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

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

And, you’d be right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a summary of what I re-learned:

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

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

Here is a quick summary of the major missionary journeys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do I focus on this?

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

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

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

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

Remember the “head of a pin” metaphor?

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

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

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

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

As for reputable views, I turned:

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

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

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

First, the pro side from Stephens:

TRUMP AND NETANYAHU ARE DOING THE FREE WORLD A FAVOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me try to answer that question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, for the con-side from Nichols:

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

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

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

This:  Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those who know about ALS understand Broome’s comments.

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

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

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

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

She is truly a profile in courage.

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

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

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

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

On to another topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know this blog headline is true because, when I served on the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC), we tried to deal with the issue, too.

Because I have retired from the Commission, I am free to write about this issue.  And, I add that, in what for me is an ethical commitment, I won’t include anything in this blog that should remain confidential, honoring all my past commitments on this subject, as well as current ones.

The public meeting issue boils down to this:

Is it possible to preserve Oregon’s decades-long commitment to government actions being done in public – the “public meetings” law – while, at the same time, allowing public officials to talk with each other between meetings?

Sounds simple, but it is not.

Excerpts from a story in the Oregonian newspaper this week illustrate the tension.  The story appeared under this headline:  Bill could enable secret government talks, Oregon ethics chief warns.

On top of that, Oregonian editor Laura Gunderson upped the ante by writing a public letter to subscribers, contending that a “fix bill” under consideration in the Legislature is not worth passing because, she contended, confusion over the law is no reason to inject more secrecy.

And the East Oregonian newspaper in Pendleton, Oregon entered the fray with this comment:

“Oregonians are increasingly losing faith in their government and institutions.  All too often, it feels like actions are taken without any notice or public input.   A bill racing ahead in the current legislative session would only heighten that unease.  It has the potential to create huge loopholes in Oregon’s longstanding open meetings law, enacted more than 50 years ago in recognition of the public’s right to know what government is up to.”

Here is how the original Oregonian story started:

“Oregon’s 53-year-old public meetings law requires elected officials to deliberate in public.  After the Newberg School Board was accused of violating public meetings law, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission was granted the power to enforce public meeting requirements.

But the grant in 2023 was based on a piece of legislation then that has become controversial now.

So, the “fix bill” is under consideration in the current short special session in Salem, Oregon.

“A bill intended to clarify what public officials can and cannot talk about outside of public meetings could lead to secret discussions of public business by some or all members of city councils or other local governments,” the head of Oregon’s Ethics Commission told lawmakers Tuesday.

The Oregonian added:  “It is the intent of the public meetings law that government decisions be arrived at openly.  Yet, House Bill 4177, strongly supported by virtually every local government association in Oregon, would allow “many more private conversations and discussions … that might relate to a decision that is about to be made.”

Myers added that a section that would provide broad exceptions to the public meetings law ‘gives me heartburn.’

Well, it is not an exaggeration to say that local government organizations – especially cities led by the League of Oregon Cities – have heartburn over Myers’ efforts to implement the 2023 legislation.

So much so that the League told me when I chaired the Ethics Commission last year that it would no longer attend Commission training sessions on the public meetings law, even as the association leveled heavy criticism overall.

Plus, in my last year on the Commission, we spent a lot of time handling complaints about alleged local government violations of the open meetings law, so much so that we had to increase the frequency of Commission meetings to handle the growing workload.

With the tension, it was clear to some that action needed to be taken to improve the law.

Under the existing law, local government organizations are not allowed to meet in the same ways legislators do, or, if they do, they would be subject to complaints.

Representative Nathan Sosa formed a “work group” to try to reach agreement on a compromise.  [Sosa is a talented representative and, in the spirit of full disclosure, I worked closely with him when he served on and chaired the Ethics Commission before getting elected to the Legislature from his home in the Hillsboro.]

The Sosa work group included local government associations that want clearer guidance for their members.  They tried to craft language to help elected officials, many of them unpaid volunteers, know where to draw the line when texting or talking to each other outside of public meetings.

But the Oregonian reported that four high-profile Oregon journalism leaders, including an in-house lawyer for Oregon Public Broadcasting and Therese Bottomly, retired former editor of The Oregonian/OregonLive, testified they had “grave concerns” that the proposed compromise bill would allow elected officials to engage in wide-ranging private discussions about public business.

