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 I write this, it is the morning of July 4^th and we should be celebrating America.

Instead, at least if we allow ourselves to follow today’s news, we are dealing with two realities – Joe Biden is too old to serve as president and Donald Trump is too insane and addled to take the nation’s top political job.

It appears that we may stuck with too bad options, though, as I have said before, if that remains as the choice, I’ll go with Biden.  Better to have an old person than a felon (Trump).

One of Trump’s main messages grates on me every time I hear it:  Immigration is bad for the country.

It’s  just not true.  But, that can be said about almost anything Trump says – truth is not an arbiter.

I have written about this before, suggesting that, in a way, all of us are immigrants.  Either our forebears came from another country to America, or we did.

Trump, too.

Then, yesterday, I read a story in the Wall Street Journal touting immigration as being one of the factors behind a strong U.S. economy.

Here are excerpts:

“The most economically important part of the presidential debate was a leitmotif — and at times, a heavy motif — throughout the evening:  immigration.

“While Donald Trump made many false remarks throughout the debate, he spoke a grain of truth when he said of his opponent that ‘the only jobs he created are for illegal immigrants and bounce-back jobs that bounced back from the Covid.’ 

“The employment level for native-born workers is indeed below its pre-pandemic level, while foreign-born workers have accounted for all employment gains.  But contrary to Trump’s contention, that’s a strong argument for, rather than against, immigration.

“The U.S. population is aging, and millions of baby boomers retire each year.  We can expect that absent immigration, we would have a decreasing working-age population and shrinking employment for decades to come — especially considering the low fertility rate.  This is already happening in Japan and will soon happen in many European countries.

“Meantime, millions of jobs have been added for foreign-born workers since 2019.  The majority of these immigrants were in the U.S. prior to Covid, but another roughly 10 million have arrived since then, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“These newly arrived immigrants are the main reason the U.S. economy has defied pessimistic forecasts, with 200,000 jobs added a month, real growth in gross domestic product at 3 per cent in the past year, and an inflation rate that has fallen dramatically in the past few years.  The biggest factor behind this strong economic performance is immigration.”

For me, this reality is not the major reason to support immigration, though it is important to understand this reality.

Two other factors for me:

• First, we should recognize simply this – immigrants are people and, as people, they don’t deserve to be pilloried.
• Second, those who lead our government in Washington, D.C., both in the Executive and Legislative Branches, should get their act together by agreeing on an approach to stem the tide of illegal immigration.  Tough.  Worth doing.

So, on this 4^th of July, let’s rally around America, celebrate good things happening all around us – not just negative stuff which garners more media headlines.  And recognize immigrants as “real people.”

Happy 4^th!

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.

If you want to understand the “pace of play” problem in golf, just look at the professional golf tours.

It takes players hours to complete an 18-hole round which should take about four hours.  On the professional tours?  More like six hours.

Apple News showed up this week with a major story on the subject, calling it “a major problem.”

I agree.

When pro golfers go slow, often agonizingly slow, it’s tough to watch – and I say that as a dedicated fan of the game I love.

For example:

• As good as he is, it’s hard to watch Patrick Cantlay get ready to play or take a stroke, especially a putt.

• Keagan Bradley dances around over a shot far too long.

• J. B. Holmes plays agonizingly slow, so much so that other players don’t even want to be paired with him.

The official golf rule book deals with the subject.  Here’s how:

“Other than on the putting green, the timing of a player’s stroke will begin when it is his or her turn to play and he or she can play without interference or distraction.  Time spent determining yardage and other conditions (such as wind) will count as time taken for the next stroke.

“On the putting green, the actions allowed under Rule 13.1 are not included in the timing of a player’s stroke, provided the player is not unreasonably delaying play.  However, time spent surveying the line of play from any angle will count as time taken for the stroke.

“A player is permitted a maximum of 40 seconds to play a stroke.  (Note:  This 40-second time limit includes the first player to play from the teeing ground, fairway, or near or on the putting green.)

“A player is considered to have made a bad time only when the player exceeds 40 seconds, plus an additional 10 per cent timing margin.”

There. 

Just consider this rule as you watch pro golf next time.  Hardly anyone – other than perhaps Scott Scheffler – lives within the 40-50 second time limit. 

