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

The words in this blog headline – words often used by a friend of mine – came to mind as I read a recent column by Leonard Pitts who works for the Miami Herald and whose prose appears in the Washington Post.

A good wordsmith, Pitt got right to the point when he wrote this:

“My brother-in-law died of ‘hogwash.’

“Another brother-in-law, a sister-in-law, two daughters-in-law, two cousins and several grandchildren are all recovering from hogwash. My wife spent a week in the hospital with hogwash.  I tested positive for hogwash but had few symptoms.

“Hogwash,” Pitts continued, “was the word a grocery-store owner in Naples, Florida, used last month in dismissing the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic.  This, after a viral video showing his patrons and employees going about their business without facial coverings, as if they had time-traveled here from 2019.”

As we observe our first anniversary of life in a pandemic, Pitts said many of us are taking stock of the various ways we have been impacted.

“The most obvious, of course, is the human toll:  One American in every 11 has tested positive, one in every 628 has died.  But even those who’ve escaped that fate haven’t escaped the virus’ touch.  It has transformed virtually every field of endeavor:  Sports, education, entertainment, the environment, the economy, eldercare, worship, justice, journalism, protest and politics, to name a few.  Its effects have also been felt in an arena you may not have considered, though here it has not so much changed something as revealed it.”

“Meaning: it has shown us the high cost of living in a facts-optional — indeed, an anti-fact — society.”

Pitts pointed to two events, which, he said illustrated the anti-fact tendency.  One was the effort to downplay the January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by a zealot army drunk on conspiracy theories as laughable as they were deadly.  The other was regarding the pandemic as “hogwash,” though it has killed more than 525,000 Americans.

Pitts argued that, when facts cease to matter, consequences do, too.

“When everybody has their own truth, and no two truths look alike, we will become -=- as we are becoming — a society unable to effectively mobilize itself, even to save its own life.  If we are to avoid that fate, journalists must disenthrall themselves from false equivalence and stop boosting entertaining liars, voters must extract a penalty at the ballot box from politicians who embrace the anti-fact ethos, social media must be more aggressive in denying platforms to anti-fact super spreaders, and educators must make a priority of teaching critical thinking, civics and media literacy.”

In response to the notions from Pitts, it is surprising, though perhaps it should not be, that a quarter of members of the U.S. House and Senate have not yet received a virus vaccine, some because they don’t believe in the efficacy of it.  Not to mention that Senator Rand Paul recently went after scientist and government official Anthony Fauci in a hearing when Fauci advocated continuing to adhere to virus protections, such as wearing masks.

To put it simply, I’ll side with Fauci, not Paul. It is not possible to correct stupid – and, in this case, that means Paul.

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.

Working from home is a good idea – some of the time and for some people.

That’s one takeaway from two competing news developments in the last two days, both related to “now what” as statistics related to the coronavirus retreat, at least a bit.

In one case, Ford Motor Company gave 30,000 employees the option to work from home in what the newspaper called “another sign of workforce transformation.”

A day later, Google announced that it would spend $7 billion on new buildings and data centers in the U.S. this year, doubling down on a return to the office.  The new buildings will be In Texas, California, North Carolina and Minnesota.

Google was one of the first major U.S. companies to send its workers home in March 2020 as the coronavirus began to spread rapidly across the United States.  It now plans to bring employees back to the office in September, but unlike Facebook and Twitter, it hasn’t given them the option for permanent remote work.

A story in the Washington Post included this quote:  “Coming together in person to collaborate and build community is core to Google’s culture, and it will be an important part of our future.”

By contrast, Ford said many workers will have a new ‘hybrid option’ to work both remotely and in-person, starting in July.

The news caught my attention because, several years ago before I retired as a lobbyist, I moved my firm’s office from downtown Salem, Oregon to my home.

The reason was not related to the coronavirus, which at the time, was several years away.   To state the obvious, our small firm is very different than Ford or Google, but we faced some of the same decisions in a far smaller way.

