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

Here’s a good story that underlines the credibility of at least one public official in the Salem-Keizer area in Oregon, Andrea Castañeda, the superintendent of the local school district.

Credit goes to Salem Reporter for conveying this news under this headline:

Salem-Keizer superintendent fulfills her personal donation promise made amid budget cuts

Here are excerpts from the story by Managing Editor Rachel Alexander (and, as an aside, I love that Salem Reporter places a premium on local news delivered on-line every day to residents in the area):

“Salem-Keizer School District Superintendent Andrea Castañeda is on track to meet her public pledge to donate $30,000 from her salary toward local youth and school organizations.

“Records obtained by Salem Reporter showed the money helped pay for student trips to Japan and New York City, a fund for school projects, $500 for a funeral fund for the family of the teen killed in the Bush Park shooting, and hundreds of donuts for district educators.”

The background:  Last November, Castañeda promised she would donate money over two school years from her $285,000 annual salary.  Her pledge came during an initial round of budget cuts across the school district that ultimately resulted in more than 100 educators being laid off. 

More from the writer, Alexander:

“Salem Reporter asked the superintendent for a list of donations made to date and verified donations of at least $500 with outside organizations.

“Every non-profit that received at least $500 confirmed Castañeda’s donation, with the exception of farmworker union PCUN, which said it did not have donor data readily available.”

Good for Salem Reporter for reporting this – and good for Castañeda for fulfilling her pledge.

She is an excellent example of public official who promises something, then follows through on that promise.

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

I toyed with opening a new department under my management.  But, upon reflection, no.

Five departments are enough – the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, the Department of “Just Saying,’ the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, and the Department of Words Matter.

See, I already have enough to manage.

So, here are bits and pieces, without a new department:

• BLANKET PARDONS:  Various commentators are saying that President Joe Biden should not issue blanket pardons to protect certain officials from Donald Trump vendettas.  That would be good advice if we were dealing with a sane U.S. president.  But, with Trump and his minions, we are not.  So, I say to Biden, Biden protect officials who have not broken the law.’

So does Jennifer Rubin writing in the Washington Post, as follows:

“Since President Biden began seriously considering an amnesty for people at risk of retribution from President-elect Donald Trump and his FBI pick (who comes armed with an enemies list), the pearl clutching and myth-spinning about pardons have spread.  Biden should pay attention to history and case law, not misinformed critics.

“The first myth:  A broad amnesty would unprecedented, an intrusion into the rule of law.  That is categorically false.  More than a dozen presidents dating back to George Washington have granted amnesty to a defined, large group of Americans.

• MIDDLE GROUND:  Where is the “middle ground” in politics?  It appears to be lost.  Two left-wing senators, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, went over-board last week by suggesting that they understood why someone would murder a health care executive. 

Say what?  Both Warren and Sanders deserve condemnation for saying that disagreements explain away insane actions like murder.

So, it is not just Trump and his acolytes who practice disagreement and revenge.  It is others on the left, which raises my question again – how about both sides trying to find middle ground.  Pardon my suggestion, for I suspect it may not be possible.

• LEAVING PRO GOLF AT THE RIGHT TIME:  On a more positive note, consider this about LPGA player Ally Ewing from one of my on-line golf magazines: 

“As far as decisions go, retiring from the LPGA wasn’t a hard one for 32-year-old Ewing.  To an outsider, it certainly looked strange, choosing to walk away in the midst of one of her best seasons on tour.  Ewing was No. 18 in the world when she made the announcement.   But this is how the small-town Mississippi player drew it up.  She wanted to go out playing good golf.”

And, in an interesting footnote to this, here is what she said: “As soon as I decided this was the year,” said Ewing, “I felt a peace and stillness. I felt like that was God’s way of saying, ‘I’m with you in this.’”

• AND THIS FROM ANOTHER ADMIRER OF FORMER OREGON GOVERNOR VIC ATIYEH:   The other day my wife and I attended an event at Capitol Manor, a “continuing care retirement center” we have signed up for, though we won’t go there for a few years.

