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.

First, a warning.  This blog will be longer than most I post.

Second, I have been struck latelyabout how impotent I feel to grasp and  understand, not to mention influence, current events.

Consider the issues.  The Afghanistan war and withdrawal.  The Covid 19 virus.  Hurricane Ida.  Climate change generally.  The increasing polarity of American politics.

You name it.  Beyond me.

So it was this morning that I read two columns on Afghanistan – one by Karl Rove that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, and one by E. J. Dionne that appeared in the Washington Post.

Rove and Dionne wouldn’t recognize each other.

Here are their divergent assessments of the country’s longest war and especially President Joe Biden’s role in it.

Opinion: It was time to end the long wars. Now, Biden must make a new era work.

Opinion by

E.J. Dionne Jr.

It will go down in history as one of the most unabashedly antiwar speeches ever given by an American president.

We are accustomed to martial rhetoric from commanders in chief, soaring words and calls for sacrifice on behalf of causes larger than any of us.

President Biden broke with all that on Tuesday in explaining and justifying his decision to pull U.S. troops from Afghanistan. One simple sentence summarized his gut instinct and his historical judgment: “We’ve been a nation too long at war.”

Biden did something else that was unusual in presidential speeches: He took on the arguments of his critics, one by one, and asked the country to see why he was right and they were wrong.

He was especially forceful in rejecting the most alluring claim of respected voices in the foreign policy and military establishments — architects, it should be said, of many of the policies that led us to this point. Maintaining a small American force, they insisted, could have held off a Taliban victory and prevented a rout of the United States’ Afghan allies.

Biden described this option several times as the “low grade,” “low risk” approach, and asserted that this halfway house of a policy misdescribed the alternatives he faced.

It was not withdraw or go small. It was withdraw or go big. “That was the choice — the real choice — between leaving or escalating,” he said. “I was not going to extend this forever war.”

The history of the war suggests that Biden is right, even if we will never know for certain. Once it reversed the withdrawal set in motion by former president Donald Trump, the United States would most likely at some point have faced another choice, between a surge of U.S. troops or an ignominious battlefield defeat.

But there was more to Biden’s decision, and here is where his revulsion over two decades of war — bolstered by his many conversations with military veterans, and his role as the father of a son who fought in Iraq — came into play.

“When I hear that we could’ve, should’ve continued the so-called low-grade effort in Afghanistan, at low risk to our service members, at low cost,” Biden said, “I don’t think enough people understand how much we have asked of the 1 percent of this country who put that uniform on, who are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of our nation.”

He spoke arrestingly of “18 veterans, on average, who die by suicide every single day in America,” and concluded: “There’s nothing low-grade or low-risk or low-cost about any war.” Rarely has a president described the burdens of warfare so starkly.

Washington being Washington, its talk has already moved to politics and the impact of the chaotic withdrawal on voters’ judgments about Biden.

There will be arguments over whether we should celebrate (as Biden devoutly hopes we do) the extraordinary heroism in the airlifting of more than 120,000 people, including almost all remaining Americans; or whether we should criticize Biden for leaving perhaps 200 Americans behind, along with the tens of thousands of our Afghan allies to whom we owe much.

Republicans — whether they supported or opposed Trump’s decisions that immensely strengthened the Taliban — suddenly spoke with one voice. They contended that whatever happened in the past, all the problems and failures now rested on Biden’s shoulders.

This claim overlooks the mistakes of two decades and is especially hypocritical coming from Trump’s die-hard defenders and those who were silent when Trump set this outcome in motion.

But the very pugnaciousness of Biden’s speech showed that he is ready to own the consequences of his choice. His bet — and every important choice by a president is a wager of one kind or another — is larger than Afghanistan.

At bottom, Biden is arguing that responding to the attacks of 9/11 with large military deployments, occupations and “nation building” was a mistake. Such wars, he said both directly and indirectly, sap the country’s energies and the attention of policymakers while placing intolerable burdens on our armed forces.

In the short term, Biden’s detractors will have plenty of fodder, given an endgame badly suited for the unexpectedly swift collapse of the Afghan government and its forces.

