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.

Here I go again.  Postulating notions when I know something, but not everything. 

But, I guess, that’s the nature of writing a blog…such as this one.

Today, I submit that this is a good time not to be a high-level public official such as a governor.

Navigating the shoals of the Covid vaccine emergency is as tough as anything for governors in the West –- from Jay Inslee in Washington, to Kate Brown in Oregon, to Gavin Newsom in California.  Not to mention other governors around the country.

I feel for these public officials, not because I agree with them all the time – I don’t — but because I recognize the almost impossible nature of their task.

If I were in their shoes, I would take action that would probably get me recalled, such as is happening now to Newsom in California.

Given the national Covid emergency related to the delta variant, I would mandate that everyone – yes, everyone – get the vaccine.

To me, the rationale for doing so strikes me as a bit like a mandate to buy automobile insurance.  If you do, you’re protected, as are those who might be involved in an accident with you.  If you don’t, you pay a price.

I recognize this analogy may not be exactly apt, for what we are dealing with in Covid are often life or death situations.  The same could be said about auto insurance, I suppose, but, with Covid, life or death is always at stake.

For context on this subject, know that up-to-date data from Johns Hopkins University indicates that the U.S. reports a seven-day average of more than 108,600 new cases per day as of Sunday, up 36 per cent from a week earlier,

Would it be legal to impose a mandate?  Who knows, and the statutory context would vary state-by-state. 

A legal scholar from American University says yes in an article from National Public Radio”

“In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court case from 1905 the issue was about a vaccine mandate

“In the early 1900s, smallpox outbreaks were fairly frequent and many people had been vaccinated earlier as children, but needed to be vaccinatedas their immunity waned.  The State of Massachusetts passed a law that gave authority to local boards of health to make a decision at any given moment in response to an outbreak that smallpox vaccination should be mandatory for all residents of their local area if — in the opinion of the medical experts who were serving on the board — it was necessary to protect the public’s health.

“The city of Cambridge made that determination.  It then went through the effort of outreach to get everyone vaccinated.  When it came to Henning Jacobson, he objected.  He argued that vaccines are ineffective.  He argued that they don’t prevent transmission.  And he argued that they were harmful.

“The court described those arguments as not seeking a medical exemption, but rather reciting the alternative views that differ from medical consensus and that those arguments did not warrant an exemption from the requirement to be vaccinated.”

So, then, in the case of smallpox, the mandate was legal.

Things, of course, are different today in a society inundated by social media fabrications, but the solid rationale is that a mandate would be designed to preserve health and avoid what is happening now, which is that those who refuse the vaccine are flexing their selfish muscles at the expense of everyone else.

Often today, right-wing politics rules in the form of protests.  Many citizens are more disposed these days than in past years to question government and, in the extreme, to refuse to follow orders.  Call it what it is – selfishness.

Consider these developments from around the country:

• Get the vaccine or get fired?  In Shenandoah Valley, some nurses choose termination. One nurse put it this way:  “This is the hill to die on.”  If she gets Covid, perhaps she will.
• State workers in Oregon are demanding to bargain over Governor Brown’s vaccination mandate, believing that union bargaining trumps all else.
• More than a dozen large U.S. corporations, including Walmart, Google, Tyson Foods, and United Airlines, have recently announced vaccine mandates for some or all of their workers.
• In California, protests in Los Angeles turned violent after the City Council voted to require proof of vaccination for anyone entering an indoor public space.  In a separate incident in Northern California, school officials banned a parent who, upset over seeing his daughter in a mask, allegedly left a teacher bloodied and bruised on the first day of classes at an elementary school.
• But, overall, support for vaccine mandates is high in California, according to a new CBS-YouGov poll, in which 69 per cent of respondents said they supported vaccine mandates for health-care workers and 61 per cent said they support mandates for indoor businesses.
• Florida, due mostly to the actions of a stupid governor, Ron DeSantis, is earning its reputation for dumb stuff.  A state law signed in May gives DeSantis the power to invalidate local emergency measures put in place during the pandemic, including mask mandates and limitations on business operations.  It also bans any business or government entity from requiring proof of vaccination.