At the event, a resident stopped me in the hallway and struck up a conversation.  At one point, after I said I had worked in and around state government for about 40 years, he asked if I knew Vic Atiyeh.

Of course I said “yes,” having worked for Oregon’s last Republican governor for a few years.

Turned out the resident knew Atiyeh, too, having seen him at an event in St. Helens, Oregon, many years ago where he learned that Atiyeh loved to fly fish.  So, this resident began tying flies for the former governor and gave him new ones every year.

A great connection on the fly, pardon the play on words.

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

I have thought a bit about this blog headline subject since I started writing “Perspective from the 19^th Hole” a few years ago.

So far, I have written hundreds of them.

On this Sunday, as I relax a bit, I reflect on this question:  Why?

There is no one word or one phrase answer, but I add this…

• First, I like to write, given my professional background, so it is purposeful for me to keep doing what I like to do.

• Second, I have not much else to do in retirement, so I keep writing.

• Third, commenting on golf, politics and other subjects, means I need to stay connected, at least to a degree, as I keep looking for new topics and researching those subjects (where, I add, I often work with Mr. Google).

• Fourth, in retirement, I am no longer involved in dealing directly with public policy issues, so the best I can do is write about them – which suits me just fine.  And, to put a point on it, if I cannot criticize the worst president and the worst presidential candidate in history face-to-face — Donald Trump — then I write about that buffoon who, as the epitome of an egotist, thinks only of himself, and not America.

• Fifth, it is a bit of release to write what I think rather than keeping it inside.

• Sixth, writing what I think to be accurate is a good antidote to all of those who use social media for their own ends, usually with honesty and accuracy a lost art.

In the years of my blog, I have not worked to cultivate a readership.  My blog is available on-line, but that’s as far as it goes – and that works for me.

So, I tell myself, with these limited ends in mind, write on.

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

In what he said was his final effort before retiring from the New York Times, long-time columnist Paul Krugman wrote this as he tried to understand the difference between optimism 20 years ago and resentment today:

“Back in 2002 and ’03, those of us who argued that the case for invading Iraq was fundamentally fraudulent received a lot of pushback from people refusing to believe that an American president would do such a thing.  Who would say that now?”

Now, I know what follows does not deal directly with Krugman’s column.  He is concerned about what fuels so much resentment and discord. 

My point, however, is to take what he wrote and, then, highlight the difference between the benefits of hindsight and the reality of the information you had at the time when you had to make a decision.

Regarding Iraq:  I would not find fault with the decision by President George W. Bush to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Based on the information he had at the time, including intelligence from reputable officials working for him, he made the best decision he could make.

It is easy to look back at Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and say it was a mistake because, of course, weapons of mass destruction were not found.

True — and none other than Bush himself, in hindsight, has admitted his error.

But, for me, this highlights a still-active tendency:  Look back and criticize decisions any public official has made based on new information.  But, if you look at the facts and perceptions available at the time of the decision, you might have made the same decision yourself.

Am I biased as I write this?  Yes.

I worked in government for about 15 years, including in relatively high-profile positions.  All of us made the best decisions we could at the time based on the information we had at the time, though we also knew that later, when analysts and critics had more information, they might find fault with those decisions.

For me and my colleagues, the stakes were not as high as they were with the “weapons of mass destruction” issue facing Bush, but they still were important.

So, I say two things:

• Give government officials room to make decisions based on the information they have at the time of the decision.

• And, if by hindsight, you criticize those decisions, give those officials credit for doing they best they could at the time.

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

How’s this for a piece of political stupidity!

Two U.S. senators – Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders – are now saying that “killing CEOs is understandable.”

That occurred after the brazen murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson several days ago in New York, with the culprit, Luigi Mangione, now in custody in New Jersey fighting extradition to New York.

I thought it was only Donald Trump who disdained the rule of law.  No.  Warren and Sanders join him.

Here is how a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial started:

“If you think sympathy for the devil in Mangione is confined to the fever swamps of Reddit, consider comments by Senator Warren.

“Asked Tuesday about those celebrating the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Thompson, the Massachusetts Democrat called it a ‘warning.’

Did she mean a warning not to shoot someone?  Not quite.