Over the longer run, however, Biden is right that policies driven by the passions, calculations — and, yes, misjudgments — of two decades ago could not be sustained. The nation needed to set a new course.

His task now is to minimize the human and strategic damage of a disorderly end to a long era of war — and to make good on his promise of a new era in which American power will be used more prudently, more effectively and with fewer illusions.

**********

Biden’s Ugly Defense of His Afghan Failure

His lie-loaded speech caps off a debacle that could sink his party in 2022 and 2024.

By Karl Rove

Joseph R. Biden Jr. ’s surrender in Afghanistan and the chaotic, inept and shameful way he effected the capitulation have left an indelible stain on his presidency. The distortions he used Tuesday to justify his actions compounded his historical blunder.

The president offered a false choice, saying he could either “follow the agreement of the previous administration . . . for people to get out or send in thousands of more troops and escalate the war.” Set aside the fact that Mr. Biden has reversed many of his predecessor’s policies. The president’s statement ignored the reality that American airpower and support assistance kept the Taliban in check in recent years with minimal risk to U.S. military personnel.

Mr. Biden bragged he had “ended 20 years of war in Afghanistan—the longest war in American history.” The war hasn’t ended, just the U.S. role, and even that probably only temporarily. Islamic jihadists are still waging the wider War on Terror. They’re celebrating our humiliation and making plans.

Mr. Biden also declared the only “vital national interest” the U.S. had was “to make sure Afghanistan can never be used again to launch an attack on our homeland.” That was, he claimed Tuesday, achieved when Osama bin Laden was killed in May 2011 leaving al Qaeda “decimated.”

Mr. Biden neglected to mention that he opposed the strike that killed bin Laden. He also left out the finding by the Defense Department that a reconstituted al Qaeda is working closely with the Taliban. With America’s exit, Afghanistan can once again become a sanctuary from which terrorists launch attacks against the West.

Mr. Biden also claimed Tuesday that “we were ready” when the “assumption that the Afghan government would be able to hold on beyond military drawdown turned out not to be accurate.” Pretending that what we’ve witnessed resulted from careful preparation may have been his most absurd statement. Plenty of reports have demonstrated how much the Biden administration was caught off guard, including believing it had the “luxury of time”—18 months or so—before the Afghan government might collapse.

Then there was Mr. Biden’s neat little rhetorical trick, identifying “ISIS-K terrorists” as “sworn enemies of the Taliban” while not identifying the Taliban as “sworn enemies of America,” which they are. Neither group may like each other but last week’s bombings should have reminded the president that doesn’t much matter when they have set their sights on us.

Mr. Biden also sketched “the threats of 2021 and tomorrow” that he worries about, namely Islamic terrorists in Syria, Iraq, the Arabian peninsula and “across Africa and Asia.” But there’s little sign he knows what to do or will commit the necessary resources. The president has explicitly said he’ll withdraw from Iraq this year. And, of course, a terrorist attack from al-Shabaab won’t make an assault from al Qaeda any more welcome.

Adding yet another classless touch, Mr. Biden blamed American citizens trapped in Afghanistan for ignoring “multiple warnings and offers to help them leave.” At least he’s rhetorically consistent, always claiming the buck stops with him as he blames everybody but himself for what’s gone wrong. This is petty and defensive.

The president finished his Tuesday address by promising a future that’s “safer” and “more secure.” We’ll see, but given his record over the past few weeks, Mr. Biden is probably among the least credible people on the planet to offer such assurances.

Even in our highly polarized atmosphere, where partisans stubbornly cling to their team colors, Mr. Biden’s approval ratings have plummeted. Since Aug. 1, his numbers in the RealClearPolitics average have dropped from 51.3% approve to 45.8% approve, and in the FiveThirtyEight.com average, from 51.5% approve to 46.7% approve.

These losses aren’t only because of Afghanistan. The president’s ratings are dropping on his handling of Covid, the economy, immigration and crime, too. I bet they get worse in the months ahead, despite attempted P.R. resets.

Mr. Biden’s shaky and listless performance has demolished the idea that he’ll be a credible contender in 2024. Also wrecked is any sense that Vice President Kamala Harris is an acceptable heir. The president’s failures and shortcomings are hers as well, while she’s failed to produce success in virtually every responsibility she has been given to handle.

