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.

There, I used one of my favorite words again – kerfuffle!

Doesn’t it just roll off the tongue?  But what does it mean?

The dictionary says this:  “A commotion or fuss, especially one caused by conflicting views.”

This time the word applies to three cases of golf rules issues that arose last week at the Players Championship in Florida.

As a person interested in golf rules, I paid attention to each.  Here is a summary, with my comment in each case.

ISSUE #1: A TWO-SHOT PENALTY FOR PRO GOLFER KEEGAN BRADLEY

Playing well in brutal conditions Saturday, Bradley was dinged by the rule book as he was assessed a two-shot penalty on the 16th hole.  After marking his ball, a wind gust moved the ball.  Bradley replaced it, but was supposed to play it from where the ball came to rest.

According to several of my on-line golf publications, Bradley, in the moment, said the penalty angered him.  Two days later, he sounded more frustrated. 

He lashed out at officials as the infraction became magnified during the final round.

“Well, first off, I think the USGA needs to smarten up and change that rule,” Bradley said afterward.  “It’s so silly. They try to make the rules easier, and they never get it right.”

At issue was how Bradley proceeded after he put his mark down on the 16th green, when wind moved his ball. Bradley believed he was to play from where his mark was. But, because he hadn’t picked up his ball before it was blown, he should have played from the new spot, according to Rule 13.1d (2).  

Comment:  It’s time to make this rule more straight forward and simple so pro golfers – not to mention the rest of us – would know how to proceed.

ISSUE #2:  PRO GOLFER DANIEL BERGER INVOLVED IN BALL DROP LOCATION DISPUTE AT THE PLAYERS CHAMPIONSHIP

According to Golfweek, Daniel Berger’s chances of winning the Players Championship effectively ended with a splash at the 16th hole of the final round, but that’s when things got interesting.

Berger’s second shot at the par-5 from 234 yards landed in the lake right of the flag, but where the ball crossed into the penalty area became a topic of substantial conversation.,

As soon as Berger hit the golf ball in the air, he said, ‘Oh, water ball.”  Then, one of the pros playing with Berger, Victor Hovland said he was watching the whole flight, and it was just short right of the green in the water on 16.

When Berger went to drop his ball after a penalty stroke, Joel Dahmen, the third player in the group, and Hovland objected.

Berger was the under the impression that his shot faded into the water and crossed much closer to the hole.  Dahmen saw it differently, and told Berger he should be dropping at least 60 yards farther back.  Hovland sided with Dahmen.

Chief referee Gary Young tried to sort the matter, but, in cases such as this, the onus is on the players to find the best solution – even a compromise – rather than rely on a rules official to resolve the matter when he or she didn’t see the situation on site.  And, that’s what Young said.

Comment:  For all the kerfuffle captured by TV coverage, the solution, in the end, was right:   The players involved would have to agree on a resolution; it would have to be a consensus, as hard as that might to achieve.

ISSUE #3:  AN IMPOSSIBLY BAD BREAK FOR PRO GOLFER PAUL CASEY  [This one is not a rules penalty, but, rather, an example of a change in golf rules that should been done previously and should be done now.]

The Players Championship was strange and, on the last day, Monday, it got stranger.

Playing alongside leader Cameron Smith, Paul Casey stepped up to his tee shot on the par-5 16th with a window of opportunity.  Yes, the Englishman found himself two shots off Smith’s pace, but he’d just watched as the Aussie snap hooked his drive into trouble.  If Casey could make a few good swings coming down the stretch, the biggest victory of his career was within reach.

But first, he’d need to put his drive in the fairway.

Casey made the kind of swing under pressure that most can only dream of. His ball rocketed off the face, screaming through the thick Florida air on a collision course with the center of the fairway.  From there, he’d have a great chance to reach the green in two.

As Casey’s Pro V1 rolled down the fairway, it dodged divots and stray sod, and the commentators remarked what a great position he was in.

Then, calamity struck.

With the ball slowing to a stop, it banked to the right at just the last moment — and it finished embedded in another player’s pitch mark.

It was the kind of break that gives pro golfer’s nightmares.  In contention, coming down the stretch, and your ball finds trouble in the unlikeliest of places.

Golf rules provide relief for an embedded ball.  However, that is only if the golfer’s own ball embeds in its own pitch mark.  Since Casey’s ball embedded in another player’s pitch mark, he had to play it as it lies.

