Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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.

There are benefits to having a dog, and my wife and I have experienced those benefits for many years.

That’s because we have had two dogs, both miniature poodles, and, in both cases, our lives were better because of the companions.

So it was that I borrowed the sense of this blog headline from the New York Times as a reporter there wrote under this specific headline:  Get a Dog, Live Longer?

Here is how the story started:

“Research suggests pets keep you healthier.  But there are some caveats.

“As a child, Dr. Dhruv Kazi was obsessed with dogs.  As a cardiologist and health economist, he wrote about their health benefits.  But he didn’t get one of his own until his early 40s.

“In 2019, he moved to Boston to take a job as the director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.  Then Covid hit.  Living alone and working in the intensive care unit, Dr. Kazi said the first year of the pandemic was ‘immensely isolating.’

“Everything changed in 2021 when he got Rumi, a high-energy, high-affection vizsla puppy.  Thanks to Rumi, Dr. Kazi started spending more time outside, got to know his neighbors and had a much-needed dose of ‘positive energy’ and ‘goofiness’ injected into his life.”

Dr. Kazi now says the dog played a crucial in keeping his sanity.

The Times writer goes on to say that research suggests dogs and other pets keep a person healthier.

“Studies show that having a pet is associated with lower blood pressure, a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, and lower rates of death after a heart attack or stroke.  And a large review of studies published in 2019 found that owning a dog was associated with a 24 per cent lower risk of dying from all causes over the course of 10 years.

“The potential benefit is striking enough  when it comes to heart health that the American Heart Association even has a scientific statement devoted to it, declaring that dog ownership may be reasonable for reduction in cardiovascular disease risk.”

Regarding caveats, two come to mind.  First, there are costs to owing a dog – costs such as routine vet bills.  You also have to plan for your pets if you travel, sometimes taking them with you; other times arranging for their care while you are gone.

But the caveats don’t bother me.

As for our two dogs:

First, Hogan, a miniature poodle, gave us a lot of joy.  Then, after he went to heaven, we got another miniature from the same breeder who gave us Hogan.  In other words, they were related in some way as the breeder kept true to her line.

So, continuing to employ golf logic [my favorite sport is golf], we named the new dog, Callaway. 

Whatever is the case, Hogan first and now Callaway have been part of our family for many years.  And that is true – they are part of our family.  We wouldn’t be the same without them.

So, call my wife and me dog lovers.  We love the title, considering it an accolade.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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 noted before that I am a person who likes words, more than charts, graphs or tables of numbers.

Thus, two main words in this blog headline caught my attention today as I read a piece in one of my on-line publications.

It’s called Links Players and, no, it’s not about golf.  It’s a reference to Bible study groups founded by the Links Players Group in the California desert that has now grown to more than 300 groups spread around the country in golf clubs.

I attend two of them, one in my home, Salem, Oregon, when I am there seven months of the year, and another in my winter home, La Quinta, California.

The good news in these two groups – as well as no doubt, in many others – is that Christians get together to study the Bible before heading out for another game of golf.

This time, one of the Links Players writers, Tom Berliner, is a semi-retired university dean and leadership consultant.  He wrote form his home in Tennessee and focused on this Bible verse:

“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” which is found in Proverbs 16:18.

Here is how Berliner started his piece:

“The etiquette of golf is a beautiful thing to observe.  Waiting for your playing partners to take their turn, complimenting them on good shots, commiserating on the not-so-good ones, self-policing when it comes to rules, and shaking hands after the final hole are all excellent examples.

“The etiquette remains, even in the heat of battle.  Compare that with the chest-pounding, foul gestures, arguments, and what-can-I-get-away-with manipulations in so many other sports.”

Berliner is right. 

Golf is a sport with more civility and humility than most other sports.  Am I biased?  Sure.  I love golf, but I also love that it is a game where players call penalties on themselves, unusual in sports.  But it is one place where golf stands out.

Berliner goes on to note that there are many stories in the Bible that deal with pride — Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, Pharaoh in Exodus 7-12, Haman in Esther 3-7, and the prideful Pharisee in Luke 18, to name but a few.

Berliner asks, why is that?   He answers:  “Humanity’s undoing centers on pride, and God wants to encourage us to learn from these stories.”

And, then, he adds this:

“Are we genuinely helping others in a healthy way?  Do we recognize Jesus in people around us, both familiar faces and strangers?  Do we reflect on ‘What would Jesus do?’ or do we just pursue what seems good for us?”

When the word civility comes up, I often reflect on my professional life in politics when that word was beginning to go by the wayside and, after I left in retirement, I have watched it go even farther away. 

So much so that one of my favorite quotes in politics came from the late military General Colin Powell who, when he was encouraged to run for president, said he couldn’t do so because he “bemoaned loss of civility in politics.”

And, what happens in politics also happens in our everyday life.  Civility takes a back seat.

So does humility.

If all of us followed humility and civility, we’d better at golf, if not life.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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.

There are benefits to having a dog, and my wife and I have experienced those benefits for many years.

That’s because we have had two dogs, both miniature poodles, and, in both cases, our lives were better because of the companions.

So it was that I borrowed the sense of this blog headline from the New York Times as a reporter there wrote under this specific headline:  Get a Dog, Live Longer?

Here is how the story started:

“Research suggests pets keep you healthier.  But there are some caveats.

“As a child, Dr. Dhruv Kazi was obsessed with dogs.  As a cardiologist and health economist, he wrote about their health benefits.  But he didn’t get one of his own until his early 40s.

“In 2019, he moved to Boston to take a job as the director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.  Then Covid hit.  Living alone and working in the intensive care unit, Dr. Kazi said the first year of the pandemic was ‘immensely isolating.’

