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 new department I run as director.  I just formed it with no one to answer to other than myself regarding how it runs and how it conducts its operations.

Yes, you see I am a dictator.  Not just a director.

The other departments I direct are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, and the Department of “Just Saying.”  You also might add that there might not be much difference between the new department and the Department of “Just Saying.”

True.  But, remember, I am dictator.  So, there are two departments when there could be one.

How do I have enough time to direct another department?  Well, the title of the new one speaks for itself.

So, with so much time on my hands…

• …I am thinking that I would not want to be the first patient on which a new surgeon worked to begin perfecting his or her skills (Someone has to be the guinea pig; I just don’t want it to be me.)

• …I am thinking that it appears I will never be able to watch Congress find middle ground on tough public policy issues because no one wants to compromise

• …I am thinking that I would not want to drive a Tesla to experiment with automatic driving (and I think about this because of all the Tesla vehicles I see here in La Quinta, California, which, so far, have not crashed into me)
  
• …I was thinking, yesterday, that I would play golf more than watch the Super Bowl because, with the Super Bowl, there is far more hoopla than football (Actually, I did both, and especially in the fourth quarter, there was something for most football fans, even me.)

• …I am thinking that I would not want to play golf with pro golfer J.B. Holmes because I would go to sleep between his strokes

• …I am thinking that pro golfer Phil Mickelson should play more good golf and do less talking about how he hates the game that has produced so much for him

• …I am thinking how much fun it would be to play a golf round with seven clubs, not 14…an idea proposed by one of my favorite golf writers, George Paper, editor of Links Magazine

• …I am thinking that I’ll close this new department until I have more time on my hands

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 may remember that I just opened this department a few days ago, one of three I run as director.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of “Just Saying.”

This department is open again because there is so much material conveyed by good writers.  Even if I don’t always agree with what’s written, the good words prompt me to engage in thoughtful consideration.

And, by the way, that phrase – “thoughtful consideration” – should be an ongoing part of politics.  And I say that as a former lobbyist and a current political junkie.  Unfortunately, thoughtful consideration is almost absent from political discourse these days.

What follows are the reasons I opened the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering again.

FROM BYRON YORK IN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER:  There is a wrenching debate going on inside the Republican Party over the simplest of questions:  Should the party look backward or forward?

GOP politicians who want to move on face a lot of resistance from two very different quarters.  First, the Democrat Party very much wants to keep talking about 2020.   After all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the January 6 committee in part to keep the idea of a Trump-Republican “insurrection” alive into the 2022 mid-term elections.  [I would add that the “idea” of the January 6 insurrection is not just that, an idea; it is a reality.]  

And then there is Trump, who in recent days has been using his press releases—the equivalent of his old tweets—to dwell on various 2020 issues.

COMMENT:  I don’t care if Republicans look backward or forward.  But I believe what they should do is keep in mind they are part of representative government that should work for the people.  The same should be said of Democrats.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST ON ITS EDITORIAL PAGE:  Former president Donald Trump liked the feel of tearing things up — figuratively, as he did with laws and norms of public service; but also literally, as he did with documents that he was required to preserve under the Presidential Records Act.

Having refused to give his elected successor a smooth and orderly transition, Trump then skulked away to Mar-a-Lago in Florida with 15 boxes of official documents and mementos that should have gone to the National Archives.

The Post reported this past weekend that Trump routinely destroyed briefing papers, schedules, articles, letters and memos, ripping them into quarters or smaller pieces, leaving the detritus on his desk in the Oval Office, in the trash can of his private West Wing study or on the floor of Air Force One.

Trump’s aides were left to retrieve the pieces and try to piece them back together, sometimes hunting through special “burn bags” intended for classified material to find torn documents that needed to be reassembled and preserved.

Recently, the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection received documents from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) that appeared to have been torn apart and taped back together.

Trump broke the law. After President Richard Nixon’s resignation, Congress passed a number of laws intended to preserve the integrity of documents and other materials from Nixon’s presidency, and made the laws applicable to all future presidents.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 ended the practice of records belonging to former presidents and declared that the United States shall “reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of presidential records.”  The law requires a president to “take all such steps as may be necessary” to make sure the records are preserved — an important pillar of accountability in a democracy and also essential for historical understanding of the presidency.

