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.

Those who know me know that I like “oxymorons.”

Here’s the definition of the word:

“A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction with each other.

Like “jumbo shrimp.”  Or, “military intelligence.”  Or, “political leadership.”

And, in this case:  Ethical norms that apply to Donald Trump.

He is beyond having any sense of ethics and he approved it again last week.

There he was on a lawn at the White House hawking Tesla cars on behalf of his unelected aide-de-camp, Elon Musk.

It was a clear ethical violation because presidents are not supposed to endorse anything in the private sector.  Trump doesn’t care.

It also was duplicity, something which catches Trump frequently.

That’s because, according to The Atlantic Magazine, in 2023, Trump posted that electric-car supporters should “rot in hell.”

Now, unabashedly, he is showcasing Teslas on the White House lawn, even though Teslas are electric cars.

More from The Atlantic:

“Yesterday, the president stood with Elon Musk and oohed and ahhed at a lineup of the electric vehicles, saying that he hoped his purchase of one would help the carmaker’s stock, which had halved in value since mid-December thanks to a combination of customer backlash and general economic uncertainty.  

“Trump does not own shares in Tesla, as far as we know.  He has said that he is supporting the carmaker because protesters are ‘harming a great American company,’ and has suggested that people who vandalize Tesla cars or protest the company should be labeled domestic terrorists.

“But he also seems interested in helping his friend, the special government employee, Musk, maintain his status as the wealthiest man in the world.

“Yesterday’s White House spectacle was ‘a stilted, corrupt attempt to juice a friend’s stock, and certainly beneath the office of the presidency,” according to The Atlantic.”

To Trump, he posits, so what.

Whenever he does something, he believes there is no problem with it.  He wouldn’t see a conflict of interest if it hit him in the face.

If any other government official had similarly promoted a friend’s product (especially on hallowed White House grounds), they would have been in clear violation of the specific regulation restricting executive-branch employees from using their role to endorse commercial products or services.

The president and the vice president are exempt from that regulation not to endorse private stuff, as well as from some of the other ethics rules that govern federal officials.  But, still, regulation or no, Trump’s action was a clear ethical conflict.

So, The Atlantic Magazine said Trump “violated the ethical norms of his office.”  That’s the oxymoron.

More from The Atlantic:

“Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his appetite for overturning norms and pushing ethical bounds, so his latest stunt as a Tesla salesman is not altogether shocking.  When Trump learned in 2016 that U.S. presidents are exempt from the conflict-of-interest rules that restrict other government officials, he seemed delighted.  ‘The president can’t have a conflict of interest,’ he told The New York Times then.  ‘I’d assumed that you’d have to set up some type of trust or whatever.’

“Despite the lack of legal restriction, modern presidents have generally moved assets into blind trusts, which are controlled by independent managers, in order to diminish any perception that they are profiting from the office (or that they are making policy decisions to boost their own investment portfolios).

“Trump has shuffled around his assets since taking office but in general has chosen to put his family in charge of managing them.  Trump recently said that he’d transferred his shares of Truth Social into a trust controlled by his son Donald Trump Jr., a move that is irrelevant from an ethics point of view” because the money could still flow to him.  And, with his own family controlling the trust, Trump likely knows exactly where his money is and can make decisions that would increase the value of his holdings.”

Presidential conflicts of interest, or even the appearance of them, can undermine public confidence.

Musk, too, hasn’t assuaged concerns that he will separate his business interests from his role in as a Trump ally.  

Musk’s corporate empire relies on government contracts.  And the federal firings he is overseeing through his DOGE initiative are already reshaping agencies that regulate his companies. So, conflicts and ethical challenges abound for Trump and his acolytes.  But, of course, he doesn’t care.

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.

My wife put it this way:

“Well, now, we have been to a polo game and a hockey game.  What’s left for us here in the California desert.”

Good point.

This came up because a couple days we attended a hockey game here in the desert.  Yes, hockey!