“Everything changed in 2021 when he got Rumi, a high-energy, high-affection vizsla puppy.  Thanks to Rumi, Dr. Kazi started spending more time outside, got to know his neighbors and had a much-needed dose of ‘positive energy’ and ‘goofiness’ injected into his life.”

Dr. Kazi now says the dog played a crucial in keeping his sanity.

The Times writer goes on to say that research suggests dogs and other pets keep a person healthier.

“Studies show that having a pet is associated with lower blood pressure, a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, and lower rates of death after a heart attack or stroke.  And a large review of studies published in 2019 found that owning a dog was associated with a 24 per cent lower risk of dying from all causes over the course of 10 years.

“The potential benefit is striking enough  when it comes to heart health that the American Heart Association even has a scientific statement devoted to it, declaring that dog ownership may be reasonable for reduction in cardiovascular disease risk.”

As for our two dogs:

First, Hogan, a miniature poodle, gave us a lot of joy.  Then, after he went to heaven, we got another miniature from the same breeder who gave us Hogan.  In other words, they were related in some way as the breeder kept true to her line.

So, continuing to employ golf logic [my favorite sport is golf], we named the new dog, Callaway. 

Whatever is the case, Hogan first and now Callaway have been part of our family for many years.  And that is true – they are part of our family.  We wouldn’t be the same without them.

So, call my wife and me dog lovers.  We love the title, considering it an accolade.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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.

In my 25 years as a lobbyist in the State of Oregon, I always relished the day when the Legislature passed a “sine die” resolution.

Say what?

It is a strange phrase, one not used in everyday conversation.

It is Latin and it means “without day,” specifically, without assigning a day for a further meeting.  It originated in the 1600s and, in this case, it means the end of a legislative session.

That’s what happened in Oregon the other day.

For me, when I was a lobbyist, it meant the end of long hours and a lot of work to represent clients before 90 legislators who gather in Salem and who sometimes see the governor who is based in Salem every day, not just during a legislative session.

So, what did this short legislative session produce and was it worth it?

Well, there usually are at least two views – one from Democrats who are in charge of both the 60-member House of Representatives and the 30-member Senate, and the other is from Republicans who are in what’s called “the minority.”

They often differ on, not only what the problems are, but what constitutes solutions.

For this report, I rely mostly on the Oregonian newspaper which produced a solid story to mark the end of the session.  By reporter Carlos Fuentes and others, it appeared under this headline:  OREGON LAWMAKERS CLOSE OUT 2026 SESSION HAVING ADDRESSED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, TRANSPORTATION CUTS, ARENA FUNDING

Here is how the story started:

“Oregon lawmakers ended this year’s legislative session Friday after spending five weeks addressing bills in a hodgepodge of policy areas, ranging from federal immigration enforcement and tax breaks to NBA arena funding and transportation program cuts.

“The short session did not see the level of divisive partisanship that marked 2025’s long session, with its implosion of Democrats’ planned transportation package.  But there were outbreaks of partisan bickering and grandstanding.

“Most notably, Republicans spent several weeks pushing back against Democrats’ effort to move a statewide vote on transportation tax hikes from November to May.  That prompted multiple short boycotts from the minority party and a lawsuit challenging the move.”

Here are other highlights – or, perhaps, depending on political persuasion, some observers would call some of them lowlights:

• Lawmakers, local governments and state agencies had braced for steep budget cuts that did not materialize.  Legislative budget writers had warned of a gap as large as $750 million in the state’s two-year budget.  But ultimately they trimmed just $128 million of staffing and supplies from the $39 billion general fund following a positive revenue forecast and after Democrats pushed through tax changes that further slimmed the deficit.
• One agency did face deeper reductions.  Lawmakers cut or redirected $290 million in services at the Oregon Department of Transportation to address the budget gap at the agency, which largely relies on its own revenue streams.

They were forced to create the plan after a referendum campaign, led by Republican lawmakers, successfully gathered enough signatures to halt tax hikes passed by Democrats last fall and place them on the ballot.

This was the issue with the deepest political disagreement.  Republicans wanted to leave the issue to voters on the general election ballot next November.  Democrats wanted to change it to the May primary election ballot – and they did.

One reason was to get the unpopular gas tax off the same ballot as Governor Tina Kotek’s re-election bid.

The move to May might stay because, immediately after the session, Republicans filed a motion in court to retain November.  So, Oregonians still don’t know when they will vote on the issue.

• In a bi-partisan effort to ensure that the Portland Trail Blazers stay in Oregon under new ownership, lawmakers authorized issuing $200 million in state debt to upgrade the Moda Center, with an additional $165 million outlay planned for the next two-year budget.  The Moda Center is where the Blazers play home games.
• Democrats also passed a package of bills responding to what they view as federal overreach and aggressive immigration enforcement tactics.  Those bills will allow people to sue federal agents, set protections for immigrants in hospitals and create alert notification systems when immigration authorities are on school campuses, among other things.
• Although Democrats had pledged to make economic development a top priority for the session, they passed few bills expected to significantly boost Oregon’s ailing economic indicators.  One exception was a compromise plan that lawmakers approved on the final day of the session that will shield recreational providers, such as ski resorts, from costly lawsuits while still allowing injured people to sue under certain circumstances.
• The most notable win for Republicans:  Democrats, in the final days of the session, agreed to gut a bill that would have made several changes to Oregon’s voter-approved gun control law and instead merely moved the measure’s effective date back to 2028 if the Oregon Supreme Court finds the law constitutional.
• Many times during the busy session, lawmakers noted that a bill they were about to pass would require improvements in 2027.  A prime example was an update to the state’s open meetings law.  Senator Kate Lieber, a Portland Democrat, said the bill added important clarity about what elected officials can talk about with reporters, citizens and each other outside of public meetings.  But, she said, reporters and others are justified in worrying that the law will result in public business being discussed privately.
• Democrat lawmakers entered the session with a package of bills aimed at addressing actions by President Donald Trump’s administration, ranging from increasingly aggressive federal immigration enforcement tactics to the sales of public lands and withholding of federal dollars.  One high-profile bill that passed on the final day of the session will restrict the use of masks on law enforcement officers and require them to visibly display their badge number or name and agency. Similar laws in other states have been challenged by the federal government in court.
• For the first time ever, Oregon lawmakers took steps this year to rein in tax incentives for data centers operated by massive tech companies.

