This, remember, is one of three departments I run.  The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of “Just Saying.”

Being in the coronavirus pandemic provides a lot of good opportunities for new quotes.  Here are a few:

FROM GEORGE CONWAY IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “But it’s more than just narcissism that drives this failing, flailing president. However difficult they can be, even extreme narcissists can have consciences. They don’t necessarily cast aside behavioral standards or laws, or lie ceaselessly with reckless abandon.

“Trump’s behavior is conscienceless, showing utter disregard for the safety of others, consistent irresponsibility, callousness, cynicism and disrespect of other human beings. Contempt for truth and honesty, and for norms, rules and laws. A complete inability to feel remorse, or guilt.

“As a New Yorker profile of Trump put it nearly a quarter-century ago, Trump lives ‘an existence unmolested by the rumbling of a soul.’ That’s Donald Trump’s problem yesterday, today and tomorrow.

“It’s our problem, too, for now:  We remain governed by a soulless man with a broken mind. The damage will continue, and it won’t stop until voters end it.  Come November, it will be up to the eligible human population of this country to look to their souls, their consciences, their humanity — and to cast their votes for one of their own.

COMMENT:  Interesting to read Conway and know that he is married to a major Trump acolyte, Kellyanne Conway.  Still, his words are worth reading, especially this sentence:  “Trump’s behavior is conscienceless, showing utter disregard for the safety of others, consistent irresponsibility, callousness, cynicism and disrespect of other human beings.”

FROM WASHINGTON POST FACT CHECKER GLENN KESSLER:  He and his colleagues explore Trump’s tendency to double down on falsehoods in their forthcoming book, “Donald Trump and His Assault on the Truth.”

“One hallmark of Trump’s dishonesty is that, if he thinks a false or incorrect claim is a winner, he will repeat it constantly, no matter how often it has been proven wrong,” they write.  Though ‘many politicians are embarrassed.’ Trump ‘keeps going long after the facts are clear, in what appears to be a deliberate effort to replace the truth with his own, far more favorable, version.’”

COMMENT:  So true.  Trump’s instinct is to lie all the time, especially if lies reflect great, undeserved credit for him given his narcissistic personality.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:  Like Governor Jared Polis, Gina Raimondo in Rhode Island is accepting the reality that the coronavirus will be with us for some time, and the state needs to focus on protecting the vulnerable while mitigating stress on health-care providers. ‘Just because we may re-open the economy with the stay-at-home order doesn’t mean people are going to stop getting sick,’ she said recently.

COMMENT:  Raimondo sounds to me like one of the good governors who is trying “to do the right thing,” as tough as that is when there is tension between life and livelihood.

FROM JENNIFER RUBIN IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “But then, this has been the story from the get-go: Trump minimizing, ignoring and contradicting expert advice as part of his magical thinking that refuses to grapple with reality, especially when reality reflects poorly on him.

“The president sought to obscure major problems by trying to recast them as triumphs,’ The Post reports.  He repeatedly boasted, for instance, that the United States has conducted more tests than any other country, even though the total of 6.75 million is a fraction of the 2 million to 3 million tests per day that many experts say is needed to safely reopen.’

“Where Trump leads, his cult will follow.  Trump can rely on his base’s anti-science bent, especially when he drowns out or ignores his own advisers. If he does not pay attention, why should his followers?”

COMMENT:  For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many Americans continue to support Trump who clearly stands as the worst president in U. S. history.

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

It was an incredible photo.

Unbelievable.

There Donald Trump stood with a Bible in hand, as if, (a) he had read it, (b) had ever paid attention to what it said, and (c) it gave him the authority to violate the Constitution, also something it appears he had never read.

It was a photo op designed, I suspect, to appeal to the so-called “evangelicals” who are part of his cabal.

As an aside, I hate to denigrate the term “evangelical” by using it in connection with Trump.  He lowers a good term to be a useless one.

In the Washington Post, columnist Michal Gerson, one of my favorite writers, made the same points in a piece he wrote for Friday’s edition.  It appeared under this headline:

Trump wants to turn his opponents into infidels to be destroyed, not defeated

The best approach is to reprint excerpts of what Gerson wrote because his words are so telling:

“In addition to being an act of sacrilege, Trump’s (literal) elevation of the Bible following the Battle of Lafayette Square was a culmination of the president’s approach to communication.

