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 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 the publisher of a major newspaper writes a “letter from the publisher,” the words often strike me as not much more than pablum.

However, a “letter from the publisher” of the Wall Street Journal, Almar Latour, caught my attention the other day if only for this reason:  Beyond public relations, it advocated for “continuous improvement” in the Journal’s business.

Several Journal readers apparently agreed with me and wrote letters to the editor, which the Journal published under this headline:  “The Journal should be required reading for business people.”

Here are excerpts from the letters:

• When I got to the end of publisher Almar Latour’s “A Report to Our Readers,” I said to myself:  There’s something missing here. Nothing about diversity, equity or inclusion; only 1,200 words on the pursuit of excellence in doing your job.  How refreshing.  Thank you, Mr. Latour. That’s why people love your newspaper.

Doug Wertheimer, Skokie, Illinois

• I endorse Mr. Latour’s observation that “reliable information is the most valuable currency of the epoch.”  But I don’t think the Journal provides that as much as it could.  Though I am a devout liberal, I read the Journal’s opinion section.  Very often I make note of valid points made by your editorials and contributors and, sometimes, my mind is changed.

Often, however, I find assertions of fact made that contrast with my understanding of the facts.  I don’t reject them out of hand, but I am often frustrated by a lack of references.  I suggest that all critical assertions of fact be required to include identification of the source.

Joel Drum, Los Angeles, California

• Why do I read the Journal?  All the answers are in Mr. Latour’s letter. We in California live in a deluge of extreme wokeism.  But there are many of us who are just Californians.  We love our state, the beauty, the climate, without the extremism.  Some of us still live by the old San Francisco approach:  Live and let live.  We adhere to the values of truth and honesty, based on reality.  Thank you for adhering to that in a balanced way.

Joanna Shafer, Oakland, California

• I strongly endorse the comment that The Wall Street Journal should be required reading for business people.  As CEO of Brookline Bancorp, I had copies of the Journal delivered daily to every officer and branch manager. It was my opinion that they couldn’t conduct informed discussions with customers or others without timely access to the Journal. It’s expensive, but it’s a first-rate operation.

Richard Chapman Jr., Brookline, Massachusetts.

• I believe The Wall Street Journal should be required reading for President Biden. Every day.

Jerry Dawson, Hernando, Florida.

Why do I report this? 

A couple reasons.  I, too read the Wall Street Journal, not because it is required, but because it includes excellent writing, especially on politics, a hobby of mine after a career in the business.

Plus, the Journal maintains a perspective just right of center and, when combined with the Washington Post, with its just left of center perspective, you get a full picture of issues when, as I do every morning, you read both newspapers.

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 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.

To put it mildly, my life is a bit different in retirement than it was when I worked for 25 years as an Oregon state lobbyist.

As every formal legislative session began in Salem, I used to worry about how my clients would fare at the hands of lawmakers.

Now?

Not so much.  First, there are no clients.  Second, I watch legislative processes only with interest as I sit in the cheap seats, either in Salem, Oregon where I live for much of the year, or in La Quinta, California where I sojourn in the winter.

So it was this morning that I read a post from the folks in my old lobbying firm, CFM Advocates.  Here is a summary of how they commented on the legislative session now a few days old:

“The Oregon Legislative Assembly convenes today for a 160-day session with a new Senate President for the first time in two decades and a new Governor who has made housing and homelessness a top priority.

“The most diverse Legislature in Oregon history was greeted on opening day with 783 Senate measures and 1,078 House measures already introduced and printed, with more to come.

“Legislative focus will be on how to turn Governor Tina Kotek’s goal of producing 36,000 new housing units per year into reality.  Reaching that stretch goal will require financing and more flexible zoning.  It also will require creativity in matching low-income and supportive housing with access to healthcare services and public transportation and training more construction workers.

“Other legislative priorities include fortifying Oregon’s behavioral health system, bolstering public education in high-poverty areas and competing for federal funding to boost domestic semi-conductor production and research.”

And, after reading on-line missives from Democrats and Republicans, these issues emerged:

• Dealing with how to increase the number of public defenders.
• Improving the operation of the state’s mental hospital in Salem.
• Implementing or modifying Measure 114, the gun safety initiative that voters approved, but has been held up by court rulings on its constitutionality under the Second Amendment.
• Pushing for more access to women’s reproductive health in rural parts of the state.
• Deciding whether to send the $3.7 billion kicker rebate out to the taxpayers.
• Considering a $300 million fund to lure computer chip manufacturing expansion in Oregon.