So, good or bad?  As always, both, depending on your point-of-view.

Mine focuses on the process and not as much on the results.  For what it’s worth, I opposed the move to annual sessions — the short sessions in even-numbered years.  Better to leave things as they were – the long six-month regular sessions in odd-numbered years.

That would mean legislators would have time between sessions to work on crafting middle-ground solutions to pressing problems, such as the public meeting issue mentioned above.

As it is, only partial solutions meet the light of day the short sessions and that is not a good look for persons interested in consensus, middle ground public policy decisions.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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.

this department, one of five I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit, has been on hiatus for a few months.  But it is still around.

That’s because I thought of some new pet peeves, this time all of them related to golf, my favorite sport.

So, here goes:

Pet peeve #1:  Golfers who leave the flag stick ajar after they leave the hole.  That means the next players have to live with it or fix it.  Neither is a good option.

Pet peeve #2:  Golfers in power carts who don’t observe the rules for such carts.  Plus, they should just think that those who work on the course on which they play have invested time and money to put in cart paths or on focus on the health of turf.  Both are compromised when cart drivers don’t follow the rules.

A person I play golf with rarely follows the rules and he is an interesting case because he worked for years in managing city government.  There, of course, there are hosts of rules which this person would have enforced.  He should now enforce golf cart rules on himself.

Pet peeve #3:  Golfers who slam their club down or throw it after they hit a bad shot.  Better to do what good golfers, which is to move on to the next shot, illustrating the timeless golf adage:  What’s the most important shot in golf?  The next one. Plus, if you keep slamming your club on the ground, pretty soon the shaft could break with the wear and tear – and the result wouldn’t be good, either for

THE U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IS IN WAY OVER HIS HEAD AND IT LOOKS AND SOUNDS HEARTLESS Perspective from the 19th Hole 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 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 day or two ago, I published a blog that, using two talented and experienced media commentators, laid out the pros and cons of the United States going to war in Iran.One of the commentators I relied on was Tom Nichols, a prominent American academic, author, and staff writer at The Atlantic known for his expertise in international affairs, Russia, and national security.  A former professor at the U.S. Naval War College, he is best known for the 2017 book The Death of Expertise, which critiques the decline of trust in expert knowledge. Today, I rely on Nichols again to provide detail under the headline I wrote for this blog, a follow-on to my earlier one, which, this time, shows that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has no idea what he is doing. And, incredibly, he violates all of the norms about honoring American military service personnel who died in any war, including in the first days of this one.Without further comments, here is what Nichols wrote: *********

The United States is at war.  Americans, at such a time, might expect their government to speak to them regularly and report on U.S. goals — and casualties — but so far, they have gotten little beyond pre-recorded videos of the president and some sound bites from various officials.  Even Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has held only a few briefings. Perhaps the Pentagon chief’s reluctance to speak to the press is just as well, because many Americans would be alarmed to realize that their sons and daughters in combat are being overseen by a person as callous as Pete Hegseth. This morning, the defense secretary gave a briefing on the war that quickly degenerated into Trump-like bombast.  Hegseth apparently prefers to sound more like a Call of Duty player leading a raid than a sober and judicious secretary of defense:  “Death and destruction from the sky all day,” he said, along with other empty phrases such as “We’re playing for keeps.” Most reporters are now accustomed to Hegseth’s drama-laden antics.   But even by the low standards he has set, he managed to shock many of them when he cynically used the deaths of U.S. military personnel to air his own grievances with the press. On Sunday morning, an Iranian drone hit a makeshift operations center in Kuwait.  The Pentagon says that six Americans are dead. Not only is this event a tragedy, but it also requires an explanation:  The drone reportedly snuck through U.S. defenses without setting off any alerts, and struck a target that now seems to have been unduly vulnerable to aerial attack. The defense secretary, the man who is supposed to carry this news to the American public and mourn with them, instead whined about the unfairness of it all.   “When a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front-page news.  I get it,” Hegseth told the reporters, military personnel, and civilians gathered this morning in the Pentagon. “The press only wants to make the president look bad, but try for once to report the reality.  The terms of this war will be set by us at every step.  As I said Monday, the mission is laser-focused.” “Tragic things happen”?   Hegseth said this as though it is unreasonable to look any closer at such events.  He seems unable to grasp that the deaths of Americans are not merely a public-relations problem:  When a drone slips through U.S. defenses and kills six members of America’s armed forces, the deaths of those servicepeople are the story. The people of the United States deserve to know what happened and why.  Hegseth complaining that he’s not getting credit for all of the drones that didn’t get through is like an airline executive responding to an air disaster by growling about all of the planes his company made that didn’t crash. Unlike Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine opened his remarks by grieving the deaths of the fallen soldiers, saying that “it’s with profound sadness and gratitude that I share the names of four of our six fallen heroes.” He didn’t have the names of the other two, because while Hegseth was griping about media coverage, the U.S. military was completing the next-of-kin notification.   “Our nation stands with you,” Caine told Gold Star parents, wounded warriors, and their families, “and we are eternally grateful for your courage, your resiliency, your devotion to this mission and to our nation.” The contrast was unsettling.   For years, defense secretaries and top generals have carried the anguish of decisions that have led to troop deaths.  Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that he wept as he read the stories of the fallen; some generals have carried photos of those lost under their command — even into their retirement. Hegseth, instead, noted the losses almost in passing, and used them as a vehicle for his ongoing beefs with the press. But Hegseth wasn’t content merely to carp about the coverage of American deaths.  After expressing his irritation at the press, he decided to trash America’s allies.  Instead of simply praising Israel — America’s only ally in this war — he took a needless shot at other nations, saying that U.S. allies in the past provided only “ancillary benefits” in global conflicts because they were “maybe willing but not as capable” as the Israelis. Hegseth made this preposterous claim in front of military people who had fought in previous wars alongside these allies — and who saw many service members from these nations sacrifice their life alongside their American comrades. In the midst of all this, Hegseth provided at least one moment of clarity:  He showed, yet again, why he is an execrable choice to lead the Pentagon.   Like his boss, he does not talk to the American people so much as put on performances for them, and this morning, he played the role of the Fox News pundit castigating other journalists. But the people in the briefing room were doing their job trying to get the facts.  Unlike Hegseth, they are taking their responsibilities seriously:  This is not a game, it’s not a TV show, and it’s not some adolescent test of wills. Pete Hegseth, if he does not resign, should at least get out of the way and let better men than him talk to the nation and to the press.  No one is asking for classified details to be revealed in public; no one expects Periclean rhetoric from a talk-show host. But the people of the United States deserve more of an explanation of what’s happening in this war, and they certainly deserve more of an encomium for their fallen children than “Tragic things happen.” ********* My summary comment:  Nichols is dead-on when he says Hegseth should get out of the way because there is no way that unqualified person should hold the top position he does.  He is not up to it and all of us are worse off because of his abhorrent behavior.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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.