“In front of St. John’s Episcopal Church, the president removed a syllable from his monosyllabic rhetoric and only held up a symbol.  His awkwardness in handling the Bible made even his silence inarticulate.

“This approach does have the advantage of making the lives of White House communications staffers simpler.  Instead of his next speech on agriculture, Trump could simply hold up a carrot.  When communicating on law and order, he could have jackbooted enforcers of his whims throw flash-bang grenades and pepper balls at citizens assembled in lawful protest.

“Sorry, Trump already thought of that.

“The problem with symbols, however, is that they don’t interpret themselves.  In other settings, holding up Holy Scripture might have been the president’s way of saying:  “BIBLE GOOD!”  But the context here is more sinister.

“Following the brutal clearing of Lafayette Square, Trump seemed to be using the Bible as a symbol of conquest.  It was a bit like planting the flag at Iwo Jima — except without the courage, honor or patriotic purpose.

“Trump seeks to employ the sacred as a means of political influence.  And more than that, he is now using the Bible to sanctify the physical abuse of peaceful protesters.  It is a strategy that doubles as blasphemy.  Trump is, in effect, proposing his own bent Beatitude:  Blessed are the brutal, for they shall dominate the battlespace.”

“Trump is attempting something ambitious and revolting — he is trying to reshape the content of Christian social engagement in his own image.  He is making the claim that brutalizing protesters, disdaining migrants, excluding refugees, discriminating against Islam and treating opponents with casual cruelty are the natural elements of a biblical ethic.

“And he is using the Bible itself as a kind of talisman or fetish, carried into culture war conflicts.  ‘In this sign,’ Trump seems to be saying to his followers, ‘you will conquer.’

“But, for Christians, the Bible is not a charm to be borne into battle.  It is not the words and pages that are holy; it is the message they contain.  And that message, as Jesus summarized it, is this:  “He has sent me to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to liberate the oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

This statement of purpose stands in opposition to everything Trump promotes.

There are those on the evangelical right who have clearly abandoned the proper conception of scripture.  They display, as Gerson, writes, “not the transformed heart of the believer, but an iron stomach of a political operative.  They will swallow anything.  If Trump stepped on the Bible, they would interpret it as ‘the foundation of his life.’  If Trump lit it on fire, they would regard it as ‘lighting the way to a better future.’  Their tolerance for sacrilege is the revelation of their true priorities.”

The good news of Jesus Christ is the story of extravagant, creative, sacrificial, relentless, divine love.  If the biblical account of that love is true — as genuine evangelicals would uniformly contend — trading it for the gospel of Trump is an act of monumental foolishness.

So, it’s time – past time – for the end of Trump.

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

While the U.S. and the world lurches from one controversy to another – from Covid-19 to Black Lives Matter protests – it may seem strange for me to “lurch” – there’s that word again – to an often arcane, not to mention irrelevant, subject…golf rules.

Still, doing so is a way for me to maintain a vestige of sanity in the midst of issues I cannot control or even understand.

This time I deal with this subject:  What it means when handicap values are assigned to each of the 18 holes on a course, one of the ways golf can be played and scores tallied for groups of different abilities as they play together.

The bottom line is that #1 handicap hole is not necessarily the hardest hole on a course, which is a common miss-perception.

Too much to understand?  Yeah.  But, remember, this is golf with a myriad of hard-to-understand rules written in something other than plain English.

Let me try to explain this for at least one reason:  If I write something, it is often a stimulant for me to remember it.

I am indebted to my friends at the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) for this explanation.

“There are two misconceptions about the ‘Stroke Index Allocation.’ The first being that the number 1 ranked hole is the ‘hardest’ hole on the course.  The purpose of the ranking of the holes is to determine where the higher handicapped player deserves the assistance of an extra stroke in order to tie, or halve, a hole with the low handicapper.”

The OGA continues:

“That stroke should be assigned on the hole where the relative difficulty of the hole is more difficult for the higher handicapped golfer than the relative difficulty for the lower handicapped golfer.

“Did you notice that the word ‘hardest’ was not mentioned?

When someone tells us about the ‘hardest’ hole, we often ask back: Hardest for whom?  The difficulty of a hole is relative to the set of tees, the level of golfer, the landing zones where each player hits and more.

