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.

An article in the Wall Street Journal the other day caught my attention.

It appeared under this headline:  “’The Best Advice a Boss Ever Gave Me:’  We asked five luminaries for the most indelible counsel that has stuck with them over the years — and you might need to hear it, too.”

Good stuff, but not just that.  The story by Journal editors reminded me of occasions in the past when a boss for whom I worked gave me solid advice…advice that stood me in great stead in succeeding years.

The advice — actually two pieces of advice:

• One of the easiest things to do, my boss said, is to be cynical about legislative processes in Oregon.  Don’t be.
• Another easy thing to do, he said at a different time, is to be careful to thank those who have helped you along the way.  Do it.

Both pieces of advice came from the director of Oregon Executive Department, Fred Miller, when I served with as one of his three deputies.  His first piece of advice was on target because one of my tasks was to direct the department’s relationship the Legislature.

I also kept the advice top of mind when I transitioned to a role as a private sector lobbyist.

Watching the Legislature up close and personal could have given way to cynicism.  But that would have not been helpful, so using the advice of my one-time boss, I tried to keep an even keel.

The second piece of advice came from Fred because he was good at thanking people for good work they had done with and for him.  Easy, in the crush of business, to forget that simple task.

So, to mimic his approach, I have tried, at least once every day, to thank someone for the good things they have done for me.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal article started:

“Truly good advice from your boss — the kind that turns a manager into a mentor — is rare enough that when it comes, it stays with you (sometimes as a post-it note permanently attached to your monitor). 

“As part of a special deep dive into ways to improve one’s work life, we turned to luminaries in the fields of design, fashion, food, technology and travel and asked them for the best counsel a supervisor ever gave them. The wisdom that stood out amid all the platitudes and buzzwords.

So, I add all the advice the Journal imparted:

José Andrés:  As a teenager, I worked for the legendary Ferran Adrià at El Bulli — one of the most creative people ever.  One day I was frying artichokes and he had an idea to add gelatin to the hot oil.  We thought he was crazy!  And he was:  It exploded everywhere.  But from that idea, he created some incredible dishes.  He wasn’t afraid to fail, which inspired me to always take risks.”

Bear Grylls:  “When I first joined the military, a sergeant major told me:  ‘If you’re less than five minutes early, you’re late.’  I’ve never forgotten those words and have always tried to make it a mantra when filming or working. I really notice it too in others, on expeditions for example.  It speaks to diligence and dedication.”

[I add that another piece of advice – no, it was action — from my mentor listed above, Fred Miller was that he always started meetings on time.  If someone was late, it was his or her problem.]

Joa Studholme:  “When I was developing the color-consultancy service for Farrow & Ball in 1994, Tom Helme, who owned Farrow & Ball, asked what I was trying to do.  And he said, ‘Right. What you need to do is pluck the color that the customer wants out of their heads and onto the wall.’  It means you have to put the customer first, and that’s sort of become the backbone of how I work.  It’s not about me.”

Victor Glemaud:  “The best advice came from Patrick Robinson, the creative director of his namesake brand and my first-ever boss.  ‘When you know yourself, everyone will see you,’ he told me around 2000.  

Adam Savage:  “Back when I was a young model maker, my boss and I were bidding on a prop build for an indecisive client.  After six rounds of communication, we still didn’t know enough to make our bid.  My boss told me to tell the client we got another gig and couldn’t take the job. ‘When the client is difficult before you’ve even agreed to work with them, they’re going to be a nightmare,’ he said.  I’ve found that holds true.” [And this closing note:  I had the same experience in my lobbying business.  When a potential client was tough to work with during an interview process, go the other way.  The best example was when a potential client said he wanted us “to open our rolodex” to help him succeed.  Stupid request.  We always did more than that.  So we headed out the door without

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.

Are there any more complicated rules in sport than those that apply to golf?

The answer is “no.”

One justification is that the rules apply to a host of outside venues where the game is played, not just to an arena or a stadium.

Still, those who write golf rules ought to strive for more for clarity and precision of language.  I say this after having gone through several seminars on the rules of golf.

In addition to better writing, I offer another important change:  Focus on the 20 golf rules that a rules official – or a player, for that matter – is most likely to face on the course. 