“’Public meetings are often the only way that journalists and other members of the public can find out what their government is doing and what the issues are,” said Nick Budnick, sunshine chair of the Greater Oregon Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, which was invited to have a representative on the work group.

“’This bill is rife with potential to circumvent the people’s law in ways that run contrary to the Legislature’s intent.  It would significantly narrow the definition of the kind of deliberation that needs to be conducted in the view of the public in the light of day to keep the public informed,’ he added.”

There’s the challenge:  Require government decisions to be made in public but allow officials to talk privately.

It is not clear yet whether the compromise bill will pass in this short session, but passage did appear more likely late last week as several legislators voted for it in committee even as they said they were not sure it was a good solution.

Then that possibility gained a bit of momentum late this week when a subcommittee of the Joint Ways and Means Committee voted the bill out to the full committee.  And, if you wonder why this bill was in the budget-making committee, it was to keep it alive late in the short session since bills there always are alive until adjournment.

Several legislators have said that, if the compromise doesn’t work, they will re-visit the issue in the next long session in 2027.

My quick view:  Legislators are facing the same complex issue we faced when I served on the Ethics Commission.  The best solution remains unclear.

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

Some observers – those who support real, genuine Christianity, including me – might say “it’s about time.”

The headline on this blog appeared in USA Today and was picked up by other newspapers, such as the Salem Statesman-Journal where we live in Salem, Oregon.

Here is how the reporter, Marc Ramirez, started his national story.

“Hundreds of Christian leaders and scholars nationwide are denouncing President Donald Trump’s administration and urging more active resistance among the faithful to ‘the injustices and anti-democratic danger sweeping across the nation.’”

Well written and well said.

Rather than write about this first, I’ll just publish the USA Today article in full because it is so good, then make a few comments.

**********

Hundreds of Christian leaders and scholars nationwide are denouncing President Donald Trump’s administration and urging more active resistance among the faithful to “the injustices and anti-democratic danger sweeping across the nation.”

“We are facing a cruel and oppressive government,” their collective statement begins.  “In moments like this, silence is not neutrality ‒ it is an active choice to permit harm.”

Titled “A Call to Christians in a Crisis of Faith and Democracy,” the letter says the nation is facing a profound moral, spiritual, and democratic emergency.  Its release coincides with the start of the Christian season of Lent, a period of repentance, self-reflection, and resistance to temptation.

“We thought it was important to tie into a season where many Christians go deeper into their faith,” said Adam Russell Taylor, president of Sojourners, a Christian social justice organization.  “Part of what we’re critiquing is the way in which many White evangelical Christians succumb to an unconditional support of the administration, despite the fact that its actions are completely antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.”

Leaders of all faiths have increasingly spoken out and participated in protests against the policies of the Trump administration, particularly aimed at what many see as overly aggressive efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants.  Pastors have been arrested and struck with pepper balls during demonstrations.

The statement says Christians have a moral obligation to speak out against “citizens and immigrants being demonized, disappeared, and even killed; the erosion of hard-won rights and freedoms; and a calculated effort to reverse America’s growing racial and ethnic diversity – all of which are pushing us toward authoritarian and imperial rule.”

“This moment is a defining test of Christian discipleship and civic responsibility,” said the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder and director of the Georgetown Center for Faith and Justice in Washington, DC.  “Democratic freedoms are being taken away and the gospel is being distorted.  The vulnerable people Jesus told us to stand with and defend are being targeted and assaulted.”

Wallis and Taylor organized the collective effort along with Barbara Williams-Skinner, president of Baltimore’s Skinner Institute, a faith leadership development organization.

About 400 people initially signed the statement, representing a range of Christian denominations, leaders of Black, Asian and Latino churches and associations and Christian universities and institutions.  Hundreds more have added their names since the letter’s February 18 release, organizers say.

The Executive Office of the President of the United States, which includes the White House office, did not respond to a request for comment about the statement.

The Christian leaders and scholars say, aside from the risks to democracy, they are troubled by “a Christian faith corrupted by the heretical ideology of White Christian nationalism.”

“People look at it as just a democratic crisis, but it’s not,” said the Rev. Cynthia Hale, pastor of Ray of Hope Christian Church in Decatur, Georgia, who was among those who signed the letter.  “It’s a crisis of faith.”

