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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

This is one of four departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, and the Department of “Just Saying.”

So, here are more good quotes:

FROM RUTH MARCUS IN THE WASHINGTON POST:   “The now-unsealed indictment in the case of United States of America v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta has it all, seemingly every Trump flaw condensed into 49 pages and 38 counts of squalid detail.  It is a devastating legal document, but it is also a damning character study of a man whose faults are all too familiar yet retain the power to shock and appall.”

Comment:  Devastating is too kind a word for Trump who demonstrates, again, his rampant tendency to believe that everything is always all about him, the country’s future be damned.  Call it what it is – narcissism.

FROM KARL ROVE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “Joe Biden could still win re-election, especially if Trump is the Republican nominee.  But he’s probably the only serious Democrat who could lose to Trump; too many voters see Biden as too old and too weak.  Democrats ignore that real possibility at their peril.”

Comment:  Rove writes a column that uses a lot of poll percentages to indicate Biden’s vulnerability.  No problem.  But, if voters consider character – and if Trump is Biden’s opponent – then Biden should win.

EAMON LYNCH IN GOLFWEEK:  “It’s scarcely an exaggeration to wonder if more people have seen details of America’s classified national security plans than of the armistice between the PGA Tour and the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, though perhaps someday we’ll learn that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is alone in being familiar with the particulars of both.

“The conflict roiling golf was never destined to end in a clear-cut, binary manner with both parties raising hands, one in victory, the other in surrender. Even the broad strokes relayed about the agreement make it difficult to discern who wins and who saves face.  Which is, one supposes, the point.  Specifics are scarce because this deal is less about shaping a future vision than drawing a line under a current problem.”

Comment:  Lynch has been one of the most strident critics of LIV Golf.  Now, for understandable reasons – no one know all the details of what the PGA Tour and the Saudis have done – he pulls his punch a bit by saying it’s too early to pick winners and losers.

Yes.  But, if I was one of the architects of the deal – PGA Tour CEO Jay Monahan – I would have difficulty sleeping at night.

Here’s more of what Lynch wrote – and I agree:

“Monahan can point to savings in the deal – chiefly the billable hours at white-shoe law firms – but in so many other ways the costs are immeasurable.  The association with an abhorrent regime will surface in every partner meeting, in mocking commentary every time the Tour positions itself as inclusive or forward-thinking.  This moral aspect matters less to Tour members and executives.

“Monahan torched their trust, but anger dissipates.  If the settlement promises money, then he can survive as commissioner.  But his faintly anguished look while sitting next to Al-Rumayyan revealed a man fully aware that his reputation won’t endure the abject about-face he performed.”

FROM PEGGY NOONAN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “But here is the potential political surprise that is on my mind.  For months people have been talking about a serious third party entering the 2024 presidential race.  I believe that, if the major party nominees are Joe Biden and Trump — but only if they are — a third party will certainly enter the race and put up candidates for president and vice president.

“And if a few crucial things break its way — they have to get on almost every state ballot; and put forward a solid ticket, not a brilliant one but solid, two accomplished people, one from each party, presumably political veterans, whom people could see, hear, and think they could do the job —they’d have an even or better than even chance of surprising history by winning.

“If they can do those two difficult things, and avoid scandal and total incompetence, they could do it.  I don’t know other people who think this, but I do.”

Comment:  It’s always interesting to think about Noonan’s words in a column.  A third party?

Perhaps.  But, while I would support a genuine third-party candidate, I have this misgiving.  If that candidate comes across as someone interested in the smart middle in politics, then that candidate might take votes from Biden, thus “giving” the election to Trump.

Another side of this multi-sided coin is that, if a third party candidate were able to garner about 30 per cent of the vote, then, in a three-way race, he or she might have a chance to win.

Worth pondering.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

A couple good things have happened in professional golf, which otherwise has been roiled by the stunning collaboration among the PGA Tour, the DP Tour, and the Saudi Defense Fund (which funds LIV Golf).

First, yesterday, Canadian Nick Taylor won the Canadian Open with a stunning 72-foot putt on the fourth playoff hole, thus becoming the first Canadian players in nearly 70 years to win his country’s tournament.

His won touched off a wild celebration on the 18^th green.

As for other piece of good news?

Well, it didn’t generate near the celebration as the one for Taylor, but it did illustrate something important about golf and life.

What did professional golfer Victor Hovland do after he won the Memorial Golf Tournament a weekend ago, taking home $3.6 million in the process?