But who could emerge to replace them? Both the White House and the aging apparatchiks of the Democratic Congressional leadership will discourage new faces from making their ambitions known. And Mr. Biden’s actions and Tuesday’s speech diminished what little good will he has among swing voters, which will also hurt Democrats if Republicans make 2022 about checks-and-balances. It ain’t a pretty picture.

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.

As a health care lobbyist for more than 25 years, I worried a lot about moves to create a so-called “single payer health care system.”

Who is the “single payer?”  Well, it’s the government.  And who funds the government?  You and me as taxpayers.

Over the years, my clients favored a well-balanced health care system, one that involved at least three parties – (a) the government, (b) the private health care system (including providers and insurers), and (c) individuals.

Better to fund a system with all those as payers rather than a single one.

But, despite all the machinations over the years, the single payer system is alive and well these days.  It’s just moving behind the scenes, out of view of the public.

Just consider excerpts of a recent editorial that appeared in the Bend Bulletin under this headline:

Editorial: New taxes planned for Oregon with single payer insurance

Here is the major quotation from the Bulletin’s editorial writers:

“Out of the spotlight, a task force is crafting a plan to make Oregon the first state with a single-payer health care system.

“Oregon Democrats control the state Legislature and the governor’s office. So, at least for now, yes this is coming.”

And the new taxes?  Of course, they’ll be needed for pay for the plan because Oregon, in contrast to the federal government, cannot fund government by going into debt.

If the proposal takes shape, there will be at least three new taxes – (a) a payroll tax; (b) an expanded personal income tax, and (c) even a new sales tax.

Under a “single payer” plan – some call it “Medicare for all,” a single government agency takes responsibility for running health care for all.  Everybody would be on the same insurance plan and have access to the same services.

Advocates are fond of saying such a system could help fix problems by making health care accessible to more people and, thus, more equitable.  

But, there will be tradeoffs.  In other countries with such systems, there can be long wait times.  Some procedures that people may feel are necessary may not be covered.  And, of course, wealthier people will still find ways to get access to care others cannot find.

The biggest challenge is paying for a single payer system.

The behind the scenes report says this, according to the Bend Bulletin:

“Payroll tax will be a flat rate on wages up to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) limit (currently about $138,000, subject to annual increase), and higher rates on income over the FICA limit.”  The exact rate is not specified. That tax would be assessed on employers, though it may have an impact on employees, of course.

“The report doesn’t give a hint of how much payroll taxes may go up. It does suggest the increase would apply to households to a threshold income of 300 per cent of the federal poverty level. That’s about $79,000 a year for a family of four.  There may be a new, higher tax bracket set for higher income earners.

“And the report says, if there is a determination that more revenue is needed, there would be a sales tax on all goods and services except ‘essential’ things such as groceries and utilities.  The state would also establish a refundable sales tax credit to ease the burden on low-income families.”

Once the single payer proposal emerges from the shadows, it will be interesting to see how it fares politically.

Will a governor and legislators be willing to take on the heavy lift of advocating for more taxes?  I wonder.

If was back as a lobbyist, I’d advocate against the huge tax expansion and contend that there were better ways to improve health care by relying on the perspectives of “three players, not one” – government, private health care, and individuals.

**********

Speaking of government out of control, how about this perspective on U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders continuing advocacy for “billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes.?”

The Wall Street Journal points out today:  “The trouble with this story is that Bernie has already run out of billionaires.  There are 724 of them in the U.S., according to the 2021 Forbes billionaires list, released in April.  At that point their collective net worth was $4.4 trillion, although that figure has presumably since risen along with the stock market.

“But note the problem.  Biden’s infrastructure plan includes about $550 billion in new spending, but the overall bill is near $1 trillion.  Sanders’s budget is purportedly $3.5 trillion.  Yet that number is far too low, according to analysts at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. ‘We estimate the policies under consideration,’ they said last month, “could cost between $5 trillion and $5.5 trillion over a decade, assuming they are made permanent.’  Add it all up.