COMMENT:  There even was a story in the Port indicating that Trump tried to flush torn papers down the toilet.  The basic question:  What was he is trying to hide?  And why he is still trying to hide?

FROM THE NEW WORK TIMES ON EDITING ISSUES THAT PROMPTED A LEBEL SUIT:  Former Times Editor James Bennet said he had “a million other things going on” when a fellow editor stopped by his office at the New York Times to tell him about weaknesses in a draft of an editorial the newspaper was rushing to publish on a June evening in 2017.

Then the chief of the paper’s editorial page, Bennet read the piece and agreed it wasn’t quite working.  But while he generally preferred to let his writers revise their work, Bennet told a jury he was concerned about the paper’s looming deadline for the night — and so took it upon himself to re-write it.

In the course of rapidly re-working the piece, Bennet inserted an inaccurate sentence — notable for his use of the word “incitement” — that led to the Times getting sued for defamation by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. On Day 5 of the blockbuster trial in Manhattan’s U.S. District Court, Bennet spent hours on the stand describing his on-the-job failures that the newspaper’s lawyers tried to present as stemming from honest mistakes — and not the “actual malice” Palin must prove to show she has been libeled.

COMMENT:  On a far lesser scale, during my time as a journalist many years ago, I saw the risks when an editor chose to be a “re-writer,” not an “editor.”  Frankly, in this New York Times case, I have little sympathy for Sarah Palin, but, at the same time, the Times deserves to be called into question for its management of the opinion pages, even if it ends up not being the case that it practiced “actual malice,” the long-supported test for libel cases.

FROM WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST GEORGE WILL:  Here is a great sentence from his most recent work. 

“Remember the jest:  Progressives do not care what people do as long as it is mandatory.”

COMMENT:  I’ll let George Will have the last word 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.

Well, the headline on this blog is not exactly accurate.

This blog is about a public policy process I witnessed on-line yesterday and, in one way, my name was involved.  But, as I write below, my interest was in the policy, not the personal.

The occasion was a meeting of the Oregon Senate Rules and Executive Appointments Committee.  It was considering a raft of nominations to serve on State Boards and Commissions.

Many such appointments by the governor are subject to Senate confirmation, thus the meeting.

My name happened to be on the list because Governor Kate Brown has nominated me for another four-year term on the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.  However, as a “re-appointee,” I did not have to appear on-line.

Still, I watched the entire two-hour proceeding and came up with the following conclusions.

• I was fascinated by the wide range of individuals who volunteered to let their name stand for Senate confirmation.

• It turned out to be a way to restore at least part of my faith in government.

• About one-third of the nominees were immigrants, or at least they appeared to be by their faces, their names, and their accents.  Again, this testifies to the viability of Oregon state government.

• Each of those who appeared was limited to 90-second summaries of who they were and why they wanted to serve.  The vast majority found a way to remain within the time limits, which were imposed because of the long list of nominees.

• I suppose someone could say all of this represents too much government, but I beg to differ.  What this really represents is a form of representative government where citizens volunteer for the good of the state without pay.

And, this relates to service on more than 200 State of Oregon Boards and Commissions.  Some of them are involved in high-profile political issues such as those dealing with environment or, as was the case yesterday, with service on a task force trying to come up with proposals for “universal health care.”

Those two others are always fraught with political controversy, if or when they reach the Legislature.

Others are regulatory in character such as the Oregon Medical Board or the Board of Electricians.

And, then there is the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, on which I am privileged to serve.  It consists of nine members who oversee a staff of 12 state employees.

It – or should I say “we” – educate public officials about ethics laws and rules, as well enforce “ethics” pursuant to specific state laws in such areas as conflicts of interest, public officials’ gift limits, prohibitions of nepotism, prohibitions against using public office for private gain, and regulations covering using “executive session” provisions in local and state government.

So, for me, it is service on what I call a “purposeful” commission, which has won national recognition for the breadth, scope, and tenor of statutory ethics laws. All the nominees passed “en bloc” yesterday, which means there was no controversy.  In fact, the bill outlining the nominations passed unanimously among the five Senate committee members.  In two or three days, the full list will go to the Senate chamber floor where passage is nearly assured.

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, remember, is one of three departments I run with a free hand to operate as director of each.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of “Just
Saying.”

For this opening, I rely exclusively on the Washington Post.  For a couple reasons:

• It routinely produces quality writing, which leads a reader to more thought and introspection, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what is written.

