the issue is so obscure.

I say the question matters.  Perhaps that is because golf is a game I love and it occupies a lot of my time in retirement.

There have been various proposals to stem the ever-growing long distance golf shots, which, frankly, threaten the character of the came.

• The best golf pro in history, Jack Nicklaus, suggests changing the golf ball so it won’t go as far.

• Some suggest changing the nature of golf courses – make the rough grow very high and narrow fairways at the same time so the so-called “bomb and gougers” will have to tone down their shots in order to remain in play.

• Some suggest reducing the number of golf clubs a player can carry – the current limit is 14 – so golfers wouldn’t have as many options to hit the ball so far.

This is important is the sense that doing nothing could present a challenge to golf course operators and architects who will have to make courses ever longer, a threat which carries a number of environmental considerations, as well as issues for current courses around the country.

One of my favorite golf writers, George Peper, who edits Links Magazine, showed up this weekend with his perception on the golf distance issue.  Here is an excerpt what he wrote:

“So it seems we’re finally going to get some answers from the USGA and R&A on the distance question.  After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.

“Much of their recent chatter has focused on the notion of curtailing the shaft length of the driver.  Meanwhile, they’ve asked for feedback.

“Here’s mine:   Don’t simply limit the length of clubs, limit the number of them.  Cut the maximum number of weapons a golfer may carry from 14 to seven.  And not just for the pros, for all of us.

“Sound outlandish? Believe me, it’s no more outlandish than asking ball manufacturers to spend millions of dollars creating a product that’s inferior to the one they already make.

“I learned that from bitter experience.  About 40 years ago, when I was editor of GOLF Magazine, I wrote a column in support of Jack Nicklaus’s idea of throttling back the golf ball.  I made what I thought was a cogent case.  The day the column appeared, our publisher got a call from the CEO of Titleist informing him that, because of my views, he was cancelling its $2 million advertising schedule.

“For the sake of non-argument, let’s leave the ball alone and cut back the clubs.  That shouldn’t frighten the equipment makers.  After all, I’m not suggesting they stop producing 7-hybrids or 4-irons or 62-degree wedges.  The fact that we’d carry only seven clubs doesn’t mean we’d own only seven.

“Quite the contrary, I would think each of us would want to have in our garage, car trunk, or locker a complete arsenal— even more than 14—from which to assemble our desired seven.  Keep in mind also that set makeup would vary not only from player to player based upon strength and skill, but from day to day according to the challenge of the course and the playing conditions.

Peper makes solid points.

But so does one of my friends who wrote this to me over the weekend:

“Remember the U.S. Open at Merion, one of the shortest venues for an Open.  The pros had a heck of a time.  I think rather than making courses longer and balls longer and shafts longer, we need to go in the opposite direction.  Put the premium on hitting fairways, chipping and putting.”

Also good points.

No doubt the distance debate will continue, even as we anticipate finally getting some answers from the United States Golf Association in the U.S. and the Royal & Ancient in Europe.

As Peper put it:

“After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.”

Well, a final point is that, for me and many of my friends – they are old folks – the distance issue won’t matter much.  We don’t hit the golf ball far enough any more, if we ever did.  So let the debate continue.

Interesting but I’m not a fan. I’m reminded you of the US Open at Marion – one of the shortest venues for an Open. The pros had a heck of a time. I think rather than making courses longer and balls longer and shafts longer – we need to go the opposite direction. Put the premium on hitting fairways, chipping and putting.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I had what I consider to be a brilliant thought a couple days ago – a thought about how to manage the current stage of the confounding virus.

Before enunciating my brilliant thought, these comments:

• Truth be told, it was my wife who first came up with the thought, so I piggyback on her brilliance.

• Also, truth be told, the Oregonian newspaper mentioned the same thought the other day – see below – so I am a follower, not a leader.

• And, I continue to be glad that I am not involved in a position in state government to provide advice on managing the virus.  There appear to be no good decisions – at least no good decisions accepted by everyone.  So, for Governor Kate Brown, Health Authority Director Pat Allen and others I know who are involved in the decisions, I say continue to do what you believe is right based on science and statistics.  I also say give them room to make those decisions.

Now, for the idea.

Why not allow those who have received vaccinations the ability to frequent retail establishments such as restaurants, gyms and other facilities?  Require those individuals to present verification of vaccination at the front door, along with photo ID.

Then, let those persons gain the “I have been vaccinated reward,” as long as they observe other useful precautions, such as wearing masks and social distancing.

An approach such as this would achieve two objectives:

1. Reward persons who have gotten vaccines.

• Incent persons without vaccines to get the shots.

“Here is how the Oregonian newspaper reported the idea:

About 30 per cent of Oregonians are fully vaccinated.  When asked by a reporter during Friday’s news conference why she (Governor Brown) wasn’t allowing vaccinated people to patronize businesses indoors — such as dine inside a restaurant – she said she worries that would be unfair to people of certain races and ethnicities who haven’t been immunized at the same rate as the overall population.”

Good point.

But, for me, with all due respect to the governor – and I do know her well and have respect for her – I think she should give further consideration to the good idea of rewarding the vaccinated and incenting the unvaccinated, with a clause designed to give special consideration to racial and ethnic persons who may so far have missed out on vaccine access.

When I mentioned this idea to a friend of mine, he said he wondered how the approach would be enforced, especially if an ardent “anti-vaxxer” showed up at the front door of an establishment and plowed his or her way in.  No good answer for his good question.

So, on and on we go looking for a way out of the Covid virus dilemma.