Given the national health care emergency, including hospitals that have no room for patients, getting a vaccine is the only rational solution.

So, who should impose a mandate?  Government?  Employers?  Both?  Others?   I don’t care.  Just get it done and then go to court and win the legal debate for the good of the country.

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.

It would be unlikely for a true political conservative to root for President Joe Biden.  After all, he is a Democrat and not all that conservative.

But, I know of one Republican conservative who will root for Biden.

He is Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and now an opinion columnist for the Washington Post.

Here is the way he started his most recent column:

“Many of us not naturally inclined to support a Democrat president have developed a rooting interest in Joe Biden’s political success. This is not mainly due to Biden’s skills or vision; it’s because he is fighting a rear-guard action to save political rationality.

“The president is working from a theory that his party’s mid-term survival and long-term appeal will be based on delivering tangible benefits for the middle class. This has led to spending proposals for things such as Medicare, infrastructure, family leave, child credits and pre-kindergarten programs.”

Gerson admits that Biden’s calculation could be wrong, if only because, advocating similar goals did not gain him much ground among White, working-class voters in the 2020 election.

But, for me, Gerson hits the nail on the head when he writes this:

“Still, Biden treats voters as fundamentally rational beings, who calculate what is best for their families and communities.  His strategy carries the assumption of sanity.

“It could have been otherwise — if Republican warnings about Biden’s intentions had been remotely true.  Biden could have tried to pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Senate filibuster or sided with more radical elements of his party on police reform (in the direction of defunding).

“Biden might have employed dynamite to solve a jigsaw puzzle — blowing up American politics and hoping the political pieces would come down in their proper places.  Instead, it is Republicans who have taken that approach.

“House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California.) is not implementing an electoral plan.  He reiterates the demands and charges that come to his caucus in fevered dreams.  His aspiration to the speakership is sad and small — who actually auditions to be in a hostage video?”

Gerson goes farther.

“By what sane strategy would Republicans defend those who attacked the Capitol on January 6 and snub the police officers who stood in their way? By what theory would some demand public release of the name of the officer who defended House members and the House floor, so that he or she could be targeted for harassment or violence?  According to what stratagem would many Republicans fight basic health measures to defeat a deadly virus, thrusting the country back into crisis through their own defiant ignorance?”

Gerson, employing an old phrase, admits that “there may be some madness to this madness.”

He calls Donald Trump a master manipulator “who did not carefully organize his troops for battle, but lit them on fire and hoped they would run into enemy lines.  The collateral damage to our society, norms and institutions means nothing to him.  The traumatized police officers, the harassed election officials, the true believers dying of covid-19, the lives thrown down conspiratorial rabbit holes, the young people confirmed in disfiguring bigotry mean less than nothing to him.”

But Trump and his sycophants could still triumph, perish the thought.

Gerson says American politics has become a contest between those who accept (or are intimidated into accepting) the grand deception, and those on the left, center and right who do not.  “In the political struggle ahead, he asks, “how confident are we that the truth will prevail?”

Like Gerson, I have no idea?

As for “truth,“ I think I know it when I see it.  But, I also did what I often do, which is to check my on-line dictionary.  Here is what it said about truth, which is partly helpful:

“The quality or state of being true.

• Loyalty; trustworthiness.
• Sincerity; genuineness; honesty.
• The quality of being in accordance with experience, facts, or reality; conformity with fact.
• Reality; actual existence.
• Agreement with a standard, rule, etc.; correctness; accuracy.”

Note phrase, “being in accordance with experience, facts, or reality.”

Right!   I hope truth will prevail.

If it does not, our country is in for further trouble.

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.

Say what you will about Republican political operative Karl Rove, every once in awhile he makes a good point as he writes a column for the Wall Street Journal.

Today was one of those days.