As is true in every legislative session, both Democrats and Republicans announced their priorities using very general language.

For Democrats who are in charge in both the House and the Senate, though without super-majorities, the list is long.  It includes creating “affordable housing,” dealing with homelessness, retaining behavioral health workers, bolstering addiction treatment services, improving public safety, and a host of others.

Democrats, of course, see a huge role for government in all these issues.

For Republicans, their view is less aggressive, though they mention these issues, which, at least in general language, appear close to what Democrats say:  Prioritizing fiscal responsibility (whatever that means), addressing housing, homelessness, and mental health, supporting law enforcement and increasing community safety, and protecting rural Oregon and the natural resource economy.

Now, as always, the devil will be in the details as legislators look for action.

And, remember, the only issue legislators and the governor have no choice but to handle is to develop a balanced-budget for 2023-25.  Emphasis on the word balanced.  Revenue must equal expenses and the reverse, which, of course, is far different from the federal government.

The next major development on this front will be the required publication of Governor Kotek’s “recommended budget for 2023-25.” By law, the deadline is no later than February 1.

What she recommends then will be under consideration in the Joint Ways and Means through the end of June.

So, enough.  As a retiree, I am heading out to the golf course without a legislative care in the world.

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 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 tournament, a highlight for the California desert, starts today in La Quinta, California.

That’s where my wife and I live in the winter to avoid the rain and cold of the Pacific Northwest.

Sure, it’s been colder than normal here this winter and, in fact, there could be a frost delay for the tournament’s first round this morning.

Frost delays are different here than they are in Salem, Oregon, where we live for seven months of the year.  When there is a delay here, it’s often not possible to see frost on the ground.  But golf course superintendents err on the side of caution to protect “their” turf.

The tournament this year – it’s an unusual tournament because amateurs pay for the right to play the first three rounds, then the pros take the stage alone on the fourth day – features a raft of top players, the best field in recent memory.

According to Golfweek, 10 of the top 19 in World Golf Rankings have signed up to play.   That includes number two Scottie Scheffler and number four Jon Rahm, who won this tournament in 2018.

Patrick Cantlay, Xander Schauffele and Will Zalatoris round out the top 10 players in the field.

I’ll be watching with interest, either on site at one of the courses in play for tournament, La Quinta Golf and Country Club, or at the others, the Nicklaus Private and the Stadium Course at PGA West, which describes itself as the “Western Home of Golf” – which it surely is.

One key difference for me this year is that I will be watching the tournament, not volunteering.  In the past, I have worked as a “walking marshal,” which means I got to walk around the courses with a group of players.  But walking 18 holes for four days is a challenge, so this year I decided to watch, not walk.

I also decided not to work as a “walking scorer.”  The assignment sound like fun – to walk along with players on the course and plug in their scores to a hand-held technology device.  Except that you have to plug in not just their scores, but every shot they hit on the way to the greens.  Doing for several players is a tall challenge, so I demurred.

There is a rationale for the work:  The inputs go on to tournament directors, rules and TV crews, so all know where to be and what to watch.  Still, whatever the rationale, a tall challenge.

One other difference this year:  Phil Mickelson, having left the PGA Tour for LIV Golf (I almost used the word “defected,” but avoided it) is no longer eligible to play on the PGA Tour, so one gig he has given up is designation as “ambassador” for the American Express.  Further, the defending champion, Hudson Swafford, also left for LIV, so no defense this year.

Should be a great event again.  In addition to golf, the tournament is an economic boon for the California desert.  Among other things, tournament organizers devote proceeds to local charities, including allocations to organizations that support health and wellness, youth sports, family support, education, and homelessness.

Since the tournament’s inception in 1960, the event has generated more than $64 million for non-profit organizations in the Coachella Valley.

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 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.

Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman performed a service by writing under the headline that leads this blog:  “Six things people believe about political that are totally wrong.”

Here is how he started his column:

“Like many billionaires, Elon Musk apparently sees himself as a genius, not only in areas where he has real experience, but in all things, including politics and government.  Which is why he tweeted this about the omnibus spending bill Congress passed last month,” contending that no one who voted had read the entire bill, which ran 4,000 pages long.