There is a farm club hockey team here called the Coachella Valley Firebirds, which is an owned-and-operated affiliate of the National Hockey League’s Seattle Kraken. 

From what I can tell – I am a not a particular hockey fan, nor an experienced one – the Firebirds are a good team that competes well.

The team plays in a facility named after an insurer – Acrisure Arena, which, itself, is something to behold as it sits along I-10 in Palm Springs.

It is an impressive place, both for farm club hockey, as well as for musical events – and, for the latter, my daughter told me that after she attended an event there.

We headed to Acrisure the other night a bit early to get a parking place – there is a huge lot there — then have dinner where a number of take-out restaurants serve you with, if you can call takeout this, style.

Then, we found our seats and watched for a few minutes as workers fixed the ice for the game.  Strobe lights continued and music blared loud in the area.

A lot of hoopla, but, of course, that happens in other sports, too, as game-time draws near.

Truth be told, we stayed only for the first of three periods because:  (a) it was hard for us as beginner fans to follow the hockey puck around as skaters for both teams sped back and forth up and down the ice, and (b) it was cold.

Still, all in all, a good diversion here in the California desert as we added hockey to polo and, in both cases, don’t feel inclined to go again.  Though, I suppose, we might if the spirit moves us in one direction or the other.

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.

Several local and national newspapers recently have carried stories about what’s behind this blog headline – many voters are second-guessing the fact they cast ballots for Donald Trump.

The Washington Post carried the most salient summary:

“…there’s a common feeling emerging about the viral videos of constituents angrily confronting congressional Republicans:  That’s what they get.

“But the snark isn’t intended for the elected officials so much as for their voters.  The thinking goes that those who supported politicians campaigning on callous policies toward others shouldn’t be surprised when they end up harmed, too.  It’s a variation on the adage that people get the government they deserve.”

Many of the stories have focused on immigrants who voted for Trump and now wonder why some members of their families are being deported.

It’s what they get.

On a different but related subject – it’s also about Trump — Wall Street Journal editor retired editor Gerard Baker latest column appeared under this headline:  CAPITOL HILL’S REPUBLICAN SYCOPHANT CAUCUS.

“‘I don’t mind what Trump does, because I trust Trump.’

“Thus spoke Senator Lindsey Graham last week, cheerfully declaring the unconditional surrender of not only his own judgment, his freedom of thought, his relevance and his dignity, but — and this one actually matters —  his role as a leading member of one of the elected branches of the U.S. government.

“The submissive senator was responding on Fox News last week to a report that President Trump had started negotiations with Hamas, the terrorist organization whose destruction Graham had recently called “non-negotiable.

“Flustered for a moment by this latest sudden turn from the White House, Graham quickly recovered and gave that neatly laconic affirmation of his self-extinction and his superfluity as a thinker and policymaker.  You were left wondering how he might have responded if he had been told that Trump had just signed an executive order exiling him to Siberia, confiscating his personal property and burning his house to the ground.

“I pick on the gentleman from South Carolina only because he is the most ubiquitous and performative of the class of sometime self-sovereign senators turned servile sycophants who are supposed to be making our laws.  He isn’t alone.”

Baker, who spent his early retirement criticizing former President Joe Biden at nearly every turn, now wonders why Trump is “venturing down a diplomatic track that punishes and alienates for no good reason our closest neighbor and ally, that rewards the tyranny of a murderous and implacable foe of America (Russia), that nods approvingly as the dictator of that country carries out the rape of a free nation, that casually slashes at the bonds of alliance that have served this country well and enhanced its global power and standing for decades, my question is:  When is someone going to say something?

“I know why so many lawmakers sit by and watch as the arson unfolds:  Fear for their jobs.  I am sure they rationalize their complaisance by thinking their political future is indispensable to the nation.  But there must be more who harbor a deeper fear:  Of what history will make of them if they don’t speak up now about the wanton vandalism to the country they were elected to protect.”