Instead, the most likely rules are buried in an avalanche of information on ALL golf rules, thus making going through a rules class an endurance test.  The test you take after a seminar is even more complicated, with many questions designed to be confusing rather than designed to gauge your basic knowledge.

In this context, a recent edition of Golf Digest focused on 10 of the most misunderstood rules of golf.  Here is a quick summary, first with an introductory paragraph:

“Much was made in 2019 of the USGA and R&A introducing a ‘modernized’ version of the Rules of Golf.  And kicking off 2023, they did more of the same with some additional rules updates.  It was an acknowledgement from golf’s governing bodies that earlier editions of the Rules often required more than merely common sense for those who were striving to be faithful followers. Try an upper-level college degree in linguistics.”

• • •

Your ball doesn’t have to be touching an immovable obstruction to get relief
(Rule 16.1)

Where and how to take proper relief anywhere on the course can be confusing, but one area in particular rule that trips up causal players is immovable obstructions.  We’re talking about sprinkler heads, drains, cart paths or any other man-made object that cannot be moved without “unreasonable effort” or causing damage to the course.

Part of the reason for this is that golfers have a misperception that a ball must be touching the obstruction to receive relief.  In fact, you can take relief if the obstruction merely interferes with the area of your swing or your stance.

One more thing:  You can take relief from immovable obstructions anywhere on the course except if your ball is in a penalty area or when your ball is in a lie that is clearly unreasonable to be played (such as if it’s nestled in a bush).

• • •

You can touch the sand in a bunker … sometimes
(Rule 12.2)

When the USGA and R&A approved the 2019 modernized rules, they made several fundamental changes that helped everyday golfers.  Arguably the biggest was regarding bunkers, where the rules were relaxed so players weren’t wasting time nervously tiptoeing in the sand trying to avoid anything that might constitute a penalty.  Golfers can now touch the sand in a variety of instances without worry, so long as they’re not purposely attempting to test the sand while they’re doing it.

Among the things now permitted:

• Placing a club or other equipment in the sand (if you’re between clubs and you drop one you’re not using, it’s fine if it’s in the bunker).
• Hitting the sand in anger or frustration (it’s not a great look, but doesn’t come with a penalty).
• Leaning on a club in a bunker (as when you might be waiting for another player to hit a shot).
• Digging your feet into the sand when preparing to hit a shot.
• Removing loose impediments like pebbles, leaves and pinecones (provided you don’t cause the ball to move in doing so).

Conversely, here’s what you still are not allowed to do:

• Grounding your club at address in the sand prior to the stroke.
• Touching the sand during a practice swing or with your backswing.
• Deliberately touching the sand to test its condition or learn information to help you in making your next stroke.

[A personal perception here is that allowing “hitting the sand in frustration or anger” is stupid.  That deserves a penalty.]

• • •

You can ground your club in a penalty area
(Rule 17.1)

Similar to bunkers, the USGA and R&A made substantial changes to what golfers can do in penalty areas in 2019.  The biggest?  There are no longer special rules that apply to you when playing from a penalty area.  So now you’re allowed to ground your club and take practice swings like you would elsewhere on the course.  You can also remove loose impediments so long as you don’t move your ball, improve your lie, or improve the conditions affecting your stroke.

• • •

You can accidentally hit your ball on the green with no penalty …
(Rule 9.4)

The green is yet another place where the rules have gotten friendlier.  Say you accidentally cause your ball to move on the putting green, even with a practice swing.  You can replace the ball with no penalty.  Same if you cause your ball marker to move.

There’s also no penalty if your ball moves because of natural forces (such as wind or water).  However, where you play your ball from after it moves varies.  If you had already marked your ball on the green, replaced it, and now a gust of wind comes up, you should return the ball to where it was when you marked it.  You “own” that spot.

• • •

… And on the tee box
(Rule 6.2)

Zach Johnson has won two major championships, but he’s also known for an infamous tee shot at the 2019 Masters.  He took a practice swing, hit the ball, and, while it went off the tee, it never left the tee box.  He was allowed to re-tee without penalty.

Unless a player was intending strike the ball, it’s not considered a stroke if he or she caused their ball to be knocked off the tee.  There is no penalty, plus under Rule 6.2b(5), the player can retee the ball and go on … embarrassed but still lying 0.