• It routinely produces quality opinions, always labeled as such.  Again, agree or disagree, thought and introspection result

FROM MICHAEL GERSON IN THE POST:  The ritual censure of the sane that came during the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee was another affirmation of Donald Trump’s control over the GOP.  As if we needed one.

The assembled sycophants declared the participation of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on the committee investigating the January 6 siege on the Capitol to be evidence they wanted to “destroy President Trump more than they support winning back a Republican majority in 2022.”

The January 6 committee itself was attacked for leading a “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”  This seemed to imply that the violent shock troops of an anti-constitutional coup attempt carried a truer version of democratic ideals than the legislators investigating them.  Support for seditious acts is now a normal and accepted element of Republican identity.

But after all this, it is worth remembering the ultimate reason that Republicans in the country and Congress are beating down the credibility of the Jan. 6 committee: because it is an institution that will generate truth.

COMMENT:  Gerson, one of my favorite columnists, produces another well-written treatise.  His support for constitutional government relies on the proposition that there is something called “truth.”  It is what the January 6 committee is intent on producing.  It is not what Donald Trump and his sycophants want.

FROM MAX BOOT IN THE POST:  The dumbing down of America can be traced in the recent controversies involving three well-known opinionators whose influence is in inverse proportion to their perspicacity.

Ben & Jerry’s, the ice cream maker with more than half a million Twitter followers, posted a statement that no one needed about the looming war in Ukraine that no one, except possibly Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, wants.  “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war,” the company wrote.  “We call on President Biden to de-escalate tensions and work for peace rather than prepare for war. Sending thousands more US troops to Europe in response to Russia’s threats against Ukraine only fans the flame of war.”

This tweet, which seemed to blame President Biden, not Putin, for escalating tensions, provoked well-deserved incredulity. Twitter wits suggested that “appease-mint” is their least favorite brand of ice cream and wondered about the foreign policy views of Breyers, Haagen-Dazs, and Blue Bell.

Next we come to Whoopi Goldberg, the talented comedian and actor who was suspended for two weeks from ABC’s talk show “The View” for her ill-informed comments about the Holocaust.  She was under the misapprehension that because both Adolf Hitler and his victims were White, therefore “the Holocaust isn’t about race. … It’s about man’s inhumanity to man.”  

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Nazi Germany would know that Hitler viewed Aryans as the “master race” and Jews as “Untermenschen,” or sub-humans.  Evidently, however, that is knowledge that Goldberg — a high school dropout whose stage name comes from a “whoopee cushion” — does not possess.

Finally, most egregious of all, Joe Rogan. The No. 1 podcaster in America is constantly apologizing these days — and he has much to be sorry for.  His podcast, which Spotify paid a reported $100 million to carry, is a super-spreader of covid-19 misinformation.  He has discouraged young people from getting vaccinated, announced that he was treating his own case of covid with the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin (not a medically recognized treatment), and featured guests who compared pandemic policies to the Holocaust.

COMMENT:  Boot puts his examples under the label, “the dumbing down of America.”  I agree wholeheartedly with him.  Ben & Jerry’s, Whoopi Goldberg and Joe Rogan don’t need more publicity.  Which is one reason why I hesitated to include this item in this department’s run down.  The most appropriate label for watching these three examples is that “you can’t stop stupid.”

FROM DANA MILBANK IN THE POST:  God bless those crafty wordsmiths of the Republican Party!  The people who gave us “alternative facts,” “enhanced interrogation techniques,” “tender age shelters” and “hiking the Appalachian Trail” have outdone themselves.

The Republican National Committee last week passed a resolution condemning GOP Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) for serving on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection — or, as the RNC called it, “a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

Legitimate political discourse!  Seven people died in connection with the attack, 140 police officers were hurt and 734 people have been prosecuted on charges ranging up to seditious conspiracy.  Marauders sacked the Capitol for the first time since the War of 1812, threatening assassination, and smashing, clubbing and defecating to the tune of $1.5 million in property damage.  But the Republican Party says it’s all legit. Just a bit of civil discourse.

COMMENT:  Dana Milbank goes where Michael Gerson went earlier – which is to blame stupid Republicans for maligning the January 6 investigation committee.  He does so using shriller words than Gerson, but both columnist make the same point – in many ways, we have lost the goal of thoughtful political discourse in this country.