And, guess what?  There have been no penalties for slow play.  Zero!

After all this, I have an easy solution.

Do what the European Tour did a few years ago:  As it did, call it a “Pace of Play Tournament.”

Position a golf cart on every hole following every group of players.  Have a shot clock positioned on the cart.  Time every player when they get to their golf ball and are ready to play – or at least they should be.

If the pace exceeds the allowable – 40 seconds, with a 10 second “timing margin” – issue a warning.  For the second violation, impose a one-stroke penalty.  A third violation earns disqualification.

If pro basketball and football can impose shot clocks, with all of their temperamental stars, golf could do the same.

If done, this would be tough for many tour players.  But, I say, so what.  Overall, faster play has every chance to result in better play.

Down in the California desert where I play in the winter at The Palms Golf Course, the time allowed for an 18-hole round is 3 hours and 40 minutes.  Of course, to state the obvious, those of us who play there are not pro golfers, with so much money on the line, but as a relatively competent amateurs, my friends and I have been proving that faster play works – and is good for the game. .

My fond hope is that those who lead pro golf will get play to move along faster.

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 U.S. Supreme Court made headlines yesterday when it ruled on a key issue facing all Americans – presidential immunity.

What to make of the ruling?

Well, there are at least two views and, of course, many others between those two.

• The decision allows a president – one like Donald Trump – to do anything he wants as “king.”
• The decision enables a president to act as he or she should be able to act without fear of every presidential decision to be questioned legally.

Which?

So, to get more information the two views, I went again to two editorials – one from the Wall Street Journal and one from the Washington Post.  As always, these two views help me understand what may be at stake in this momentous decision – one from the near right, the Wall Street Journal, and one from the near the left, the Washington Posst.

Before the detail, the ruling was written by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who said:  “A president inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office.”

On another hand, Justice Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes:  “The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably.  In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law,” even she added, in what I hope is an overstatement, a president could assassinate one of his rivals.

Enough from me.  Here are excerpts of the two editorials.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  The headline — The Supreme Court Protects the Presidency in Trump v. U.S.

A 6-3 majority rules that presidents have ‘presumptive immunity’ from criminal prosecution for their official acts.

Partisans on the left and right are reacting to Monday’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity based on how it affects the fate of  Donald Trump. That’s a blinkered view that ignores the long-run implications for the American republic.  The 6-3 Court majority rightly focuses on the institution of the Presidency, and the ability of all Presidents—not merely the last one—to act in the national interest free from prosecution for official acts.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:  The headline — The Trump immunity decision isn’t the end of democracy — but it is bad.

The Supreme Court’s opinion is much bigger than Trump.

The Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more, Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared in her dissent from Monday’s Trump v. United States ruling.  The decision virtually guarantees that special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case against the former president won’t move to trial before the election. Yet the implications are much bigger than Trump. More important — and more alarming — are the potential long-term consequences that could persist well after Trump is gone.

All six of the court’s conservatives ruled on Monday that the president is entitled to absolute immunity for official acts involving his core responsibilities — pardons, say, or recognizing foreign nations or removing appointed officers.  Moreover, he’s entitled to what’s known as presumptive immunity for official acts that aren’t related to those core responsibilities.

This presumption can be overcome only if a prosecutor can show that holding him accountable won’t intrude on the executive branch’s ability to function — as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put it, writing for the court, that it wouldn’t prevent the president from taking the “bold and unhesitating action” essential to his job.  Liability isn’t spared for unofficial, or private, conduct. But that’s not terribly comforting.  

While the commander in chief embezzling money or even falsifying business records to cover up an affair is unseemly, these are hardly threats to democracy.

As a non-lawyer, I read the decision and believe that Donald Trump wins. ..again.  He can tell his vice president, Mike Pence, to break the law and he, Trump, is free from any penalty.

He can do almost whatever he wants – perish the thought – while his lawyers stand by to contend he is within his right, and as Justice Sotomayor put it, “he king above all laws.”

If it weren’t for Trump, it would be easier for me to understand the Court’s ruling.  With Trump, it simply makes legal all this illegal behavior.

I’ll give the last word to Kate Shaw writing this morning in the New York Times:

“The Supreme Court’s radical decision handing the president broad immunity from criminal prosecution on Monday will rightly be understood as enormously increasing the power and enormously reducing the accountability of the president.”