“This,” Waldman continued, “is a common type of misinformation, one that swirled about with particular intensity regarding the omnibus bill.  Not that Musk doesn’t believe it; I’m sure he does.  His tweet shows how easy it is to be seduced by ideas that have intuitive appeal, but are completely wrong.”

As explained below, Waldman says reading the technical language of bills is not necessary.  A deep understanding of a piece of legislation is necessary, not reading the lawyer-drafted words.

It would be possible for a thoughtful person to disagree with some of Waldman’s posits (outlined below), but, overall, his list is insightful.

However, I would have added one more point to his list:  A major issue seasoned political observers like me get right about politics. 

This:  We need more men and women in politics who will enter the fray, not to aggrandize themselves by, figuratively, yelling on the street corner, but by setting out to do the people’s business, which is to oversee good government.  Which often means solutions in the middle, not the extremes of right or left.

That said, here is Waldman’s list of wrong perceptions.

1. “If members of Congress read bills before voting on them, legislation would be better.”

How could anyone oppose that?  But the truth is that most legislators usually don’t read the text —and that’s fine.  It isn’t because they’re lazy. It’s because legislation involves a specialized type of language, written by experts for purposes that have nothing to do with understanding and wise decision-making.  Members should know exactly what they’re voting on, but the text of bills is only tangentially related to that goal.

•  “If only we stopped wasteful spending, we’d solve most of our problems.”

Waste is bad, after all. And there is plenty of waste in government, just as there’s waste in pretty much every corporation and non-profit organization everywhere.

But when someone rails against wasteful spending, they seldom specify exactly which spending is supposedly wasteful.

If you press them, they’ll probably cite either spending that’s utterly trivial — some silly-sounding program that spent a few hundred thousand dollars somewhere — or spending that is quite important, but they don’t happen to like.  Some people think Medicaid is “wasteful,” but the tens of millions of Americans who count on it likely disagree.

•  “My family balances its budget.  Why shouldn’t the government?”

The reason is that the government is not a family or a household.  For instance, when times are tough, deficits do, and should, go up.  That’s because the government brings in less revenue and must do more to help people.  If the government slashed spending during every recession to balance the budget, it would only make things worse.

•  “Government should be run like a business.”

But government isn’t a business.  It’s not an enterprise devoted to obtaining profits.  It does many things that cost money but don’t produce a financial return, like delivering mail to far-flung rural addresses or caring for the sick.

Comment:  While I agree with Waldman’s basic point, I also think it would be helpful if government officials realized, at least on occasion, that money doesn’t grow on trees.  If they had to consider the source of the money – often taxpayers — decisions would be better.

•  “The parties need to stop the partisan squabbling and get things done.”

This is an incredibly common idea, one driven by the presumption that political differences are meaningless.  But especially in our polarized age, political differences are incredibly meaningful.

Partisans “squabble” over questions such as whether abortion should be legal, whether taxes for the wealthy should go up or down, what to do about climate change, whether to extend health coverage to more people and whether workers deserve higher pay, to name just a few.

There aren’t non-partisan answers to these questions just waiting to be seized if people would put aside party loyalties.  Those loyalties are driven by deeply held values, and, a lot of the time, conservative and liberal values aren’t compatible.

Comment:  Same as above.  While there aren’t easy non-partisan solutions lying around, we need legislators who will work to find the smart middle.

•  “We need more people in Congress who aren’t politicians.”

You hear this often from first-time candidates, who present their lack of qualifications as their key qualification.  Yes, politicians are prey to some bad tendencies — self-aggrandizement, cravenness, short-term thinking — but, just as you wouldn’t hire an accountant to rewire your house or an electrician to do your taxes, you need people who understand politics and policy to deal with political and policy questions.

So, all in all, a good list.  Agree or disagree, it’s worthy of consideration and reflection.

\Error! Filename not specified.

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 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 issue of classified papers in roiling Washington, D.C. these days, with apparent offenses by both President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump.

The offences appear similar, but it strikes, from my post in La Quinta, California, far from the action in D.C., that are important differences between the two cases.

I don’t often agree with Washington Post columnist Mark Thiessen, the one who often goes after President Joe Biden in the Post, but this time he had a point when he wrote under this headline:

“If Trump’s classified document mishandling was ‘irresponsible,’ so is Biden’s .”