So, who knows?

Perhaps some members of Congress may have their own second-thoughts about supporting Trump, even as they keep their mouths shut.

This instinct is the same as when some voters wonder why they voted for Trump when he cares only about himself, not the country.

Too late.

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.

It’s interesting to see how a current event prompts memories of the past.

Such was the case for me last week as I noticed that legislators at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon were considering special taxes on hospitals and health insurers.

Why?

Well, the money that would arise from those taxes would then be used by the state to generate more “matching funds” from the federal government under the Medicaid program (about 60 per cent of the funds for Medicaid come from the federal government and 40 per cent from Oregon).

In theory then, the “new money” – a combination of the tax revenue and the federal matching funds – would be devoted to increase funding for Medicaid, which serves low-income Oregonians.

Sounds good, right?

Well, again in theory, it is.

But there is this tension, which I recall from my days as a state lobbyist when the special taxes on hospitals and health insurers first were proposed:  How do you insure the “new money” goes to fund health care programs, especially Medicaid, and is not siphoned off to go to other programs.

It’s almost impossible to achieve because, once new money arrives in Oregon, it is just that – new money, which is available for legislators to dispense as they wish.

What happened back in my days could be called “supplanting.”  By that, I mean that the new health care money was devoted to health care programs, but then money already in health care budgets (and not arising from the new taxes) could be taken out from behind the new money and used elsewhere.

Thus, “supplanting.”

Back in the day, lobbyists like me tried to forestall the problem, but we were not able to do so, no matter how hard we tried.  Especially on budget issues, it’s tough “to cut a deal with the Legislature” and have it stick, given all the other demands on state government money.

I hope current lobbyists can find a way to be more successful.

From the Oregonian newspaper story, here is more background:

**************

“The Oregon House voted Thursday to renew a tax on hospitals and health insurance plans to help increase funding for the state’s Medicaid plan.  House Bill 2010 would adjust and extend taxes on hospitals and health insurers, which the state uses to bolster federal funding for the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s Medicaid program that provides health care to low-income individuals and those with disabilities. 

“The taxes are expected to raise $2.1 billion to support the Oregon Health Plan, which covers 1.4 million Oregonians, including more than half of children in the state.

“The Oregon Health Plan is funded by a mix of state and federal funds, including the assessments on hospitals and insurance providers. 

“The hospitals support the taxes, though, because they unlock billions in federal matching dollars.  The federal government funds the majority of the state’s Medicaid spending.  According to Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, the federal government contributes $1.37 to Oregon’s Medicaid coverage for every $1 Oregon spends.

“The hospitals essentially get much of the money back in the form of larger reimbursements for the care they provide to low-income Oregonians, and it reduces the amount care provided to people without insurance that goes uncompensated.”

Again, this caveat from me, not from the Oregonian newspaper:  All this sounds good as long as the “new money” goes directly to health care and is not “supplanted.”

On that, to use a time-worn phrase, time will tell.

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.

Those who know me know that one of my favorite political quotes of all time was uttered by the late military general Colin Powell.

When asked whether he would consider running for president, Powell said no “because he bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

Well, given the state of politics today – the loss of nearly any form of civility – Powell is probably turning over in his grave.

If he were here, regardless of his obvious status as a military hero and his political acumen, he would be “fired” by Donald Trump who preens around demanding fealty.  [Don’t you like those two words – preens and fealty – for they describe Trump very accurately?] 

If Trump says something, then at least he believes it is true.  So do his ever-tolerant MAGA followers.

There is no room for middle ground.  And I believe the country will be worse for it.

Consider only one recent example of incivility.

When Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky showed up at the White House to meet with Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, he was not prepared for his reception.

Rather than discuss how to work toward ending the war with Russia in the Ukraine, instead Trump and Vance ambushed the Zelensky.  They yelled and screamed before TV cameras to ask why Zelensky wasn’t more compliant and thankful for U.S. aid.