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 tells a whopper!

That’s all that can be said after listening to Trump talk about sharks and electrocution.  Yes, you have that right. 

Sharks and electrocution!  Two issues that don’t go together, except in the addled mind of Trump.

I report all this after the first presidential debate where two things happened – President Joe Biden illustrated his age and Trump continued telling whoppers.

Fortunately, I didn’t watch the “debate.”  A friend yesterday asked me why, figuring that I, a political junkie, would have watched.  I said “no,’ I didn’t watch because I knew it would not be a real debate – just an occasion for both candidates to illustrate their weaknesses.

Better, I thought, to read reputable commentators the day after to get a full picture.

Back to one of Trump’s biggest whoppers, which I report, not because it offsets Biden’s incredibly bad performance in the debate, but because it illustrates the strange way Trump thinks.

Trump, who wouldn’t know the truth if you hit him in the head with it, has outdone himself this time.

Read the way Jeff Goldberg, editor of Atlantic Magazine, tells it in a recent column.

“Trump is upset with me, and with The Atlantic, for a story I wrote in September of 2020, in which I reported, among other things, that he referred to American soldiers killed in action as ‘suckers’ and ‘losers.’

“Trump is also upset by a profile I wrote late last year of retired General Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in which Milley, a decorated combat veteran, is portrayed as someone who defended the Constitution against Trump’s depredations. In response to this article, Trump suggested that Milley be executed.”

Goldberg went on, reporting that he had watched Trump at his LV rally where, he said, the gibberish overran normal sentences.

“Which is to say, there was even more gibberish than I remembered in the typical Trump speech.  The apotheosis of gibberish was his extended soliloquy on sharks and battery-powered boats.  No summary could do it justice, so here is an extended cut:

“’By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately. Do you notice that?  A lot of sharks.  I watched some guys justifying it today.  Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry, but they misunderstood who she was.’ These people are crazy. ‘

“He said, ‘There’s no problem with sharks.  They just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming,’ now, who really got decimated and other people too, a lot of shark attacks.  So I said, ‘So there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here.  

“’Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking, and water goes over the battery—the boat is sinking; do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?’ Because I will tell you he didn’t know the answer.

“Trump said, ‘Nobody’s ever asked me that question.’  I said, ‘I think it’s a good question.  I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water.’  But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted, I’ll take electrocution every single time.  I’m not getting near the shark.  So we going to end that. We’re going to end it for boats. We’re going to end it for trucks.’”

Can you believe it? 

Trump actually said the stuff about sharks and electrocution. 

Trump tells more whopper than anyone, me included, can count.  What’s above represents another one – and this guy wants to be president.

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 turns out that, given what happened, I had the good sense not to watch last night’s so-called presidential debate.

A quick summary:

• Donald Trump continues to lie all the time – it’s second nature for him.  And he continues to get away with it.

• Joe Biden is too old to be president – and his approach last night showed that in spades.

Glad I missed it.

So, without further comment from me, I simply post an entire column written by Nicholas Kristof, a New York Times writer who has links – including property he owns – to Oregon.  His words are enough for me.

President Biden, I’ve Seen Enough

June 27, 2024

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

By Nicholas Kristof

President Biden is a good man who capped a long career in public service with a successful presidential term. But I hope he reviews his debate performance Thursday evening and withdraws from the race, throwing the choice of a Democratic nominee to the convention in August.

One of the perils facing this country, I believe and Biden believes, is the risk of a victory by Donald Trump. And after the debate, it’s hard to avoid the feeling that Biden remaining in the race increases the likelihood that Trump will move into the White House in January.

Biden has never been a great debater, but his voice and manner didn’t put to rest the doubts about his age and effectiveness. Rather, he amplified them. I happened to chat today with a woman who is undecided about whom to vote for — she says she distrusts both Trump and Biden but will choose based on who will do better for the economy — and I bet that now she will be supporting Trump.

In some sense, this may be unfair. This was one debate. A candidate’s physical frailty, hoarse voice and rambling responses may not be good predictors of how that person will govern. But in this election, they probably are good predictors that the candidate will lose in November and not have a chance to govern again.