“’The visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the healthcare system.’”

Translation from editorial writers about how Warren apparently feels:

“Violence may be wrong, but it’s explainable by the U.S. healthcare system.  And copycats may be coming for the same reason.”

Then, the WSJ adds, “Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders also used Thompson’s murder to opine that the anger at the healthcare industry tells us is that . . . you cannot have people in the insurance industry rejecting needed healthcare for people while they make billions of dollars in profit.”

The fact is, the WSJ emphasized, no one knows yet whether “Mangione was denied care or even what his specific healthcare complaint was, apart from a general loathing for the system.  Perhaps he blames health providers for his back pain, but that isn’t an explanation for murder.”

By contrast, the proper response to the healthcare assassination came from John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania Democrat senator.  He criticized what he called “vile” social media posts for celebrating an “a— that’s going to die in prison.”

Good for Fetterman.

All this recalls for me that, in Oregon, I represented health care and health insurance executives at the Oregon Legislature for more than 20 years.  They had controversial jobs to fill and where they right all the time?  Of course not.

But, they tried to do the right thing when the “right thing” was not always patently clear.

Were they gunned down in the street?  Fortunately, no.

And the two senators – Warren and Sanders – ought to know better than to countenance killing because of disagreements.

*********

I’ll add this footnote to get out of writing about the bad character business.

When Donald Trump, of all things, was named “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine (if there is good news here it is that almost no one reads Time any more) late night TV host Jim Fallon had this to say:

“Trump is the first man in history to be Time’s person of the year and McDonald’s employee of the month.”

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

The Department of Words Matter is open again as one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

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

After all, to do all this, I am management guru.

“HELMED” IS NOT A VERB:  Reporters at the Wall Street Journal wrote this lead-in to a major story a few days ago.

“Energy and environment agencies may be helmed during the second Trump administration by officials who have served under the president-elect before.”

Note the word “helmed.”  It is not a verb, though it was used in that way.  “Helm” is a noun.

Using helm as a verb bothers me almost as much as using the word “golf” as a verb.  It also is a noun.

You don’t “golf” your ball.  Golf is the name of the game you play.

So, please honor these prescriptions.

DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN SINGULAR AND PLURAL:  I have written about this before, but it still irks me when otherwise good writers mix this up.

An example:  Ever heard of a sentence like this:  ”The committee did their work.”

If you have, it’s wrong.  It should be:  “The committee did its work.”

And, if you don’t like that, then change it to this:  “The committee members did their work.”

See.  Now, isn’t that better?

IS IT “BETWEEN” OR “AMONG?”  The Wall Street Journal showed up recently with this lead-in to a story:

“Republican lawmakers are set to choose between John Thune, John Cornyn and Rick Scott in a vote on Wednesday. “  [By the way, Thune won.]

That’s wrong.  The word “between” should have been the word “among.”

You cannot choose “between” three things.  Only “between” two.  “Among” three things?  Yes.

Wall Street Journal editors should have caught it.

AND ABOUT THE WORD “NONE.”  This word sounds bad in a sentence like this:  None of those persons is going to the theater.”

Note the word “is.”  It is the accurate word, though it might sound better to insert “are” instead of “is.”

Perhaps for this reason – the sound – it might better to change rules of language to allow the “are.”

But, oh well – not my job.

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

Oregon’s political leaders, all Democrats, are thinking about how protect their state from incursions by Donald Trump and his minions now setting up offices in Washington, D.C.

Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), one of the best journalism outfits in Oregon, produced a story this week that appeared under this headline:  OREGON’S TOP DEMOCRATS BEGIN THINKING THROUGH A TRUMP RESPONSE

Here is how the story started:

“Governor Tina Kotek convened a closed-door meeting Monday to discuss potential threats from the incoming presidential administration.

“A month after an election that will give President-elect Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans broad influence over federal policy, Oregon’s top Democrats are starting to talk seriously about how to respond.