• • •

You can’t always hit a provisional ball
(Rule 18.3)

Hitting a provisional ball is allowed under the rules in the interest of saving time when you believe your original ball might be out-of-bounds or lost OUTSIDE a penalty area.  You must, however, announce that you’re playing a provisional ball, or the next shot you hit will be considered in play as if you took a stroke-and-distance penalty.

There is, however, a time when you’re not allowed to hit a provisional ball: When you believe a ball is lost INSIDE a penalty area.  

One more thing about hitting a provisional:  If you hit one off the tee and it lands in the middle of the fairway and you’re pretty sure your original ball will be in a precarious spot if it’s somehow found, you can elect not to search for the original ball.  Though you cannot declare your ball lost, if you play your provisional ball from a place nearer the hole than the estimated spot of your original ball, your provisional becomes your ball in play.  This is important to note because, if the original ball is found before you’ve played the provisional, either by you or somebody else, and is in bounds, you must now play that original.  And if the lie is unplayable, you can’t just use your provisional ball.  You must take relief for an unplayable lie, which might mean you still have to go back to the tee and hit another shot.

• • •

Your ball is not considered embedded if somebody stepped on it
(Rule 16.3)

How to determine if you have an embedded ball and what relief you’re entitled to became a hot-button issue a couple years ago when golf pro Patrick Reed encountered the situation during the third round of the 2021 Farmers Insurance Open at Torrey Pines.  While many who followed his actions at home questioned Reed’s tactics, by the letter of the rule book, he proceeded correctly.

Under Rule 16.4, a player can mark and lift a ball to see if it lies in a condition where relief is allowed.  If you proceed under this rule and it’s determined that the ball isn’t embedded, you replace the ball on its original spot and play from there.

• • •

You’re only out-of-bounds (OB) if your entire ball is OB
(Rule 18.2)

While tricky at times because OB boundaries aren’t always continuous on golf courses, the standard for determining if a ball is out of bounds is straight forward:  The entire ball needs to be out of bounds for the ball to be considered OB.  So, if there’s a painted line and half the ball is on the painted line and half is on the course, the ball is in play.  If there are stakes where you might use string from stake-to-stake but you don’t have string and you’re eyeballing it, if a part of the ball is on the course, you’re in play. If the entire ball is touching the painted line, none touching the course, then it’s OB.

One other note: If your ball is in bounds, you are allowed to stand out-of-bounds to play the shot.

• • •

You must correct hitting a wrong ball, even though it will cost you
(Rule 6.3c)

You hit your drive into the rough off the tee, walk to where you think your ball is and hit your second shot short of the green.  You chip your ball up on the green with your third but, when you mark, it you realize it’s not your ball.  Now what?

In match play, the hole is over because the penalty for playing a wrong ball is loss of hole.  In stroke play, the proper way to proceed is to correct your mistake.  That means you need to go back and play your original ball. If you find the ball, add two strokes as the penalty for playing the wrong ball, but don’t count any of the strokes you hit with the wrong ball.  You’re hitting 4 and you play on.

• • •

Red penalty areas give you three relief options, yellow gives you two
(Rule 17.1)

There is one notable difference between the options a player has when taking relief after hitting a ball into a red penalty area versus yellow.  Red stakes allow players to also take lateral relief (up to two club-lengths no nearer the hole) from where the ball entered the penalty area in addition to returning to the spot from the previous shot and back-on-the-line relief where you can drop anywhere on an imaginary line drawn from the hole through the spot where the ball last crossed into the penalty area.

The last two are the lone options if the penalty area is yellow. All options require a player take a one-stroke penalty, but the player does also have the option to play the ball as it lies.

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.

My wife and I have now traveled to Brooks Winery twice – and we would go again in a heartbeat.

It’s a great place to go – for vistas to the north and east, for great wine, and for great food.

That’s why we decided to join the Brooks Wine Club, the third one where we are members.  The others are Willamette Valley Vineyards and Left Coast.  Both have great wine AND food, as does Brooks.

Here’s what the Brooks winery website says:

The History

Pascal Brooks is the owner of Brooks, having inherited the winery at the age of eight when his father Jimi Brooks unexpectedly passed away.  Until that time, the son had acted as moral support for his father and the occasional stand-in for punch-downs as soon as he could handle the tool.

After Jimi passed, Pascal came to represent the company at events and spent many of his summers at Brooks, including working during the grape harvest.