“On occasion, there may be a hole where the higher handicapped golfer has less difficulty due to their landing zones being nice wide fairways, but the low handicapper may have a landing zone where they must lay up to not hit through the corner on a dogleg, or they have a very narrow landing zone with close in bunkers, water, trees etc. In that case, the hole might be relatively less difficult for the Bogey golfer than the Scratch.

“The #1 allocated hole should not necessarily be the ‘hardest’ hole on the course.  Often, that hole is one where the relative difficulty is the same or similar for low and high handicapped golfers.”

So, in the arcane world of golf rules and standards, does that make sense?

Well, read it a couple of times and it may make more sense.

And, if I do that – read it more than once – I may be able to explain to my friends why the #1 ranked hole is not necessarily the hardest.

Some achievement?  Right.

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

The metaphor in the headline refers to a moment this week when the bridge that has carried Donald Trump for years began to crack with the weight of Trump’s stupidity.

Retired General James Mattis ended his self-imposed silence on Trump with these telling words:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us.”

To continue the image in the headline, I hope the bridge capsizes all the way as a show of American intolerance for the worst president in U.S. history.

Washington Post writer David Ignatius deserves credit for the metaphor in a piece this morning.  It read:

“The military establishment’s anger at President Trump’s politicization of the armed forces has been building for three years.  It finally ripped open in the aftermath of Monday’s appalling presidential photo op at St. John’s Episcopal Church.

“The break was a decisive moment in the Trump presidency.  But such inflection points are mysterious.  Why does a bridge that has carried a million vehicles suddenly collapse when one more heavy load rumbles across?  It’s not a linear process but a sudden discontinuity. Mathematicians call it ‘catastrophe theory.’

“The catastrophe Monday was that Trump was advocating what military officers dread most.  He was preparing to mobilize the armed forces to suppress protests by U.S. citizens against racial injustice and police brutality.  For military officers who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, this was overload.  The structure cracked.”

To adjust the metaphor a bit, Trump’s recent threat to use the military to advance his political cause was a “bridge too far” for some.

Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski:  “When I saw General Mattis’ comments yesterday, I felt like perhaps we’re getting to the point where we can be more honest with the concerns that we might hold internally and have the courage of our own convictions to speak up.”

Former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly:  He corrected Trump by saying that Mattis was not fired by Trump – Mattis left the administration left when he could no longer tolerate Trump’s behavior, especially his stupidity toward the military.

Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney:  He concurred with Murkowski and welcomed her into what may a growing group of some Republicans willing to challenge Trump.  [Some, of course, will continue to bow at the altar of Trump and latest to do so again is Senator Lindsay Graham who should be turned of office for his Trump duplicity.]

Retired chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Mullen:  He reached his choke point in a piece entitled “I Cannot Remain Silent.” It challenged Trump’s consideration of using active-duty troops to put down the protesters.  “I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.” Mullen wrote.

Columnist George Will, a long-time Republican:  He wrote a scathing piece for the Wall Street Journal that began this way:  “This unraveling presidency began with the Crybaby-in-Chief banging his spoon on his highchair tray to protest a photograph — a photograph — showing that his inauguration crowd the day before had been smaller than the one four years previous.  Since then, this weak person’s idea of a strong person, this chest-pounding advertisement of his own gnawing insecurities, this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron.”

All of this will be good news for a partner of mine in my old lobbying firm.  He has been very concerned lately that more Republicans are not running away from Trump, including by making public comments about Trump’s clear incapacity for ANY form of cogent leadership.

My partner has a point.  It is past time for all persons – Republicans, Democrats and Independents (like myself) — to rise up in opposition to Trump.  If you don’t have a soapbox to promulgate your opposition, so be it – just oppose Trump.

Such opposition is long overdue.  The best opportunity to express it is at the polls this fall.

Throw Trump out of office give the Oval Office to a person who has leadership credentials to occupy it, the presumptive Democrat nominee Joe Biden.

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

If anyone needed another indication that I have too much time on my hands during the pandemic, this will seal the deal.

I report that I read and focused on a piece in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) this morning that focused on a major issue facing us in this country and perhaps even the world.

It is this:

Should there be one space or two spaces between sentences in what we write by one tech device or another?

Definitively, I say two.

See, it was a key issue, right?

I am part of the cabal in this country that believes there always should be two spaces, not one, between sentences.  Since I started composing on a Wang Word Processing System about 30 years ago and, today, on my MAC, I have been committed to the “two space standard.”

Tough to change.  Shouldn’t change.  Won’t change.