If I asked you who was the first missionary for Christ, some of you might answer, the Apostle Paul.

And, you’d be right.

Paul took several missionary journeys chronicled in New Testament books of the Bible, a number of which he wrote in the form of letters to churches.  With him, he took others, such as Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy.

My wife and I have been reading again about these journeys as we continue our trek through the entire Bible, which so far has taken us more than a year, but it’s clearly been worthwhile.

Then, this in this morning’s Links Players devotional written by John Bown who attends the Links Bible Study with me and others at The Palms golf course in La Quinta, California:

“…God had a different path in mind for Saul.  After his dramatic encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, Saul’s life shifted from opposing Jesus to advancing the gospel as the Apostle Paul.

“The impact of Paul’s career change is remarkable.  He’s credited with authoring 13 books in the New Testament, and most scholars agree that he traveled more than 10,000 miles on his missionary journeys, continually putting his life at risk to proclaim Christ crucified boldly.”

So, beyond Bown’s comments, I did not know enough about Paul’s journeys on my own, so I consulted Mr. Google, which, these days, is infused with AI.

Here is a summary of what I re-learned:

Paul took three primary missionary journeys in the years AD 46–57.  They are recorded in the book of Acts, then refined in specific letters Paul wrote to Christians in Galatia, Ephesus, Thessalonica, and Corinth.

He also took a final journey to Rome as a prisoner, traveling over 10,000 miles to establish churches throughout Asia Minor and Greece. These journeys, starting in Antioch, focused on preaching to Gentiles after facing Jewish opposition, often involving significant hardship, imprisonment, and miracles. 

Here is a quick summary of the major missionary journeys.

• 1st Journey (Acts 13–14):  Paul and Barnabas set out from Antioch, traveling to Cyprus and Asia Minor (Perga, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe), where they faced intense opposition but established several churches.
• 2nd Journey (Acts 15:36–18:22):  Paul, now with Silas and Timothy, revisited churches, then traveled into Macedonia (Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea) and Greece (Athens, Corinth), establishing key Christian communities
• 3rd Journey (Acts 18:23–21:14):  Paul traveled through Asia Minor and Greece, spending over three years in Ephesus, strengthening existing churches and spreading the gospel throughout the region.
• Journey to Rome (Acts 27–28):  After his arrest in Jerusalem, Paul traveled as a prisoner, ultimately reaching Rome around AD 61, where he continued to spread the gospel under house arrest. 

Paul typically began by preaching in local synagogues before turning to Gentile populations when he was rejected in some of the Jewish places.  He endured severe persecution, including being stoned, beaten, and imprisoned.

But, his journeys were instrumental in expanding Christianity beyond its Jewish roots, transforming it into a — if not the — major religion across the Roman Empire.

In addition, words from one of the books Paul, 1 Corinthians, chapter 4, verses 1-5 summarize how he wanted to be viewed as a missionary:

“This, then, is how you ought to regard us:  As servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed.  Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.  I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 

“My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.  Therefore, judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes.  He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart.  At that time each will receive their praise from God.”

Why do I focus on this?

Well, no single answer.  I have just found it to be interesting to read about Paul’s approach, not to mention his courage.  He found many ways to call people – people of all ages, types, backgrounds, and locations – to follow Christ.

Good words from Paul, even uttered so many years ago – and they apply today as our own roles as missionaries.

Thus, Paul is a solid example for us in our Christian life.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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.

Remember the “head of a pin” metaphor?

Well, it came to mind again yesterday and today as I tried to learn more about the war in Iran – or question whether I knew enough even to be able to learn more.

Because what I know about Iran, including its history, would fit on the head of a pin.

So, instead of postulating based on my ignorance, I turned to reputable media analysts to read what they wrote as the war continues, a war started by President Donald Trump without any endorsement from Congress, nor any remarks to the American people about the rationale for war, a war in which Americans have already died and more will.

There, I indicated one of my biases.  If there is a rationale for war – and there might be – then Trump ought to explain it to Congress and to the American people before going headlong into it.