“If  Sanders were to confiscate every asset of every American billionaire— Jeff Bezos’s rockets; Elon Musk’s bitcoin; Larry Ellison’s boats; Oprah Winfrey’s houses; Ted Turner’s ranches; Jay-Z’s car collection; even the starched shirt off the back of poor Larry Fink, who tied for last place on the Forbes list, at $1 billion—it still wouldn’t cover the cost of Democrats’ next two legislative plans.”

What Sanders advocates, at least this time around, is not single payer health care.  It is other ideas for big government.  But, just as in health care, there are not enough taxpayers to foot the bill. 

That hasn’t bothered Sanders and his ilk in the past.  It may not bother them now.  But I’m not sure hard-pressed Americans will stand for it.

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.

You can’t fix stupid.

That phrase came back to mind this morning for two reasons: 

• First, it strikes me as exactly the right description for those who refuse a Covid vaccine.  By declining, they risk their own lives, as well as ours.  Call it what it is – stupid and selfish.
• Second, Wall Street Journal essayist Lance Morrow wrote a piece for this morning’s on-line edition that caught my attention.  Igt appeared under this headline:

“You Are Living in the Golden Age of Stupidity”

“The convergence of many seemingly unrelated elements has produced an explosion of brainlessness.”

Here are a couple excerpts from his piece:

“’Stupidity,’ Jean Cocteau remarked, “’s always amazing, no matter how used to it you become.”’

“We live in a golden age of stupidity.  It is everywhere.  President Biden’s conduct of the withdrawal from Afghanistan will be remembered as a defining stupidity of our time—one of many.  The refusal of tens of millions of people to be vaccinated against the novel coronavirus will be analyzed as a textbook case of stupidity en masse.  Stupid is as stupid does, or, in the case of vaccination, as it doesn’t do.  Stupidity and irresponsibility are evil twins.

“The slow-motion zombies’ assault on the Capitol on January 6 was a fittingly stupid finale to the Trump years, which offered dueling stupidities:  Buy one, get one free.  The political parties became locked in a four-year drama of hysteria and mutually demeaning abuse.  Every buffoonery of the president and his people was answered by an idiocy from the other side, which in its own style was just as sinister and just as clownish.

“Cable news provided the Greek chorus.  American government and politics became cartoons. The Democrats, all unknowing, played Wile E. Coyote to Mr. Trump’s Road Runner.  Twice, the Democrats’ Acme Impeachment Committee rigged up the big bomb (heh heh), lit the fuse and held its ears.  Both times, the Road Runner sped away. Beep beep!”

So back to the basic phrase – you can’t fix stupid.

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

A story in the Washington Post this weekend caught my attention as it recounted the challenges of Afghan refugee resettlement even as the United States is preparing to exit Afghanistan as of Augusts 31.

Here are the first three paragraphs of the story:

“For those who managed to flee Afghanistan, leaving their home country under Taliban rule is just the beginning of their challenges — they are landing in foreign countries around the world to rebuild new lives and contend with anti-migrant attitudes.

“Most people seeking to flee Afghanistan have little hope of finding a quick way out of the country, let alone finding welcome abroad, as some destination countries issue warnings against asylum seekers and harden their borders.

“But some among the relatively small handful with the right paperwork who weathered the chaos of the Kabul airport in recent days and managed to board flights out have been received warmly upon arrival around the world.”

The story went on to report that, despite all of the chaos in Afghanistan and the enormous difficulty of leaving the country – both for Americans and Afghan allies — some good things are happening.

Consider these additional paragraphs from the Post story:

“Children were given white and pink teddy bears and met with welcome banners at Incheon International Airport in South Korea, where hundreds of Afghans arrived — not as refugees, but dubbed by authorities as “persons of special merit,” in a bid to deter anti-migrant abuse. Approximately 390 people have been granted short-stay visas that are valid for up to 90 days, with local media reporting that they are likely to be converted into long-term visas.

“The youngsters were photographed clutching their new toys as they boarded buses and walked alongside their loved ones.

“In some photos, the young arrivals peeped out of windows, offering sheepish waves and half-smiles.

“’We love all of you,”’ read one banner from a church group that was displayed outside the National Human Resources Development Institute, where those who fled Afghanistan are reported to be temporarily housed. ‘We will share your pain. Have a comfortable stay,’ read another.