Then, they booted him out of the Oval Office.

No doubt the ambush was planned in advance because Trump called it “great TV.”  He should know because, remember, he is a reality-TV host, not a real president.

Writing in the New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni put it this way:

“If you listened carefully to Trump’s disgraceful dressing down of his Ukrainian counterpart in the Oval Office last week, you heard gripes galore, but with one theme above all others:  Americans had been played for fools.

“We’d been suckered, swindled, bamboozled.  In all our goodness and glory, we’d forked over hundreds of billions of dollars to Volodymyr Zelensky and received nothing in return — no assurance of victory, no mineral rights, not even a properly flowery thank-you note.

“What chumps we were.

“If you looked for a through line in Trump’s titanically self-indulgent blathering to Congress last week , you saw the same bitterness, the identical complaint about Americans’ treatment by trading partners, by supposed allies, by fraudsters in the federal government, by woke zealots.

“We could slap giant tariffs on countries that had long taken lavish advantage of us — or we could continue being chumps.  We could cheer on Elon Musk as he derailed the gravy train of frivolous government contracts and superfluous federal employees — or we could consign ourselves to chump-ness forevermore.”

Now, to a degree, Bruni is using writing “tongue in cheek” when he says “we are chumps.”  At least, chumps in Trump’s mind as he practices his art of always being the victim.

But, as for civility, Trump does not know the meaning of the word.

And, if politics was supposed to have an element of civility in it, it won’t as long as Trump is around.

Where is Colin Powell when we need him?

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.

My friends at Links Magazine have been thinking of something that has crossed my mind, as well.

As this blog headline notes, the subject is this:  Golf rules that should be changed.

Links cites 10 examples.  I repeat them below, not because I agree with all of them, but because they illustrate that golf rules should always be dynamic and under review, if only because they apply to a game that is played outdoors and in hundreds of venues around the world.

Here is how writer David DeSmith started his post:

“Few pursuits have as many arcane rules as the game of golf.  Did you know, for example, that you can play a shot from within a clubhouse (if it’s not out of bounds), and even open a window or door to facilitate such a shot?  The rules say that you can.

“They say a lot of other things, too — including a few things that I think golf’s governing bodies, the USGA and R&A, should consider revising.”

DeSmith and I agree on at least one rule change – relief from divots.

Here is how he described his advocacy:

“The Rules of Golf grant relief from many kinds of abnormal ground conditions — including Rule 13.1c(2), which allows a player to repair ball marks and spike marks on putting surfaces — two kinds of alternations made to the course by other players.

“The rules look to strike a balance between the longstanding tradition of playing the ball ‘as it lies’ and fairness, and in the case of this rule, they indicate that on greens, such relief is warranted.

“But no such relief is offered in the case of a ball coming to rest in a divot, which is manifestly inconsistent. Relief should be granted from divots.”

I agree. 

Why should you be penalized if your drive or shot ends up in a divot that someone else created?  You shouldn’t.

We have seen cases where this bit of bad luck created huge challenges such as the time when the late professional golfer Payne Stewart hit a drive in a U.S. Open, it ended up in someone else’s divot in the fairway, and he paid the price.

Here the other rule changes recommended by Links, with a comment from me in cases where I feel compelled to add a perspective.

1. Limit of 14 Clubs [Not sure on this one because, at some point, there has to be a number of clubs or you couldn’t carry or all of them.]

2. Relief from Divots [Already cited – agree.]

3. Relief in Bunkers (when your ball ends up in an unraked spot [Agree, especially for us as recreational golfers who may be following players who don’t rake bunkers or do a bad job of doing so.  For professional golfers, this won’t matter because caddies always rake bunkers.]