The reasons for scrapping an office were, first, we were doing more and more work from home anyway, and, second, doing away with physical office space saved money.

As lobbyists, we often communicated with clients late at night or early in the morning.  Then, days during regular sessions of the Oregon Legislature were spent at the Capitol in downtown Salem.  And, when the Capitol became wi-fied, there was no need for an office.  Work could be done literally in Capitol hallways.

But there is no RIGHT answer here.  Just options.

So, to gain some perspective on this, I did what I often do, which consult with one of my friends who is a business consultant.

Here are excerpts of what he told me:

“…the pandemic has shown us that remote work options do work, though the option does not work for ALL jobs in all industries.  Based on the data I have seen, productivity has not declined and technology has helped to bridge the gap of working independently.

“If I were assisting a business which was considering remote work as an option, I would be asking:  Has the company spoken to its employees about the option and, if so, what have the concerns been; why are employers thinking about this as an option for employees; what do they hope to gain from it; have they determined which jobs would be eligible; and – relative to jobs that would continue to be done in place – what incentives have they investigated to compensate for the lack of flexibility; and, finally, what metrics will they use to determine the success of the effort?”

My friend also told me that he does not see the U.S. ever going back fully to what most of us have experienced in terms of “going to work.”

“The lost time commuting, traveling to locations to meet face-to-face, or even just standing around the water cooler or coffee pot just chit-chatting, will be pretty much gone for many employees.  Employers are saving a ton of money on leased space, travel, lodging, meals and some administrative costs.

“Managing employees will definitively have a different format with different expectations AND it just may very well be clearer and more effective that the ‘old’ model,” though questions will remain on whether working at home effects productivity.

As usual, good points all.

For me, working at home was effective and productive.  When I made the decision for my firm, the coronavirus was not involved; it was just the best decision for my firm at the time.

It might not be the same for all companies or all jobs, including the obvious cases such as at Ford where some workers will have to remain at physical plants to produce cars.

It strikes me that the smart move will be for companies to try working at home as an option for some employees, not a requirement, and then test the new model after a few years to make sure it works as designed.

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.

When Joe Biden became president, I hoped he would put in place specific actions to correct one of the most egregious – not to mention intentional – abuses of power Donald Trump.

It was the policy to separate immigrant children from their parents at the Southern border.

If you are a parent, imagine the emotions involved to have your children ripped away from you.  Call it kidnapping, which is what it was.

Now, it appears that a new influx of immigrants at the Southern border will create at least two results – (a) a political challenge for the Biden Administration policy to adopt sensible immigration politicies, and (b) a likely delay in the ability to reunite children and parents separated by Trump.

Back on February 2, Biden announced the start of efforts to identify and reunite hundreds of families who were separated at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The new president signed an executive order creating a task force to reunite the families, a step toward fulfilling his campaign promise.

“With the first action we are going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration that literally, not figuratively, ripped children from the arms of their families at the border and with no plan, none whatsoever, to reunify the children who are still in custody and their parents,” he said.

The fact is that the Trump Administration separated at least 5,500 children from their parents along the border between July 2017 and June 2018.  The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the government over the policy, says it’s likely that at least 1,000 of those families remain separated — parents scattered mostly across Central America and children living with relatives in the United States.

Many of those parents, unsure if or when they would ever be together again, have spent the past several years trying to raise their children over video calls.  Some returned to the U.S. border in hopes of finding their children but were once again apprehended by immigration agents and deported a second time.

Now, a new challenge.

Looming over the debate about general immigration reform, as well as the effort to reunite children and families, is a new surge of migrants at the southern border.

Senator Lindsay Graham said the new border crisis makes it “much harder” to make progress on helping Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

So, where we now sit creates more delay for reunification.  That’s, again, almost unthinkable.

What Trump did to separate migrant children and their parents created an indelible stain on America and it now appears that stain won’t be washed away any time soon. 