“Among those landing in the country are medical professionals and interpreters who have worked for the South Korean government,and an estimated 100 children — including three newborns.”

These are stories of real people as refugees, not some term such as “immigrants,” often used in a derogatory way.

Just imagine the look on the faces of the children arriving in a new temporary home, or at least a location where they would not suffer inhuman treatment.

Or consider another story from the Washington Post as residents of Sparta, Wisconsin grapple with hundreds of Afghan refugees.

“Fort McCoy’s Facebook page lit up in the hours after officials there announced that thousands of Afghan refugees would be coming to the Army base. In an instant, the website turned into an impromptu public forum as news spread that the largest airlift in U.S. history would affect a pair of blue-collar communities in western Wisconsin.

“Some people wanted to know how they could donate blankets, warm clothes or canned goods to desperate strangers. Others worried that their community would face problems rooted in a chaotic withdrawal that, until a few days ago, was 7,000 miles away.

“It’s still unclear whether the impact of the Afghan refugees on this part of Wisconsin will extend past the tall metal gates of the century-old installation.  Yet residents are nursing concerns big and small:  Will Afghan children share schoolrooms with local children in a district already short-staffed and contending with the coronavirus? Has the government properly vetted people fleeing a place known to harbor terrorists?”

Now, as I write this from Salem, Oregon, where I live, the Afghan refugee reality continues to hit home for us.

Through “Salem for Refugees,” a program associated with our church in Salem, Salem Alliance, citizens here are preparing to welcome a few Afghan refugees to our community.

One is a family of 10 – a father, a mother and eight children.  Donations have been and are being made to help the family get resettled in Salem, a tall order.

Further, Salem for Refugees is in the process of expanding its future as a go-to agency for refugee resettlement.

The organization has been approached by World Relief to become involved in a new program through the federal Office of Population, Refugees and Migration.  Under this new program, Salem would get about 20 new Afghan refugees.

Funding for some of the services, including housing, food and health care, will be covered as refugees come to Salem.  But Salem for Refugees will continue to rely on donations from individuals throughout the community to see the need of ALL refugees – Afghans and others — and volunteer to help.

All of this underlines a point I have made several times, including as the situation in Afghanistan has become an international emergency.  All of us need to see refugees as real people – real people who deserve our help and support as they long for a new, better life.

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

For some time, I have thought that the way out of the Covid 19 virus emergency was to mandate that all citizens get the vaccine.

Of course, that is easier said than done. 

And, if a public official – a governor, the president or someone else – mandated the vaccine, they would have riots in the streets led by persons who want their way no matter how their selfish approach affects others.

Meanwhile, a piece of good news is that the Food and Drug Administration has given “full approval” to the Pfizer vaccine, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, could mean more employers will require shots.  It also could remove one of the reasons some people site for not getting the vaccines – there is only “temporary approval” of them.

Even before full approval of Pfizer, many companies were requiring vaccines.

Consider this list, which recently was produced by NBC News:

• Amtrak
• Anthem
• BlackRock
• Cisco
• Citigroup
• Delta Air Lines
• DoorDash
• Equinox
• Facebook
• Ford
• Goldman Sachs
• Google
• Jefferies
• Lyft
• Microsoft
• Morgan Stanley
• NBC Universal
• Netflix
• The New York Times
• Saks
• Salesforce
• TJX
• Twitter
• Tyson Foods
• Uber
• Union Square Hospitality Group
• United Airlines
• Viacom CBS
• Walgreens
• The Walt Disney Company
• Walmart
• The Washington Post

To be fair, not all of these company mandates carry the same structure.  In some cases, employees are given a choice – take Covid tests or get vaccinated.  In others, employees who refuse to take the vaccine are allowed to work at home, at least for a time.

But, the impact is clear.

Mandates in companies will increase the proportion of citizens who are vaccinated – and that is a good result for all of us.

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.

If you were to talk to my four siblings and, without rehearsal, ask about one of our father’s favorite sayings, they would probably report the same thing.

What he said:  You don’t have to want to do it, just do it.

Of course, back in the day, he was not talking about a vaccine for anything.  He was telling us to take out the garbage, do the dishes, and the like.