4. Three-Minute Time Limit to Find a Lost Ball  [Three minutes is enough; no need to go back to five minutes.]

5. Ball Embedded by Someone Stepping on It  [Agree.  You should not be penalized by someone else’s mistake.]

6. Interference from Boundary Objects (by this, the author means that he thinks relief should be granted if the boundary fence interferes with a swing)  [Disagree.  Don’t hit your ball near a boundary fence.]

7. Use of Distance-Measuring Devices  [Agree, even though some contend that use of such devices could slow play, not improve it.]

8. Rules for Relief from Penalty Areas (by this, the author means make relief the same for both yellow and red penalty areas) – [Agree.  A good change to reduce confusion.]

9. Pace of Play Rule  [Strongly agree.  Applying the 40-second rule to hit a shot and imposing a penalty for longer times is a major way to reduce slow play…just enforce the existing rule.]

10. Stroke and Distance Penalty for Loss of Ball or Ball Hit Out of Bounds  [Not sure…see below.]

Rules 18.2a(1) and (2) cover balls that are lost or hit out of bounds.  Players have three minutes to search for and find wayward balls or they must be declared lost or O.B., at which point the player must take stroke-and-distance relief by adding one penalty stroke and playing their next shot from the place where the previous stroke was made.

The rules do allow a player to have declared and played a provisional ball, but the stroke-and-distance penalty still applies.  

Few people have ever liked this rule, both because it seems like an unduly harsh penalty compared to others but also because it can adversely affect pace of play.  The USGA has identified an optional local rule that allows a player to, “for two penalty strokes,” “estimate the spot where your ball is lost or went out of bounds and then find the nearest fairway edge that is not nearer the hole than the estimated spot. You can drop a ball in the fairway within two club-lengths of that fairway edge point, or anywhere between there and the estimated spot where your ball is lost or went out of bounds.”

This is a helpful local rule when and where it is applied.  But in effect, while you are only penalized one stroke for a ball hit into a penalty area, you’re penalized two shots for lost balls and shots hit O.B.  The rules should be modified to provide the option in both cases of taking a one-stroke penalty, with the next shot being played within two club-lengths of the position at which the player is most likely to have lost a ball or gone out of bounds.

There.  A few good ideas about golf rule changes.  At least, if not “good,” then at least worth considering. And, given dynamism and complexity of golf rules, there no doubt are more changes that should be considered. I’ll find some.

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.

Donald Trump considers himself to be a king.

He isn’t.

Nor is a god or a dictator, though he fancies each of those titles.

He is supposed to be what he is – president of the United States, not something grander.

According to hill.com:

“The White House sees few, if any, limits on Trump’s executive powers in his second term, but the federal court system is much less sure. 

“Trump’s mass firings and dismantling of various independent agencies has run into hurdles in the judiciary, where the courts seem unamused with the ‘King’ Trump idea that some of the president’s allies have turned into social media memes. 

“A President who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote in one ruling rebuking Trump this week, pointing to an image the White House shared on X depicting the president as royalty.”

I have written about this before as Trump is setting out to get rid of the checks and balances system that has worked for years in U.S. government.

For Trump, here is no check.  For Trump, there is no balance.   

Hill.com continues:

“After Trump’s first term, he pushed the bounds of power for former presidents, taking his case over presidential immunity to the Supreme Court amid four criminal indictments.  

“Now back in the Oval Office, Trump’s barrage of executive actions has sparked roughly 100 lawsuits, many of which challenge his expansionist view of presidential power. 

“In one of the latest challenges, Democratic state attorneys general joined the fight over the administration’s mass terminations of federal employees still in their probationary period.

“’These mass firings are illegal and likely to cripple important federal initiatives throughout the country and in Michigan, and so we’re once again taking the White House to court,’ Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. 

“Also in recent days, national Democrats, including the Democrat National Committee, commenced its first lawsuit against the new administration, accusing Trump of trying to weaponize the Federal Election Commission.  And this week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s chief financial officer challenged her termination over $80 million disbursed to New York City under a migrant housing grant.”