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 remember a few years ago when none other than Jack Nicklaus said he had a solution to golf’s “distance problem.”

Just change the golf ball, Nicklaus said, so that it would not travel as far as it did then – or as it does now.

His suggestion was met mostly with disdain, if only because golf ball manufacturers were against dialing back their technology.  Plus, many players wanted to continue trying to hit the ball farther – and farther.  Call it bomb and gauge.

Why was Nicklaus advocating golf balls going a shorter distance?

Pro golfers hitting the golf ball prodigious distances make some courses outdated.  At least for the pros.  Not, of course, for us rank amateurs.

There have been other suggestions to limit golf distance, but George Peper, editor of Links Magazine, came with a good one in his most recent column for publication.

In short form, his idea was this:  The 50 per cent solution—don’t just limit the distance of clubs, limit the number of them.

Here is how his column started:

“So, it seems we’re finally going to get some answers from the USGA and R&A on the distance question.  After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.

“Much of their recent chatter has focused on the notion of curtailing the shaft length of the driver.  Meanwhile, they’ve asked for feedback.

“Here’s mine:  Don’t simply limit the length of clubs; limit the number of them.  Cut the maximum number of weapons a golfer may carry from 14 to seven.  And not just for the pros, for all of us.”

It’s no more outlandish, Peper contends, than asking ball manufacturers to spend millions of dollars creating a product that’s inferior to the one they already make.

In fact, Peper adds, “the seven-club set would be a bonanza for manufacturers in that they’d be able to create all-new products to sell us. I’m talking about genuine hybrids— drivers that may be played with confidence from the fairway and putters that can double as chippers.  There would also be an imperative to develop new shafts— whippier ones.”

More from Peper:

“While a seven-club set might not totally address the distance dilemma on the PGA Tour, it would go a long way (no pun intended) and certainly would make tournament golf way more fun to watch.  Think about it.  Most pros would likely carry a driving club, five irons/wedges, and a putter.

“So, Bryson DeChambeau would still be able to blast his colossal drives, but since his next longest club likely would be a 5-iron, he’d have to hit the hell out of it to reach a 600-yard par five—either that or punch a driver off the deck—and wouldn’t that be fun to watch!

“Just imagine the artistry the pros would show us if they were called upon to use the full measure of their athletic talent rather than lean on an assortment of crutches.  I’m thinking about what we all saw at Augusta last year, Jon Rahm skipping a ball across the 16th-hole pond for a practice-round ace, or Bubba Watson’s Wednesday whimsey this year at the Waste Management Phoenix Open, hitting the green at the 167-yard 16th with a flick-wristed driver.  These guys have jaw-dropping talent—we just don’t get to see it as often as we should.”

If golf were played with seven clubs, Peper says:

• It would be simpler to learn, less bewildering and intimidating to new players.  The “beginner set” would be everyone’s set.
• It would be less expensive.  Getting oneself equipped with a standard set would cost less.  About half as much.
• Play would move more quickly because decisions about which club to hit would come more easily.
• Carrying one’s bag would be less physically taxing, so more people would do it, a positive both for personal health and fitness and for the global environment, as fewer motorized carts would be needed.
• The distance issue would die out—no further yardage would need to be added to courses.  Courses would save on maintenance expenses, further reducing the cost of the game.
• Professional tournament golf would become much more compelling to watch.
• The rest of us would become more creative, imaginative, self-reliant, and knowledgeable golfers.
• We would all continue to play under one set of rules.

Okay, pursuing Peper’s good idea, I thought this afternoon about which seven clubs I would carry – well, I could only come up with six, so I’ll be one short.  Here is my list:

1. A three-wood
2. A three-hybrid
3. A six-hybrid
4. A seven-iron
5. A 52-degree wedge
6. A putter

One other virtue of this revolves around money.  With only six or seven clubs, I could buy two sets – one for home in Salem, Oregon, and another for our winter abode in La Quinta, California – and basically pay the cost of one 14-club set.

See, always thinking!

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

One test of our humanity as Americans is how we treat refugees, including those from Afghanistan.

Surely, the U.S. exit from that country was mis-handled several months ago, but, still, many refugees from that country are arriving in America every week.  And Americans are stepping up to care for them.