As for reputable views, I turned:

• To Bret Stephens, an influential American conservative journalist, op-ed columnist for The New York Times since 2017, and winner of the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for commentary.  Known for his foreign policy expertise, he previously served as a Wall Street Journal editor and columnist, and Editor-in-Chief of The Jerusalem Post.
• To Tom Nichols, a prominent American academic, author, and staff writer at The Atlantic known for his expertise in international affairs, Russia, and national security.  A former professor at the U.S. Naval War College, he is best known for the 2017 book The Death of Expertise, which critiques the decline of trust in expert knowledge.

So, in what follows, Stephens taken the pro-view – the benefits of war in Iran, and Nichols take the con-view – there is no way war makes sense without Congressional and public approval.

Without further introduction, I reprint the two columns in full, with the goal that all of us, me included, would wrestle with the perspectives as war broadens in the Middle East.  [I apologize for the length of this blog, but the subject deserves full exposure.]

First, the pro side from Stephens:

TRUMP AND NETANYAHU ARE DOING THE FREE WORLD A FAVOR

President Trump is being criticized from many quarters for his decision to join Israel in a war to topple the Iranian regime, which on Saturday yielded the killing of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The reasons vary.

It’s “a betrayal of the American people,” says Elizabeth Warren, who warns that the intervention risks dragging “yet another generation into a forever war.” It’s a betrayal of MAGA principles, says Marjorie Taylor Greene, who denounced Trump for putting “America last.” It’s unconstitutional, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, because it’s being conducted without authorization from Congress. It’s unnecessary, according to the writer Andrew Sullivan, who (quoting me, albeit misleadingly) thinks that Iran isn’t much of a threat and the war is being waged for Israel’s sake.

And so on. But one country where the United States and Israel are garnering broad support is the same country that’s being bombed.

“Everyone is joyful; it is one of the best days of probably 95 percent of Iranians’ lives,” one Iranian resident of the city of Karaj told The Wall Street Journal about Khamenei’s death. “We bolted outside and shouted from the top of our lungs and laughed and danced with our neighbors,” a woman in Tehran named Sara told The Times. A doctor who lost his son when the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane in 2020 wrote on social media, “We will endure the winter, spring is near.” In the city of Shiraz, videos showed people “joined together in a cheer that is typically reserved for weddings, symbolizing pure joy.”

It is also true that scores of civilians have been killed, and there was public mourning for Khamenei. But those mourners didn’t have to emerge under the threat of the regime’s guns.

There was a time when American hearts could be moved by moments like these — when free nations, having endured years of provocations and attacks from tyrants, band together to administer justice and supply hope. We’re a different country now, less naïve but considerably more pessimistic and cynical, and thus likelier to ask: What’s in it for us?

Let me try to answer that question.

First, it’s a mistake to say that Trump got America into war on Saturday. What he did was respond to a war that Iran has been waging against the United States since 1979.

It waged war when it seized our embassy in 1979, murdered (via proxy) hundreds of our service members in Beirut in 1983 and supplied the I.E.D.s, or roadside bombs, that killed or maimed over 1,000 of our troops during the war in Iraq. It waged war when it sought to assassinate former senior U.S. officials, including John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and, according to a 2024 report in Politico, Trump himself. One reason Iran behaved as it did is because it drew the lesson that it would pay no great price. No more.

Second, Tehran had an opportunity to change course last June, after its 12-day pummeling by Israel and an overnight strike by the United States. Instead, it set out to begin reconstituting its nuclear capabilities while rapidly rebuilding the missile force that is now terrorizing civilians in Tel Aviv, Dubai, Manama and Riyadh, and targeting U.S. military assets in the region.

Would the United States, the Arab world or Israel have been safer if we had waited a year or two for Iran to build several thousand more missiles? Or after Russia had supplied the regime with thousands of advanced shoulder-fired air defense missiles, as The Financial Times reported last week that it had agreed to do?

Third, Iran does not exist in a geopolitical vacuum: With Moscow and Beijing, it is a core member of the axis of autocracies that threaten the democratic world broadly.

The same liberals who fault Trump for not vigorously opposing Vladimir Putin should at least consider that it’s Tehran that has given Russia the drones and drone technology that have destroyed so much of Ukraine. And the same conservatives who fault Trump for diverting military resources away from the Pacific for the war in Iran should also note that Iran covertly supplies China with much of its oil as part of a promised 25-year, $400 billion strategic partnership. If Tehran falls out of the axis, our remaining adversaries can only be weaker.

Fourth, it is impossible to imagine anything like Mideast peace without the end of this regime.

It isn’t simply that Iran has been the principal backer of the so-called axis of resistance that includes every terrorist group that sought to wipe Israel off the map. It’s also that no Israeli government will ever agree to a Palestinian state that could fall into Iran’s orbit. Paradoxically, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will face a much tougher time fending off international pressure for Palestinian statehood if the Tehran regime falls and Saudi Arabia offers peace with Israel.

Fifth, even if the United States and Israel don’t force regime change in Iran, they can achieve strategically significant goals.

The United States is stronger when anti-American dictators have solid reasons to fear our wrath: It restores deterrence and, in doing so, makes diplomacy more effective. Israel and the Arab world are safer when Iran is weaker: Notice that, at least so far, Hezbollah, fearing for its position in Lebanon, has not joined the war against Israel. Finally, even if the regime doesn’t fall, it will be under heavy internal pressure to modify its behavior as a pragmatic concession to reality, much as Venezuela has under Delcy Rodríguez, its (hopefully) interim president.

That may not be the optimal outcome. But it’s considerably better than what came before.

Finally, the United States and Israel have taken considerable military and political risks to do the right thing. And that’s no small thing.