Christian nationalism, the idea that Christian people and biblical law should govern American life, has seeped into the highest levels of American government, with conservative evangelicals becoming a major political force with strong support of Trump.  Evangelical pastor Doug Wilson, who has said women should neither vote nor hold religious or political leadership positions, was recently invited by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to conduct a service at the Pentagon.

“Their religious leaders have been so unconditionally supportive that it’s almost branded this administration as being religious in the minds of many Americans, which is a distortion,” said Bishop Raymond Rivera of the Council of Holistic Christian Churches and Ministries, who also signed the letter.  “They’ve confused proximity to political power with proximity to the power of God.  They’re not the same.”

Taylor called such conflation “a form of idolatry” and said the Trump administration in turn has misused Christian language to support its activities, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement recruitment ads that quote scripture in their appeals – one ad, for instance, includes a verse saying “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

“That feels particularly offensive and egregious in light of the tactics we’ve seen them employ in Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere,” he said.  “It’s corrupting the Christian faith to advance its own political agenda.”

Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University, a Christian institution in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said she initially wondered before signing whether the moment required something more than signing yet another statement.

“I realized this statement isn’t primarily for people who have been on the front lines of these issues but for pastors and ordinary Christians who may be just waking up to what’s happening and what’s at stake,” Du Mez said. “I think it’s important to offer a statement that clarifies the political and theological stakes and that people can put their name behind.  This is a way for ordinary Christians to step up.”

The letter concludes by tying a set of core theological convictions to actions the signers pledge to take to practice their faith and protect democracy, including defending voting rights, pursuing peace, and standing with unjustly targeted immigrants.

Dottie Escobedo-Frank, bishop of the United Methodist Church’s California-Pacific Conference in Pasadena, said she signed the letter to encourage her Southern California community and all Christians to live out their callings to serve the downtrodden, demonstrate compassion, and challenge political leaders to act on their behalf.

However, with church ministries offering food distribution, childcare, or elderly assistance having faced disruption from ICE agents or anti-immigrant demonstrators, “we’re seeing people in our communities who are afraid to live out their faith because of the actions of our government,” she said.

Taylor understands many may be justifiably fearful of living out their creed, but said it’s critical for people to engage at a time when “the pages of the authoritarian playbook are very much in effect,” he said.

He said one way to overcome such fears, aside from leaning into the resilience of faith itself, is to connect with other Christians.  The letter effort includes a website where supporters can find ways to get involved.

“One of the most consistent refrains in scripture is ‘do not be afraid,’” Taylor said. “Authoritarian governments thrive on people feeling isolated and overwhelmed, so we’re trying to create a network of solidarity and courage. We have the power to prevent things from getting worse.”

*********

My comments:

I appreciate the letter because it illustrates that it is past time for Christian leaders to call out Trump and his sycophants for promoting their fake brand of Christianity.  So, the letter does the good deed.

God is too big for Trump and it is too bad that it appears he doesn’t know Him.

Back in the day, when I was on the leadership team at Salem Alliance Church in Salem, Oregon, I was part of an effort to make sure our church did not risk becoming just another political instrument, as had happened to many churches around the country.

We viewed a bright line – from the platform or in writing, don’t tell those in the congregation how to vote; let them make their own decisions – but also don’t be afraid to provide a Biblical perspective on what could be labeled “political issues,” emphasis on the word “issues.”

We wanted to focus instead on what Christ has done for us, even as we live as citizens in a country, paying credit as the Scripture advises, “to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,” from Matthew 22:21.

But, given the huge excesses of Trump, it is time to say, “enough is enough.”

I join with letter signers to call out “the injustices and anti-democratic danger sweeping across the nation” due to Trump’s bid to become an autocrat, someone equal to a god.

Enough is enough.  God’s name should not be taken in vain any longer by Trump or anyone else.  If you choose to play politics, just don’t do it in the name of the real God.

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

Those who know me know that I am bit of a political junkie, though I also find other stuff to do with my time.

I don’t watch much political news on television, preferring the well-written articles in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

And I did not watch last night’s “State of the Union” speech by Donald Trump.  I preferred not to listen to his nearly two hours of lies and invective.

So it was that I focused instead on good quotes from Yogi Berra, the great New York Yankee catcher who died in 2015.