He currently resides in France, where he has worked harvest at various vineyards and spends a lot of time with greening projects, trying to bring vegetables to urban spaces, and improving food security.

His family members remain heavily involved in running Brooks on site in Yamhill County, as, of course, he does as the owner.

The Ethics

After traveling the world and experiencing the hard work of winemaking in Beaujolais, Brooks founder, Jimi (mentioned above), returned to Oregon to find a burgeoning wine world.

He devoted the rest of his life to holistic farming and winemaking in the Willamette Valley, showcasing the region’s potential for expressive, complex, and balanced Riesling and Pinot Noir.

His strong commitment to bio-dynamic farming, his gentle approach to winemaking, and his excitement for the Willamette Valley terroir live on through Brooks wines.

When we were at Brooks, I noticed a listing of what I call “environmental awards.”  Good. 

Take care of the environment, I advise.  But, based on my experience as a lobbyist in Oregon, I say don’t join the “environmental political movement.”  It very often strays from environmental ethics to over-the-top activism, especially extremist positions that avoid middle ground.  Which might not even be good for the environment.

At the winery, I also noticed that we were sitting just above a vegetable garden, which produces some of the ingredients used in winery foods.  Another solid environmental credential.

The Awards

Brooks has been named #28 of the World’s Best Vineyards 2023!

This prestigious accolade places Brooks among the top vineyards globally and makes it one of only two vineyards in the United States to receive this honor.

The World’s Best Vineyards is an annual listing that highlights the very best winery destinations in the world.  The list is created after the nominations of nearly 500 wine, travel, and wine tourism experts from across the globe, and the panel in each region is made up of sommeliers, wine journalists, travel experts, and lovers of wine who travel frequently.

The Location

So, take a trip to Brooks. 

Find 21101 SE Cherry Blossom Lane in Amity, Oregon.  It takes about a half hour to get there from Salem where I live.  It’s worth the trip!

And, note this summary of Brooks advice which appears throughout the winery, as well as on its website.  Good stuff.

FIRST, BE KIND.
Treat others with dignity and kindness.
Be a good friend.
Travel the world.
Learn lessons from other cultures, and bring them home.
Be good to the land and the harvest it bears.
Have fun and truly live life.
Toast good friends, whether here or passed.
Smile.

Great to join a group with solid winemaking and environmental credentials.

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

The headline on this blog is right, at least if you define politics the way I do.

Politics is the “art of compromise” and it an art almost always lost in politics as we know it these days.

Washington Post writer Phillip Bump made that clear in what appeared in the Post yesterday:

“Running against a cadre of sitting and former elected officials, Donald Trump said things they wouldn’t — mostly the things that were being said in the right-wing media and by pundits on Fox News.  [This occurred during his first run for president as he, now, contemplates a return.]

“The reputation for ‘truth-telling’ his supporters embrace was born of his willingness to elevate false, popular claims, particularly about the left. He wasn’t elected for his policies.  In fact, he broadly rejected the idea that people cared much about policy.

“The only thing that’s changed over the past eight years, really, is that everyone should know the playbook by now.

“We should know that he will 1) flood the zone with things that are burbling on the right-wing fringe, 2) make sweeping promises without much follow-through, and 3) reject any criticism out-of-hand, spinning it into a reason to praise himself.”

There we have it.  Another excellent description of Trump who should be headed to jail, not running for president.

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.

When I read a column by Washington Post writer Paul Waldman, I almost laughed out loud.

As this blog headline indicates, so did Waldman as he was writing.

But, while laughing is understandable given the hypocrisy of U.S. House Republicans, it is not the right response.

Instead, using good words, Waldman scoffs at the Republican decision to move ahead to impeach President Joe Biden for “corruption.”  He calls Republicans incredibly hypocritical.  So do I.

In the Post, Waldman started his new column this way:

“If one tried to articulate the principle on which the Republican push to impeach President Biden is based, it would have to go something like this: Public officials shouldn’t be permitted to profit from their positions, and anyone who does should be removed from office.

“Like any principle, this one should apply to every public official regardless of party or ideology.”

But, no.  Republicans apply the test to Biden and not, to put a major point on it, to Donald Trump.