The next day, a Monday, he went out to a qualifier for the U.S. Open and, as a caddy, carried the golf bag for his friend and former college roommate, Zach Bauchou. 

Say what?

Operated as a caddy?

He could have been relishing his Memorial win and counting his money, which pushed him to about $10 million over lasts couple months.  Instead, he did all the menial tasks caddies do – carrying a golf bag, washing golf balls, tending the flagstick, etc.

Unfortunately for this story, Bauchou did not qualify, but played pretty well… with a champion on his bag.

Hovland’s unselfish act illustrated a great story about golf – and life.

To put a final point on it, Hovland has become one of my favorite golfers.  For one thing, he hails from Norway and is the only professional golfer with that pedigree.

For another, my forbears also came from Norway, so Hovland and I share the same status.  Norwegian golfers both!

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 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 written about this before – words matter.

And, as I have said in the past, I am an individual who likes words more than charts and graphs, or even, part of the time at least, photos.

So it is this morning that I write about good words that have been taken hostage by political campaigns. 

I could have posted this at one of the departments I run, the Department of Pet Peeves, but I chose this direct approach.

Here’s goes with “words-usurped” examples.

THE AMERICAN FLAG:  My wife and I have an American flag flying on our deck.  I have been prompted on occasion to make sure those who see it know that our flag touts the country, not Donald Trump.

Trumpians have tried to usurp the flag as a sign of loyalty to the man who wants to be president again, even as he faces numerous criminal proceedings.  On many occasions, Trumpians post the flag on the back-end of pickup trucks and drive around with it flying to express their fealty to Trump.

I say no.

The flag should be a symbol of support for America, an expression of patriotism, not support for any political campaign or candidate.

PRIDE:  This good word has been used a lot lately to mean support for those who tout the LGBTQ lifestyle.

On one hand, that’s fine by me as all persons – yes, all persons – need to be tolerated, if not respected.  But, to take the word pride, and make it into a political slogan, as in “pride week,” offends me.

GAY:  I suppose I could return to this word which, when I was growing up, meant being happy. 

Today, obviously, we have become comfortable using it to refer to what has been described as “another lifestyle.”

So be it, I guess.

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 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.

John Feinstein is one of the best sports writers going these days and he proved it again today.

He wrote a column analyzing the stunning merger – if that’s what it really was, a merger – involving the PGA Tour in the United States, the DP Tour in Europe, and the upstart Liv golf thing, whatever it is.

His column appeared under this headline:  After the PGA Tour caved, LIV and its Saudi backers won golf’s civil war.

Those words pretty well summarize his view.  I agree.  And, so, here, I reprint his column intact rather than editing it.

*********

Here are the winners in the stunning PGA Tour/LIV Golf/DP World Tour partnership announced Tuesday:  Greg Norman, Phil Mickelson, Donald Trump and, most of all, Mohammed bin Salman.  The crown prince of Saudi Arabia is now, for all intents and purposes, the commissioner of men’s golf.

Error! Filename not specified.

Here are the losers in the deal:  PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan, who folded like a worn-out pup tent; all of those — notably Rory McIlroy — who stood up for Monahan and the tour; corporate sponsors who are going to have to promote golf tournaments funded by bin Salman and his so-called Public Investment Fund; and golf fans who care that they will be watching weekly winners accept giant, blood-soaked checks.

Trump supported LIV from the beginning, urging players to leave the PGA Tour and join its Saudi-backed rival for two reasons:  First, the tour pulled out of Trump’s golf course in South Florida’s Doral, and second, LIV was willing to rent Trump properties for its events.  Trump will no doubt trumpet LIV’s victory — he already has called it “a big, beautiful, and glamorous deal” — and he won’t be wrong.

Almost no one saw this coming.  Down the road, sure; at some point, every sport needs to have its best players competing against one another on a regular basis.  That’s why the NFL merged with the AFL, the NBA merged with the ABA and the NHL merged with the WHA.  They all needed their stars under the same roof.

This is different because there’s almost no one who doesn’t believe bin Salman was responsible for the brutal murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi and because the rest of the world tolerates Saudi Arabia’s horrific politics and policies for one reason:  Money.

Although the specifics of the new deal haven’t been revealed, here’s what we do know:  The three organizations will merge some of their operations, and the PGA Tour and DP World Tour players who were banned for joining LIV will be welcomed back, although the tours may spin the story to claim that the rebels are returning on bended knee.