In a piece by Duane Daiker, the WS, under this headline, reported on the challenge facing us two-space devotees:

People Who Type Two Spaces After a Period Just Can’t Win

Two-spacers say the extra room after a sentence is easier on the eyes, but the one-spacers keep gaining ground

The story went on – and I quote excerpts to illustrate that great minds – mine and the Wall Street Journal’s — believe this is a crucial issue for our times:

“Ever since computers displaced typewriters, a rift has grown between people who put two spaces after a period and people who put one. Daiker worries he might be on the losing side.

“Daiker, a lawyer in Tampa, Florida, brought Mignon Fogarty, author of the bestselling ‘Grammar Girl’ books, onto his law-themed podcast in March to settle the matter once and for all.  He hoped she would rule in favor of two spaces, as he had been taught in high school.

“Instead, Fogarty predicted that placing two spaces after a period would die out in 10 to 20 years.

“’I’ll have to decide whether or not to leave this on the podcast, right?’ replied Daiker, who is 50, on the recording.

“Two-spacers have fretted for some time they are losing ground to one-spacers who learned to type in the digital age. Jennifer Bell, a 19-year-old student from Columbus, Ohio, summed up the counterargument:  ‘It looks ridiculous.’

“Putting two spaces after a period made sense in the mechanical age, when the letters produced by typewriters were all the same width.  With a single space at the end of a sentence, the page looked a little cramped.  Legal professionals who regularly wade through dense documents loaded with citations are among the loudest proponents.

“A further setback for two-spacers came in April.

“Alan Chen was sitting at home in Denver typing when he noticed something he hadn’t seen before.  The document he was working on flagged as an error the two spaces he customarily leaves after a period.

“’The one spacers have won,’ Chen tweeted.”

Unfortunately, after deeming either one or two spaces as acceptable for years, even Microsoft recently changed the default setting in Word so that two spaces after a period summons the annoying blue squiggle indicating an error.

More from the WSJ:

“Chen’s discovery went viral.  ‘It’s interesting,’ he said.  “You’d think people would have more to worry about during a pandemic.’

“Kirk Gregersen, partner director of program management at Microsoft, acknowledged not all writers will appreciate the stylistic choice.  So Microsoft added the option for users to tweak their settings so that two spaces don’t get flagged.

“Judge Beth Walker, 55 years old, of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, said she would change her settings.  She said she is tired of being shamed by millennials who she said insist on rushing from sentence to sentence.

“’I suspect that Microsoft’s latest salvo will only unite the commitment of #TeamTwoSpace,’ she said.  ‘To the extent necessary, I will alter any and all automatic settings they attempt to impose.’”

There might be some consolation for me, Daiker and many other two-spacers, given a prediction that it will take one or two decades for the one-spacers to claim ultimate victory.

We won’t be around to see that sad turn of events.

And, judge me by this – in this blog, I have tried to put two spaces between sentences.  If I failed on an occasion, it was an oversight, not intentional.

Rally on two-spacers!

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

Given what is happening these days in this country, from the coronavirus to protests over the death of a Black man in the Midwest, there are many opportunities for including information in this department, one of several I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

So, the Department of “Just Saying” is open agai

WHERE IS THE SOLACE AND EMPATHY:  On any grid of government management skills, solace and empathy would reside near the top – or at least should reside there.

It’s a skill that is called for these days in response to the virus, the protests and a range of other issues.

“JUST SAYING” that President Donald Trump does not possess either solace or empathy.  He only exists to aggrandize himself and express hate for all others who don’t share his racist views.

This horrible reality was evident this week as Trump, apparently feeling compelled to speak without any preparation – as usual, l report – said he would call out the military to stop protests.

An option, one he would never choose, is to shut up.  Or, if he was a real leader, express statesmanship and empathy, not rhetoric that inflames the situation.

 A NEW POSE FOR THE MEDIA – AN HONEST EMBRACE OF BIAS:  Van Gordon Sauter, former president of CBS News, made this point in a recent article for the Wall Street Journal.

Here is how he wrote it:

“About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.  She was lamenting what she called the ‘liberal leaning’ media.  As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a ‘liberal tilt’ and could be corrected.

“’You don’t understand,’ she scolded. ‘It’s too late.’

“Kirkpatrick was prophetic.  The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal.  On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Donald Trump.

“News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Trump has accelerated the pace.  The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world.  Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.