Comment:  From the time golf rules were changed a couple years ago, I have said a change that should have been made, which is to provide relief if a ball ended up in a divot or, as was the case with Casey, another player’s pitch mark.

What happened wasn’t fair to Casey.  Nor is it fair to maintain the rule for the rest of us.

See, being able to write all of this verifies that I have nothing better to do in the California desert than play golf, as well as focus on golf rules. 

One of my good friends wonders why this is the case.  This time, it’s because I get to use the word kerfuffle again.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all 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.

The question in the headline has no answer, at least for a couple reasons:

• It is impossible to know the next steps of a despot political leader who has no ethics, morals, or scruples.
• And, that said, I am not close enough to the war in Ukraine – nor do I want to be – so I rely on news from the front compiled by reputable journalistic outfits.

I post this, even as the U.S. Congress has listened on-line to an urgent appeal from Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy for more help from the
West.

 

[As far as I can tell, this is the first time in history that a war leader, at the very time of war, has appeared virtually before a spell-bound Congress.]

Writing for the New York Times a day before Zelenskyy’s address, Peter Coy postulated that there are three reasons why Putin could decide to fight on in Ukraine, even though, so far, the war he started has not gone as well as he predicted.  For this blog, I give Coy full credit.

He started his analysis with this summary:  “The bloody invasion of Ukraine has been a disaster for President Vladimir Putin, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to give up.”

The three reasons he might forge ahead:

1. First is the sunk cost fallacy.  Professors of economics and business administration admonish their students to ignore costs that have already been incurred — i.e., sunk — in making decisions.  What’s done is done, after all.  You should make decisions based only on future costs and benefits and not throw good money after bad.

But people don’t always think so logically, especially in times of war. They want to fight on to justify the blood that has already been spilled. Otherwise, the fallen troops will have died in vain, the argument goes.

We can’t see into Putin’s mind — no doubt a scary place — but it’s easy to imagine that the losses he and Russia have already suffered weigh heavily in his decision making.  Can his entire military campaign have been in vain?  That would be a hard pill for him to swallow.

• A second idea that might lead Putin to fight on doesn’t have a name that Coy knows of, so he calls it the “golden spike theory.”  The golden spike was a railway spike driven in 1869 in Promontory Summit in the Utah Territory to complete the first transcontinental railroad, joining the segments coming from the east and the west.

The railroad was mostly useless until that final connection was made, after which it became immensely valuable.  Similarly, Putin may be thinking that just another few weeks of fighting will be enough to subdue Ukraine.

• A third reason Putin might fight on is that, however unlikely the prospect of success, the cost of a loss for him is too high.  This is called “gambling for resurrection.”  In finance, the board of a company or bank that’s at risk of going bankrupt might gamble for resurrection by pouring money into a risky scheme that stands even just a small chance of keeping the company out of creditors’ hands, figuring it has nothing to lose by trying.

Let’s say Putin realizes he’s in deep trouble.  Russia has become a pariah state.  His reputation, not great to begin with, is blackened.  And if he achieves nothing, he faces the risk of being overthrown by his own security and military elites.  He may feel, then, that he has little to lose by fighting on.

Coy adds that, for negotiators who are trying to stop the war, the challenge is to know which, if any, of these factors is motivating Putin’s murderous campaign.  In fact, it may be all three – or, who knows, something else.

Plus, Coy concludes, “You don’t have a clearly defined game, and you don’t have symmetric information.  And the cost of getting it wrong can be incredibly high.”

That cost – for Ukraine and for Russia, not to mention the rest of the world — is growing by the day.  It appears that Putin doesn’t care, even as his armies bomb maternity centers and evacuation routes.

Killing innocent civilians doesn’t bother the Russian dictator, just as was the case with Hitler in Germany. 

My hope is that the cost for Putin, at some point, will outweigh the supposed “benefits.”

And, with credit to the Washington Post, I close with this last paragraph:

“President Biden has been consistent throughout the Ukraine crisis on three rules of American engagement:  The United States will impose devastating sanctions on Russia if it invades Ukraine.  It will make sure Ukraine has weapons to defend against an invading Russian force.  And it will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power.”

Good for the president to find the best answers, not the magic ones, which don’t exist.

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 have never been to Ukraine in person.

But, I feel as if I am there every day as I read stories about the terrible war.