The LIV notion of team competition will (sadly) not go away and will be included in some form.  There is only one team event in men’s golf that anyone cares about, and that’s the Ryder Cup.  The good news here is that all the top players should now be in Rome in September for this year’s competition.

You wonder about the music and the players wearing shorts in LIV Golf?  Wouldn’t you just love to see players wearing shorts while AC/DC and Vanilla Ice blared around the course at the Masters?

That won’t happen, but it would be amusing to see someone ask Augusta National Chairman Fred Ridley his position on players in shorts and “Thunderstruck.”  Or maybe Taylor Swift.

The more important issue might be with the tour’s many corporate sponsors.  How will they react to being associated with events the Saudi government also funds?

But the most pressing question for now:  Why did Monahan fold so completely?

LIV has gone nowhere on television in the United States, and no one really knows whether anyone is watching overseas.  No one is buying the idea that the circuit’s team events matter, although the players certainly enjoy the extra money for no extra work.  And the 54-hole format — thus the name LIV, the Roman numeral for 54 — has the feel of a senior tour event minus the carts.

Still, Monahan and the PGA Tour have squirmed since LIV came onto the radar.  The so-called “elevated events,” one of the PGA Tour’s responses, pay the players a lot more money, but title sponsors weren’t thrilled with putting extra millions into events that did not include Brooks Koepka, Dustin Johnson, Cameron Smith or Mickelson, among other big names.

In an interview a year ago on CBS, Monahan brought up the terrorist attacks of 9/11, saying he was close to two 9/11 families and still felt their pain.  He then said, “No one who has played on the PGA Tour has ever had to apologize for playing on that tour.”

What does he say now? “Never mind?”

Monahan is a bright guy and a smart businessman.  So, his decision to fold was no doubt calculated.  But on what?

I think two things:  The tour’s position in court didn’t look very strong. What’s more, there was a chance that LIV’s countersuit would boomerang into the government finding an antitrust violation.  What do you mean, you’re the only one allowed to run a golf tour in the United States?

Beyond that was this:  The tour almost certainly would have been required to open its books in the midst of its legal battles.  No one in sports is more opaque than the tour.  It won’t even announce fines or suspensions, and has been known to fine players merely for talking about being fined.

It has always treated its books like a state secret while not paying any taxes because it is a 501(c)(6) non-profit entity, even though it clearly makes millions of dollars each year.  It seems highly unlikely that the tour would want to share specifics about how much money it makes and where that money goes — with LIV, the courts, or the public.

The tour has always thumped its chest about how much money it gives to charity, and it might very well be that every dollar it claims goes to the various charities is a wonderful thing.  But what if some of the money taken in by tournaments has not been spent so wonderfully?

While Monahan will retain his position as commissioner and CEO, the chairman of the new commercial entity will be Monahan’s new BFF, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of the Saudi Public Investment Fund.

The whole thing is a wow.

Monahan will be able to calm the waters among the players by pointing out that they will make more money.  Some will wonder how McIlroy — Monahan’s spokesman on all issues LIV — and star players such as Jon Rahm, Jordan Spieth, Rickie Fowler, Collin Morikawa and Hideki Matsuyama, who turned down millions from LIV, will feel.

The answer:  Less than great.

In the end, though, they will still be very wealthy men, and after a while, they will stop having to answer questions about the rancor in their sport.

Monahan will claim victory, which is a little like Napoleon declaring that Waterloo was a win for the French.  But Monahan lost.  The only difference is he will still be around to try to spin the outcome.

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 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 word “stunning” has been used frequently over the last hours to characterize a surprising merger for golf as the PGA Tour, the DP Tour (Europe) and LIV Golf announced they would collaborate with each other, not sue each other.

How does this merger rank in importance to other international developments yesterday? 

Not high.

• Not as important as the war in the Ukraine.

• Not as important as new candidates entering the presidential election field.

• Not as important as reaction to the debt ceiling.

• Not as important as air quality in the aftermath of huge fires.

• Or, many other national and international issues.

Still, for all of us who love golf, the merger was topic one.

Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins used a lot of harsh words to rate the merger – or is it berate?

“What’s the going rate to turn an American executive into a boot boy for a despotic torturer such as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman?  Just how worn out are the knees of PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan’s pants legs?

“But let’s start with this simple question first:  Why would the PGA Tour join forces with a vermin-populated fourth-rate start-up such as LIV Golf, a comedic failure that can’t command any ratings, headed by that king of the white mice, Greg Norman?