So much so that the Wall Street Journal carried a piece on the issue written by Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

I repeat excerpts here, while also noting that the City of Salem has developed a solid humanitarian record when it comes to Afghan refugees.  More about that later in this blog; first quotes from Pletka.

“For months after the painful U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, I tried to find some substantive way to aid Afghan refugee families in the United States — particularly in Northern Virginia, where I live.  

“A couple of weeks ago, a friend introduced me to the Immigrant and Refugee Outreach Center (IROC) in McLean.  IROC, in turn, introduced me to a newly arrived family of seven — siblings and in-laws, aged 14 to 30, the proud owners of five chairs and three beds.  Almost no English.

“An apartment was rented by a family acquaintance, they told me, but there was no lease in evidence.  No phones, no computers, no blankets, no coats, no boots, no sneakers, and no pots, pans, or food (friends were bringing them meals).”

This family, Pletka writes, is in no way unique. 

“The children’s father stayed in Afghanistan to look after his ailing father.  Their mother stayed with him.  The children spent a few months on a military base and left in search of a forever home.  They have three months’ rent from the federal government, possibly an additional stipend, and need to get into schools and find jobs.  They have a small group of friends, mostly an extended circle of Afghans who have been here a little longer.

“There are hundreds, probably thousands, of Americans helping such refugees — inviting them in, feeding them, helping them orient, driving them, doing what they can.

“Here’s my story:  After spending a bunch of cash online, I realized this family was going to need more help.  I’m not much of a neighborhood association type, but I used our local e-mail group to reach out to my wider community.  I explained the situation and the family‘s needs, and I asked people to pitch in what they could.

“It took only moments, literally.  E-mails flooded in.  Sheets, blankets, pots, pans, mirrors, rice, a bike, mattresses, couches, clothes, shoes — you name it, the offers piled into my inbox.  My front door was overflowing with generous drop-offs, new and sometimes lightly used.  A few neighbors went out and shopped, texting from Walmart to ask about sizes.  Others ordered on-line and sent things to my home addressed to ‘Afghan Family.’  My husband and kids joined me in making deliveries.”

Stories such as this also occur in Salem every day.

It all started when the church my wife and I attend in Salem, Salem Alliance, agreed to start a refugee-helping program that came to be called “Salem For Refugees.” 

Here is a summary of Salem For Refugees’ mission and vision:

• To bring people and resources together to empower refugees to thrive.
• To see all refugees in Salem as valued, thriving, contributing members of our community.
• We believe that the relationships between refugees who resettle in Salem and the volunteers and community members who welcome them are transformative for all parties.
• We believe that the role of Salem For Refugees is to help our new neighbors discover the tools and resources they need to become confident in making their own decisions and achieving their own goals as they re-settle in Salem.
• We believe our community is made stronger as people of faith and people of goodwill work together towards a common mission of welcoming our new neighbors.

Refugee re-settlement has been taking place in the state of Oregon since 1975.  Initially, the Salem community helped to welcome many refugees, particularly from Vietnam and Cambodia.  But, for the past 30 years, all refugees who were chosen for re-settlement in the state of Oregon, were re-settled in the Portland metro area. 

Due to the rising costs of housing in Portland, the Re-Settlement Agency, Catholic Charities, expanded the scope to include the City of Salem.

In October 2016, Salem Leadership Foundation (SLF), in partnership with Catholic Charities and Salem Alliance Church, hosted a series of lunch meetings called “Welcoming Our New Neighbors.”  The purpose of these meetings was to bring together the various groups and organizations that were seeking to care for refugees and explore how the efforts could be coordinated.

The good news is that Salem Alliance caught the vision from the beginning and provided significant start-up funding, office space, facility use, vehicles, volunteers, and more.  SLF stepped up to be the fiscal sponsor of Salem For Refugees, providing bookkeeping, accounting, organizational coaching, and invaluable community connections.

​Salem For Refugees has welcomed hundreds of refugees, asylees, and asylum seekers from a variety of countries including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Ivory Coast, Sudan, South Sudan, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

And, speaking of the vision, my wife, Nancy, caught i, especially in regard recently to Afghan refugees coming to America – and Salem – for a new start on life.

Nancy has made it a recent practice to buy and donate food, furniture, clothes, and other household goods for Afghan families.  Part of the task – a good part – was to recognize the cultural differences between Afghans and their new neighbors…cultural differences that could be recognized in the donations of food, clothing, and furniture.   