In a column excoriating Democrat Congressional Campaign Chairman Sean Patrick Maloney for contending that Democrats can continue controlling the U.S. House in the next election, Rove wrote this:

“One large factor could help Democrats, though it’s unlikely to sustain their majority.  Maloney was directionally correct in February when he pooh-poohed GOP chances saying, ‘They have no more ideas.’

“To maximize their gains, Republican candidates must prove him wrong by each offering their agenda and explaining what they’re for with as much passion as they describe what they’re against.  They must make the mid-term about future possibilities, not past grievances.  That should be obvious, but in today’s GOP, it isn’t.

“Republicans have the opportunity to put forward a positive governing agenda, focused on the economy and values.  They’re the only thing in the way of that agenda’s creation and the GOP victory that would follow.”

Otherwise, Rove contended that Republicans will re-take the House as they capitalize on six factors he contended work against House Democrats.  His naming of the six:

• First, history.  Democrats hold the House narrowly, 220-212.  Since the emergence of America’s two-party system in the mid-1820s, there have been 36 first mid-term elections.  In only two has the president’s party gained House seats—1934 and 2002.  Take any starting point and it’s the same story:  Since World War II, the party controlling the White House has lost an average of 28 seats in its first midterm; since 1900, 32; since the mid-1820s, 34.
• Second, the nature of mid-term elections. They’re inevitably referendums on the Administration’s conduct.  Voter expectations, even after a close election, are higher than most presidents can meet.  Even if many voters are happy, the discontented and disappointed disproportionately turn out.
• Third, redistricting. Republicans control that process in states with 187 House seats, to only 75 for Democrats.  The other 173 seats are in states with a single member or where power to define districts is split between the parties or vested in an independent commission.  Even as each party uses its power to maximize its advantage, redistricting alone could give the GOP the handful of seats it needs to control the House.
• Fourth, the Democrats’ internal war.  The rift between Democrats like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and more-traditional liberal and centrist Democrats is widening.  Issues, events, personalities, showboating and primaries will aggravate matters.
• Fifth, it’s hard to imagine President Joe Biden effectively barnstorming key battlegrounds next year, and Vice President Kamala Harris, who’s substantially less popular than he is, can’t fill that gap.  Both are plodding, one might even say boring, campaigners.
• Finally, the ground was not well prepared for this ambitious Democrat agenda.  Voters don’t like expensive surprises.  Swing voters, in particular, appear to be put off by the price tag and vast expansion of federal power.  The more they hear about Biden’s agenda, the less they probably like it.

It’s far too early to tell if Rove is right in his calculus, though he still apparently spends much of his time reading the tea leaves of polling.  And, of course, by his past and current perspectives, he almost always veers right.

But the point I made earlier in this blog resonates.  It’s better for politicians who want to lead the nation to be for something, not just against everything.

Give voters proposals to consider, not just the “no.”

And that applies both to Republicans and to Democrats.

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 wish there would be a move to hold the Olympics in the same place every time it occurs.

So, here I go again.  Writing about something about which I don’t know much.  That’s my style.  But it does not divert me from offering an opinion, however personal it may be.

I write today about the Olympics just as we have seen the most recent version end after being very difficult to run, given Covid.

My sense is that finding a singular location for the games – actually two if you count both the summer and winter events — would save loads of money, as well link the Olympics to its history in Greece, at least for the summer version.

Here is the way the Wall Street Journal wrote about the issue in an in-my-opinion piece that appeared under this headline:

Move the Olympics to Athens—Forever

Why not eliminate the selection process that feeds nationalism?

A retired U.S. Navy admiral, James Stavridis, started his opinion piece this way:

“I’m a proud Greek-American, and the Olympics have a special place in my heart.  Every couple of years, the world is treated to a spectacular display of athletic ability in summer and winter formats at a carefully selected national venue.

“The athletes embody a fine quality of ‘olympism,’ as they strive to live up to the Olympic values of excellence, friendship and respect.  The Olympic website is full of messages about how the games bring nations together in fair and open athletic competition.