These cases are just the latest lawsuits challenging dimensions of the Trump administration’s promotion of giving the president total control over the executive branch.  

So, as I have posited before, both in this blog and in previous ones, Trump doesn’t recognize the checks and balance system.

He expects Congress to bow to him.

He expects the Judiciary to do the same.

He doesn’t recognize public opinion because his opinion is the only one that counts in this mind.

While it will take some time for lawsuits against Trump to work their way through the court system, I hope they eventually will stop Trump from some of his most egregious acts.

Time will tell.

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.

One of Oregon’s top golf volunteers, David Jacobsen, won a major award from the United States Golf Association (USGA).

It is the award named for Joseph Dey, the late former director of the USGA.

Here is how Global Golf Post (GGP) wrote about the award (and, beyond the first couple paragraphs, I credit GGP for much of the information below, though, for what it’s worth, I also know David based on our work, sometimes together, for the Oregon Golf Association):

“David Jacobsen was not in a good mood.  It was 6 a.m. on January 2, the morning after his Oregon Ducks had lost to the Ohio State Buckeyes in the Rose Bowl game.  He sat at his dining room table watching highlights when he got an e-mail from Mike Whan, CEO of the USGA, asking Jacobsen to call him.

“The purpose of the call:  Jacobsen had been selected as the recipient of the 2025 USGA Joe Dey Award, an award that recognizes service to the game of golf as a volunteer.”

It would be difficult to find anyone who loves golf more than the 71-year-old Jacobsen, the older brother of seven-time PGA Tour winner and longtime TV analyst Peter Jacobsen.  A Portland, Oregon, resident, Jacobsen has played competitively as a junior, amateur and senior amateur.  He has volunteered at tournaments since the 1980s.  

He seeks to make golf more enjoyable and affordable for young golfers.

Although he briefly pursued a professional career, Jacobsen has made a mark on the game at the grassroots level. News of his award elicited a proud reaction from his better-known brother.

“I was really excited for David,” Peter said.  “He’s always been someone who loves the game of golf and who loves the people in the game of golf.  He’s always given his time, blood, sweat and tears for the game of golf.  I felt it was the most appropriate award for my brother.”

David Jacobsen’s love of golf and desire to spread it to others can be traced back to his father, Erling.

“Dad instilled in us the values, tradition and etiquette of the game,” Jacobsen said.

The son of Norwegian immigrants, a college football player at Oregon and World War II naval aviator, Erling loved golf.  He started as a caddie, learning to appreciate the game and leave the course better than he found it.  Naturally, he taught his four children the same way.

Despite his dad not loving competitive golf, David Jacobsen enjoyed it.  The tournament he saw that inspired him to pursue a professional career was the same event where he was first exposed to USGA volunteer work.

While spectating at the 1970 U.S. Amateur at Waverley Country Club in Portland, a 17-year-old David watched not just the players, but the volunteers.

“Whether it was volunteers at the club or the USGA committee people I observed, I saw things come together that were just really remarkable,” he said.

David Jacobsen continues to volunteer for USGA championships, but his involvement in the game goes even deeper.  After his father died in 1992, it became David’s goal to teach young golfers the game the same way his dad taught him and his siblings.

In 1996, along with the Oregon Golf Association, the Jacobsen family established the Erling Jacobsen Tour, a program for youth golfers with an emphasis on non-competitive golf.

“Golf can be very intimidating,” David said. “Competition adds intimidation and can chase some people away. The best part about golf is being with your friends.”

In 2012, the Erling Jacobsen Tour combined with the Youth on Course program to become the Jacobsen Youth Initiative.  According to David, 70 courses in Oregon accept the Youth on Course card, which allows kids to play golf for $5.  Jacobsen says accessibility is key to fostering a love of the game.

“I believe if you provide an opportunity for a young person to play golf at a reasonable amount, they will fall in love with it,” David said.  “They’re going to learn the life skills that I was so fortunate to have been exposed to through my dad.”