My fond hope continues to be that the reunification obligation won’t get lost in another political quagmire in Washington, D.C.

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.

One of my former associates in the lobbying business I helped to found called me the other day to set up an interview for a podcast on how lobbying has changed over the years.

She called because, I am old, and, thus, I am able to talk about the past and, at least to a degree, about the present.  Though for the present, I have been retired for nearly five years, so don’t have much first-hand experience.

Still, using the interview as a basis, I turned the process into this blog because, the more I thought about it, the more my notions struck me as important comparisons between the past and present of the lobbying game.

Here a few of the perceptions I provided to my interviewer:

• Lobbying in the past was not tinged as much as it is today by over-the-top emotion, anger and invective.

• Persons on opposite of issues – be they legislators or lobbyists – were accustomed to finding a way to work together in the past.  Today, it is far more difficult to find the smart middle ground because both sides want to advance their cause, not compromise.

• Today, the emphasis on the part of legislators appears, more than ever, to be to find fault with those who disagree with them.  Yelling and screaming, at least figuratively, if not literally,  has become an art form.  No longer is it possible as often to engage in politics as the “art of compromise.”  The fact is the ability to disagree agreeably is a lost art.

• The “personal touch” of lobbying appears also to have receded.  One reason, of course, is the pandemic, which has rendered the Legislature a “virtual” one.  But another reason is the emotionally tinged status of both political parties.  In the past, as a lobbyist in a regular session, I would have talked to each of the 90 members of the legislature to discuss the pros and cons of legislation and whether compromise was possible.   Today, that is far less likely to occur.

In my interview, I went beyond the “old and new” question to cite examples of two specific lobby cases in which I was involved where the result was good for my clients, as well as for Oregon as a whole. 

Could results like this occur today?  Not sure, if for no other reason than the examples include controversial environmental issues that would divide, not unite, current legislators.

• Port of Portland channel deepening
  
  

+  My client, the Port of Portland, made this an Oregon issue, not just one that would benefit Portland.

+  We emphasized local connections with a list of all private companies around the state that would benefit from deeper draft maritime commerce.

+  We found an innovative way to surmount the “one legislature cannot bind the next legislature issue,” a reality that makes sense, but is difficult if the cost of a project – deepening the channel in this case – is too large to be accommodated in one two-year budget period. 

+  We found a way to offset the complaints from “environment lobbyists” who feared “dredge spoils” would be dangerous.  Of course, what was dredged was clean sand which actually had a market once pulled out of the river.

+  We found a way to meld the interests of two states (Oregon and Washington) with the federal government, since all three would bear shares of the cost of the project.
 

• Field burning under power lines for Hewlett-Packard, which operates a facility in Corvallis

+  The problem was this:  When field burning produced clouds of smoke that enveloped major power lines, the effect often was that outages occurred.  And that wreaked havoc on H-P technology processes at the Corvallis plant.

+  So, to promote passage of a bill to cure the problem, H-P authorized me to join with environment lobbyists to advocate for passage of a field burning ban bill.  To put it bluntly, H-P did not often join with such lobbyists, though it made sense to do so this time.  And the result was success:  The burn ban bill passed, though it was not a total ban, but did include “not under power lines” clause.

With this as background, I told my interviewer I thought we were standing on the horizon of a major issue for everyone in Oregon and, for that matter, in the country as a whole.

It is this:  All of us better find a way to return to the challenge of working together in politics rather than just arguing with raw and antagonistic emotion.   That includes both legislators and lobbyists, as well as those who elect or hire them.

If we don’t, democracy as we know it may be a form of government of the past.

That is not an exaggeration.  The January 6 insurrection at the Nation’s Capitol is only an indication of what could come, especially if certain persons continue to foment destruction as an intentional method to get their way.

As President Joe Biden has advocated, working together makes far more sense than stoking division and dissension.

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

The word “earmarks” conjures up controversial political notions about the process of producing the annual federal government budget.