Started by the immoral Vladimir Putin, what is happening in Ukraine is tearing apart that country, as well as Russia itself.  The West may be more united than ever as it faces the Putin challenge, but there will be price to pay for the West, as well.

For my part, I read the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Atlantic Magazine every day in an effort to make sense of what I cannot see in person. 

I also try to avoid drowning in information, for, as one citizen far from the war, there is not much I can do about it individually, so better to get an overall perspective than too much information.

So it was that I read with interest two recent columns – one by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal and one by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post.

Here are excerpts from each.

FROM PEGGY NOONAN:  Under this headline – “The World, Moved, Needs to Move Cautiously in Ukraine; We admire Zelensky and want to help his country. But escalation poses threats far beyond its borders” – here is what Noonan wrote.

“It is good to be moved.  It feels good to admire without ambivalence.  The West is united, suddenly and surprisingly, and that feels good too.

“Volodymyr Zelensky stirred the world not only by what he said but what he did.  He has put it all on the line, including his life.  Early on he told the press the intelligence services had informed him he is Russian target No. 1, his wife and two children target No. 2, but they’re staying, they won’t leave.

“It is reminiscent of the summer of 1940 and London bracing for the blitz. Prime Minister Winston Churchill asked if the children of the British royal family, Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret, shouldn’t be sent to safety overseas.  This was the answer of Queen Elizabeth, wife of King George VI: ‘The children could not go without me, I could not possibly leave the king, and the king would never go.’  So they stayed. Princess Elizabeth has been queen now for 70 years.

“The West must try with everything it has to end this.  Cease-fires, talks, negotiations that become serious, possible compromises, efforts at ‘deconfliction’—every attempt has to be made and made again.  That’s what diplomats exist to do, find a way out when history turns hard.

“We must do what we can without sparks flying, and Lord knows we should be talking to Russia about Ukraine’s 15 nuclear reactors.  It’s not only a matter of ‘don’t hit them,’ it is that human beings have to work there to keep them safely operating—showing up each day during a war, sustaining their professionalism, not being unnerved and making mistakes while they’re being shelled.

“The West must feel what it feels and not compromise our judgment.”

FROM KATHLEEN PARKER:  Under this headline – “Why Russia won’t soon recover from Putin’s Ukraine blunder” – here is what Parker wrote.

“I can’t stand it.  Nobody can stand it.  We’re dead.

“These were Nina Khrushcheva’s first words when I called to ask how she was faring as Russia’s war on Ukraine escalates and civilian death tolls rise.

“A friend of several years, Khrushcheva has taught me much about the country she loves and the leader she loathes — Vladimir Putin.  An author and professor at the New School in New York with dual U.S.-Russian citizenship, she’s the great-granddaughter of former Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev.

“She’s stressed out, just as are more than 80 per cent of Americans recently polled by the American Psychological Association.  While most Americans cite the cumulative effects of inflation, the two-year-old pandemic and a European war with no end in sight, Khrushcheva’s demons are more personal and specific to Putin.

“’How could a country that defeated the Nazis do this?’ she asks.

“Khrushcheva also finds Putin’s actions out of character.

“I kept arguing that the invasion of Ukraine couldn’t happen because, if you deconstruct Putin, he doesn’t do crazy, big things, she says.  He does small stuff — Crimea, Belarus.  Invading Ukraine was entirely out of the Putin-judo-master-KGB character.

“Americans have wondered what could explain Putin’s error in judgment. Is he ill?  Perhaps mentally ill?  French President Emmanuel Macron’s report that the Russian leader didn’t seem himself during a phone conversation just before the invasion gained traction because it seemed plausible when nothing else did.

“Putin the Monster will join not the greats but the murderers in Russia’s history.

“In his pursuit of a nationalistic, patriotic, moral Russia with himself as czar, Putin has put his country in reverse.  Economic sanctions might be the least of what he has wrought.  People including Khrushcheva are equally concerned about social sanctions, manifested in the loss of identity, society, and culture.

“’As a country, Russia is ruined for decades to come,’ she says. ‘The whole world is behind Ukraine.  The rest of the world will never, ever be normal with us.  Not even a handshake.’”

So, what do I surmise in all of this – if anything?

Well, my answer is the same as it has been for a couple weeks now.  It is that Putin is a criminal, more in line with Adolph Hitler than anyone else, so he should be repudiated and vilified, not made into some kind of weird hero.

What he has done in Ukraine is reprehensible.  So is what he has done to his own country.