Both Trump and Biden were irresponsible about how they handled classified documents.  That much is patently clear.

What isn’t so clear are the differences between the two cases, though a few reporters from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have emphasized those differences.

My take:

When classified papers were found at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago abode, he bridled at every point.  He and his minions obfuscated at every turn and are still doing so as they hope bluster will obscure the real fault.

When classified papers were found at Biden’s old offices or at his home, he and his lawyers immediately turned over the papers to the National Archives.  Initially, it’s true that he and his lawyers may have waited a bit long to outline the problem, but, still, when they did, there was no attempt to blunt the truth.  No obfuscation.

It is critical that Attorney General Merrick Garland ensures that investigations of Trump and Biden, both under the jurisdiction of independent prosecutors, proceed justly.

But, given the record so far, the Post says “the differences between the Biden case and the Trump case appear glaring, particularly in how staff handled sensitive documents and their return to the proper authorities.”

Thiessen wrote this:  “Trump’s team dragged its feet to the point of possible obstruction; the Biden team appears to have promptly, voluntarily, and fully cooperated.  Further, the size of the two mounds of paper are markedly different.  Trump’s papers had to be loaded into boxes.  Not Biden’s.

“Let’s be clear:  None of this absolves Trump, who had hundreds of classified documents in his unlawful possession, including documents marked ‘HCS’ — a control system designed to protect intelligence information derived from clandestine human sources.  This is extremely serious.  And unlike Biden, whose lawyers immediately turned over the documents to the National Archives, Trump had to be forced to relinquish those in his possession.”

But, properly, Thiessen faulted Biden, too.

Mishandling of classified documents is a serious violation of federal law.  It does not matter whether it is fewer than a dozen, as in the Biden case, or hundreds as in the Trump case.  The Espionage Act states that anyone who, “through gross negligence, permits classified information to be removed from its proper place of custody … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Both Biden and Trump should be held to account for these violations.  And the punishments if they exist?  The one for Trump should be tougher than the one for Biden.

There is no innocence here.

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 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.

Southwest Church!  That’s what.

This is the church my wife and I attend when we live in La Quinta, California for the winter.

It is a privilege to do so – both live and attend church there.

The senior pastor at Southwest is Rickey Jenkins.

But, that’s not much of a description.

He wouldn’t mind if I wrote that he is a Black man who came with his family from Mississippi to the Coachella Valley in 2018.  He leads a church that, under his leadership, has become a regional institution.

Not an institution in the sense of a place or set of buildings.  But an institution, to use a Jenkins’ phrase, “to make Jesus famous.”

Here is what an on-line bio says about Jenkins:

“Ricky Jenkins is the senior pastor of Southwest Church in Indian Wells, California.  From his beginnings in Pearl, Mississippi, all the way to Oakland, California, to Memphis, Tennessee, and Chicago, Illinois, Ricky has been preaching the gospel for more than 20 years.

“Fueled by Acts 20:28, Ricky is called to pursue God passionately and pursue God’s people compassionately for the glory and honor of Jesus Christ.

“With a shepherd’s heart, Ricky’s preaching weaves together biblical exposition, vivid illustration, heartfelt application, and an extra helping of humor with which to convey the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.

“Ricky is married to the light of his heart, April Jenkins.  Together they have three beautiful children — Camden, Grand, and Andi.

“Ricky is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Historical Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago, Illinois.  His research interests revolve around pastoral leadership, racial reconciliation, and issues of justice during the Civil Rights movement.”

Back to his “fuel” verse, Acts 20:28.  Here is what it says:

^“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.  Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”

The headline in this blog repeats a phrase that Southwest uses to illustrate its mission.  Here it is again:

A gospel-centered,
multi-ethnic,
inter-generational
church…

And, we love discipleship!

Also, every Sunday when he preaches, Ricky uses this phrase when he reads from the Bible:

“I have just read from the greatest book ever written – and I stand before you today to verify that every word of it is true.”

Here are a couple other emphases that Southwest uses to illustrate that it is more than just a building – it is church with an appeal to the community.

1. SUPPORTING COMMUNITY CHARITIES:  Southwest leaders find ways for members and adherents of the church to get out in the Palm Springs community to work for a day here or there in charitable organizations that serve low-income and destitute citizens in the area, including the disaffected and the homeless. 

Ricky calls this “putting feet to the Gospel.”