“But the games have all too often become overt displays of odious propaganda (the 1936 games were put on by the Nazi regime in Berlin) or the setting for fierce geopolitical arguments, such as when the U.S. and other Western nations boycotted the 1980 games after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.”

The next Olympics, the winter version in Beijing in 2022 stands to be another version of politics over athletics, especially as the regressive regime in China silences dissent in a bid to move forward no matter the cost.

It is true that nations often fight hard to host the games, believing that, beyond the games themselves, there is a supposed financial benefit.  Still, those benefits seldom seem to materialize, at least in the predicted proportions.

“Moving the games,” Stavridis adds, “is also an opportunity to show soft power to allies, partners, friends and send a message to opponents.  Winning the venue often feeds virulent nationalism that runs counter to Olympic ideals.  The frequent corruption associated with the selection process doesn’t help.”

A solution, according to Stavridis, “would be to construct a pair of Olympic facilities, one for summer and the other for winter, which could be used every two years permanently.  The expense for the construction and subsequent maintenance of the global facility could be shared among participating nations as a percentage of their economy with respect to global gross domestic product.”

But where to put such global Olympic homes?  

For the winter, it would be possible to consider St. Moritz, Switzerland, which has hosted the Olympics twice, in 1928 and 1948, and is a recognized center of international skiing.  The Swiss are organized and efficient.  Switzerland is known for its political neutrality and has a reputation as a reliable, sensible international actor.

The obvious selection for summer could be Greece.  After all, the Greeks invented the games.  Like the Swiss, the Greeks have twice hosted the games, in the summers of 1896 and 2004.  Greece is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a close friend of the U.S., but the Greeks also have relatively good relationships with Russia and China.

Stavridis concludes:  “There are many other potential venues, and all of this would require significant negotiation.  But it would be worth it to end the expensive and controversial selection process.  Above all, a fixed location would eliminate some of the nationalism and propaganda that detract from the true purpose of the games.”

Points worth considering, I think.  And I say this only as a fan of many Olympic events.  Let’s make the event about the athletics, not politics and propaganda.

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 wish there would be a move to hold the Olympics in the same place every time it occurs.

So, here I go again.  Writing about something about which I don’t know much.  That’s my style.  But it does not divert me from offering an opinion, however personal it may be.

I write today about the Olympics just as we have seen the most recent version end after being very difficult to run, given Covid.

My sense is that finding a singular location for the games – actually two if you count both the summer and winter events — would save loads of money, as well link the Olympics to its history in Greece, at least for the summer version.

Here is the way the Wall Street Journal wrote about the issue in an in-my-opinion piece that appeared under this headline:

Move the Olympics to Athens—Forever

Why not eliminate the selection process that feeds nationalism?

A retired U.S. Navy admiral, James Stavridis, started his opinion piece this way:

“I’m a proud Greek-American, and the Olympics have a special place in my heart.  Every couple of years, the world is treated to a spectacular display of athletic ability in summer and winter formats at a carefully selected national venue.

“The athletes embody a fine quality of ‘olympism,’ as they strive to live up to the Olympic values of excellence, friendship and respect.  The Olympic website is full of messages about how the games bring nations together in fair and open athletic competition.

“But the games have all too often become overt displays of odious propaganda (the 1936 games were put on by the Nazi regime in Berlin) or the setting for fierce geopolitical arguments, such as when the U.S. and other Western nations boycotted the 1980 games after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.”

It is true that nations often fight hard to host the games, believing that, beyond the games themselves, there is a supposed financial benefit.  Still, those benefits seldom seem to materialize, at least in the predicted proportions.

“Moving the games,” Stavridis adds, “is also an opportunity to show soft power to allies, partners, friends and send a message to opponents.  Winning the venue often feeds virulent nationalism that runs counter to Olympic ideals.  The frequent corruption associated with the selection process doesn’t help.”

A solution, according to Stavridis, “would be to construct a pair of Olympic facilities, one for summer and the other for winter, which could be used every two years permanently.  The expense for the construction and subsequent maintenance of the global facility could be shared among participating nations as a percentage of their economy with respect to global gross domestic product.”