The West, led forcefully by U.S. President Joe Biden (by the way, I continue to be glad that he is in the White House instead of his predecessor), must work to find the best answers in the current conflict. 

Not the magic answers, for there are reverse spins to every potential action.  And there is no magic.  The best answers.

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.

No big news to hear that life contains highs and lows.

So, for me, there have been both lately.

ONE LOW:  I have been absorbing a lot of information lately about a new malady – vertigo.

I have no idea where I’d be without the Internet.  I was struck again about how simple it is to obtain information these days.  A couple of key strokes and you’re there.

Twenty years ago, I would have checked our set of encyclopedias.  Today, I use “google” – and I’m sure that makes the company, Google, happy.

The other night I experienced something that apparently happens to about 40 per cent of the country’s population at some point in their lives — vertigo.

For me, it was startling to have the room spinning out of control for almost 20 seconds.  I wasn’t counting.  I am estimating.

Here’s the definition of the term:  “Vertigo is a sensation of feeling off balance.  If you have these dizzy spells, you might feel like you are spinning or that the world around you is spinning.  Vertigo is often caused by an inner ear problem.”

Further, vertigo is often triggered by a change in the position of your head.  People with vertigo typically describe it as feeling like they are spinning, tilting, swaying, unbalanced, pulled in one direction, feeling nauseated, or vomiting.

My next step is to get professional help for the condition.

ONE HIGH:  Speaking of professional help, here is the California desert, I was able to obtain appointments quickly with medical practitioners despite what I had heard, which is that wait time for appointments could be very long.

But I booked an appointment quickly with a primary care doctor, now “my primary care doctor” here in California.

Same with a physical therapist.

Why the latter?

It has been interesting to note that one suggested treatment for vertigo, both from my physician and in on-line information, was advice I never would have predicted – physical therapy.

The treatment is called “vestibular rehabilitation,”a type of therapy aimed at helping strengthen the vestibular system.  The function of the vestibular system is to send signals to the brain about head and body movements relative to gravity, so a therapist aims to change that system.

I have not had physical therapy yet, but have booked an appointment for Wednesday, March 16.  I also was told it would be one appointment, not a series, which is good in that the treatment is not like what happens in some cases – an ongoing and expensive series.

Hope this works – so my friends will know that, when I act out-of-balance, it is because of vertigo, not my normal self.

ANOTHER HIGH:  Perhaps it’s inaccurate to term this a “high.”  But I noted a column in the Washington Post this morning which cited polling statistics indicating growing support for President Joe Biden.

One reason is how he is handling the Ukraine crisis, which requires a deft touch.  Just imagine if Donald Trump was in the Oval Office.  No deft touch.  We’d have to listen to him fawning over Vladimir Putin, even as Putin wreaks havoc in Ukraine.

In a column on the perception that Biden’s ratings are improving, Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin included this paragraph:

“Since President Biden took office, Republicans dedicated to his failure and the obstruction of virtually all his initiatives have hypocritically criticized his failure to achieve ‘unity.’”

This illustrates an unfortunate growing reality of politics these days.  It is the trait of those not in charge to win plaudits by opposing those in charge, then criticizing them for failing to achieve bi-partisanship or unity.

It’s one of the reasons I am glad to be out of politics as a lobbyist these days. 

And, is this a real “high” in the spirit of this blog?  I say yes! 

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.

To state the obvious, it is hard for Americans like me to understand the reasons why Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine.

What is he trying to achieve?  Does what has happened so far – courageous actions by Ukraine citizens to fight Russian invaders – give him second thoughts?

As I said, who knows?

But I have been continuing to read the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Atlantic Magazine in an effort to understand more than I know on my own sitting in seat of relative luxury in La Quinta, California.

I do this trying to achieve the following balance:

• Reading enough to get at least a superficial picture of what is going on.

• Avoiding a tendency to drown in information because I do not have enough time in a day to read everything, with all due respect to the quality reporters who write stories.  Plus, as one American, there is not much I can do about this war other than to pray for its end.

“Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reputation as a calculating and savvy strongman is collapsing as his war on Ukraine enters its third week.

“Whatever drove Putin’s decision to launch an invasion in the first place—be it nostalgia for the Soviet Union, fear of encroaching democracy, too much pandemic isolation, or a mix of all three—the campaign has already come at a devastating price.