But his admonition works today for the vaccine just as it worked many years ago when all of us were growing up with parents we adored.

We didn’t HAVE TO WANT TO DO SOMETHING, WE JUST HAD TO DO IT.

Now, for today, I would say the same thing to many of my friends and neighbors in regard to the Covid vaccine.  Of course, I have no idea if they are vaccinated or not, but if they are not, YOU DON’T HAVE TO WANT THE VACCINE…JUST GET IT.

There are a host of reasons why this makes sense.

• It represents an unselfish goal to work for the good of all people, not just yourself.  Those who refuse the vaccine don’t just hurt themselves; they risk infecting others.

• It represents a reliance on science, which the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control have used to verify that vaccines work to control Covid.  Just look at the evidence.

• It represents a reliance on something other than right-of-center politics.  There, folks are saying “don’t tell me what to do,” and they are mimicking a host of politicians these days who believe that individual rights always trump the collective good.  Not true.

This morning, I toyed with not writing again about the vaccine because there is not much more to say other than “get it.”  Then, I thought of my late father and couldn’t help but cite his instructions.

They worked back in the day – and they work today.

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.

At least “airlift” is what I like to call what is happening, though that could be too big a word.

What President Joe Biden announced yesterday was that a major effort was under way to rescue Americans and their allies still in Afghanistan now under Taliban rule.

Will this action correct Biden’s mistakes and those of his Administration?  I doubt it.  I suspect the gross misjudgments about ending the Afghanistan war will dog Biden for the rest of his Administration, however long that turns out to be.

Does what has happened over the last couple days mean that Biden read a column by Peggy Noonan that appears in the Wall Street Journal?  Again, I doubt it.

But Biden appears to be doing almost exactly what Noonan advocates.  In very strong words late last week, she urged Biden to undertake a massive airlift.  Here are a few excerpts that appeared under this headline:

 What Biden Can Still Save in Afghanistan

His careless withdrawal stranded thousands of U.S. citizens and an untold number of local allies.

“The president’s speech Monday was what everyone called it, defiant. What was needed was a distanced kindliness—patience, an acknowledgment of the mess that was unfolding, an explanation of a way through, a reiteration of the soundness of the larger vision.  Instead, blame shifting, finger pointing, and defensive claims of higher wisdom.

“He “inherited a deal” from his predecessor.  Sure, things “did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated,” but that only “reinforced” his conviction that he’d made “the right decision.”  He’d told Afghanistan’s president to prepare for civil war, clean up corruption, unite politically.

“They failed to do any of that.”  There was no admission of mistakes or misjudgments.  “I stand squarely by my decision. . . . We were clear-eyed about the risks.  We planned for every contingency. . . . I’ve worked on these issues as long as anyone.”  Unlike others he sees the big picture. “ I will not repeat the mistakes we’ve made in the past.”

“What America needed was wise and stoic Lincoln after First Bull Run. What we got was more late-season Junior Soprano telling Tony and the boys they don’t have the vision and guts anymore. “

Noonan also recalled another military debacle – the World War II loss at Dunkirk – which became a story of heroic action to save British soldiers stranded on the beach in France.  Boats of all kinds crossed the British Channel to rescue the soldiers – which is interesting because, if you recall stories of this event, you will hear mostly he rescue, not the events leading  up to it.

Beyond Noonan’s column, lawmakers from both parties and chambers said that the military, foreign service and immigration systems needed to cut processing restrictions that have hampered entry to the airport, follow through on a new law broadening eligibility for the program, expand security to enable travel to the airport, and commit to staying in the country until vulnerable Afghans—and not just Americans—are evacuated.

Of course, it’s easy as a lawmaker to issue a press release and call for something, with no responsibility to implement that something.

But, for Biden, doing something heroic strikes me as what the country needs at this moment.  We need news of a massive airlift, not more repeated images of persons flying off airplanes as they try to get out of the country.

More from Noonan.

“What can be done?  I would say that when history turns dark, it can help to astound yourself and see the romance in it.  History, after all, is the story of mankind:  There’s a lot of derring-do in there, sacrifice too, even some high-mindedness.