Such as the headline which compares spending to benefit local congressional districts with “pork,” which means, in the vernacular of politics, stupid spending that does no good.

But what is the definition of the term earmarks.

Here’s what the dictionary says:

“An earmark refers to congressional provisions directing funds to be spent on specific projects.”

Detractors say that earmarks pollute the federal budget because certain powerful lawmakers can steer funding for unworthy projects to their home districts.  In some cases, that may be true, such as the fabled “bridge to nowhere” project in Alaska.

Proponents counter that earmarks are part of the process of representative government in Congress when members steer funding to specific projects in their districts – projects which address real issues and which help to solve problems in local areas.

A story by the Associated Press (AP) asked this question the other day:  Can lawmakers bring home the bacon without it being pork?

It’s a question that’s vexing Republicans as they consider whether to join a Democrat push to revive the much-maligned earmarks process.   

Earmarking was linked to corruption in the 2000s, leading to an outcry and their banishment in the House and Senate.  But many in Congress said the ban has gone too far, ceding the “power of the purse” to party leaders and the Executive Branch, and giving lawmakers less incentive to work with members of the other party on major legislation, including local appropriations.

According to the AP:  “Democrat appropriators in the House see a solution and are proposing a revamped process allowing lawmakers to submit public requests for ‘community project funding’ in federal spending bills.  To guard against graft, the process includes safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest.

“Whether earmarking becomes bi-partisan could have enormous implications not only for the allocation of spending across the country, but for President Joe Biden, who is gearing up for a massive infrastructure push that he hopes will attract significant Republican support.  With earmarking in place, bi-partisanship could prove easier to achieve, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle could have reason to support bills they would otherwise oppose.”

So, what’s my view?  Well, first, in the spirit of full disclosure, the lobbying firm in which I was a partner for about 25 years fought for earmarks extensively as we represented a number of local governments in the Northwest.  So, I am not an unbiased source.

When earmarks were allowed, our firm fought for them.  When earmarks were not allowed, our D.C. staff worked the process to gain funding for local governments without an earmark.

And, as a point of emphasis, we never advocated for a project such as the “bridge to nowhere.”

I support the return of earmarks if appropriate conditions are attached, so the expenditures can be considered “investments,” not just more spending.

The entire debate in Congress over restoring earmarks is likely to come down to that:  Making sure funding allocations can meet the test of being investments.

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.

What we saw in the last few days from President Joe Biden was a welcome change from the previous administration.

Biden actually conveyed empathy and understanding as he went on national television to deliver an address to the American people on the first-year anniversary of the coronavirus.

He talked “with” Americans, not “to” them.  He didn’t use the “I” word once.  He used “we.”  And he appealed to all Americans to a high standard, just what we have needed in a U.S. president in a time of peril.

Several commentators saw what I saw.

FROM JENNIFER RUBIN IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “Many Americans have almost forgotten what a normal president and a normal White House address sounds like.

“You might remember:  The president uses his appearances sparingly to highlight the most important events and issues — such as the passage of a landmark rescue plan.  The speech is devoid of insults, slurs and accusations, and it is sparing in its use of “I.”

‘That is what the country got Thursday night during President Biden’s first prime-time address.

“It was reassuring to tune in, not fretting (as so many have for the past four years) about the next outrageous insult or abject lie.  It was a delight to see someone not reading the speech for the first time.”

FROM DAN BALZ, ALSO IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  President Biden’s task Thursday night was daunting as he marked the first anniversary of the week when the coronavirus forced America to shut down.

“He needed to acknowledge the loss of more than 529,000 lives to the coronavirus pandemic and the accompanying economic suffering, while offering a sense of optimism that the future can and will be brighter.

“Leaning against the lectern and looking directly into the camera, he said, ‘I will not relent until we beat this virus. But I need you, the American people. I need you. I need every American to do their part.’

“That contrast in leadership styles underscored what the transition from the 45th president to the 46th has meant.”