They have rid the world of an odious tyrant, and of several layers of his equally odious deputies. It’s odd that the same people who fault Trump for divorcing U.S. foreign policy from its democratic values now fault him for going to war for the sake of advancing democratic values. Still, millions of ordinary people around the world — not just in Tel Aviv or Tehran or Tehrangeles but also, perhaps, in Taipei and Tallinn — will notice that the United States, for its many warts, still stands for freedom.

My column has never been shy about denouncing either Trump or Netanyahu. It won’t be shy to criticize them in the future. But on Saturday this much-maligned duo did the free world a courageous and historic favor. It will be remembered long after the petulant criticism dies down.

Now, for the con-side from Nichols:

Donald Trump has taken America into war with a country whose population is approximately the size of Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s combined. He has done this without making a case to the American people, and without approval of any kind from their elected representatives. His launching of hostilities (with the embarrassingly bro-themed name “Operation Epic Fury”) is the culmination of decades of expanding presidential powers over national-security issues, and Trump has now taken that expansion to its extreme conclusion, launching wars and using military power as he sees fit. Many of his critics are focused on the claim that the war is illegal under both U.S. and international law—and they are probably right about that. But Trump has already floored the accelerator and driven off the cliff. What are the options for Congress and the American people—the majority of whom do not support this conflict—to regain some control over a president conducting a war as if he were a medieval prince? Unfortunately, the few legal options available are laden with their own risks. Congress could decide to cut off funding for the war, which at this point could be as reckless an act as starting one. Men and women overseas did not choose to go, and they should at least be allowed to conduct their operations without worrying that Congress will simply turn off all funding. It could pass a resolution demanding an immediate end to hostilities—also a risky move. Congress does have a less dramatic option: It could invoke the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a law often discussed but rarely understood by the public. I have my own skepticism about using this law: In fact, I helped to avert its use in 1990 when I was working in the Senate during the first Gulf War. I’ll come back to that. Meanwhile, here’s where the law came from and what it actually says. The War Powers Resolution was adopted in 1973 during the waning days of the Vietnam War. The resolution imposes these limits on the power of presidents to wage war: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. This seems simple enough: Unless Congress declares war or passes some law, or the United States is attacked, the president cannot send U.S. forces into harm’s way. Simple, but irrelevant. Presidents have gotten around this by using that last part about “national emergencies” to justify the use of force; multiple commanders in chief have also—rightly—noted that they may use military power in support of existing treaties (which are the law of the land) if an ally calls for American help. Nearly a decade before the War Powers Resolution existed, President Lyndon B. Johnson ramped up U.S. involvement in Vietnam by claiming self-defense—he said that U.S. ships had been fired upon in the Gulf of Tonkin by the North Vietnamese—and the need to honor a treaty commitment to South Vietnam. Congress rewarded him with the open-ended Tonkin Gulf Resolution, empowering him, “as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.” Many in Congress regretted issuing LBJ this blank check, and by 1973, American legislators realized that maybe handing out “all necessary measures” passes to presidents might not be a great idea, so they repealed Tonkin Gulf in 1971 and later passed the War Powers Resolution. President Richard Nixon vetoed the resolution, on multiple grounds of constitutionality and prudence, but the Congress of 1973 was in no mood for lectures from Nixon, and it overrode his veto. The problem is that the War Powers Resolution is both too weak and too strong. On the one hand, it requires that the president “consult” Congress only if possible. On the other hand, the resolution sets a firm clock on military action: Within 60 days of notifying Congress, the president “shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted” unless Congress declares war, extends the deadline, or cannot meet because of enemy attack. (That’s a Cold War provision—Congress can’t meet and approve military action if it’s been vaporized by a nuclear strike.) The law, drawn up half a century ago to stop a future LBJ or Nixon, is poorly written, and even now, members of Congress argue over its meaning. (Yesterday, for example, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut admonished Representative Mike Lawler of New York for cherry-picking some of the law’s language.) Assuming that Congress does not pass a law ending the operation, Trump, in theory, has almost two more months to continue the fight. This time limit is, in general, a bad idea. It’s a signal to the enemy that the United States has only two months to fight before its legislative and executive branches possibly go into conflict with each other. In any case, competent strategists do not put expiration dates on their operations; such limits give the opponent an incentive to negotiate in bad faith, to engage in information operations against American voters—or perhaps to up the level of violence and hope that congressional nerves are shaken so badly that even the steeliest president cannot keep a wartime political coalition together. I am familiar with these arguments because I made them in 1990 to my boss, the late Senator John Heinz, when I was his personal assistant for national security and defense. At the time, Heinz and a small group of Republican senators wanted to invoke the War Powers Resolution as President George H. W. Bush was heading toward war against Iraq. Heinz supported Bush’s intentions, and he wanted to avert a challenge to Bush’s authority. The War Powers Resolution is the law of the land, the senator told me, so wouldn’t it help Bush if Congress did its duty and invoked it? I was a lot less concerned about rogue presidents back then, but I was very concerned about time-limiting a war to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait. (Senator Heinz passed away 35 years ago, so I am not spilling secrets here.) I told him that I thought the resolution was of dubious constitutionality, but even more to the point, I asked him whether he was willing to have a floor fight to extend Bush’s authority two months after the war had started. At the time, the Republicans were the minority in Congress, and we talked about what such a messy political brawl might look like in the middle of a war. He and the other GOP senators dropped the idea. In the end, it didn’t matter. One day, after lunch with Bush, Heinz told me that Bush was determined to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait even if it meant his eventual impeachment, no matter what Congress said in the meantime. Yet Bush did go to Congress, and he got resolutions of support from both houses just before combat operations began in January 1991. Right now, Trump has no such worries of impeachment—the GOP controls both houses of Congress, and he has an iron grip on his party (at least until November). But the question remains of whether Congress has any ability to restrain Trump, who has used force more times in more places in just one year than any of his predecessors. At the least, Congress could use the threat of the War Powers Resolution clock to demand hearings and some explanations. Trump and his people have so far explained almost nothing about the rationale for the war. (The secretary of defense, meanwhile, gave a briefing today that amounted to a lot of chest-thumping nonsense about fighting “to win” without being bound by “stupid rules of engagement.”) And invoking the War Powers Resolution would be far less dangerous now that Iran’s military has largely been beaten and the U.S. and Israel have complete control over Iran’s skies. Congress is now set to debate the War Powers Resolution, but the fact that this debate is needed at all is a reminder of how much the exercise of American democracy has historically been predicated not on black-letter law but on trust, norms, and basic decency. Congress should not have to argue over whether to trigger the War Powers Resolution, and certainly not in the midst of conflict; better presidents, even when they have abused their authority, have obviated such a fight by going to Congress, speaking to the American people, and building a consensus for action. Trump, instead, has thrown U.S. service people into combat—and dared everyone to stop him. For now, Congress can try, at least, to use the law to rein in Trump and force him to answer questions about a war he started on his own. But Operation Epic Fury should also impel legislators to think about future ways to place presidential war powers back within the limits of a deliberative, constitutional republic. **********   As for my view, I am still pondering.  But, as I said earlier, my tendency is not to trust Trump with anything.  So, I repeat:  This is a war started by Trump without any endorsement from Congress, nor any remarks to the American people about the rationale for war, a war in which American have already died and more will.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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.