• INVITING ORGANIZATIONS ON THE CHURCH CAMPUS:  Southwest allows its property to house what happens many times in the desert – encampments of food trucks, clothing tents, and other community organizations interested in selling their wares.  They park on the church grounds on various weekends, so they are there “for church” on a Sunday when they hear the services on loudspeakers set up on the grounds. 

Then, those who attend the church are encouraged to walk around the property to buy food and sample other wares.

Both times we have seen this, antique car owners also have been invited to be there to show their vehicles.

So, you see that church at Southwest is more than Sunday services.  It is a set of relationships “to make Jesus famous.”  And, Ricky Jenkins, though he would not want personal credit, deserves much of it, though, if he saw this post, he would direct the credit to God.

Further, after the Sunday service, our overwhelming emotion upon leaving is joy.  We were glad we were there and want to go again.

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 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.

Southwest Church!  That’s what.

This is the church my wife and I attend when we live in La Quinta, California for the winter.

It is a privilege to do so – both live and attend church there.

The senior pastor at Southwest is Rickey Jenkins.

But, that’s not much of a description.

He wouldn’t mind if I wrote that he is a Black man who came with his family from Mississippi to the Coachella Valley in 2018.  He leads a church that, under his leadership, has become a regional institution.

Not an institution in the sense of a place or set of buildings.  But an institution, to use a Jenkins’ phrase, “to make Jesus famous.”

Here is what an on-line bio says about Jenkins:

“Ricky Jenkins is the senior pastor of Southwest Church in Indian Wells, California.  From his beginnings in Pearl, Mississippi, all the way to Oakland, California, to Memphis, Tennessee, and Chicago, Illinois, Ricky has been preaching the gospel for more than 20 years.

“Fueled by Acts 20:28, Ricky is called to pursue God passionately and pursue God’s people compassionately for the glory and honor of Jesus Christ.

“With a shepherd’s heart, Ricky’s preaching weaves together biblical exposition, vivid illustration, heartfelt application, and an extra helping of humor with which to convey the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.

“Ricky is married to the light of his heart, April Jenkins.  Together they have three beautiful children — Camden, Grand, and Andi.

“Ricky is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Historical Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago, Illinois.  His research interests revolve around pastoral leadership, racial reconciliation, and issues of justice during the Civil Rights movement.”

Back to his “fuel” verse, Acts 20:28.  Here is what it says:

^“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.  Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”

The headline in this blog repeats a phrase that Southwest uses to illustrate its mission.  Here it is again:

A gospel-centered,
multi-ethnic,
inter-generational
church…

And, we love discipleship!

Also, every Sunday when he preaches, Ricky uses this phrase when he reads from the Bible:

“I have just read from the greatest book ever written – and I stand before you today to verify that every word of it is true.”

Here are a couple other emphases that Southwest uses to illustrate that it is more than just a building – it is church with an appeal to the community.

1. SUPPORTING COIMMUNITY CHARITIES:  Southwest leaders find ways for members and adherents of the church to get out in the Palm Springs community to work for a day here or there in charitable organizations that serve low-income and destitute citizens in the area, including the disaffected and the homeless. 

Ricky calls this “putting feet to the Gospel.”

• INVITING ORGANIZATIONS ON THE CHURCH CAMPUS:  Southwest allows its property to house what happens many times in the desert – encampments of food trucks, clothing tents, and other community organizations interested in selling their wares.  They park on the church grounds on various weekends, so they are there “for church” on a Sunday when they hear the services on loudspeakers set up on the grounds. 

Then, those who attend the church are encouraged to walk around the property to buy food and sample other wares.

Both times we have seen this, antique car owners also have been invited to be there to show their vehicles.

So, you see that church at Southwest is more than Sunday services.  It is a set of relationships “to make Jesus famous.”  And, Ricky Jenkins, though he would not want personal credit, deserves much of it, though, if he saw this post, he would direct the credit to God.

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 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.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a dog lover.

My wife and I have had two dogs – Hogan and Callaway.  One was part of our family.  One now is part of our family.

Hogan went to heaven about five years ago and he is looking down on us as he romps in the fields free from the cancer that took him.  Then, we got Callaway, not to replace Hogan, but to occupy another important place in our family.

Hogan and Callaway came from the same poodle breeder near Amity, Oregon, a place that came highly recommended as something other than a “dog breeding factory.”