We see the world through narratives, and one of the narratives about Biden is that he is too old. His performance reinforced that narrative when he needed to shatter it. Biden, unable to puncture Trump’s repeated falsehoods, allowed a convicted felon to win the debate.

Biden can resolve this by withdrawing from the race. There isn’t time to hold new primaries, but he could throw the choice of a successor to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The Democratic Party has some prominent figures who I think would be in a good position to defeat Trump in November, among them Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce. And there are many others.

My phone has been blowing up with texts from people saying, as one put it: “Dear God. What are we going to do?” Another, also a fan of Biden, texted: “It’s imperative we change horses.” But Democrats have been reluctant to say this out loud and undermine Biden. So it will be up to Joe and Jill Biden to make this choice themselves.

This will be a wrenching choice. But, Mr. President, one way you can serve your country in 2024 is by announcing your retirement and calling on delegates to replace you, for that is the safest course for our nation.

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.

A friend of mine sent me a story from Apple News the other day outlining “egregious golf etiquette violations,” thus the headline on this blog.

First, don’t you like the word “egregious.”  It sort of speaks for itself without definition – and, as a person who likes words over numbers, charts and graphs, this is another good one.  Egregious smacks of what it is, which is something very negative.

I list the violations below, but the list misses one, the most important one for me.  This:  When playing with others on the course, even friends, what bugs me most is when omeone plays out of turn, without asking for permission to do so.

What happens can be that, when I am swinging at my golf ball, I hear a crack from the other player – a crack that often distracts me from a good swing.  And, it is my turn to play, not the person who hit out-of-turn.

Of course, other stuff districts me, too, but this is a distraction that can be avoided.

According to golf etiquette, the approach is this:  If your ball is closer to the hole than a competitor’s ball, ask permission to hit first.  In the games I play with friends, the answer, if the question was directed to me would almost always be yes.  Almost.  Not every time.

The violation of etiquette occurs all the time for me where I play with friends in the winter in the California desert.  One player, still a friend, almost always violates this rule of golf etiquette – and he usually doesn’t know that he is doing so because, well, he may now know the etiquette, or he flaunts it.

Here in Salem, Oregon, where I live for seven months of the year – my home – it happens once in awhile.

Should I get over this?  Yes.

My good wife always provides this advice:  Go out a have fun on the golf course no matter how you score.

She could add, go out and have fun and don’t let violations of golf etiquette bother you.

Here, from Apple, are the other violations that came up in its survey:

1. Poor course maintenance

2. Reckless driving

3. Fisticuffs

4. Music on the course

5. Dress-code violations

6. Taking, um, relief

7. Cheating

8. Public endangerment

9. Drunk and disorderly

10. Slow play

11. Excessive phone use

12. Gum chewing

13. Temper tantrums

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 suspect not many people would care about this subject.

But for those of us who play a lot of golf, it’s critical.

Where the pin is placed on a golf hole either makes the hole fair or unfair.

The trouble is this:  There are no hard and fast rules for pin placement and, so, that makes the subject open to interpretation.

Hard to imagine that, with all of golf’s often arcane rules, there is not one for pin placement.

All of this has come up for me recently where I play most of my golf, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon.

Why?

We have a new member of our maintenance crew setting the pins and he has not a good job all the time.  Sometimes the pins are on ledges that make it impossible for even a good putt to remain near the hole.

So, as a good researcher, I went on-line to ferret out the specific golf rules – or, in this case, advice on setting pins.  Here is a summary of what I found:

“The consensus is that you want to cut the hole on an area of the green where it’s relatively level, with three feet of flat ground around the pin.  If you drop a ball from waist-height near the hole, it shouldn’t roll away.

“In general, pins should be placed as the USGA recommends — at a relatively level area a minimum of 12 feet from the fringe of the green and in accordance with the conditions of the day, but not in an unfair position that makes it impossible to receive a well-executed shot.  Fairness and variety are the best guides to proper pin placement.

“Official Golf Rule 15.3 deals with this – and it says, ‘the most important factor when deciding where to place a hole is good judgment in deciding what will give fair results.’”

There you have it. 

Subjective?  Yes.  Good advice?  Yes.