By extension, it makes me feel good to see Nancy’s dedication and to note the good work Salem For Refugees has done for all kinds of refugees, including Afghans.

It’s a good news story of putting feet to faith on the ground in Salem, Oregon.

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 column by Wall Street Journal writer Gerald Seib yesterday got me to thinking about a very solid piece of advice to me from one of my former partners, Pat McCormick.

To emphasize the importance of the lost art of listening, he said this:

“God gave you two ears and one mouth, so spend twice as much time listening as talking.”

I often think about this sage advice – as well as try to follow it – during a time when, to repeat a phrase above, “listening is a lost art.”

Apply that to politics and you get the picture.  Those who claim to represent us usually spend much more time talking than listening.

So, here from columnist Seib are excerpts of a post that appeared under this headline:

A Listening Deficit Plagues America, From 2020 Vote to January 6 to Vaccines

“As this election year begins to unfold, Americans aren’t merely arguing about politics.  It’s increasingly clear they can’t even agree on what they’re arguing about.

“You want to debate political violence?  People on the left think instantly of the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021.  People on the right counter with the 2020 George Floyd summer of unrest.

“Refusal to accept election results?  On the left, that’s clearly a reference to former President Donald Trump’s false claims the 2020 election was stolen from him.  On the right, it might be a reference to Democrats’ attempts to oust Trump from office after 2016, or Democrat Stacey Abrams’ refusal to concede her loss in Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election.

“Dangerous social trends?  On the left, that’s a reference to rising racism and anti-Semitism, and anti-vaccination trolling.  On the right, it’s about woke and cancel cultures run rampant, and vaccine mandates.”

In short, Seib argues, people are talking past one another.  And, he adds, it isn’t happening only in Washington, or in political circles, but increasingly within communities and even within families.

“Worse yet, people with differing views today don’t merely disagree; often, they can’t even comprehend how those on the other side could possibly think the way they do.  

“Yet, ironically, the problem isn’t so much that Americans aren’t talking enough.  They’re talking plenty.  A significant part of the problem is that they’ve stopped listening.

“That is to say, too often Americans aren’t listening to people on the other side closely enough to understand WHY they think what they think. Instead, the default position, fueled by the shouting on social media, has become to move immediately to anger, and then yell:  You’re just crazy.”

When I was a lobbyist a few years ago, I often worried that I would fall victim to the tendency to talk too much.  So, before meetings with legislators, as I walked down the Capitol hallways to meet with them, I told myself – “listen more than you talk.”

It was good advice then as a lobbyist.  It is good advice today in your family, your church, your neighborhood, with friends, or on the golf course.

Seib cites a consultant who says this: “Over the last several decades, we have become more and more entrenched in our own tribes, and those tribes are increasingly defined by what they are against.  As soon as I think of someone else as ‘the other,’ as a threat, they are no longer worth listening to.  We have gotten this almost religious fervor.”

So, today, I suggest that we need to find listening again as a key part of our character.  Who knows – if we all spent more time listening than talking, we’d be the better for it.  And, step-by-step, the character of our commitment could even improve political discourse.

Seib adds:

“Such steps can’t, by themselves douse a national fire of political anger—especially when much of it comes from people unwilling to try listening.  Getting Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs to come to the proverbial table and engage in that conversation is a tremendous challenge.  The reason is the lack of trust. The very problem we are attempting to solve by seeing our humanity across differences is preventing that solution.”  

So, with me, listen more than talk.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

At the start of any Oregon legislative session – such as the short one that begins today in Salem – I always think of the questions lawmakers should ask as they consider proposals that come before them.

So, in this blog, I “repeat “the questions, which pertain to any aspect of the State of Oregon budget or Oregon’s statutory law.  I use the word “repeat” because I have cited these questions before, usually before any legislative session.

First, however, this context for the coming legislative session.

Democrats are in charge everywhere in Salem – in the House, in the Senate, in the Governor’s Office and in all other statewide offices.

In the House and the Senate, they enjoy super-majority margins of control, which means they can pass any bill – including new taxes — without any Republican votes.  However, they do not enjoy what have come to be called “quorum-proof” margins of control, which means Republicans can walk out if they view no other alternative to oppose legislation they believe imperils rural Oregon.

In other words, the “two-Oregons” issue – urban versus rural and the reverse – is alive and well in our state.