But where to put such global Olympic homes?  

For the winter, it would be possible to consider St. Moritz, Switzerland, which has hosted the Olympics twice, in 1928 and 1948, and is a recognized center of international skiing.  The Swiss are organized and efficient.  Switzerland is known for its political neutrality and has a reputation as a reliable, sensible international actor.

The obvious selection for summer would be Greece.  After all, the Greeks invented the games.  Like the Swiss, the Greeks have twice hosted the games, in the summers of 1896 and 2004.  Greece is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a close friend of the U.S., but the Greeks also have relatively good relationships with Russia and China.

Stavridis concludes:  “There are many other potential venues, and all of this would require significant negotiation.  But it would be worth it to end the expensive and controversial selection process.  Above all, a fixed location would eliminate some of the nationalism and propaganda that detract from the true purpose of the games.”

Points worth considering, I think.  And I say this only as a fan of many Olympic events.  Let’s make the event about the athletics, not politics and propaganda.

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 “paid for” question arises as Congress continues debating the huge infrastructure bill advocated President Joseph Biden, many Congressional Democrats, and a few Republicans.

The Wall Street Journal, perhaps a bit predictably, showed up with an editorial questioning whether the deal really was paid for.  The editorial appeared under this headline:

SO MUCH FOR ‘FULLY PAID FOR’

The infrastructure bill’s financing is full of gimmicks, as expected.

Here are a few paragraphs from the editorial:

“One claim about the Senate’s infrastructure bill is that it would be, as the authors said, ‘fully paid for.’  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) rudely blew apart that myth on Thursday, not that the authors seem to care.

“CBO’s budget gnomes found that the $1 trillion spending bill will add $256 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years.  But it’s worse than that. CBO also explained that the bill will increase the government’s contract authority by an additional $196 billion over the 2021 budget baseline. The estimate is complex, but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates the mix of costs and savings will result in nearly $400 billion in deficit spending over a decade.

“A couple of examples highlight the fiscal flim-flam. The bi-partisan group of senators tried to claim as ‘savings’ some $53 billion in unemployment benefits that states won’t spend as anticipated.  But CBO notes that the ‘lower outlays had already been counted in its baseline and so don’t now amount to a ‘reduction in spending.’

“CBO also didn’t credit $106 billion in supposedly unused Covid paid- and family-leave tax credits, and only a portion of what senators claimed were $67 billion in savings from a Covid employer tax credit.  Of the $210 billion of ‘unused’ Covid funds senators ultimately claimed they were ‘re-purposing,’ CBO gave them credit for about $21 billion.”

You get the picture.  More budget shenanigans.

At the same time, there are those who will say it is past time for the federal government to invest in improved infrastructure – and I am one of who supports such investments, for that is what they are, investments.  That’s if, by infrastructure, you mean typical investments in roads, bridges and the like.  If you go beyond that definition, then you should not call it infrastructure; you should call it something else, whatever it is.  Then, let that spending rise or fall on its merits or demerits.

Of course, that’s not what happens at the federal government.  Games are played with numbers and definitions.

I have said this before – aside from war-time spending or spending to avert a recession (which should stand on their own), I wish federal spending proposals would subscribe to more rational, transparent criteria. 

Too much to ask, you say.  Perhaps.  But the expenditure of time, effort and energy – if done in the name of transparency – would result in better government.

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 written about this before, but what still stands out for me, as a dedicated golfer, is one of the strangest golf rules on the planet.

It is Golf Rule #12 in the lexicon of rules promulgated jointly by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal & Ancient (R & I) organization overseas.

So, what is Golf Rule #12?

It deals with bunkers, those conditions on a golf course that, usually, you want to avoid.  They are sand-filled holes in the ground.  Golf pros appear not to mind being in those contraptions.  Neither do top-level amateurs. 

But the rest of us?  Me included.  Avoid them.