Setting pins is an inexact, but important, process.  I remember a case a number of years ago when I was watching my son play in a college golf tournament at tournament.  At one of the par 5 holes, the Stanford coach was out at the site apologizing to players as they came through.  Many of them were four and five-putting, given the bad pin.

Of course, in that situation, there was no way to make a change mid-tournament.  So, the apology was the best option.

So, here at Illahe, I intend to make sure the person setting pins on “my” golf course carries the advice above with him around the course.

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 like words. 

Better than numbers or charts.

That’s been who I am for years.

So it was that I noticed two national newspaper stories recently that focused on words – or, more accurately, in the second of the two, on punctuation marks that help to understand the meaning of sentences.

To provide excerpts of these two stories, I now open one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I – and I alone – see fit, the Department of Words Matter.

The others, by the way, 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.

Now, for the words.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “If you’re a college graduate looking for a job, here’s some advice:  Beware the “like-o-meter.

“It’s a simple device I (the author) invented.  Before interviews with a prospective hire, I put a blank sheet of paper in front of me.  I then make a hash mark every time the applicant uses the word ‘like.’  Too many and I’m already thinking about the next candidate.

“If the interviewee keeps his or her ‘likes’ to an acceptable number, he or she remains in the pool.  When two finalists emerge, the person with the fewest ‘likes’ gets the edge in a tiebreaker.

“I’ve been doing this for several years and have hired some terrific employees because of it.  I got the idea in the early 1990s from an article in an airplane magazine about McKinsey & Co.’s interviewing process.  

“Apparently, the consultancy at one time based its hiring on candidates’ oral presentation skills, the determining factor in a pool filled with impressive academic credentials.  According to the article, the process had great results in the U.S., but didn’t differentiate between candidates as well in England, where schools give priority to oral presentation skills.”

COMMENT:  Like, I like this.  Using the word “like” in sentences which don’t need the word cheapens language.  It’s a lot like – pardon the use of that word this time – the use of “um” and “a” and “you know” when talking.

All of them are crutches not needed in solid speech.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:  “Donald Trump’s hush money trial unfolded mostly according to dismal plan.  It was a smutty, theatrical mashup of ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and ‘Liar Liar’ that the entire country saw in out-of-town tryouts for eight years before it lumbered into 100 Center Street for its New York debut.

“But the trial testimony offered one bombshell:  Donald Trump likes the Oxford comma.

“So testified his former personal assistant and ex-director of Oval Office operations, Madeleine Westerhout, who detailed the elaborate fine-tuning that goes into the former president’s social media pronouncements before they’re unveiled to the nation.

“This includes his preference for the Oxford comma, the controversial punctuation also known as the serial comma, used before the ‘and’ in a list of three or more items.”

COMMENT:  First, I cannot believe that anyone reviews what Trump says or writes before he does either.  He is so full of himself that it would be impossible to function as his editor. 

Look only at his many misspellings and punctuation errors to realize that he is not as smart as he believes he is.

But, I never thought I would agree with anything the serial narcissist, Trump, would say or do.  But, I use the Oxford comma, too.  And that is the only that I am like Trump…fortunately!

But in this case, Trump – or at least those who say they “edit” Trump’s posts — are right.  The Oxford comma adds to understanding a sentence.

On the other hand, adding only a piece of punctuation could never add to understanding Trump as he seems to aggrandize himself over everyone else – yes, everyone else.

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 appreciated a recent column in the New York Times written by James A. Baker, III, one of America’s great federal government operatives.

Appearing under a headline I borrowed for this blog, Baker wrote this:

“At a time of political dysfunction, the 100th anniversary of President George H.W. Bush’s birth provides an opportunity to examine his leadership traits, which could help America regain its national footing.  Those qualities — which made him the best one-term president in U.S. history and one of the best ever “— include what is listed below.

Baker, a student of American government who served as Secretary of State, from 1989-92, listed traits of the elder Bush that, if followed in this country, would preserve democracy, which is under attack by Donald Trump and his minions who favor autocracy.

A few days after Baker’s column, several individuals wrote letters to the editor to criticize some of Bush’s decisions as president.  Which is understandable because no is perfect and Bush surely wasn’t as Baker would readily admit.