Great work, David Jacobsen.  An award well-deserved.

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 would like to take credit for using the four words below to describe Donald Trump, the reality TV show host who is preening as president of the United States.

But I cannot.

Genuine credit, instead, goes to Frank Bruni, the excellent writer whose work often appears in the New York Times.

Here are the four words:

• Phony.
• Diversion.
• Camouflage.
• Hooey.

Here is how Bruni started his most recent column:

“The president’s proclaimed concern for free speech is entirely phony.

“I agree with Trump — or at least I agree with whoever wrote the perfect last sentence of the first long paragraph in an executive order that he issued on January 20, within hours of his inauguration.

“It states, succinctly and forcefully:  ‘Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.’

“But like so much of what Trump says and does, it’s a diversion.  Camouflage.  Hooey.  It presents him as a champion of open discourse when he is more its saboteur.”

It would be hard for me to hold this blog to be a short one if the purpose was to list “all the phony, diversions, camouflage, and hooey” practiced by Trump.

So, I’ll just list two.

First, when the Associated Press declined to change of name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, at Trump’s bidding, he and his staff just booted the AP out of the White House and off Air Force One.

Plus, Trump said he would decide which outlets would cover the White House inside the walls of the place, not leaders of the Press Corps itself, which had the responsibility for years.

What Trump wants, clearly, is not a free press.  He wants one that does his bidding — lock, stock and barrel.

As for the second case – a diversion – look no farther that what Trump and his sycophant J.D. Vance did to Ukraine Premier Volodymyr Zelenskyy a few days ago.

They ambushed Zelenskyy at the White House and, thereby, damaged many U.S. international relationships, not just Ukraine which is defending itself against Russian aggression.

Trump and Vance don’t care as they side with Putin.

To this, as a “wordsmith,” I add two words – preen (which I used above) and fealty (which I have used several times in previous blogs).

I like both.

Trump “preens” (Definition:  Devoting effort to making oneself look attractive and then admire one’s appearance) around as if he is what he thinks he is, which is king.

And, then, he demands “fealty” (Definition:  Formal acknowledgement of loyalty to a lord) from all those who serve him because he views himself as a lord.

Enough.  So six words to describe Trump.

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 borrowed part of the headline for this blog from one of my on-line golf magazines.

And, to state what may be obvious, the “modest proposal” deals with one of my hot-button issues these days – slow play on professional golf tours.

But, to say the proposal (reprinted below) is “modest” is not right.  It is worse.  It is just too the complex to have any chance of being implemented.

Still, it is true that, unless pro golf leaders do something about slow play, TV viewership will continue to go south.

For me, instead of the “modest proposal,” the following four steps could be taken immediately to speed up the game – plus, they are not particularly complicated:

1.  Allow range-finders:  Some could argue that using such devices actually could slow up play, but I differ.  Allow the use of range-finders to calculate yardage more quickly than the old way – pacing it off.
2. Don’t let caddies give advice on putts:  Probably too severe because caddies need to be caddies, but, now, when caddies get involved, play slows down.
3. Impose “continuous putting:”  By this, I mean that, when players first putt, they should continue to put into the hole.  And, also, don’t allow marking golf balls when they are within one-foot of the cup.  Just hit them in.
4. Place shot clocks on golf carts:   Then, have the carts travel down fairways following each group.  When a player selects a club, start the clock to measure what the official golf rules already specify – 40 seconds to hit a shot.  If players exceed the time, give them one warning and, then, if violations continue, impose penalty strokes.  Two penalty strokes and, after that, disqualification.  Pretty soon, players will get the message.

To this, some observers have added that the “aim-point” method of reading putts should be prohibited because it adds so much time on the green.

So, here is the full text of the “modest proposal” from a golf writer, just to verify that someone has thought through something complicated.