This session also will be marked by the final time Salem Senator Peter Courtney will hold the gavel because he has said he will not run for senator again.  There will be a new speaker of the House, Corvallis Representative Dan Rayfield because the previous speaker, Tina Kotek, left the job to run for governor.  Of course, Kate Brown remains in the Governor’s Office for his last legislative session because she, too, will not run again because of the two-term limit.

So, are my proposed questions:

1.  What is the problem for which a proposed policy or action is deemed to be the solution?  Legislators should make sure they reserve time for this basic question.

2.  Is there an appropriate role for government to play?  Ask the question without an advance commitment for a “yes” or “no.”

3.  If there is a role for government, what does the state expect to get for the money it spends — in other words, what is the expected return on investment? 

4.  How will state government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state depends for money to fund its operations.

If legislators would ask and answer these questions with a constructively critical eye, we’d have a better legislature and better results.

This is even more true when you consider what’s in store in this every-other-year short session.

Here is the way Oregon Public Broadcasting described it:

“The 35-day, every-two-years short session of the Oregon Legislature that starts Tuesday is primarily intended for budget adjustments.  But majority Democrats have unveiled ambitious policy ideas, including plans to reduce housing costs, improve access to child-care, and improve Oregonians’ job prospects.

“Can Democrats push through their crowded progressive agenda?

“Will Republicans leave town to block votes on items they oppose? Many of the key players have changed, and that could change the dynamics in Salem.

“There’s a bill to allow Oregonians to pump their own gas. Lawmakers are also expected to consider proposals to change administrative rules preventing farm workers from earning overtime, and to send a one-time state stimulus payment to front-line workers who were employed throughout the pandemic.”

So, prepare to watch, with whatever interest you can summon, to this month of government action.  I will, still being glad that I just that – a watcher – not a participant as I was as a lobbyist for many years.

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 are a golfer – full disclosure, I am – you no doubt have heard the phrase, “It’s a links golf course.”

But, the phrase is hard to define.  In part, this is because “links golf” is one of those “you know it when you see it” issues.

So, this morning I read my new on-line version of Links Magazine and the editors there performed a useful service.  They defined the term “links golf.”  This:

“The British Golf Museum defines a links course as ‘a stretch of land near the coast characterized by undulating terrain, often associated with dunes, infertile sandy soil, and indigenous grasses such as marram, sea lyme, and the fescues and bents which, when properly managed, produce the fine-textured, tight turf for which links are famed.’”

There you have it.  Now you know.  And perhaps even more than you want to know.

The magazine added that there are not many real links courses in America.  Most of the courses that meet the “links” definition are in Scotland and Ireland, or elsewhere in Britain.

Of course, there are imposters in the U.S, some of which take the name links and don’t do justice to it.

Links Magazine identified the following REAL links tracks – with full credit to the magazine for the following excerpts (with the additional point being that several of real tracks are in Oregon).

Bandon Dunes:  When Bandon Dunes’s designer, Scotsman David McLay Kidd, heard that there was gorse growing on the site of this first of the now five 18-holes courses at Bandon, he knew it might be possible to create a true links course there.  The site turned out to be everything he’d hoped for—and the result of Kidd’s work there has been lauded ever since.

Pacific Dunes:  Just along the coast from its Bandon Dunes sibling, Tom Doak’s design at Pacific Dunes similarly makes the most of its seaside setting.  Its rumpled fairways, tall marram grasses, and deep pot bunkers scream “links” from start to finish.

Old Macdonald:  Doak was back with Jim Urbina to pay homage to C.B. Macdonald at this third of Bandon’s links trio.  Holes with names like “Biarritz,” “Redan,” “Leven,” and “Alps” owe their lineage to their Scottish ancestors.

The Sheep Ranch:  Coore and Crenshaw’s contribution to Bandon’s bevy of links beauties just debuted and it’s a stunner, with more gorse than you can shake a niblick at and a tumbling, expansive seaside setting.

Cabot Links:  On the other side of North America, in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canadian course designer Rod Whitman did his nation proud at this spectacular “New Scottish” links masterpiece.

Cabot Cliffs:  Though situated on higher ground than its neighbor, the Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw design at Cabot Cliffs is still every inch a pure links experience.  The closing three holes along the edge of the Gulf of St. Lawrence recall the Highlands at every step.