“More than 2 million Ukrainians have fled their homes, and, according to the United Nations, hundreds of civilians have been killed.  Russia’s economy, meanwhile, is bending under the weight of sanctions.

“The crisis that Putin set off has arguably revealed his true nature, and the image that’s emerging is not exactly one of a cool-headed, geopolitical mastermind.

• Sergei Dobrynin, a Russian reporter who once thought that “Putin’s cunning was undeniable,” now sees him as immoral and irrational:“It was painfully obvious that a war would be catastrophic. I told myself, Putin is evil.  But he is not an idiot.  That’s what I kept telling myself right up until the night of February 24.”
• He’s creating the NATO he feared. “Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has primarily succeeded in materializing his worst fears: A unified West, a more militarized Europe, and a stronger, more attractive NATO.”
• And yes, he’s been canceled—deservedly so.  “When a Russian spymaster complains about his country’s cancellation, our response should not be to laugh at an idiot confusing a culture war and a real one.  Instead, we should recognize that economic and social isolation is a powerful weapon, and resolve to use it with the same restraint as any other weapon.”

Plus, this savvy analysis from the Wall Street Journal:

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted from two immense strategic blunders.  The first came on November 10, when the U.S. and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership, which asserted America’s support for Kyiv’s right to pursue membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  The pact made it likelier than ever that Ukraine would eventually join NATO—an intolerable prospect for  Putin.

“The second strategic error was Putin’s underestimation of his rivals. He despises the West and what he sees as Western decadence.  He had come to believe that the West was a shambles, both politically and culturally.  He also thought that the leaders of the West were of poor quality, and inexperienced, in comparison with himself.  After all, he’s been in power 20 years.”

So, the image that keeps coming back to me is the comparison between Adolph Hitler and Putin.  It appeared both wanted to restore “their country” to what they define as past glory.

Hitler didn’t care how many lives were lost in the process (not to mention the Jews whom he wanted to decimate) and, today.  Putin doesn’t care either.  Even in regard to his own Russian people, not to mention Ukrainians.

Back to this blog headline:  As a description of Putin, I vote for mad.

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 have been thinking again about “words that matter,” perhaps because I have almost nothing else to do than this and golf while I sojourn for the winter in the California desert.

Here are three words that matter to me:

1.  Helm:  This word is a noun, but it is increasingly used as a verb.  As in a sentence like:  He helmed the meeting.

Sounds stupid to me.

Think of a better verb than helm, which is not a verb.  Try “direct, coordinate, manage,” or others.

•  Incent:  This is a far better verb than the supposed word “incentivize.” 

I always have disliked “ize” or “yze” words.  They sound weird and there usually is a better way.  Think of the supposed word prioritize.  Wouldn’t it be better just to say, “establish what’s most important.”

The most egregious example of the “ize-yze” problem was the time one of my partners used the word “catalyze.”

Say what?

He said the word “communicated.”  I said I had never heard the word before, so how could it “communicate.”

•  They:  This is a plural pronoun that, in some quarters, has come to be used to refer to individuals, not groups, when those inviduals don’t want to be called “he” or “she.”

I guess I understand how this has come to be a society that includes persons who don’t consider themselves to be of one gender or the other.  But, as an old person, I don’t have to like it.

For my part, I intend to continue using “he” or “she.”

Now, in general, as I have said in the past, I believe there are three kinds of people when it comes to how they understand points of view.

1.  Some people like numbers.  Not me.

•  Some people like charts, graphs, and photos.  Not me.

• Some people like words.  Me.

Of course, all of us tend to have parts of the threesome listed above, though we may have favorites such as “words” for me.

Another of my partners in business also liked words and used them well.  But he had a special ability to pare words with charts and graphs.  Far better than me.

He made the charts and graphs illustrate the importance of his words.

I often wished I had that ability.

But, I’ll stick with words.  That’s what I know best.

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.

Here in La Quinta, California, where I am staying for the winter, I have the good fortune of playing a lot of golf.

My favorite sport.

But, I also have found time to think a few more thoughts about the game I love.

One of them was prompted by a column by one of my favorite golf writers, George Peper, editor of Links Magazine.  He suggested that one way to tame the problem of golf balls going too far – especially when hit by professionals or budding professionals — was to limit the number of clubs in the golf bag.

Better that than build ever-longer golf courses.

Peper suggested seven clubs, though he also admitted that his solution would never fly, if only because club manufacturers would not tolerate such a limit.