Incredibly, here is what the Rule #12 allows in bunkers:

• Digging in with your feet to take a stance for a practice swing or the stroke,
• Smoothing the bunker to care for the course,

• Placing your clubs, equipment or other objects in the bunker (whether by throwing or setting them down),
• Measuring, marking, lifting, replacing or taking other actions under a rule,
• Leaning on a club to rest, stay balanced or prevent a fall, or
• Striking the sand in frustration or anger.

Consider just the latter.  “Striking the sand in frustration or anger” is acceptable!

But, if you were in Oregon playing in a tournament organized by the Oregon Golf Association and you were seen “striking the sand in frustration or anger,” you would likely receive a “code of conduct” penalty.  And you should.

Why writers of the still new golf rules chose to propose Rule #12 is beyond me.  And, if nothing else, the objectionable parts of the rule should be thrown out or the entire rule re-written.

For now, my objective is not to think about this strange rule and, further, to avoid getting into the contraptions.

And this postscript:  According to Oregon Golf Association (OGA) rules experts, Pete Scholz and Terry McEvily (they join to write a rules summary for each OGA newsletter), the following also is true:

“Provided the ball is not in the same bunker, a player may take practice swings that touch the sand, even if they test the conditions of a different bunker.”

Without the sage advice of Pete and Terry, I would not have known that this was allowed.

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 wrote the other day about the fact that, surprisingly, in Oregon, health care employers don’t have the legal ability to require their workers to get vaccinated.

The culprit is a 30-year-old law that has nothing to do with Covid, but still has an incredibly terrible effect – health care workers that you and I see might not be vaccinated.

Late news is that a couple of Oregon’s largest private health care systems – Kaiser and Oregon & Sciences University — are bucking the state law by requiring their health care workers to get the vaccine.  

And, even later news is that, under the headline below, the Oregonian newspaper reports that Governor Kate Brown has taken action to require health care workers to submit to weekly Covid tests or be vaccinated.  In other words, it is a vaccine mandate through, first, a required Covid test.

Here is the headline and several paragraphs from the story:

Oregon health care workers must get COVID-19 shots or submit to weekly testing, governor says

“Oregon health care workers will have to get vaccinated for COVID-19 or face weekly testing, Governor Kate Brown’s office said, in an apparent step to fight the state’s run-away coronavirus case numbers fueled by the delta variant.

“The move comes amid a nationwide push to drive up vaccination rates, both for the general public and among health care workers in particular. Brown’s intervention effectively neutralizes an Oregon law that says employers can’t fire health care workers for not being vaccinated.

“Brown’s order, through the Oregon Health Authority, sidesteps the law by mandating weekly testing while allowing for an exemption from the requirement for those who can prove they’ve been immunized.

“This new safety measure is necessary to stop delta from causing severe illness among our first line of defense: our doctors, nurses, medical students, and frontline health care workers,” Brown said in a statement announcing the change. “Severe illness from COVID-19 is now largely preventable, and vaccination is clearly our best defense.”

[I add that it also would give me solace when I visit a clinic or another health care provider and see health care workers.]

“Brown’s move comes less than three weeks after The Oregonian/OregonLive highlighted the unique problems Oregon’s health care system and patients face due to an obscure law dating to 1989, which prohibits those systems from requiring vaccinations among employees and firing those who refuse. 

“Oregon appears to be the only state in the nation with the prohibition specifically for health care workers, and one of the sponsors of the bill was perplexed by the ramifications, saying, ‘Why the hell did we do that?’

“’Scrutiny of the law came too late for lawmakers to act this year,’ said Representative Lisa Reynolds, D-Portland, who has said she believes it should be changed.”

It is likely that the Legislature, in its short-session in February, will set out to change the 30-year-old law.