“Bought.  That’s the only word for Monahan and his henchies on the PGA Tour policy board, who have made an otherwise inexplicable — and still vague — deal to work with LIV and the European tour to form a new global enterprise, funded by the Saudis.  They were bought.  The only question is for how many bills.”

For golfers like me, the merger was, yes, “stunning.”

What the PGA Tour has done is not line with what it has been saying for months, if not a couple years.  Far from it.

It has now aligned itself with what it earlier described as a tainted source of money from a country trying to “sportswash” its horrible international reputation as a thug more interested in murdering the innocent than conducting itself with high moral standards.

Only one example:  The murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 by Saudi assassins.

So, it appears that Jay Monahan, the CEO of the PGA Tour and soon-to-be the CEO of a new, yet-to-defined golf for-profit company, has opted to take the money.

He now has to live down what he has been saying all along — that the Saudi money was bad for the game of golf.  Might be, for him, a tough sell.

Just think if you were Rory McIlroy who became the chief public spokesman for the PGA Tour against LIV.  He must feel betrayed by Monahan’s defection.

“The guys who stayed loyal to the PGA Tour, it’s kind of a kick in the teeth to them,” according to one PGA Tour player.  “Obviously, Rory was a huge advocate of the PGA Tour, and now it kind of looks like all his hard work and sticking up for the PGA Tour was left by the wayside.”

Then, no surprise, Golf Channel commentator Brandel Chamblee entered the fray this way:

““I think this is one of the saddest days in the history of professional golf.  I do believe that the governing bodies, the professional entities, have sacrificed their principles for profit.”

There are a lot of issues left to resolve after the general merger announcement.  Such as:

• Will players who bolted for LIV be allowed to regain their PGA Tour status and, to do so, will they have to pay some kind of penalty?

• How will the new for-profit entity organize the tournaments among the three tours?

• Will some kind of team format – a LIV creation – live in the new organization?

• How much money from the Saudi Defense Fund will go into the for-profit entity, inasmuch as it was reported that it would be the “exclusive” funder of the entity?

• Would it be possible that Phil Mickelson, given his over-the-top criticism of the PGA Tour, would ever be welcomed back?

• What happens now to Greg Norman, the supposed CEO of LIV who was not involved in the merger negotiations, finding out about it only a few moments before the public announcement.  [Norman has fancied himself as a long-time enemy of the PGA Tour, so it would not be surprising to see him left out of the new organization.]

It could be contended that all of us who care about golf should let the dust settle a bit before arriving at a conclusion about whether the merger is good or bad.

Part of me tends always to think that it is good for disparate interests to talk rather than argue – or even to sue each other.  So, stopping the suits and the arguments could be a good development for golf.

But, first impressions also matter.  And, mine is that golf suffered yesterday.  Monahan wants “new money” and he got it from a tainted source that he has deeply criticized for months.

Just ask the “911 Families” group which blames the Saudis for the disaster and now much live with the new alliance.

They went on record yesterday criticizing the Tour in harsh words.

So, did a friend of mine who, as he was walking by our house in the morning, saw me in our driveway standing around trying to grasp the first announcement of the merger.

His one comment:  “Monahan is a wimp.”

For all I know, that might resonate as more details take shape.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

As I have volunteered at golf tournaments in recent years, a question keeps cropping up in my mind.

As the headline asks, is there room for balance – or call it “compromise” – in golf rules decisions?

I am not sure what the answer is.

A couple examples come to mind.

#1:  A Junior Golfer Tees Off Before Her Time on the Tee

This happened several years ago at the Oregon Golf Association course in Woodburn.

While I was on the tee as the starter, a very competent golfer got so excited that she teed off before I called her name to do so.

Normally, hitting early on the 1^st tee would cost a player a two-stroke penalty.  In this case, we let the penalty slide, though we cautioned the player to live by the letter of the rule next time.

#2:  Several Groups of Junior Golfers Hit Of the Wrong Tee for Three Holes in a Row

This happened, also several years ago, at the Trysting Tree Golf Course in Corvallis.

A starter on the tee – not me, fortunately – used his authority to instruct four groups of golfers to start on what turned out to be the wrong tee.  At the time, he didn’t know that he had done so, but, before long, the mistake was clear.

But what to do?

Golf rules say that a player who hits a drive on the wrong tee must correct the mistake immediately or risk a penalty or disqualification.