AND FROM PAUL WALDMAN IN THE POST:  “Over a career spanning nearly half a century, with more than his share of stumbles and setbacks and outright failures, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Joe Biden would never reach the Oval Office, let alone do great things with it.  But now he might have met his moment.

“After so long, Biden finally has perfect timing.

“The first reason is what we saw on display in his White House speech Thursday night:  Biden works hard to be the most empathetic of politicians, which is exactly what you want at a time of profound national loss.  Well over half a million Americans have died of covid-19, and as someone well acquainted with grief, Biden speaks to the pain of those left behind and the hope that we will reach a future beyond our current hardships.

“That allows him to perform the rituals of national leadership — particularly those that require the president to create an emotional connection with the public — with a sincerity that we so sorely missed over the past four years.”

Now, to be sure, Biden faces huge tests of leadership in the White House, the first of which is to get control of the pandemic, which he has promised to do.  The second is to find a way to work with Republicans who don’t want to work with him, and, then, when bi-partisanship fails, blame Biden for the failure.

For now, whatever judgments eventually will be made about the Biden presidency, it is enough that he has ushered a new tone into the White House.  It is marked by empathy and honesty, a sharp and welcome contrast from the recent past.

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 am the kind of person who likes words.  Better than numbers.  Better than charts and graphs.

Of course, both numbers and charts have their place, but my focus is on words. 

That may be because I grew up as a person interested in journalism and, in fact, got my first job after college as a reporter for a daily newspaper in Astoria, Oregon.

Other jobs after that also focused more on words than on numbers and charts, so much so that, in the lobbying and public relations firm I helped to found with two partners in 1990, I remained a “words person.”

One of my partners also liked words, but, well beyond me, developed a way, in what was then called “desk-top publishing,” to merge words with graphics.  It was to his credit.

All of this is a lead-in to the topic of this blog – new words in politics that may deliver messages, but need to be defined.  So here goes.

CANCEL CULTURE:  The term refers to a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be on-line, on social media, or in person.

My view:  Worth avoiding this new phrase in normal speech – and action.

WOKE:  This is a term that originated in the United States, referring to a perceived awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice.  It derives from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke,” whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.

My view:  No problem with this word, though I am never sure what it means despite the definition I supplied above.  I probably won’t use it much, preferring instead to speak directly about social and racial justice.

QANON:  This is a right-wing, pro-Trump conspiracy theory born in a dark corner of the Internet that has crept into mainstream politics.  The theory, promoted by extremists, is based on cryptic postings by the anonymous “Q,” who purported to be a government insider with access to classified information.  The first Q posting appeared in October 2017.

QAnon followers contend that a group of Satan-worshiping pedophiles — that includes Hollywood actors and Democrat politicians — is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against Trump.  They also believe thousands of “deep state” operatives and top Democrats will eventually be rounded up and sent to Guantanamo Bay during a reckoning dubbed “The Storm.”

My view:  I intend to avoid using about this term, or even thinking about it, given its utter depravity.

PROGRESSIVE:  This word has been co-opted by those on the far left who contend it is a political philosophy in support of social reform – and that counts for progress. 

They define the term, more specifically, as “a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions.”

My view:  I intend to use the word progressive to define government actions that truly represent progress – and that usually stems from actions that some from the center, not either the right or the left. If there is a message here, it is that, when we use new words in the political lexicon, we ought to know what they mean – or at least what listeners believe they mean.  That will lead to careful use of the words of they are used at all.

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.

Think of the term in the headline “herd immunity.”

Before the coronarivus took over our lives more than a year ago, most of us never had heard of the term.

Now, we know something it. 

Here is what the term means:

“Herd immunity occurs when enough people become immune to a disease to make its spread unlikely.  As a result, the entire community is protected, even those who are not themselves immune.  Herd immunity is usually achieved through vaccination, but it can also occur through natural infection and recovery from it.”