Still, I liked his idea, so I made a list of “my seven,” then asked a few of my friends to do the same.  When I return to my home in Salem, Oregon, this spring, I intend to schedule a “seven club mini-tournament.”

So, for any who cares, here is my seven:

1. 3-wood
2. 3-hybrid
3. 6-hybrid
4. 7-iron
5. 9-iron
6. 52-degree wedge
7. Putter

If you like golf, think of your own seven-club set.  Doing so might be influenced by the specific course where you play, or the weather, or both.  But, still, a good exercise…since it is likely that most amateurs only play about seven clubs a round, even though they may carry the maximum 14.

Now, on to two other thoughts about golf.

WHAT’S THE FAVORITE GOLF CLUB IN YOUR BAG:  The on-line version of Links Magazine asked this question of its readers.  Two responses:

• Always been my 7-iron.  I can’t explain why it’s always my easiest club to hit.  Always called it my “tweener” club.

• 7-iron from 150 yards out to around the green in the deeper grass just outside the first cut…that club is usually the first one I need re-gripped.

My answer is the same – and it will not be a surprising choice for those who play golf with me. 

Contrary to pro golfers – yes, I am not one, not even close – I often use a 7-iron around the green in an attempt to get the ball rolling along the green toward the hole.  My son, a much better golfer than I am, would use a wedge for the same shot – and his result usually would be better than mine.

I began using a 7-iron when I had the privilege of playing golf in Scotland on five occasions.  There, in links-style golf, you want to get the ball rolling along the hard ground quickly, so a 7-iron is often the best choice – whether from greenside or 150 yards out.

WHAT YOUR BRAIN SAYS ABOUT YOUR NEXT SHOT:  I attribute the quote below to acknowledged golf psychologist, Bob Rotella.  In his book, “Golf Is Not a Game of Perfect,” he writes this:

“The brain tries to be an accommodating mechanism.  It will try to send the ball in the direction of the last thing you look at or think about.  If your last thought before striking the ball is, ‘don’t hit it in the pond,’ the brain is likely to react by telling your muscles to hit it in the pond.”

Most golfers would say Rotella is right.  I would.  Your mind does funny things on a golf course.

When I am thinking clearly as I address the golf ball, I try to take one last look in the distance and focus on a target.  Such as a tree.  Then, with that image in mind, I hope my golf ball goes in that direction.

Does it work?  Sometimes.

But, when it doesn’t, the reason usually is that some other thought has intruded.  Such as, “don’t hit in the water,” or “watch out for that bunker.”

If Rotella has a moment of free time, I’d like to set an appointment with him.

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.

Lawmakers scurried out of Salem on Friday to end their one month, even-numbered year session at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon.

As a state government manager and state lobbyist who labored at the Capitol for more than 40 years, several things seem to be true this time around:

• Legislators got out of town on time.  On the basis of a two-year limit on the days to be in session, legislators made it out on time.  They had to be done by March 7; they were done by March 4.

• Legislators had a lot of money to spend in contrast to some past sessions when they were cutting budgets.

• About 130 bills were heading toward Governor Kate Brown for her signature and most observers said there were none she planned to veto.

• Among controversy topics lawmakers passed:  Agreed that farmworkers should earn overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week this year; voted to keep the Elliott State Forest in public hands as a place to research forest management; approved preventing police officers from stopping motorists for some minor infractions; decided against allowing statewide self-service gas pumps; passed on an opportunity to put caps on contributions to political campaigns; and gave up on an effort to clear the convictions of people found guilty by non-unanimous jury votes, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has found that system unconstitutional. 

• At the same time, it appeared legislators avoided too much political friction, at least anything that was apparent from the outside, which could have included, but did not, walk-outs to stop action.

In many ways, one of the most significant aspect of this session:  Key departures

For one, Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, presided over his last legislative session in the top job.  [There might be a short floor session later this year to consider appointments to State Board and Commissions, but in terms of legislative policy leadership, Courtney is done.  He is the longest-serving Senate President, having had the job since 2003.]

Second, Senator Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, resigned before the session to run for governor, so her absence was noted, especially because of the way, even though a Democrat, she worked the middle at the Capitol.  That trait could help make a credible run for governor next fall.

Third, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, also resigned before the session to run governor and, in the general election, voters could see both Kotek and Johnson running for the state’s top executive level job. 