“The only right political path now is the humane one. It’s also the path to at least some partial redemption.  Biden should see that his job now is saving the lives of Americans in Afghanistan and their friends in a major and declared rescue operation.  If that means embarrassing himself temporarily by reversing decisions, then so be it.  Humility never killed anyone.”

For me, all of this far away picture became clearer this week when my wife, Nancy, learned that a large Afghan family of refugees – a mother, a father, and 10 children – were heading to be re-located in Salem.  Yes, Salem, Oregon!

That sparked my wife’s effort to do what she already was doing for other refugees, which is to help the organization called Salem For Refugees re-settle immigrants here.  That means donations of food, clothing, bedding , furniture and other essentials.

If you find a way to see immigrants – be they from Afghanistan, the Congo of anywhere else – as real people, you will have done yourself a substantial service.  You will divorce yourself from all of the political rhetoric about the “immigration problem,” especially the disinformation so prevalent on social media sites, and see people for what they really are – people.

So, I hope and pray that the Afghanistan airlift works.  Real lives of real people depend on it.

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.

Today, I take a break from thinking about two world problems – the devastation in Haiti that has left many people, including children, homeless, and the American blunders in Afghanistan that have left American citizens and their friends in untenable circumstances.

I wrote the other day about one of the strangest rules in golf – issues related to where don’t want to be if you are a golfer, which is in a bunker.

If you want to review the “strangeness,” look at Rule #12 in the United States Golf Association (USGA) rule book.

Forgive me if I don’t tread over that old ground.

What I’ll do this time is provide information on how to rake a bunker if you have the misfortune to be in one.  The information is provided by the USGA, so it  is solid.

Based on work by USGA Northeast Region agronomist, Paul Jacobs, here is the USGA’s advice.

**********

After raking a bunker, the sand should be as smooth as possible. If using the “Aussie Method,” use the back of the rake head to smooth the perimeter as you exit.

When raking a bunker, do not leave piles of sand or depressions that might create a tough lie for someone else.

Superintendents work hard to provide good bunker playability and presentation, but the maintenance team can only do so much. Once they have completed daily bunker maintenance it’s in our hands as golfers to keep bunkers looking and playing great. Doing a good job raking bunkers is an easy way to maintain good playing conditions for everyone and it’s a great way to demonstrate care for the course.

The ultimate goal of raking a bunker is simple – use whatever rake is provided to produce as smooth of a surface as possible. This includes raking your footprints and whatever disruption was caused by the golf shot. In addition to this basic goal, there are a few other things to keep in mind while raking that can help maintain the bunker and surrounding grass areas:

• Always enter and exit on the low side of a bunker – do not jump down or climb up steep faces, even if it might be a faster. Climbing steep grass faces can cause serious turf damage in an area where it is already hard to grow grass. Walking up and down sand faces can cause the sand to shift and collapse, which creates playability issues and a time-consuming repair job for the maintenance team.
• Some facilities use the “Aussie method” of raking bunkers, where sand faces are kept smooth while the floor of the bunker is raked normally. If you find yourself in a bunker that has been prepared this way, flip the rake over and use the smooth side of the rake head – with the teeth facing up – to smooth the perimeter of the bunker where you enter and exit after raking your way out of the floor.
• When raking near the edge of a bunker, do not pull sand out of the bunker into the grass. Sand can accumulate in the grass around bunkers over time, causing the grass to dry out. Raking sand over the bunker edge also makes it difficult to define the edge, which can be problematic from a rules perspective.

• As you are exiting the bunker, use your club to knock any sand off the bottom of your shoes. This is especially important following greenside bunker shots. Walking across the green after hitting a bunker shot can leave sandy footprints that cause playability issues for other golfers and may even damage expensive maintenance equipment.
• The final step is replacing your rake in the location preferred by the course. Courses opt to set things up differently, so you should make yourself aware of the desired location before playing. If you’re not sure what to do, place your rake outside the bunker in a location where it is easily accessible by others and not likely to have a negative impact on play.

As you play different courses, you will likely find different rakes being used. Courses choose different rakes for a variety of reasons, including price, the type of sand they have, the type of playing surface they want, and the appearance of the rake itself. The type of rake shouldn’t influence what we do after hitting a bunker shot – enter from the low side, smooth the surface as uniformly as possible, exit from the low side, knock the sand off your shoes and then go make that par putt!