It was a great place to find a dog(s).

Actually, Callaway came from the same pure-bred poodle line as Hogan, so, without knowing all about their lineage, we consider Hogan to be Callaway’s uncle.

Why do I report all this?

Because I came across two stories about dogs lately in national media, one very positive, and one very negative.  Here is a summary of both.

• MO MOUNTAIN MUTTS, a dog-walking business in Skagway, Alaska, takes different groups of dogs on walks multiple times a day.  Plus, it uses a bus to transport all the dogs to the areas for walks.

Dubbed the “puppy bus” by the business’s owners, it is equipped with special safety harnesses for the dogs, who each have their own assigned seat.

Guess what?  When the bus comes by the homes of the dogs, the animals are waiting patiently – or perhaps not so patiently — in their front yards.  And, then, when the bus doors open, the dogs run to get on and go immediately to their assigned seats.

To their assigned seats?  Yes, they have “assigned seats” and they know where they are.

On the walks, the dogs are trained to be off-leash, so, at least based on the photos, it appears the dogs love the exercise and the freedom.

In words, this story arouses the senses, at least mine.  But, if you saw the photos carried in the Washington Post, which ran a story on Mo Mountain Mutts, you’d laugh out loud – laugh with appreciation.

The owners said this:  “We can’t believe we can do this for a living.”

·      “DOG-NAPPING” IS ON RISE:  In the second story, the facts caught me by surprise – and they are very negative.

Here is the way the Washington Post reported the issue:

“Dog thefts — some violent — appear to be on the rise nationwide, but the owner of a Yorkshire terrier and a veteran who hunted al-Qaeda militants in Iraq teamed up to save a dog held for ransom.

“Raquel Witherspoon had spent a frantic 24-hours searching for her daughter’s Yorkshire terrier, after making a shocking discovery.  Footage from her doorbell camera showed a young woman with dyed-red hair creep onto her front porch, throw treats to Avery, and then make off with the tiny dog.

“Witherspoon’s 12-year-old daughter was distraught.  Semaj (the daughter’s name) relied on Avery for emotional support and could barely eat or sleep since the dog vanished.”

But, then, suddenly, Witherspoon’s iPhone buzzed to life in her Maryland home that day after the pup disappeared in June.

What happened was that a military veteran of serving in Iraq learned about the plight of the 12-year-old and offered to help.

Using skills he developed in his military service, he worked on-line and in other ways to find the culprit and he got the kidnapped dog back — safe and sound.

Great result!

So, two stories here. 

I intend to dwell on the good news of the first, remembering all the photos of dogs set for a great walk in Alaska.  As for the second, I’ll work hard to protect Callaway.

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 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 “non-compete” is not one in normal use these days.  But, when the word is used, it conjures up a memory for me from my time as a state lobbyist.

In the case I remember, I represented the Oregon Association of Broadcasters (OAB), a group of more than 200 radio and television stations around Oregon.

Some members of the association – mainly larger TV stations – used non-competes to protect their investments in high-profile on-air talent, such as those who carry the title “anchor.”  Often, these investments, mainly in advertising, ran into the millions of dollars.

Think of it this way.  Suppose a television station invests money promoting “person X” as an anchor.  That person, with such an investment behind them, should not be allowed on a moment’s notice to leave to go to another competing station down the road.

That’s what station managers believed and that’s why they installed non-compete clauses in high-profile contracts.

So, what’s the actual definition of the term non-compete?  This:

“A non-compete agreement is a contract between two parties, usually two individuals or one company and one individual, in which one of the individuals promises not to compete with the other individual or company once their relationship with the company has ended.”

All of this comes up because the Federal Trade Commission is now proposing a rule to prohibit employers from using non-compete clauses which it contends “suppresses pay, prevents new companies from forming, and raises consumer prices.”

Eugene Scalia, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, labeled it a “breath-taking power move,” when he wrote this in the Wall Street Journal:

“The Federal Trade Commission’s ban on non-compete agreements may be the most audacious federal rule ever proposed.  If finalized, it would outlaw terms in 30 million contracts and pre-empt laws in virtually every state.  It would also, by the FTC’s own account, reduce capital investment, worker training and possibly job growth, while increasing the wage gap.”

The good news, Scalia writes, is that the proposal is unlikely to become law, though that is clearly a prediction, not a fact, because it would not be surprising if the Trade Commission approved the final rule.