Fourth, Democrat Governor Kate Brown has nine more months in the job, but no one knows yet whether she will serve out all the remaining months of her final term.  Rumors continue to circulate that she could take a job in the Biden Administration.

With the departures, the Legislature is in for new leadership.  Representative Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, appears to have solidified his hole on the House Speaker position.

No one knows who for sure will seek to replace Courtney in the Senate, though one likely leading candidate could be Senator Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, who appears to have performed well as Senate Majority Leader.

And, of course, there will be a new governor in office starting in 2023.  Former Speaker Kotek is the leading Democrat candidate.  Former House Former House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, D-Canby, has been raising money strongly, so could be the leading Republican in the spring primary.

But, also don’t sell former senator Johnson short.  She could be the first independent candidate to ascend to the Governor’s Office.

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.

It’s way too early for this notion to have crossed my mind, but it did.  Does what Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine conjure up images of what Adolph Hitler did in post-World War I Germany?

The notion arose as I read a good story in the New York Times, one reported from Moscow, Russia, by a seasoned reporter.  The story appeared under the headline that leads this blog.

And, this admission — what I know about the Ukraine-Russia issue revolves around what I read in such publications as the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and The Atlantic.  Not, to state the obvious, personal experience.

Hitler’s abhorrent view of history was that he wanted to restore Germany to pre-World War I power, given that he believed the allies had set out to punish Germany after the war ended.  Of course, Hitler also rose to power by hating the Jews and murdering millions of them.  Hitler’s animas appeared to be trait exemplified by many in Germany during his time in power.

Now, several analysts believe that Putin has similar goals for Russia.  He appears to be angry about the dissolution of the Soviet Empire starting in 1990 and wants to retore it to a previous standing in the world.

According to the New York Times:  “The collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago gave birth to democracies across Eastern Europe — and to Putin’s grievances.  He once described the Soviet breakup as ‘the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century’ — a time period that included two world wars and the Holocaust.  He has suggested he wants to reverse that collapse.”

It is not clear whether Putin has views about a certain race of people as Hitler had for the Jews, but that could emerge in the future.  [But, while there is no indication that Putin is going after Jews, there is this strange coincidence.  Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish and has given the world a Jewish hero.]

Notice that I have used the word “appears” because there is the “fog of war,” even as smart analysts assess the reasons for what’s happening as bombs fall.

Here are excerpts of the NY Times article:

• The autocrat who has steered Russia for 22 years was embraced by many Russians for what they saw as his rationality and astute risk management.  That image has been upended.  Russians thought they knew their president.  They were wrong. 
• For most of his 22-year rule, Vladimir Putin presented an aura of calm determination at home — of an ability to astutely manage risk to navigate the world’s biggest country through treacherous shoals.  His attack on Ukraine negated that image and revealed him as an altogether different leader:  One dragging the nuclear superpower he leads into a war with no foreseeable conclusion, one that by all appearances will end Russia’s attempts over its three post-Soviet decades to find a place in a peaceful world order.
• Many Russians had bought into the Kremlin’s narrative that theirs was a peace-loving country, and Putin a careful and calculating leader.  After all, many Russians still believe, it was Putin who lifted their country out of the poverty and chaos of the 1990s and made it into a place with a decent standard of living and worthy of international respect.
• During the pandemic, analysts had noticed a change in Putin — a man who isolated himself in a bubble of social distancing without parallel among Western leaders.  In isolation, he appeared to become more aggrieved and more emotional, and increasingly spoke about his mission in stark historical terms.  His public remarks descended ever deeper into distorted historiography as he spoke of the need to right perceived historical wrongs suffered by Russia over the centuries at the hands of the West

So, what does all this say about how any of us should react?  Well, not sure because, as individuals, there is not much we can do about a new, major war. 

However, we can continue relying on major, credible media outlets – the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the NY Times and The Atlantic – as we try to separate fiction from fact.

And, we can hope that the Russian people will not give Putin the same kind of room to move as the Germans did for Hitler in post-World War I Germany.

President Joe Biden is facing a reality as a war-time president, though the conflict is overseas.  Still, he must face this new reality, one he led with as he gave a credible State of the Union speech this week.  The Ukraine reality probably could end up dwarfing such issues as inflation and the pandemic, two other realities Biden faces.

I continue to be glad he is in the Oval Office, especially in comparison to his predecessor.

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.