Several groups had teed off on three holes before the mistake came to light.

I remember sitting in the Trysting Tree clubhouse listening as the tournament director and several rules officials caucused on the phone.  After discussing options, they decided to give each other girl who had made a mistake a two-stroke penalty rather than disqualification.

It was, I reflect, a good decision.  Albeit a compromise because, under a strict interpretation of the rules, all the players who had made such a mistake would be disqualified.

At the same time, I heard rules officials debate whether they had any leeway to interpret rules issues along the way in a tournament.  And, in the end, they made a compromise decision.  And, I suspect the players involved an important lesson, which is to read the rules sheet they had because it listed the appropriate for them.

Not sure there is an always “right” answer to the question about leeway in golf rules and it also is true that a precise interpretation of golf rules rests more with professional players than with juniors trying to learn the game.

For me, the decision on the situation at the moment rather than a generalization in advance.

Other observers probably disagree, contending that golf rules must carry the day, with no room for interpretation.

Finally, I write about all this, clearly, with too much time on my hands to think of other stuff as I head, again, to the golf course this morning for a friendly round where I will feel free to exercise interpretation in dealing with golf rules.

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 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.

Veteran U.S. Supreme Court analyst Ruth Marcus, associate editor of the Washington Post, has gone on record suggesting what the Court should do to improve its ethics record.

Her ideas, summarized below, are worth considering.

And, she advocates that Chief Justice John Roberts, inasmuch as this is “his court,” should take initiative to impose ethical guidelines.  The very reputation of the court, Marcus contends, is at stake.

Here is how Marcus started a recent column:

“Keith Watts keeps a framed copy of his decade-old rejection letter from John G. Roberts Jr.  The chief justice wouldn’t be able to speak to Watts’s group of corporate lawyers, Roberts told the California attorney.  And, Roberts said, he was also returning the first-edition copy of a 19th-century legal treatise Watts had sent along with the invitation.

“’It is a wonderful volume, but I am afraid that ethical constraints prevent me from accepting it,’ Roberts wrote in the January 2013 letter, which Watts shared with me.

“How quaint.  Imagine what the fastidious Chief Justice thinks — imagine how he cringes — on learning about the gusher of benefits that Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow bestowed on Justice Clarence Thomas.  All-expenses-paid yacht trips.  Private jet flights.  Private school tuition for Thomas’s grandnephew.

“The purchase of his mother’s house.  Where Roberts felt obliged to return Watts’s book, Thomas had no evident compunction about accepting a Frederick Douglass Bible valued at $19,000 from Crow.”

Do you have a lot of friends who give you $19,000 gifts?

All this amounts to a headache of migraine proportions for the court, and therefore for Roberts.

The Post included this quote:

“’I want to assure people that I am committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct,’ Roberts said during remarks at the American Law Institute last month.  ‘We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment, and I am confident that there are ways to do that consistent with our status as an independent branch of government and the Constitution’s separation of powers.’”

What’s a chief justice to do?  Roberts has been known to deflect such questions with the observation that he is merely one of nine.  But, Marcus contends this understates the authority he could exert, if he so chose to do so.

So, she summarizes what she says is “a modest proposal” for the Chief Justice:  “As unnatural an act as it would be for the conflict-averse Roberts, he needs to tap his inner LBJ.  Announcement first, agreement later.”

• Roberts should simply tell his colleagues that he plans to announce that the court will officially subject itself to the ethical standards that are binding on other federal judges.  Period.
• He should further name a committee — perhaps of retired judges — to consider what adjustments need to be made to tailor the ethics rules to the particular needs of the high court.  For instance, how to deal with recusals, since justices — unlike their lower court brethren — can’t be replaced if they recuse themselves from hearing a case, and therefore might be more reluctant to step aside.
• Again, the LBJ model:  Roberts should privately tell Thomas that he plans to announce he is asking the Judicial Conference of the United States, which reviews the justices’ disclosure forms, to examine Thomas’s past compliance.  But, Roberts should say, this request would be much better coming from Thomas himself — a voluntary move to assure the public that the justice has followed the law.

Marcus conclusion:   “The court’s approval bounces around.  But this is a perilous trajectory.  It is happening on the chief’s watch.  That makes it his problem to address, if not to solve.”

As a member of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, I deal with ethics issues all the time as they apply to those in public life in Oregon.  With only that context, it continues to surprise me that the U.S. Supreme Court has not been more steadfast in signing up for its own ethics rules in an open, transparent fashion.