“To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed.  That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president.  To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner.  Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the ‘resistance,’ dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys

Sauter suggests that it would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center!  I’m proud of it.  I think our reporting is accurate.  It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!”

JUST SAYING that Sauter may be right.  Why not just admit bias and then, if you are a solid journalist – and the word “if” is important here – behave like it?  Report facts.  Provide context.  And, admit your position on the liberal-conservative scale, even as you strive for accuracy.

WHEN EPIDEMICS GIVE A VOICE TO THE FORGOTTEN:  The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a solid development in journalism and, yes, even social media, during the coronavirus.

The development is that real journalists report the plight of real people affected by the virus – stories of real people that give us a chance to express sympathy and empathy

As the Journal wrote it:  “Even as city streets have fallen silent in many parts of the Western world, the sound of urban voices has been growing louder.  Usa of Facebook, Instagram and Twitter has grown dramatically, and much of that traffic has been devoted to sharing ordinary people’s intimate stories of devotion, courage and tragedy.  Through social media, cities seem to be talking to themselves, and discovering themselves, in a new way.”

JUST SAYING that solid newspaper journalism, such as that employed by the Wall Street Journal on the right and the Washington Post on the left, also provides a way to hear lessons from the poor and disadvantaged as all of us contend with the pandemic.

So, I say, read the solid journalism wherever it is practiced – and that means, for one thing, you should avoid Twitter traffic promulgated by the “what’s his name as president.”

AMAZON’S PANDEMIC SUCCESS STORY:  So-called “progressives” and their allies continue to pan Amazon, but it is delivering at least some of what this country needs during the pandemic.

Here’s how Wall Street Journal writer Sean Higgins put it in a piece last month:

“There’s one bright spot in the dismal pandemic economy.  Amazon is trying something that no company has attempted before: Supplying the essential needs of 325 million Americans largely confined to their homes during a pandemic, while keeping its own workforce of more than 500,000 people safe. Yet, some politicians are trying to make it a scapegoat.

JUST SAYING there is no question but that Amazon has made mistakes in the impossible-to-manage coronavirus, but its overall performance should be complimented.

Deliveries continue and the Amazon workforce has persevered.  Plus, Amazon is hiring more than 100,000 new employees to keep operating full tilt.

Good for the company.

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

You may wonder how I find time to write about such an arcane subject.  At least two reasons:  I don’t have much else to do during the virus pandemic and I love the game of golf.

So here is the issue.  One of the realities in golf is that handicap values are assigned to each of the 18 holes on a course, which is one of the ways golf can be played and scores tallied for groups of different abilities as they play together.

Too much to understand?  Yeah.  But, remember, this is golf with a myriad of hard-to-understand rules written in something other than plain English.

Let me try to explain this for at least one reason:  If I write something, it is often a stimulant for me to remember it.

The conundrum is this:  When a golf hole on course receives a #1 ranking on the handicap scale, it is not necessarily the hardest hole on the course.  The common perception is that such a ranking would denote toughness.

I am indebted to my friends at the Oregon Golf Association for this explanation.

“There are two misconceptions about the Stroke Index Allocation. The first being that the number 1 ranked hole is the “hardest” hole on the course. The purpose of the ranking of the holes is to determine where the higher handicapped player deserves the assistance of an extra stroke in order to tie, or halve, a hole with the low handicapper. 

“That stroke should be assigned on the hole where the relative difficulty of the hole is more difficult for the higher handicapped golfer than the relative difficulty for the lower handicapped golfer.

“Did you notice that the word ‘hardest’ was not mentioned?

When someone tells us about the ‘hardest’ hole, we often ask back: Hardest for whom?  The difficulty of a hole is relative to the set of tees, the level of golfer, the landing zones where each player hits and more.

“On occasion, there may be a hole where the higher handicapped golfer has less difficulty due to their landing zones being nice wide fairways, but the low handicapper may have a landing zone where they must lay up to not hit through the corner on a dogleg, or they have a very narrow landing zone with close in bunkers, water, trees etc. In that case, the hole might be relatively less difficult for the Bogey golfer than the Scratch.

“The #1 allocated hole should not necessarily be the ‘hardest’ hole on the course.  Often, that hole is one where the relative difficulty is the same or similar for low and high handicapped golfer.”

So, in this arcane world of golf rules and standards, does that make sense?

Well, read it a couple of times and it may make more sense.