President Joe Biden appeared last night in Congress for his State of the Union speech and it was in a place – the U.S. Capitol – that he had called home for more than 30 years.

How well did Biden do in this important annual ritual?

Well, as you might imagine, opinion is mixed.

As one viewer and hearer, I thought he did a workmanlike job, though also it is true that State of the Union addresses tend to be as memorable for the atmosphere that surrounds them as for what is said.  That was true last night when Ukraine looming in the foreground, inflation in the background, and Covid-19 in retreat at least for the moment.

Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post produced different editorials to rate Biden’s content and delivery.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST/

“Now, Putin’s effort to redraw Europe’s map by force has exploded not only Biden’s plans for a foreign policy pivot to China but also the entire global balance of power.  Dealing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its consequences seems likely to consume a large part of this Administration’s attention for the next three years.

“In short, events have thrust historic challenges upon Biden, but also opportunities.  Tuesday night, Biden rightfully claimed that he had helped maintain, and indeed increase, the unity of Western allies in the face of Russian aggression and that his administration made innovative and subtle public use of its intelligence.

“Strong and swift U.S.-led sanctions, widely supported around the world, have indeed isolated the Putin regime andensured it pays a heavy price. “This has aided unity between the two parties; members of both rose to applaud Ukraine and its ambassador, who was present.  The Republicans among them were differentiating themselves from the shameful praise for the dictator voiced by their party’s presumed 2024 presidential front-runner, Trump.”

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL/

Under this headline — Biden Misses the Moment in His State of the Union Address – editorial writers said Biden “had supportive words for Ukraine against Russian, but offered no domestic or defense policy reset.”

They went on:

“President Biden is no Olaf Scholz.  The new Germany Chancellor upended decades of center-left German defense and energy policy this week after Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, and Biden had a similar opportunity in his State of the Union address Tuesday.  He missed the moment. The President remained on the same policy course of his first year, albeit dressed up in new anti-inflation packaging.

“More defense spending to meet the threats from autocrats?  No.  A new appreciation for the contribution of fossil fuels to American and European security?  Not a word.  A note that government spending contributed to the highest inflation in 40 years?  Nope.  A word of praise for the private Pharma innovation that developed Covid therapies and vaccines?  He proposed government price controls instead.

“Biden did offer stirring support for Ukraine and its fight for freedom, which received bi-partisan applause. His Administration deserves credit for helping to rally Europe and other nations to impose sanctions and provide more military aid.  He was properly condemning of Putin.”

FROM COLUMNIST DANA MILBANK IN THE POST/ 

He wrote under this headline:  “Republicans are so eager to see Biden fail that they’d let Putin succeed.”

More from Milbank: 

“After her fellow Republicans booted her from party leadership last year, Rep. Liz Cheney posed a question:  “Do we hate our political adversaries more than we love our country?”

“Now, with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Republicans are answering that question — in the affirmative.”

For my part, I have heard many “State of the Union” addresses over the years, including when I lived and worked in Washington, D.C. for a couple years. 

I always thought it was tempting to make too much of them.  After all, the speeches are and were only expressions of a point of view at a moment in time.  On occasion, they offered an opportunity for a president to set a new agenda or call for a bi-partisan America, both good goals.

But, they often degenerated, as last night’s example did, into a round of partisan bickering.

For one thing, President Biden, for all his good, honest traits as a public figure, does not have the wherewithal to deliver soaring rhetoric in the manner of, say, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama or John F. Kennedy.  No memorable lines such as, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” or “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Nor, does Biden lower himself into the depths as Donald Trump was prone to do. 

If you listened closely to his speech, Biden managed to condemn Putin and Russia while, at the same time, outlining an agenda to combat inflation, thus, in a way, setting a new course for his Administration.  Not the huge “Build Back Better” agenda, but bits and pieces of that aspiration.

Apart from the list of policy proposals, Washington Post, columnist Max Boot captured what, for me, was the best assessment of yesterday evening’s speech:

“It is a great comfort in this dangerous time to know that, while Russia might be led by an unhinged egomaniac, the United States no longer is.”

The egomaniac in the U.S.?  Of course, it’s Trump.

Just imagine what Trump might have said if he was at the lecturn in the Senate.  He would have cozied up to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, whom he admires.

So, I, for one, am thankful this morning that Joe Biden is in the Oval Office and I wish him only the best as his Administration moves into near wartime footing.