The probable action will occur against a backdrop of various companies enacting vaccine mandates, as in these three examples:

• CNN has fired three staff members for working in the office despite being unvaccinated against the coronavirus, in an incident that highlights the potential challenges facing employers who mandate inoculations amid a surge of the highly transmissible delta variant in the United States.
• United Airlines will require employees to be vaccinated against the coronavirus, the company announced Friday, becoming the first domestic airline to require the vaccine as a condition of employment.  The company’s mandate will apply to all 67,000 of its active, U.S.-based employees, the company said.
• A virus outbreak helped spur Good Samaritan, a system operating facilities for senior citizens in 22 states, to impose a vaccine mandate on its 16,000 staff members. 

Back to Oregon.  It will be interesting to see how health care unions and other interests in Oregon react to a vaccine mandate carved into Oregon law if one is proposed by legislators early next year.

For me, employee survival, if not vitality, is on the side of a mandate.  That should be enough to support it.

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.

Yes, Congress – at least the U.S. House – is going to investigate what happened on that fateful day, January 6, early this year.

The process started last week and, no surprise here, Republican leaders in the House panned the effort.  They pulled all of their members off the panel created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, though Pelosi upstaged her minority counterpart, Kevin McCarthy, by naming two Republicans to the review committee.

Capitol security personal appeared before the committee and presented an emotional description of what happened on January 6. 

There is no better way to report about all this than to reprint a column by Leonard Pitts, who writes for the Miami Herald and other newspapers.  So,

*********

It’s not that we forget.

But sooner or later, news becomes history, and the awful thing that happened loses its power to shock. You remember the emotions you felt, but you don’t re-experience them, not to any degree of sharpness or immediacy.

One day, that will happen to the events of January 6. One day, as was the case with December 7 and November 22, that day will primarily be one of remembered pain.  But as Tuesday’s hearing into the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol vividly proved, today is not that day.

To the contrary, as four of the police officers who defended the Capitol testified in the opening session of a House select committee, the events of that day rushed back, hard.  As they spoke of being cursed and beaten and gassed and Tased and crushed by white nationalists seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the pain felt fresh, new and now.  To put it another way:  Tuesday was January 6.  One suspects that, as hearings continue, that day is destined to come around often.

This is as it should be.  Moreover, as it needs to be.

The GOP, which cannot bring itself to cut Donald Trump loose, even knowing he lost the election and that his refusal to accept it led directly to this violence, has only compounded its sin in the six months since.  It has waged war on memory, effectively asking us to believe Republican lies over the testimony of our own eyes.

They tell us the insurrectionists were tourists, and “loving” and “peaceful patriots.”  They tell us Ashli Babbitt, a rioter who was shot to death trying to breach a space where members of Congress were being evacuated, is some kind of martyr.  They tell us House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is to blame for Trump’s insurrection.  Like she’s the one who whipped up the crowd. Like it was her name on the flags they carried.

It is hogwash, yes, but hogwash in the service of obfuscation, of rushing January 6 off into history — misremembered history, at that.  Which is what made the testimony of those four cops so critical.  Because while the deniers may deny many things, you cannot deny the stark moral clarity of a cop who tells you he was not as frightened in Iraq as he was in Washington, a cop who couldn’t hug his wife when he got home at 4 a.m. because his uniform was saturated with chemical irritants, a cop who got called “n—-r” so many times he found himself in the Capitol rotunda afterward demanding aloud, “Is this America?,” a cop who told himself, “This is how I’m going to die.”

You can’t deny that.  It is an everlasting stain upon them that so many Republicans have tried.  As Officer Michael Fanone of the DC Metropolitan Police Department, still recovering from a concussion, traumatic brain injury, PTSD and a heart attack, told the committee, “What makes the struggle harder and more painful, is to know so many of . . . the people I put my life at risk to defend are downplaying or outright denying what happened. I went to hell and back to protect them . . . but too many are now telling me that hell doesn’t exist or that hell actually wasn’t that bad.

“The indifference shown to my colleagues is disgraceful,” he declared.  His voice rose angrily as he pounded the table.

Trump and his enablers have never seemed smaller than they did Tuesday. Not just small, but revealed, caught red-handed in high crimes against democracy.  They’ve been trying to murder memory.

On Tuesday, memory fought back.