And, if I do that – read it more than once – I may be able to explain to my friends why the #1 ranked hole is not necessarily the hardest.

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

In a stirring column this morning, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Fred Hiatt contends that it’s not too late for Republican senators to abandon Trump.

For the good of the country.

For the sake of their own moral equilibrium.

Hiatt names a variety of senators and says they should stand up to Trump, even, depending on the state they represent, it might mean that they lose an election.

The best approach is to reprint excerpts from Hiatt’s column because it is so well-written as it conveys the huge stakes for the U.S. six months from the next election.

“Republican senators, you know he is a danger to the republic.

“It is not too late to say so. It is not too late to help save your country, and maybe your self-respect.

“You know it is wrong for a president to be spreading vile fictions about the death of a young woman 19 years ago. You know it is corrosive when he lies, and lies, and lies. And you know it is contemptible when a president, with his nation on edge as civil unrest spreads, can do nothing but threaten, divide and incite.

“How do I know you know? Because nothing in your careers, before the age of Donald Trump, hints at a willingness to tolerate such odious behavior.

“Yes, I’m talking to you, Lamar Alexander. And you, John Barrasso. And Roy Blunt. Richard Burr. Susan Collins. Mike Crapo. Joni Ernst. Cory Gardner. Chuck Grassley. Mike Lee. Lisa Murkowski. Rob Portman. Jim Risch. Pat Roberts. Marco Rubio. Ben Sasse. Tim Scott. Dan Sullivan. John Thune. Roger Wicker.

“And others in your caucus, too. Even you, Lindsey Graham. Even for you, it’s not too late.

“Five years ago, could any of you have imagined excusing a leader who praised white supremacists, called his former opponent a criminal and a ‘skank,’ mocked the weight and appearance of your fellow leaders?

“Could you have imagined tolerating a president who sought to bend law enforcement, diplomacy and intelligence collection to his personal needs and whims?

“You know, you all know, that he has imperiled the country and cost thousands of lives with his contempt for science and expertise.

“Many of you have championed funding for the National Institutes of Health. Could you have imagined, five years ago, biting your tongue when a president told a country in peril that a virus would “magically” disappear? Would you have endorsed dangerous nostrums or mocked sound public health advice?

“You know that he has eroded what turns out to be the surprisingly fragile system of checks and balances laid out in the Constitution that you have sworn to support and defend. Five years ago, you would not have tolerated a president spending money that Congress — your Article I branch — had explicitly decided not to spend, or shrugging off any attempt at congressional oversight, or firing inspectors general at will.

“You know that he has dangerously eroded the United States’ security and standing in the world with his impulsiveness, his contempt for allies, his trashing of core American values and his naive embrace of America’s foes.

“How do I know you know? Because many of you have spent your careers defending those values, building the institutions that undergird them, cultivating relationships across oceans. You shuddered when he trusted Russia’s leader over our own intelligence community, when he hailed the boss of the Chinese Communist Party as “a good man” and “a very, very good friend,” when he “fell in love” with the criminal strongman of Communist North Korea. Before the age of Trump, you could not have imagined staying silent in the face of such abominations.

“So why do you stay silent now? Why does your colleague Mitt Romney seem so lonely in maintaining his moral compass?

“It’s not hard to guess. You see your former colleagues Bob Corker and Jeff Flake, cast into political irrelevance for raising the most timid of objections. You think, better to stay viable. Keep your head down, don’t provoke the bully, and you can help restore sanity when he is gone.

“But if he is re-elected, restoring sanity may not be an option. The Republic will be forever altered, as you know.

“And you know this, too: Joe Biden would be a better choice for the country, at this moment. Of course, you disagree with many of his policies. You dislike some of the people he would bring into government. But he would respect the Constitution, the rule of law, simple human decency and the norms that have kept this experiment alive.

“So why not hang together, announce you are voting for Biden, and help save your country? Explain that the president has left you no other honorable choice. You can still campaign for a Republican majority in the Senate to act as a check on a Democratic administration and its judicial picks. At best, you might help save your party and rescue your country.

“At worst, you would meet the fate of Corker and Flake. That may seem unbearable to you. But if Trump is reelected, history will remember them far more kindly than those who, silently or actively, were complicit in the degradation of our democracy.”

Hiatt is exactly right about the evident misdeeds of Trump which imperil future of this country.  It’s time for more Republicans to act based on conscience, ethics and morality.