ALS is a dread disease, but many of who have heard those initials don’t know what they stand for.

This:  Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Or, as it has been known for years, Lou Gehrig’s disease, because that old-time pro baseball player died from ALS.

It is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that destroys motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord, causing muscles to waste away, leading to paralysis, respiratory failure, and death, typically within 3 to 5 years. While 10 per cent of cases are genetic, the exact cause for most is unknown.  There is no cure, though treatments can manage symptoms. 

All of this came to my attention last week as I read a story that appeared in one of my on-line golf magazines.  Here is how the story started:

*Peter Broome understands that long after his battle with ALS has ended the bigger battle against the disease will continue.

“It is why Broome, one of the most respected figures in the golf industry for decades, has launched the ALS Bridge Foundation which includes an active on-line fundraising auction that features golf with some of the game’s biggest stars at some of their favorite places.

“Broome, a senior vice president at Titleist for many years, was diagnosed in 2024 with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, a disease for which there is no cure.

“In discussing his condition with Global Golf Post’s John Steinbreder last year, Broome said his intention is to help others afflicted with the disease.

“’One of the things that hurts most is how this diagnosis cuts off the chapter of my life when I would have had the time to give back to golf, which has given me so much,’ Broome told GGP.

“’But I can still make a difference, only in this case with ALS.  And while I may lose my speech, I will still have my voice.’”

Those who know about ALS understand Broome’s comments.

Along with his family and with the help of some close friends, Broome has established the ALS Bridge Foundation with the goal to engage the golf community in the global effort to raise awareness and find a cure for the disease.  The foundation will help support research while also connecting patients with doctors in hopes of slowing or halting the disease’s progression.

Several major pro golf stars have donated to the Foundation and more are expected to do so.

In the past, one of golf’s connections to ALS arose when Tom Watson’s caddie, Bruce Edwards, came down with the disease.  And, though he died, his attitude about the disease in his last year’s brought an increasing level of attention to the plight.

Regarding ALS in general, I have into contact with the disease as I have known several people who have contracted it.  One is the sister of one of my best friends and she has endured the disease for almost 15 years. 

She is truly a profile in courage.

Here’s hoping that the new ALS Foundation, supported by pro golf stars and others, will enjoy resounding success.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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.

………This is a re-print of an earlier blog from last year…its memories are still valid today………

Okay, this is not a blog about Donald Trump.  I have had enough of him to last me for a lifetime, though, I suppose, I’ll write about him again as I try to understand how people could vote for him.

On to another topic.

I was reflecting the other day on some of my more than 40 years in professional life before retirement.

To do that, I tried to remember what I could label “accomplishments” in my 15 years as an Oregon state government manager or my 25 years as a state lobbyist in Oregon.

But, instead, I turned to remember some of the officials and friends from whom I learned many management lessons – call them mentors.  Better to reflect on folks who helped me than on accomplishments.

So, here is a list, where the names appear in no order of priority:

Vic Atiyeh:  It was a pleasure to work for Atiyeh, the last Republican governor in Oregon, now more than 40 years ago.  I could say a lot about my time with Atiyeh, but this stands out for me:  Victor – that’s what we called him when he allowed us to do so – never cared who got the credit when something good happened in Oregon.  He didn’t want it for himself; he wanted to parse it out to those who contributed to the result.  Good for any politician! 

Joe Blumel and E. Dean Anderson:  These, respectively, were the president of Portland State University (PSU) and vice president for university relations when I had the privilege to work at PSU. 

They let me be myself as director of information services, a phrase that essentially meant “public and media relations.”

It was Blumel who sent me to the Capitol in Salem, Oregon to be what he called “the eyes and ears of Portland State,” with, he added, “no mouth.” 

The latter was because the Oregon Higher Education Chancellor’s Office – it no longer exists – was assigned to be the only entity that was supposed to talk with legislators on behalf of higher education institutions in Oregon.

But Blumel’s assignment gave me a start at the Capitol where I ended up working for almost 40 years.

Anderson also was great with and for me.  We shared a Scandinavian heritage, so that helped us relate well to each other – he as boss and me as one of his staff.