**********

And, from me, as you will play, you will encounter another issue.  After raking, do you leave the rake in the bunker or on the outside.  My preference is to leave the rake in the bunker for a simple, yet profound, reason…if you think about it.

If your ball hits a rake in the bunker, the ball could ricochet out, which would be a good thing.  But, if the rake is outside the bunker, it would be just as possible for your ball to hit the rake and end up in the bunker.

See, with nothing else to do in retirement, I have thought about this issue – a lot.

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.

This is a footnote to the blog I posted earlier this morning noting majority public support for a Covid vaccine mandate.

Of course, there is and will be opposition, some of it fierce.

But, from various news reports, this footnote to what I wrote:

“The Biden Administration plans to tell nursing homes to vaccinate their staff against Covid-19 or risk losing Medicare and Medicaid funding.”

That idea – linking the vaccine to federal payments to citizens – payments such as Medicaid, Medicare and others – has crossed some minds before.  Now, the good news – at least for me – is that the Biden Administration is making following up.

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

I wrote the other day that, if was in charge, I would impose a Covid vaccine mandate and let the chips fall where they may.

What chips?

Well, first, no doubt there would be many lawsuits arguing there was not to impose such a thing.

Second, no doubt many would protest the action, apparently believing that they should be in charge of their own bodies, even if “being in charge” was selfish and meant that others would be infected.

So, for the country, what’s involved in such a mandate ?  This is oversimplified, but two factors – the development of public policy and affrect of public relations.

Washington Post writer Aaron Blake wrote about this today in a story that appeared under this headline:

The GOP is losing the argument on coronavirus mandates

The Republican Party has rather clearly marched itself into a minority position, from masks in schools to targeted vaccine mandates

Here is how his piece started:

“Early in the coronavirus pandemic, mitigation was by and large a consensus issue. To be sure, there were those who balked at or even fought masking — most notably President Donald Trump, who eschewed wearing them — but the American people were generally on the same page. Three-fourths supported mask mandates.

“A year and a half later, despite the resurgence of the pandemic amid the delta variant, there is no such consensus.  Republican governors who once signed off on mask mandates are making fighting against them a cause celebre.  Mandates in general are the issue du jour, with some calling for extending them to vaccines, even as large swaths of the public (and especially Republicans) refuse to get vaccinated.

“There are certainly valid debates about what the government should require, morally speaking.  But on the political front, the Republican Party has rather clearly marched itself into a minority position.”

To validate his point, Blake provided these statistics based on recent, credible polling:

“Mask mandates have fallen in popularity in recent months, apparently thanks in large part to vaccinated people who support the concept but thought getting the shots would absolve them of that responsibility, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially advised.

“But on the central battleground — masks in schools — 69 per cent of Americans support the mandate, per a new Axios/Ipsos poll.  And when it comes to both vaccine mandates and the methods to fight mask mandates that some Republicans are floating, the verdict is also pretty strongly against the GOP.”

In one poll by “The Economist and YouGov,” respondents were asked whether they would support a vaccine mandate.  The results:

• Medical providers: 65-21 in favor
• Teachers: 61-24
• Police: 60-25
• Military: 59-24
• Federal employees: 56-26
• College students: 55-27

Now, even in the face of such statistics, some Republican governors continue to fight a mandate, believing, I guess, that doing so solidifies their base. 

For instance, Arizona Republican Governor Doug Ducey announced that schools that require masks won’t be eligible for a $163 million school grant program providing $1,800 per student.  Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis floated a similar idea, though his initiative would have deprived school officials of their actual salaries , though he backed off the threat.

Decisions by a governor also are playing out in California where Gavin Newsom is facing a recall election.  A variety of other issues are involved in California, but Newsom is having to defend his advocacy for vaccines and masks.

In Oregon, where I live, Governor Kate Brown has come close on occasion to imposing a mask mandate, but has not done so directly.

So, when all is said, at least for today, more Americans support a vaccine mandate than don’t. 

Will that convince high-level policymakers to impose one?   Probably not, but they should for the good of the country – just as I would do, if perish the thought, I was in charge.