“On Monday, Kotek met with the rest of Oregon’s statewide officials – Attorney General-elect Dan Rayfield, Secretary of State-elect Tobias Read, Treasurer-elect Elizabeth Steiner, and Labor Commissioner Christina Stephenson, all Democrats – to begin sketching out potential threats to what Kotek called ‘Oregon values’ under a second Trump administration.

“House Speaker Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, and Senate President Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, also attended.”

Threats to Oregon from Trump fall into several categories:

• kickstarting mass deportations
• enacting tariffs that could pose challenges to the state’s economy
• pulling back federal payments to help states transition to clean energy
• ending vote by mail
• withholding money from cities and states that, like Oregon, have sanctuary laws preventing local officials from working with immigration enforcement agents.

It is not clear yet what Oregon leaders will do, but, if you are as worried about Trump as I am, it is good that leaders are talking to develop a set of strategies.

One action Kotek has taken so far is to propose hiring “an Oregon values officer” as part of her 2025-27 budget recommendations.  Of course, it is not clear what such an individual would or could do, but it was a signal from Kotek that she was serious.

Kotek also suggested boosting funding to the Oregon Justice Department by $1 million a year to pay for possible challenges to the Trump administration.

More from OPB:

“Democrats around the country have responded in a variety of ways.  One group of blue-state governors, like California’s Gavin Newsom, have vowed to forcefully push back on overreach by Trump.

“Other Democrats have taken a softer approach in the days immediately after the election. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer – whose state Trump won – said after the election she would “figure out how to work with the Trump administration.”

“In Oregon, where Vice President Kamala Harris won the presidential vote by nearly 15 per cent, Kotek and other top officials have so far been restrained in their public comments, even as they continue talking in private.

“Rayfield, the incoming attorney general, will be central to any resistance Oregon offers to federal policies.”

So, in Oregon, it is not just such a saying as this “we’ll work hard to find a way to work with the new presidential administration.”

No, it is this:  “We’ll defend Oregon values all the way down the road.”

Slow play continues to be a topic of conversation on golf’s professional tours, so what will be done?  Here’s a novel idea:  A shot clock.  Like the one used for the Shot Clock Masters.  Remember it?

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

I have gone on record in favor of this before, but I’ll do so again.

It’s past time to deal straight on with a major problem in golf:  Slow play.

There is an official golf rule – Golf Rule #6-7 — that gives players 40 seconds to play their shot once they reach their ball, with a bit of extra time if they face a specific problem, such as being near a tree, or a couple other factors outlined in the rule, which appears below.

“A player will be allowed a maximum of 40 seconds to complete his/her stroke.  An additional 10 seconds will be allowed for a) the first to play from the teeing ground on a par 3 hole; b) the first to play a second stroke on a par 4 or par 5 hole; c) the first to play a third stroke on a par 5 hole; or d) the first to play on or around the putting green.”

Is the rule ever enforced on the pro golf tour, or farm club tours?  No.

One of my on-line golf magazines, The First Call, dealt with this over the weekend in a story by writer Gary Van Sickle. 

Here are excerpts from the story:

“Is anything less popular than slow play on the PGA Tour?  Monday pro-ams?  Slow greens?  Air pollution?  Greg Norman?

“No one wants slow play.

“The solution for golf is in plain sight.  Basketball has a shot clock.  Football has a play clock.  Baseball has a pitch clock.

“Attention, golf:   It’s the shot clock, stupid.

“The time has come for the PGA Tour — all tours, actually — to crack down on turtle-esque players who are stifling the game.”

Sickle reports that, since 1995, only two players have been penalized strokes for slow play.  

Sickle continues:

“The main cause of slow play on the PGA Tour isn’t field size, it’s ‘the kabuki dance they do on the greens,’ as a golf industry friend of mine refers to Tour players putting out.  Sure, the faster the greens roll and the more slope they have, the tougher it is to ascertain the read.  That takes time.  But unless you’re first to putt, you’ve got ample time before your turn to get most of that done.

“The second biggest slow play cause is distance.  Nearly every par 5 on the PGA Tour is reachable in two for a majority of the field.  Players in the fairway must wait for the green to clear to hit second shots, thus causing those on the tee to wait, thus causing those coming off the previous green to wait behind the guys waiting on the tee, thus causing … well, you get the idea.  It’s the 805 Freeway in Los Angeles at rush hour.”