So, rather than say more about what Waldman wrote, let me provide these excerpts from a well-written column:

Error! Filename not specified.If one tried to articulate the principle on which the Republican push to impeach President Biden is based, it would have to go something like this: Public officials shouldn’t be permitted to profit from their positions, and anyone who does should be removed from office. Like any principle, this one should apply to every public official regardless of party or ideology.”But if any Republican said that out loud, the proper response would be to burst out laughing.

“This isn’t just because Republicans have found no evidence that Biden is guilty of wrongdoing, despite the tireless efforts of multiple House committees.  Nor is it because they have defended the relentless quest of the Trump family to profit from former president Donald Trump’s time in the White House.  

“Hypocrisy might be the tribute vice pays to virtue, but Republicans stopped paying any tribute to virtue long ago.  They sped right past hypocrisy to arrive at something entirely different.

“Republicans are not characterizing their impeachment push against Biden as an attempt to bring strict ethical standards back to government.  There’s no high-minded talk of integrity, moral rectitude or the solemn obligations of public service.  That’s because they are in the midst of a years-long crusade to convince the public to not care about corruption.

“That crusade is only partly about defending Trump, perhaps the most shamelessly corrupt president in U.S. history.  He installed his laughably unqualified family members in White House positions.  He spent a good amount of time in office at his various resorts, charging the Secret Service as much as $1,185 a night per room to stay there to protect him.

“His Washington hotel became a destination for anyone who wanted to put some money directly in his pocket; foreign governments spent millions of dollars there, as did a fleet of Republican candidates and party flunkies. Foreign governments also eagerly gave special favors to Trump’s businesses.

“His relentless advocacy for the government of Saudi Arabia while in office was followed by the Saudis giving son-in-law Jared Kushner $2 billion for his start-up private equity firm, even though the Saudis’ own investment advisers found Kushner’s operation ‘unsatisfactory in all aspects.’

“And that doesn’t even get into the litany of Trump associates with flexible ethics, including multiple Cabinet members and a raft of cronies who faced their own scandals and criminal charges.

“Were Republicans bothered by this orgy of self-dealing?  They were not. In fact, judging by the myriad ways they have decimated the legal and normative standards to which public officials must abide, they were perfectly sincere when they insisted that Trump’s actions were nothing worse than what voters should expect of anyone in high office.”

So, enough, except to say that Republicans are nothing if not duplicitous. 

To mount an impeachment charge against Biden is, itself, lawless and inane.  Which fits because that’s what they are — corrupt.

Look only as far as Trump and his minions to know the truth.  They are the corrupt ones.

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 would have liked to see Utah U.S. Senator Mitt Romney run as a third-party candidate for U.S. president.

Had he done so, he would not just have run, he would have enjoyed going after Donald Trump for all the stupid, illegal things Trump has done.

McCay Coppins, an Atlantic Magazine writer, wrote a new book soon to be published.  It’s title is “Romney: A Reckoning,” and will be previewed in the November Atlantic.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Coppins put it this way:

“Yet, even as Romney made up his mind to leave the Senate, he struggled to walk away from politics entirely.

“For months, people in his orbit — most vocally, his son Josh — had been urging him to embark on one last run for president, this time as an independent.

“The goal wouldn’t be to win — Romney knew that was impossible — but to mount a kind of protest against the terrible options offered by the two-party system.

“Romney relished the idea of running a presidential campaign in which he simply said whatever he thought, without regard for the political consequences.  

“He nursed a fantasy in which he devoted an entire debate to asking Trump to explain why, in the early weeks of the pandemic, he’d suggested that Americans inject bleach as a treatment for COVID-19.

“Every time Donald Trump makes a strong argument, I’d say, ‘Remind me again about the Clorox.’”

Excellent point.  Romney’s approach would have been a good, down-to-earth way to illustrate the stupid, illegal stuff that should make it easy not to vote for Trump next time around…if, in fact, he gets the Republican nomination.

If Romney was running, I’d vote for him – and wait for the Clorox questions!

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

A friend who read my recent post, which, among other things, dealt with out-of-bounds issues in golf, raised a follow-up question.

This:  Is a golfer allowed to move an out-of-bounds stake if his or her golf ball is in-bounds and the stake is in the way of ball, stance or swing.

The quick answer:  No.

Here is the relevant information from the official golf rules:

“Q. May I remove an out of bounds stake?