*********

Golf keeps a million measurements.  Swing speed, ball speed, shot curvature, shot trajectory, proximity to the hole, strokes gained this and strokes gained that.  One hesitates to suggest another.

But as PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan and his team prepare a strategy to address slow play — and in the wake of tougher policy at the LPGA — let’s play what if.

What if there were an actual measurement of how fast every player played?  What if, from that measurement, the PGA Tour determined an acceptable rate of play and competitors who played more slowly were penalized in strokes?

Call the new measurement SPS:  Seconds-Per-Shot.

We’re not talking here about the time it takes to execute a single swing.  SPS would include the walk to the ball, discussion with caddie, calculation of distance, club selection, rehearsal swings, and shot execution.  It would apply to all shots from tee to tap-in.  It would not be about a single shot, but of the average number of seconds consumed per shot over 18 holes.

SPS would not be a group calculation in the way that a group of two or three players can now be “put on the clock.”  It would be an individual statistic:  Shots divided by time consumed in making them.  This statistic, a rate of play, would, after a testing period, then help the tour to set a maximum allowable rate beyond which a player would be penalized — in strokes.

You’re dreaming, you say.  How could you ever measure such a thing?  Well, given the magic of the way the tour collects data these days, the answer is probably a satellite somewhere, reading chips in players clubs or badges.  But a scoring volunteer with each group, given the right computer program, could do it, as well.

Example:  Three players arrive on tee.  The fairway or green is open.  The scorer clicks his iPad on Player A who has honors, and when Player A has hit, clicks off.  Then on to Player B.  And so on.  Players’ walks to the first shot in the fairway or to the green would be shared.  If the walk consumed one minute, say, each of three players gets 20 seconds.  After each hole, play time is sent to scoring center along with the player’s score.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that, after measuring players during a test period of a couple of months, it’s determined that the median SPS is 60, with about half of players slower, about half faster.  The tour decides that this median, 60 SPS, will become slowest allowable rate.  That is, a player may not consume more than 60 seconds per shot on average over 18 holes.  Tap-ins, of course, would depress the rate, difficult recovery shots expand it.

At this hypothetical rate of 60 SPS, if three players in a group shot 70, they would consume 210 minutes or 3½ hours to complete their shots.  Add another hour of moving from hole to hole, delays for rulings, etc., and you have a reasonable pace of play.

Now add to our “what if” that penalties for violation of the standard rate are automatic.  If a player consumed on average 25 per cent more time — in our hypothetical, 75 seconds per shot — he or she would be penalized one shot; 50 per cent more time, two shots.  (Allowable SPS would be modified for course difficulty or weather conditions, as is done these days with handicaps).

The beauty of this imagined system is that it disciplines individual players, not groups, and applies to a rate over 18 holes, not a given shot or two.  And it is automatic.  No officials’ judgement.  Penalties — in the form of strokes — become part of the game, not some secret discipline of fines assessed behind closed doors.  Fans are in on things.

I love Lucas Glover’s suggestions for speeding up play and am especially fond of his plea for fewer carts gumming up the flow of things (because they also ruin the beauty of a broadcast).  Ultimately, though, with tons of money and a million measurements to consider, some players will turn a set-look-fire game into a series of unending meetings, pacings, and rehearsals.  And fans will be left to watch grass grow.  If there are fines, we may never know.

Under our “what if” scenario, a player would be warned early in the round if he was moving at a penalty-incurring pace.  He could adjust, cut back on the AimPoint, maybe, and get back on pace.  Maybe there’s an indicator on the scoreboard noting that a player is in jeopardy of incurring a penalty.  

When Jonathan Swift wrote his 1729 essay “A Modest Proposal,” he suggested that the starving Irish could solve their hunger problem by selling their children as food to the upper classes.  It was satire.

This isn’t meant to be. Some may suggest it’s just as preposterous, but we’d argue that until golf gets a measurement like this, it will be very difficult to speed things up for good.