According to a recent story in the New York Times:

“Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored:  Cases are down 77 per cent over the past six weeks.  If a medication slashed cases by 77 per cent, we’d call it a miracle pill.  Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

“In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing.  Testing has been capturing only from 10 to 25 per cent of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus.”

Now add people getting vaccinated and you begin to see herd immunity coming into view.

Again from the New York Times this morning:

“Public discussion of ‘herd immunity’ often treats it like an on-off switch:  When the U.S. reaches herd immunity, the crisis will be over; until then, the country has little immunity from Covid-19.

“Herd immunity is more like a light dimmer. The more people develop immunity — either from having been infected or from being vaccinated — the less easily the virus will spread.

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.

We were subjected again this week to an example of government not working very well.

The case occurred when Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson held up the U.S. Senate by demanding that clerks read every word in a 618-page bill on the new virus relief package.

He had the right to make such a request.  But it was stupid.  He was not going to win in the end anyway.

The poor reading clerks on the Senate floor had to stumble through more than 10 hours of reading a complex bill.

According to the Washington Post, it included this unintelligible paragraph:

““subsection (a)(1) of such section 314 shall be applied by substituting ‘91 per cent’ for ‘89 per cent’” and “without regard to requirements in sections 658E(c)(3)(E) or 658G of such Act (42 U.S.C. 9858c(c)(3), 9858e).”

In proposed laws, such words are always a part of adding new legal language to the law books.  Makes no sense to the untrained eye, but, still, valid.

Call what Johnson did a “stunt” because it was exactly that.

The same stupid procedure has been used on occasion at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon.  It usually occurred when the minority party wanted to slow things down on a bill it considered controversial.  So, party leaders told the clerks, read a bill line for line.

Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman wrote the D.C. stunt this way:

“Being a United States senator comes with all kinds of privileges not afforded to lowly House members.  One is that in many instances you can force the entire chamber to submit to your idiotic whims.

“So it was that Senator Ron Johnson used his power to force Senate clerks to read every word of the 628-page Covid relief bill out loud.   As he said in a tweet, “If they’re going to add nearly $2 trillion to the national debt, at least we should know what’s in the bill.”

Like anyone else, however, Johnson was more than free to read the bill on his own time rather than forcing the clerks to perform this ritual.

Waldman went on with his trenchant, forward-looking insight:

“There’s a context for this stunt, which was meant to delay debate on the bill in a particularly exasperating way:  Republicans see it in their interest to make the legislative process appear as convoluted and ridiculous as possible.

“That’s because an inevitable part of their message for the 2022 mid-term elections — as it almost always is — will be that ‘Washington Doesn’t Work.’  It’s a bunch of squabbling, partisanship and arcane procedural nonsense that does nothing to help you and your family, so what we need to do is toss out the people in charge and put in some folks with common sense, i.e., Republicans.

“And the idea that legislation is too long is a regular Republican refrain, as though a bill’s page count proves that there must be something wrong with it.

“This (sowing government discord) will be one of the most important grounds on which politics is fought for the next few years.  Republicans will argue that under Democrats the legislative process is a mess, their bills are full of frivolous and wasteful boondoggles, and the Biden administration is mishandling implementation of everything. “

In the face of all this, my wish is that those who represent us would get back to the business of:

• Making government work better, not pulling stupid stunts like Johnson.
• Continuing to ask tough questions about the role of government, whether there should be role in the cases of some public policy issues, and, if there is a role, how should it be designed to endure solid performance – a return-on-investment to use a private business phrase.

If steps like these occurred, we’d be better off as citizens and, in fact, government would be better.  So, I’d tell Senator Johnson and his ilk to get with the “better government” program.

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

The headline on this blog uses the word “interesting.”   But, if there was more room, I also could add the phrase, “tough to get to.”  Or, perhaps, one trip there is enough.

That’s Rams Hill.

It is a renowned course in Borrego Springs, about an hour and a half south and west of La Quinta, California.