Besides being a solid baseball player, he was known for good quotes, sometimes malapropisms – and, if you don’t know what that word means, here is a definition:

“The mistaken use of a word in place of a similar-sounding one, often with unintentionally amusing effect, as in, for example, “dance a flamingo,” instead of flamenco.”

It is possible that no one in history was better at malapropisms or mis-speaking than Berra.  So, here are some of his best ones.

• “It’s like deja vu all over again”
• “We made too many wrong mistakes”
• “You can observe a lot just by watching”
• “A nickel ain’t worth a dime anymore”
• “He hits from both sides of the plate.  He’s amphibious”
• “If the world was perfect, it wouldn’t be”
• “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might end up some place else”
• Responding to a question about remarks attributed to him that he did not think were his: “I really didn’t say everything I said”
• “The future ain’t what it used to be”
• “I think Little League is wonderful.  It keeps the kids out of the house”
• On why he no longer went to Ruggeri’s, a St. Louis restaurant: “Nobody goes there anymore because it’s too crowded”
• “I always thought that record would stand until it was broken”
• When giving directions to Joe Garagiola to his New Jersey home, which is accessible by two routes: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it”
• “Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours”
• “Never answer anonymous letters”
• “The towels were so thick there I could hardly close my suitcase”
• “Half the lies they tell about me aren’t true”
• As a general comment on baseball: “90 per cent of the game is half mental.”
• “I don’t know if they were men or women running naked across the field. They had bags over their heads”
• “Yogi, you are from St. Louis, we live in New Jersey, and you played ball in New York.  If you go before I do, where would you like me to have you buried?” — Carmen Berra, Yogi’s wife. “Surprise me”
• “It ain’t over till it’s over”

Yes, and now this blog is over.

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

………This is part 2 of a series of immigrants/refugees………

A great program that serves refugees in Salem, Oregon where I live much of the year could be under attack soon.

And when I say it is a program that serves refugees you won’t be surprised to hear about the source of the threat.

Yes, Donald Trump and his sycophants.

In part 1 yesterday, I noted that Trump himself is a son of an immigrant, his mother.  His father’s heritage goes back to German a generation ago.  So, the point is that Trump, himself, has immigrant heritage, which makes it even more ironic that he comes across as hating all immigrants.

Which means, in a way, he hates himself.  And, I guess, in the case of Trump, that almost makes sense!

For the following report on threats to the Salem, Oregon, refugee community, it is important to add that I am indebted to Salem Reporter, an excellent on-line source of journalism in my hometown.  It is edited by a long-time journalist in Oregon, Les Zaitz, whom I knew well when I worked in and around government and he was an investigative reporter for the Oregonian newspaper.

He now plies journalism ground in several ways, one of which is by editing and publishing Salem Reporter.  Nuggets of information below come from a story by reporter Abbey McDonald.

Here is how she started her report:

“Luke Glaze worried when he saw federal actions in Minnesota involving refugees.

“The federal government in January launched an immigration enforcement operation to re-evaluate the status of around 5,600 refugees living in Minnesota.  Federal officials ultimately detained dozens of people, flying them to detention facilities in Texas, where they were questioned for days.  Those released had no ticket back home.”

So, Glaze, executive director of Salem for Refugees, wondered if Oregon and Salem could be the next Trump target.

More from Glaze:

“Those actions a half a country away prompted concerns for future enforcement actions against 15,000 people in Oregon who fall into the targeted group of those who arrived during the Biden Administration, and haven’t yet obtained a green card through a legal process that Trump suspended.”

McDonald also reported that it was the latest in a series of federal policy changes, enforcement operations, and resource restrictions which has shaken Salem’s refugee community in recent months.  As a result, Glaze pivoted his non-profit operations from re-settlement efforts to support, education and protection for those who are here.

When a federal judge put a stop to the Minnesota detainment operation with a temporary restraining order, McDonald reported that Glaze hoped it would bring reprieve for the 2,000 people his organization serves.  They all came to the U.S. through a legal process open to those fleeing danger and persecution in their home countries.

“We thought that was kind of good news, and a sign that maybe U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would have to change their tactics, maybe just move to a standard interview to re-vet refugees rather than having detention as part of that process.
Then, on Wednesday, February 18, McDonald continued, a memo came from the Department of Homeland Security stating that all refugees applying for green cards must return to federal custody a year after arrival into the U.S.  The memo said they would be detained indefinitely while being re-vetted, due to concerns for national security and the economy.