If it did so now, I agree with Marcus that it would upgrade the perception of the highest court in the land.

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 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.

Will artificial intelligence change the world?

And, if it does, will it be for the better or for the worse?

From what little I know, I worry about the worse.

If left unchecked, AIcan spread disinformation, allow companies to hoard users’ personal data without their knowledge, exhibit discriminatory bias, or cede countless human jobs to machines.

There also are worries that AI systems will result in unfair incarceration, spam and misinformation, cyber-security catastrophes, and eventually a “smart and planning” AI that will take over power plants, information systems, hospitals, and other institutions.

Who knows?

I don’t.  Nor, for example, do Washington Post editorial writers who recently commented on nascent efforts in Congress to regulate AI.  They favor what I would call “smart regulation.”

Here is a summary of what the writers said:

Error! Filename not specified.

“The conversation about artificial intelligence tends to devolve into panic over humanity’s eventual extinction, or at the very least subjugation:  Will robot overlords one day rule the world?  

“But machine-learning is more than a hypothetical, and it presents plenty of immediate problems that deserve attention, from the mass production of misinformation, to discrimination, to the expansion of the surveillance state.

“These harms — many of which have been with us for years — ought to be the focus of AI regulation today.

“The good news is that Congress is on guard, holding hearings and drafting bills that attempt to grapple with these new systems that can absorb and process information in a manner that has typically required human input.  Bi-partisan legislation is under discussion, spearheaded by Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York).

“The bad news is that nothing so far is close to comprehensive — and piecing these ideas together with steps the White House and federal agencies have already taken entails some conflict and confusion.  Before the country can even start to agree on a single, clear set of rules for these rapidly evolving tools, regulators need to agree on some basic principles.”

So says the Post.  Here are the points it says should be part of the discussion about smart regulation.

AI systems should be safe and effective

This one is pretty basic.  Anyone designing these tools should conduct a thorough evaluation of any harm they might cause, take steps to prevent it and measure the rate at which that harm occurs.  Guarding against misuse or abuse could be trickiest of all.  Already, con artists are using AI apps to simulate the voices of victims’ loved ones to persuade them to fork over cash; deepfake videos of celebrities and political candidates could threaten reputations or even democracy.

AI systems shouldn’t discriminate

This principle nicely ties in with the safety and effectiveness guarantee — impact assessments, for instance, can help guard against discrimination if they measure effects by demographic group.

But to root out bias, it will also be essential to examine the data used to train these algorithms.  Consider data drawn from criminal justice databases where higher arrest rates of minorities are baked in.  Reusing those numbers, for example, to predict a convict’s chances of recidivism could end up reinforcing racist policing and punishment.

AI systems should respect civil liberties

As always when personal data is involved, privacy is key.  Essentially, what companies can and can’t do should depend on what consumers would reasonably expect.

Then, there’s the question of privacy in how these systems are used.  The Chinese Communist Party has notoriously installed more than 500 million cameras around the country; it’s impossible to hire 500 million people to monitor them, so AI does the job.

AI systems should be transparent and explainable

People also need to know when they’re interacting with an AI system, period — not only so no one falls in love with their search engine, but also so, if one of these tools does cause injury, whoever has been hurt has an avenue to seek recourse.  That’s why it’s important for AI systems to explain both that they’re AI and how they work.

Putting principles to work

AI isn’t one thing — it’s a tool that allows for new ways of doing many things.  Applying a single set of requirements to all machine-learning models wouldn’t make much sense.  But to figure out what those requirements should be, case by case, the country does need a single set of goals.

Then, the Post makes a cogent argument against coming up with what it calls “stringent AI regulation” because, it adds, “these technologies are going to exist regardless of whether the United States allows them.

“Instead, it will be countries such as China that build them, without the commitment to democratic values that our nation could ensure.  Certainly, it’s better for the United States to be involved and influential than to bow out and sacrifice its ability to point this powerful technology in a less terrifying direction.

“But that’s exactly why these principles are the essential place to begin:  Without them, there’s no direction at all.”

So, all of this does not end up causing me to be comfortable with AI, given, especially, that I don’t understand it well enough to be comfortable.  It just underlines a simple, yet complicated, word – balance.

We need to find balance in the regulations that are promulgated.  Regulation with a purpose.  Not overly stringent.  Not overly relaxed.

As always, BALANCE REQUIRES A BALANCING ACT.