One answer to all this.  Use a shot clock and then enforce violations.

This will work as proven by the Shot Clock Masters in 2018.  At a DP Tour event at Diamond Country Club in Atzenbrugg, Austria, each player was allotted 40 seconds to hit his shot once it was his turn, with the first player to hit in each group getting an extra 10 seconds.  Each competitor was allowed two extensions of time — or timeouts.  It was a one-stroke penalty if a player didn’t hit the shot before time expired.

This was done through the use of a golf cart carrying a shot clock down the fairway following every group.  When a player got to his ball and pulled a club, the clock started.

What happened? The European Tour cut 30 minutes from its average pace of play to 4 hours, 13 minutes.

Sickle also reports that the LPGA’s Charley Hull recently suggested, possibly in a half-joking way, that every slow-play timing should be a two-shot penalty and players should lose their tour cards if they get three such timings.

“Harsh.  Ruthless, even.  But effective.”

Then, to close, Sickle writes this about the PGA Tour’s best player, Scottie Scheffler, though you could contend that Scheffler should not be the example in what Sickle imagined because he, Scheffler, is far from a slow player on tour:

“Imagine an announcer saying this:  ‘Friends, the gallery is hushed here at the 18th green as Scottie Scheffler looks over a 20-foot birdie putt to win the Masters.  He’s taking a long look but Sir Nick, I think he’s forgotten about the shot clock.  It’s down to eight, seven, six … Now Scheffler sees the clock and you can see the surprise on his face.  He hurries into his stance … three, two, one … and strokes the putt off just before the buzzer echoes through the cathedral of pines.  The putt is tracking, tracking … it’s in!  Great Scott, he’s won the Masters again and beaten Father Time with one for the ages in one magic moment going going gone slamma-jamma ding dong.’”

If I was king for a day – pardon me, Mr. Arnold Palmer who is the only king in golf – I would institute a shot clock immediately for golf and then watch the result.  Faster play.  Perhaps even better play.  A wider television audience.  And better lessons for young players coming up.

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

Here’s the preamble to this blog headline:

When I serve as a 1^st or 10^th hole starter in golf tournaments, I always pass out at least two documents to players:  An official scorecard and a set of rules for the event.  I do this in both junior and adult tournaments.

Then, the players, eager to tee off, don’t appear to spend much time reading the rules.  I always emphasize that doing so could help them play their round, not just to hear about penalties that could be involved.

I also often suggest that, when players head down the 1^st or 10^th fairways, they should spend a few minutes reading the rules.

That said, here is a story about a recent pro tournament where reading the rules would have helped a player.

The headline from Apple News:  “A pro takes second look at the rules sheet.  Then comes seven penalty strokes.

“The pro — Anthony Quayle read the rules sheet quickly.  Another look wouldn’t have hurt.

“As soon as I realized (what had happened), I felt sick in the stomach,” Quayle said, “I thought I’d done something terribly wrong.”

“What followed at the Victorian PGA Championship, a PGA Tour Australasia event, included a call to the tournament director and rules officials, along with multiple penalties – and a pledge (to read the rules more carefully).

“The sequence came during first-round play, after players had been given a document alerting them to the option to use preferred lies — or lift, clean and place — on a portion of the 13th fairway on the Open Course at Moonah Links.” 

“But only on the 13^th fairway.

“Quayle said he looked at the announcement, but mistakenly read it as preferred lies being in effect for the entire course — and played in that fashion all the way to the 15th green.”

Then, to his credit, Quayle realized his mistake, conferred with rules officials, and gave himself seven penalty strokes.  Rising above the problem, he went on to make the cut and win a little money.

But the story underlines an important task in playing in a golf tournament:  Read the rules!

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

As you might be able to discern from this blog headline, it took me a long time to think in a nimble enough way to be able to write this.

After all, what’s a “dichotomy?”

Here’s what the dictionary says:  “A division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.”