“It seems to be that they’re doubling down on this kind of tactic, which is really concerning, because obviously it creates a lot of additional trauma on families that have already experienced a lot of trauma,” Glaze said. 

Families in Salem served by Glaze’ organization come from Ukraine, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Venezuela, and El Salvador.

On Thursday, Salem for Refugees joined the five other resettlement agencies in the state in urging Oregon’s Congressional delegation, Governor Tina Kotek and state legislators to condemn the DHS memo.

“Refugees are lawful community members, workers, parents, and students. Policies that create fear, strip basic supports, and expose families to detention, undermine Oregon’s values and destabilize entire communities,” the joint statement said.

The refugee agencies also repeated their ask for $3.5 million from the Oregon Legislature to mitigate the impact of damaging federal policy shifts.

“How do we continue to help the existing refugee community strengthen and grow so that it is as strong and healthy as possible for when the pendulum swings and we can resettle again?” Glaze asks.

And, in conclusion, Glaze said he’s seen some beauty amid the hardship.

“We see what makes refugees who they are, which is this incredible resilience. Who, despite all these challenges and roadblocks, continue to make a go at life here in the U.S.,” he said.  “Some of them have started businesses in the last few months.  Some of them have graduated high school and are pursuing college, and their careers and goals.”

Glaze’ organization started at the church my wife and I attend in Salem, Oregon, Salem Alliance. The program was that called simply Salem for Refugees, but it has since branched out into a larger organization, which now faces renewed threats every day.

On the part of my wife and myself, we intend to continue supporting Salem for Refugees with money and volunteer action.  It’s the least we can do for these individuals who are on trying to become citizens.

We wish them well on that threat-infused journey.

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

………This is part 1 of two-part focus on immigrant/refugee issues; the second part will focus on threats to the refugee in community in Salem, Oregon………

The rabbi starts an essay in the New York Times with this profound summary:  “The Bible Tells Us to Love Immigrants”

Then he goes on to make a case for this requirement by citing various Bible passages.

The “he” is Rabbi Shai Held, president and dean of the Hadar Institute, and the author, most recently, of “Judaism Is About Love.”

Here is how he started his essay:

“A hallmark of the second Trump administration has been the hunt for the foreign born, from children to adults, criminal status apparently notwithstanding.  Many of the administration officials who champion this project often invoke God in their speeches, asserting that their allegiance to the Constitution is rooted in their fealty to a far older text:  The Bible.

“It is clear that many of our leaders lack the most fundamental understanding of the central biblical commandment to love and care for the immigrant.”

Held continues to say that “the Bible explicitly commands three loves.  The first and second many modern Christians and Jews cite easily — love of God and love of one’s neighbor.

“The third, and most often overlooked, is love of the ‘ger.’  Several English translations interpret ger as ‘sojourner,’ someone born elsewhere who has come to dwell among the people, most likely temporarily.  Other translations render ger as ‘stranger, ‘alien’ or ‘foreigner.’”

In recent decades, Held says some biblical scholars have returned to an older idea:  That ger should be translated as something close to “immigrant.”

He goes on to outline background on other Biblical references:

• Writing about the book of Exodus, the 11th-century Jewish biblical commentator Rashi explains that “wherever ger occurs in Scriptures it signifies a person who has not been born in that land where he is living but has come from another country to sojourn there.”  The word “immigrant” matters, in this context — it reminds us that in the ancient world, just as now, someone seeking a home among people foreign to him had likely endured significant upheaval in his life, like war, famine, political oppression or economic crisis.
• The commandment to love immigrants is one of the Bible’s greatest moral revolutions.  Other ancient Near Eastern cultures instructed people to care for widows and orphans.  The Bible expands the category of those who deserve special protection to include those who live among our community but are not quite of it.
• The book of Exodus explicitly forbids the people from mistreating an immigrant.  Contrary to popular assumptions, the prohibition on abusing the vulnerable does not derive only from the children of Israel’s past experience of slavery and oppression.  It is a basic demand of morality:  We must not take advantage of the weak. \
• The book of Leviticus repeats the injunction not to oppress — then adds a mandate to actively love the immigrant. These commands resurface in the book of Deuteronomy, which implies that loving immigrants is a way of emulating God’s love.