After having the great experience of taking several trips to Scotland – the homeland of my wife’s parents – I have come to love links golf.  And I agree that the courses in Bandon are not just an approximation of links golf; they are the real deal.

For me, one feature of links golf is this:  I use my 7-iron more than any other club.  Around but not on a green, I often use it to chip.  Also, from about 150-yards or so out, I might use my 7-iron to get the ball running over the usually hard links turf.

I remember the time U.S. golfer Phil Mickelson won The Open at Muirfield in Scotland.  And, at the time, he said he was glad he finally learned how to play links golf.

I also have come across some imposters, one of which is Chambers Bay near Olympia, Washington.  I only have played the course twice, but I continue to be amazed that the United States Golf Association chooses the site for some of its major tournaments. 

From a links golf perspective, I found Chambers Bay to be tricked up and not worth playing.

So, thanks again to Links Magazine for helping to define links golf.  I will continue playing such courses whenever I can, which means, I guess, traveling to Bandon, Nova Scotia, or Scotland.

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.

Like the headline on this blog, political campaign finance itself is a muddy topic.  Not understood fully by most people, including me.

Therefore, what follows below, until the last paragraph, is how Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) described the current state of affairs in Oregon.  I feel free to use this material, with attribution of course, because OPB was one of my best clients when I worked as a lobbyist. 

Plus, the OPB professionals with whom and for whom I worked were routinely upbeat and positive, perhaps reflecting OPB’s top-level standing as a reliable news and public affairs source in the Northwest.  They would not mind be cribbing from their solid work.

So, here, from OPB:

After talks between left-leaning organizations broke down, three groups have filed proposals for reining in political spending in Oregon.

Weeks after they came to an impasse over how the state should crack down on money in politics, left-leaning organizations are signaling they might just fight it out at the ballot box.

Two groups that are often aligned filed dueling ballot measure proposals for how to place limits on the state’s permissive campaign finance laws.  Those proposals — one affiliated with public-sector labor and advocacy groups, the other from a private-sector union — join a series of three proposals filed earlier this month by good government groups.

The upshot is that six separate ideas for cracking down on political giving in the state have now been floated for the November 2022 ballot.  Many, if not most, will die before they reach voters, but even two competing campaign finance measures next year could create confusion that advocates have been hoping to avoid.

Oregon is one of a handful of states that places no limits on how much an individual or entity can give to candidates, a fact that has helped campaign spending explode in recent elections.

Meanwhile, voters have signaled they are eager to tamp down on money’s role in politics.  A ballot measure that altered the state Constitution to formally allow limits on campaign giving passed in a landslide last year.

Left-leaning groups that pushed the Constitutional change met frequently in private this year, attempting to come up with a consensus framework for new regulations.  Those talks broke down in early December.  Now different factions are coming out with their own ideas, which they say need to be filed right away to have a chance to collect enough signatures in time for a July deadline.

Those proposals include many similarities to campaign finance regulations that good government groups floated in their own ballot measure filings in early December.  They create a complex system of caps on how much various entities and political committees can donate to candidates and causes.  They would also require campaigns to disclose top donors in political ads, and force so-called “dark money” groups to reveal their financial backers if they are politically active.  And the proposed measures would create a system of public financing that would use tax dollars to bolster the campaigns of candidates who agreed to only accept donations of $250 or less per person.

But the new proposals also contain key differences from the framework good government groups have floated.  They are less strict when it comes to penalties for breaking campaign finance limits.

They also contain exemptions to the kinds of financial backers advocacy groups must disclose.  Some of those groups had worried they would lose out on crucial funding from charitable foundations if they were forced to name those foundations in connection with their political activities.

Whether any proposal lands before voters next year is hard to predict.  To qualify for the November 2022 ballot, a ballot measure campaign needs to collect 112,020 by July 8.  But even to get to the point of collecting signatures, advocates of campaign finance limits are likely to face challenges from opponents about what ballot language should look like, a process that can take months.

Once that’s done, collecting signatures amid the pandemic has proven costly and difficult.

So, based on OPB’s reporting above, my advice is not to hold your breath waiting for campaign finance limits to be legal in Oregon.  First, some voters could consider political giving to be a form of “free speech” (and even the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that way in the past); second, getting to the ballot will be a major challenge, given signature collection challenges, especially amidst the pandemic; and, winning at the ballot could prove to be an expensive challenge.