Still, I wish the Bush traits Baker cites would be true today.  Here they are:

• Selflessness.  Born into a family with a tradition of public service, Bush put his nation above himself.

• Trustworthiness.  What started as a wary relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last leader, developed into a strong, personal bond that Gorbachev credited with improving relations between the countries.  

• Pragmatism.  Bush recognized that savvy responses were often more effective than bold ones.  

• Respect for experience.  Bush often advised aspiring young politicians to avoid being like a Dalmatian in a fire house, running every time the bell rings.  Instead, he told them to get a job, start a family, and do other things that would allow them to build a full life.  

• Leadership by example.  Always a workhorse rather than a show horse, Bush let his actions speak for him.  

• Bi-partisanship.  He didn’t mind butting heads with Democrats, or with fellow Republicans for that matter.  But he refused to demonize opponents.

More from Baker:

“The political climate was far more temperate when Bush was in the White House than it is today.  Debates could be rancorous, but they reached nothing like today’s feverish and destructive pitch.  As I watch the calamity that American politics has become, I yearn for the brand of wise, courageous and humble leadership that George H.W. Bush embodied.  His virtues remind us of what we have lost — and can regain if we follow his example.”

I share Baker’s aspirations for a better America.

So, with all this, is Baker biased?  Sure.  He was Bush’s closest friend and served him in many government posts, thus earning a book about his service entitled “The Man Who Ran Washington.”

His prescription for good government, based on the example of the elder Bush –- humility, leadership by example (not just words), and working together for the good of the country no matter who gets the credit — is worth following.

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 a former journalist – yes, a long time ago – a column in the Wall Street Journal resonated with me the other day.

It raised a question about what could be called “journalism ethics.”

• What legitimately can reporters do “to get the story?”
• If the story is important enough, do “the ends justify the means?”

This came up the other day when a reporter who acted out the job by billing herself as something she wasn’t – a genuine journalist – taped two Supreme Court Justices without their knowledge at a social event.

The justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and Alito’s wife – came across differently.  No surprise there.

Then, many news outlets treated the issue produced by the fake journalist as a real story.  They covered it as if was “real news.”

So, on the Public Broadcasting Service “NewsHour,” reporter Geoff Bennett was joined by columnists David Brooks and E.J. Dionne to discuss the issue.

Here, reported by the Wall Street Journal, is a summary of how the discussion went:

“Bennett: Speaking of Justice Alito, . . . he was in the news again this week after a liberal activist secretly recorded him.  David, what do you make of this?

“Brooks:  Yes, well, listen, I’m a journalist.  We’re journalists.  There are certain things we do.  When we interview somebody, we make it clear that I work for the New York Times, the “NewsHour,” the Washington Post.

“We make it clear who we are.  We don’t lie.  We don’t misrepresent ourselves.  We don’t hide a tape recorder somewhere, and we don’t lead people on with a bunch of ideological rants.  

“And this person did all that.  It’s a complete breach of any form of journalistic ethics.  And I was, frankly, stunned that all of us in our business just reported on it, just like straight up. And to me, this information is so doctored by her attitudes, the way she’s leading on Alito and his wife.

“It’s just — it’s unfair to them, frankly, to treat this as some major news story.  We should be treating it as a prankster.  And there’s a right-wing version of this called Project Veritas, where they lie too — as some prankster who’s creating distorted information.”

“Dionne:  Well, you know, am I a big fan of surreptitious reporting?  No, I’m not a big fan of somebody pretending to be someone other than who they are.  

“But, gosh, I reserve far more outrage over the setting of this.  What was it about?  This is where people can give big contributions to this perfectly fine historical society around the Supreme Court.  But they get privileged access to these justices.  And we don’t know anything about what happens, or very much, unless reporters go at it, which I think is what motivated this reporter to try to get some information.”

There you have it.

Two sides.

For my part, I join David Brooks.  He has it right.  The so-called journalist was a prankster.  Treat her as such and ignore what she produced.

Alito and his wife were caught saying dumb stuff and they failed to recognize the dilemma they faced. 

Chief Justice Roberts managed to avoid making negative headlines.

But, for me, as for Brooks, the best ethical approach for journalists is for them to work very hard to get a story, but do so in a straightforward, honest fashion. 

Too bad that didn’t happen this time.