Now, in this context, it is impossible for me to omit concerns about Trump and his ilk who go about mistreating immigrants every day.  All immigrants.  Not just those who have committed crimes in this country.

First, the number of immigrants who have committed crimes – or even gotten a traffic – is small.  In the range of, at most, 15 per cent.

Second, Trump himself is the son of an immigrants, his mother.  And his father had German ancestry two generations ago.

So, the question remains:  How can Trump have so much animosity against his own.

For Held’s part, he closes his essay this way:

“Those of us who treat the Bible as authoritative in our lives are aware — through the very text we cite most often — that unchecked, unbridled power is always abhorrent, let alone when it is deployed to attack precisely those who are most vulnerable.”

That paragraph describes Trump exactly.  As Christians, we ought to do two things:  Abhor what he does against immigrants and, more importantly, practice “love for our neighbors” in our own lives, even if those “neighbors” don’t look like us.

The Bible tells us to do so.

Which reminds me of what the pastor of the church we intend always says after he reads Bible verses:  “I have just read from the greatest book ever written and I attest that all of it is true.”

So, I say, follow it.

I add that my wife is doing in her support for a great program where we live in Salem, Oregon – “Salem for Refugees.”  For one thing, there are more refugees that you might think there are in our town.  But, for another, she is practicing the fine art of “loving your neighbor.”

Kudos to her!

[Part 2 tomorrow]

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

Name one inter-personal credential often missing in the United States today.

Okay, I will.

Empathy.

Which is embodied in the headline I used for this blog, borrowing an opinion piece from the New York Times written by columnist David French who worries that empathy is dying.

I do, too.

So, before including excerpts from what French wrote, what does the word empathy mean?

Simply this:  “The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.”

Said a different way, empathy means to put yourself in someone else’s shoes so you’ll understand more about them than you would otherwise.

Empathy is different, and more profound, than sympathy.  In the latter, you try to feel what someone else is feeling, so you express sympathy for them.  With empathy, you actually put yourself in the other person’s position and thus convey more than just neutral understanding.

To many in the world of Donald Trump, empathy is a weakness.  Not a strength.

A year ago this month, French said he wrote a newsletter warning about a new trend from what he and others call  “the MAGA Christian right.”  Some supposedly Christian theologians and influencers had begun warning about the ‘sin of empathy’ or ‘toxic empathy.’

“In books, essays, podcasts and speeches, prominent Christian influencers, ministers and theologians sounded the alarm that secular progressives were leading Christians astray by appealing to their emotions at the expense of their reason.

“The version of their case goes like this:

“Progressives have turned Christians’ soft hearts against hard truths.  Progressives have persuaded all too many Christians that the suffering of, say, undocumented immigrants or women facing unwanted pregnancies should override their concerns about the economic and social costs of large-scale immigration, or their compassion for victims of crimes committed by immigrants, or their concerns about the plight of the unborn child.

“Sometimes, as the argument goes, you have to do tough, hard things.  That means mass deportation.  That means cutting off aid to the poor and vulnerable in the developing world.  That means ending gay marriage even if it breaks up families.  And that means the strictest possible pro-life laws, even when the life or physical health of the mother might be at stake, or sending mothers to jail for aborting their child.”

While Trump and his ilk practice anti-empathy, French adds that many of us also are often unwilling to place ourselves in other people’s shoes, to try to understand who they are and what their lives are like.

More from French:

“It’s hard to talk about this issue without recognizing a fundamental truth of the moment:  The attack on empathy would have gained very little traction in the church if Trump weren’t president.  He delights in vengeance, and he owes his presidency to the evangelical church.  [Based on polls on voting in the last presidential election.]

“But this problem extends well beyond public policy into the fundamental cruelty and callousness of the culture of the new right.  It is no coincidence that the attack on empathy correlates with an extraordinary rise in blatant racism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia on the right.”

To French, empathy stands as a firewall against bigotry.

“But it’s more than that — it can also free you from bigotry.  Understanding another person’s experience and imagining if it happened to you softens our hearts and creates human connection.”

To this, I add hearty agreement.

It is worth displaying empathy as a citizen these days and even more so if you are a real Christian.