I joined three friends to head to Rams Hill earlier this week and found the experience to illustrate this:  Fun to go there once; not necessarily worth the trip again.  Plus, for what it’s worth, I didn’t see any rams on the way or at the destination.

That’s nothing against the course.

It is an excellent track designed by eminent designer Tom Fazio.  It is composed of interesting holes that test all elements of your game, to fairly short, but penal, par 3s; to par 4s, without huge distance requirements; to par 5s which require various shots required to get into the best place to go for the greens.

In other words, playable.

When I was at Rams Hill, it was not in the best shape because, the superintendent told me, the over-seeding earlier in the fall did not work exactly as planned.  So, there were splotches of sand and dirt in the fairways.

But, that unfortunate fact did not deter from the enjoyment of golf.

Getting to Rams Hills is tough.

Tough in the sense that a substantial portion of the roads to Borrego Springs, the town where Rams Hills is located, were paved once, but not recently.  Rutts.  Hills and bumps.  Deep holes.

At one point, the SUV in which I was rounding bounced off the ground – and so did I…at least off my seat up to the ceiling of the vehicle.

From La Quinta, you travel first on decent roads heading south through farmland with a variety of crops – carrots, lettuce, citrus and the ever-present palm trees.  The latter is a crop, too. 

Soon, you get to the Salton Sea, which, as the name implies, is full of salt, so full that the major fish type there, tilapia, are dying off.  There are a few resorts on the Sea, but based on a past trip there, you would not want to stay for along, if only because of the acrid salt smell.

From the Sea, you then head mostly west through a barren landscape marked by hills and valleys, the sort that attract off-roaders.  I saw hundreds of RVs camped out in the sand, often dragging off-road vehicle trailers behind them. 

On the day of our trip, it was about 70 degrees, but I cannot imagine what it would be like in the summer when temps climb to and above 100.  No trees.  No shade.  No nothing, except sand and dunes.  But, I suspect the RVs might still be there, though not in the same numbers as I saw this week.

We turned off before we got to Borrego Springs, which we saw in the distance.  It’s a small town, though the trip veterans I was with said there are good restaurants there, along with lodging, one of which is a 5-star venue.

I have a friend from Salem, Oregon who has a place in Borrego and, though I did not see him on this trip, I can imagine that what he has told me about the place is true.  It, he says, is dying because, as is the case even with other more-populated places in Palm Springs, it has difficulty attracting a younger crowd.  So, it is “aging out.”

Still, if you want privacy, if you want great hiking trails and if you want off-roading sites, Borrego Springs could be a place for you.  And, if don’t want to drive there, just take a small jets and or a helicopter if fit the category of the “rich and famous.”

Back to Rams Hill golf.

Golf Advisor Magazine raters called the course the “Best in the Country” in 2016.

Perhaps a bit of a stretch these days, but here’s a quote from the club’s website:

“A scenic Tom Fazio layout resurrected with the help of one of the industry’s hottest up-and-coming design teams.  Eighteen holes that inspire shot-making creativity.  Immaculate course conditions and comfortable pace of play.  Luxury overnight accommodations both on property and with our partner resort.  Tantalizing meals, cold beer, rich wine and hearty spirits.

“Enjoy pleasant fall and warm winter weather.  Colorful, expansive outdoor spaces.  After-golf fun and games, including a simulator loaded with America’s other best courses.  Acres of surrounding terrain to explore.  Even high-flying helicopter service.

“Most importantly, fill yourself an indelible sense of place and hospitality that turns any visit into a vacation.  Stay and play for a day, a week or a lifetime.  Bring your spirit of adventure. We’ll provide the fun.”

There is a reader of this blog, who keeps track of all the courses he has played in his “golf career.”  So do I – my golf career, that is — and now I have a new one to add to my list – Rams Hill.

And, if my friend wants to duplicate my feat, I’ll take him there despite the tough trip, so he, too, can play the course and add it to his list.