I remember one time when he took me to the annual Scandinavian Dinner in Portland.  The menu included “lute-fisk,” and, if you don’t know what that is, so much the better.  If you eat it – it is made by soaking dried stockfish in lye, then water, and finally steaming the remaining guts until they flake – you’ll be sorry.  The name comes from the Norwegian word lute, which means “lye.”

Again, if you happen to eat it, you don’t want to eat again for a week!

With the letters “fisk” in the name, perhaps my forebears invented lute-fisk.

Bob Watson:  When I moved from Washington, D.C. back to Oregon, Watson was director of the Corrections Division, then part of the Oregon Department of Human Resources (DHR) where I was going to serve as assistant director.

He was on the panel when I interviewed for the job at DHR and I remember that he asked me a simple question, with profound implications:  What is the definition of “news,” he asked.

Rather than report an explicit definition, I answered this way:  News, I said, is what reporters and editors (and sometimes publishers) say it is.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

Beyond other duties, I was in charge of media relations for the prison system, so Watson and I became good friends, even as we discussed the “news” business.

Another interesting fact.  When I joined DHR, there were three state prisons, all located in Salem.  Today, many years later, there are 14 prisons spread around the state, which is an indication of what I could call a “lock ‘em up” strategy in the state.  Which is meaningful because a every dollar to run prisons is a state “general fund dollar” (read, yours and my state tax money).

And that puts pressure on other “general fund users,” such as K-12 education, higher education, and social services.

Leo Hegstrom and Jerry Brown:  When I joined DHR, these two, respectively, were the director and deputy director of what was then the largest state government agency.  They taught me a lot about managing an agency, always focusing on facts, not fiction.

All three of us also developed a solid relationship with the governor, Vic Atiyeh, for whom we worked.  We met with him weekly in Cabinet Meetings – many of Atiyeh’s successors did not attend Cabinet Meetings, though he usually did.  Hegstrom, Brown and I also met with the governor alone in his personal office.

This process enabled me to have a good relationship, as well as ongoing respect, for Atiyeh.

Bill Wyatt and Mike Thorne:  At different times, these two officials served as executive director of the Port of Portland, a lobbying client of my firm.  The good news is that they relied on my firm’s advice and counsel, which meant that, among other things, we got things done at the Capitol for the Port.

One of the most important was gaining funds to pay Oregon’s share of the costs to deepen the Columbia River channel so bigger ships could ply their way off the coast to ports in and around Portland, as well as back out to sea.  And that has remained as an economic vitality keystone in the region.

Fred Miller:  He was my mentor in the Oregon Executive Department where he functioned as the COO of state government.

Miller relied on three of us to help him with that function – Jon Yunker, the budget director (who became one of my best friends in state government), Karen Roach, who handled personnel and labor relations, and me, who handled public and legislative relations.  A solid group of managers who found a good way to way to work together, not at cross purposes.

Pat McCormick:  He was one of my partners at Conkling Fiskum & McCormick, the name we chose for our firm when we got started in 1990.

McCormick, still a friend today, taught me a lot about the art of communication.

Tom Kennedy:  After working as Governor Atiyeh’s press secretary, I moved over to become deputy director of the Oregon Economic Development Department.  There, I reported to Kennedy.  He knew more about marketing than I did, so I learned a lot from him, even as he assigned me to relate to the Oregon Legislature on behalf of the department. 

At one point, Kennedy, who traveled a lot to Japan on marketing trips, said he didn’t want to head off to France when the State of Oregon was asked to send someone to a French graduate school to talk about how Oregon diversified its economy.

Kennedy would have been the logical choice, but he asked me to make the trip instead.

Of course, my wife accompanied me and we had a solid experience in France to tout Oregon’s move from being dependent on logging and fishing to aiding the technology and tourism industries, even as the area of France where we were – the Clermont Ferrande region – was setting out to diversify from being almost wholly dependent on Michelin.

Gerry Thompson:  When I served as Governor Atiyeh’s press secretary, I reported to Thompson, the governor’s chief of staff.  We have remained friends to this day, often reflecting on the good times with a governor who valued all of Oregon.

Thompson let me be myself in my job, though always with proper oversight from her.

One issue we have reflected on since we left government was the “Rajneesh affair” in Oregon when the leader of a commune from India, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, led a group of cultists to buy property in Eastern Oregon and take over the local government there.

For Atiyeh, Thompson led the effort to blunt the Bhagwan’s intrusion into Oregon and she I still reflect on the difficulty of doing so, though the Bhagwan and his followers eventually left under a cloud.  

Neil Bryant:  Bryant, a senator from Bend, became the best legislative friend I made at the Capitol over my years as a lobbyist.  He and I still are friends today.

At least one fact set Bryant apart when he served as a senator:  He had a distinct ability to bring differing interests together to hammer out a solid solution somewhere in the middle rather than on either extreme.  It is a lost art today in Salem.

Kerry Tymchuk:  Formerly State of Oregon director for U.S. Senator Gordon Smith, Tymchuk joined my firm when Smith lost.  Kerry and I were able to work together on several projects, before Kerry moved on to the job he now holds, Executive Director of the Oregon Historical Society where – no surprise — he has done a great job.

Tymchuk is a great writer, so one of the lessons I learned from him – pay close attention to the written word.

Morris Dirks:  I end with a few words about my relationship with Dirks – we are like brothers – which started when he was on the staff where I attend church in Salem, Oregon, Salem Alliance, and I was on the lay leadership team.

When Dirks became senior pastor, I worked with him as chair of the Governing Board.  That’s when we became like brothers and I learned a lot from Dirks about how to lead a vibrant Christian life and to lead others on the journey.

So, in conclusion, one of the best ways to reflect on a professional life – mine in the 10^th year in retirement – is to focus, not on specific achievements, but, rather, on individuals who helped along the way.