The prospect of the ban has been met with outrage from some parts of business community — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which maintains that non-compete agreements promote competition and innovation, and to put an important point on it, protect companies where employees are aware of trade secrets which they could, if left without non-competes, take down the road to competitors.

“Actions by the Federal Trade Commission to outright ban non-compete clauses in all employer contracts is blatantly unlawful,” Sean Heather, a U.S. Chamber official, said in response to news of the proposed rule.  “Since the agency’s creation over 100 years ago, Congress has never delegated the FTC anything close to the authority it would need to promulgate such a competition rule.”

The use of non-compete clauses dates back hundreds of years.  Such restrictions were originally meant to protect a business’s trade secrets – and, for the Oregon broadcasters, such contracts protected huge investments in ongoing business.

For me, as the broadcasters’ lobbyist, the issue arose in 2009 because the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) – a union — came to the Capitol to oppose OAB non-compete agreements. 

No one knew why AFTRA showed up because it was not usually involved in Salem, but the union got support from then-Oregon Senator Rick Metsger, a former TV broadcaster who didn’t like broadcast managers, including those for whom he worked in Portland.

Metsger also didn’t seem to care one wit about the rationale for non-compete agreements as they had been negotiated by OAB member stations. 

As Metsger moved ahead with his ban proposal, I almost lost the battle until I proposed the following language, which, in the 2009 legislative session, made into law in the form of an amendment to ORS 653.020.  Sorry, this is pretty detailed language, but, then, so is the issue.

“(c) The employer has a protectable interest. As used in this paragraph, an employer has a protectable interest when the employee:

“(A) Has access to trade secrets, as that term is defined in ORS 646.461;

“(B) Has access to competitively sensitive confidential business or professional information that otherwise would not qualify as a trade secret, including product development plans, product launch plans, marketing strategy or sales plans; or

“(C) Is employed as an on-air talent by an employer in the business of broadcasting and the employer:  In the year preceding the termination of the employee′s employment, expended re-sources equal to or exceeding 10 per cent of the employee′s annual salary to develop, improve, train or publicly promote the employee, provided that the resources expended by the employer were expended on media that the employer does not own or control; and

“(ii) Provides the employee, for the time the employee is restricted from working, the greater of compensation equal to at least 50 per cent of the employee′s annual gross base salary and commissions at the time of the employee′s termination or 50 per cent of the median family income for a four-person family, as determined by the United States Census Bureau for the most recent year available at the time of the employee′s termination.”

Fortunately, this language recognized the specific circumstances of broadcast executives instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all approach currently being contemplated by federal regulators.

See, as I told you earlier, more than you may want to know about this arcane issue – non-competes.  But, to the broadcast industry in Oregon, it is important.

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 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.

PEW Research came up with a story on what it called “the religious composition” of the 118^th Congress, the one just now in session in Washington, D.C.

Okay.  The phrase “religious composition” works.

But the headline didn’t.  It was this:  “Faith on the Hill.”

I submit that it’s possible to come up with a tally of how many Members of Congress attend church or identify with a particular religion or denomination, or for that matter, with no affiliation.

It is not possible, I submit, to tabulate “faith.”  That is an individual characteristic.  If you have it, you have it before and with God.  If you don’t have it, well, that is your personal business.

The PEW report began this way:

“As it begins its 118th session, the U.S. Congress remains largely untouched by two trends that have long marked religious life in the United States:  A decades-long decline in the share of Americans who identify as Christian, and a corresponding increase in the percentage who say they have no religious affiliation.

“Since 2007, the share of Christians in the general population has dropped from 78 per cent to its present level of 63 per cent. 

“Nearly three-in-ten U.S. adults now say they are religiously unaffiliated, describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or ‘nothing in particular,’ up from 16 per cent who did not identify with a religion 16 years ago.

“But Christians make up 88 per cent of the voting members of the new 118th Congress – only a few percentage points lower than the Christian share of Congress in the late 1970s.

“In the 96th Congress, which was in session in 1979-1980, 91 per cent of members of Congress identified as Christian.”

Interesting statistics?  I suppose so.

But, I always find stats on subject like this mostly irrelevant.  A person’s faith – or, for that matter, non-faith – is up to them, not to be reflected in a poll.

So, I say to PEW:  Thanks, but try to be more precise when you take off on issues such as this.