I came up with this summary after reading a New York Times article that analyzed whether President Joe Biden, soon after pardoning his son Hunter, should issue blanket pardons for persons who are on President-Elect Donald Trump’s “enemies list.”

You could make two arguments here:

• The future:  Biden should not take this action because it would violate the spirit of what any president should do, which is to issue pardons only for those who genuinely deserve them, such as persons who may have been put in prison for certain drug offenses that did not result in injuries to others.  Plus, it would tarnish Biden’s legacy (as if he cares about that because, pardon the bluntness, he’ll be dead when folks get around to characterizing a legacy).

[On this general subject, by the way, I already have indicated that I had no trouble with Biden pardoning his son because it is what fathers do – take care of their sons and daughters, especially in Biden’s case as tragedy has roiled his family over the years.  And he wanted to avoid another tragic chapter.]

• The real now:  The fact is that Trump and his minions – especially Pam Bondi, the nominated Attorney General, and Kash Patel, the nominated director of the FBI – have enemies lists and are prepared to go after persons on those lists.  So, blanket pardons could defeat Trump’s retribution agenda – and, if I was in Biden’s shoes, I would move to protect those on Trump’s agenda.

Trump has promised actions for his perception of wrongs against him, no matter the fiction of those perceptions.  Plus, he has said he intends to pardon those who have been put in prison for their criminal actions in the January 6 insurrection that he, Trump, ordered.

Here’s more from the New York Times in the article that appeared under this headline:  “Biden Team Considers Blanket Pardons Before Trump’s Promised ‘Retribution.’”  [The story was co-written by one of the best political writers doing these days, Peter Baker.]

“White House officials believe President-Elect Donald J. Trump’s selection of partisan warriors for top law enforcement jobs indicates that he will pursue revenge against his perceived enemies.

“President Biden’s staff is debating whether he should issue blanket pardons for a swath of Trump’s perceived enemies to protect them from the “retribution” he has threatened after he takes office.

“The idea would be to pre-emptively extend executive clemency to a list of current and former government officials for any possible crimes over a period of years, effectively short-circuiting the next president’s promised campaign of reprisals.”

It is important to add that White House officials involved in these blanket pardon discussions do not believe the potential recipients have actually committed crimes.  These officials say that, even a Trump-inspired investigation that results in no charges could drag on for months or years, costing those people hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and crippling their career prospects.

The Times reports that the choices of Bondi, the former Florida attorney general and Trump surrogate, to run the Justice Department, and Patel, the  former Trump aide and far-right provocateur, to be director of the F.B.I., have put the issue front and center. 

Patel, for one thing, has vowed to “come after” Trump’s critics and even published a list of about 60 people he considered “members of the executive branch deep state” as an appendix to a 2023 book he wrote.

In the Washington Post, here’s what Jennifer Rubin wrote – and I agree with her:

“In fact, the better justification for the blanket pardon applies, not only to Hunter Biden, but to scores of Americans:  Reasonable fear that a weaponized FBI directed by a vengeful president will carry out threats to pursue his enemies.”

Among those who could be attacked by Trump:

• Former Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, who was vice chair of the bi-partisan committee that investigated Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol

• Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the former top infectious disease expert for the government whose advice on Covid-19 made him a target of far-right attacks

• Jack Smith, the outgoing special counsel who prosecuted Trump

• Senator-elect Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who was a lead House prosecutor at Trump’s first impeachment trial

• Olivia Troye, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, who has been a leading critic of the president-elect

• General Mark A. Milley, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who Trump said deserved to be executed 

• Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who won a verdict against Trump for business fraud

• Justice Arthur F. Engoron, who presided over the business fraud trial

• And many others too long to list here.

Now, back to the headline on this blog.

It is one thing to argue that blanket pardons violate the spirit of the presidency.  The fact is that it may be true.

But, today with a felon set to enter the White House in a about six weeks, the spirit of the presidency is not alive and well.  It will be in shambles as soon as Trump arrives in the Oval Office, if not already in his various over-the-top pronouncements.

So, in the real world in which Biden operates now in the face of Trump’s pledges for retribution, I think submarining Trump makes good sense — and putting him under water should involve a blanket pardon. In ot