A. No, objects marking course boundaries may not be moved. If you do move one of these objects before you play and doing so makes your next stroke easier in any way, you must put it back before you make a stroke. If you don’t, you will lose the hole in match play or get two penalty strokes in stroke play (see Rule 8.1a and Rule 8.1c).”

Interesting question because both my friend and I remember past occasions when both of us removed stakes impeding our swings.

No longer.

A further issue is that, in many cases, the stakes either are in cement or dug so far into the ground that it is not possible to move them.  And, under golf rules, they are not considered “immovable objects” from which you get relief; they are boundary markings.

Aren’t you glad to have this confirmed?

And this next footnote, which I cannot help myself but to report:  Yesterday, I asked one of my favorite golf rules officials this – if a golf ball is on the out-of-bounds line, is it in or out.

The answer is that, if the ball is touching the surface of the ground in-bounds, even if it partly on the line, it is in-bounds.  If it is directly on the line, then it is out.

My friend, one of the best rules officials in the region, got this wrong, so I am one up on him.  The self-satisfied look on my face is permissible because, for this footnote, I have not used my friend’s name.

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

As I write again on this subject – the rules of golf – some of my friends may wonder why I do so.

Well, there are at least two reasons:

• Golf rules are marked by at least two characteristics – they are long and not always well-written – but, to me, they are fascinating.

• In retirement, I don’t have much else to do.

So, today I write about two golf rules issues that came to up recently.

The first occurred in a junior golf tournament last Sunday at the club where I play in Salem, Oregon.  The second came up in a conversation with a friend of mine who enjoys the subject almost as much as I do.

The First Rules Issue

This arose when a player in the junior tournament raised a question at the scoring table after her 18-hole round.

She said that on one of our greens – one with a lot of slope – she marked her golf ball on the green, then replaced her ball on the proper spot while picking up her mark.  Then, because of the slope, her golf ball moved about three-feet or so away from where it had been marked.

From that new spot, she then putted into the hole.

She asked:  Did I take the right action?

The answer provided by a rules official was “no.”  She should have moved her ball as close as possible to the spot where it had been marked because, as this rules official put it, “she owned that position.”

The result was a two-stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place and – good news – the player demonstrated maturity by accepting the penalty without complaint.

Here is the language in golf rule 13.1, which covers this issue:

“Rule 13.1d revises the procedure for when a ball on the putting green is moved by wind, water or other natural forces.  The ball must always be replaced on its original spot, regardless of what caused it to move.”

The Second Rules Issue

This came up in a conversation with a friend who said a player in his group had hit a golf ball that ended up directly on an out-of-bounds line.

Was the bill in-bounds or out-of-bounds?

The answer:  It was out of bounds.

Golf Rule 18.2 specifies this:

“A ball is out-of-bounds when all of it is outside the boundary edge.  A ball is in-bounds when any part of it touches the ground inside the boundary edge.”

So, the effect of this is that, if a golf ball was on directly on the out-of-bounds line without any part of it being on the course, either if marked by a white line or by sticks in the ground, it would be out-of-bounds.

One more question:  If the ball was in-bounds but close to the out-of-bounds marker, could a player stand out-of-bounds to hit the ball?  The answer is “yes.”

So, with all of this, aren’t you glad you know more about arcane golf rules?  Please don’t answer!

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

A couple days ago, I spent a few hours in wat could be called the “health insurance shadows,” and, again, there was a surprise lurking around the corner.

This:

Medicare, which is supposedly designed to provide health care coverage and health insurance for senior citizens – yes, persons like me – does not cover routine physical examinations.

Say what?

Here’s what one of my best sources, Mr. Google, says to verify this nonsense:

“As a rule, Medicare does not cover an annual physical.  The exam and any tests your doctor orders are separate services, and you may have costs related to each depending on your Medicare plan.

“Medicare covers an initial preventive physical examination for all new beneficiaries within the first 12 months of joining Medicare Part B. Medicare does not cover yearly physical exams but does cover a yearly checkup called the annual wellness visit.”

So, it seems that, if I and my doctor label a physical exam an “annual wellness visit,” it would be covered under Medicare.  The issue comes down to “medical coding.”

Somebody smarter than me should explain this to me.  It makes no sense.

Medicare should cover physical exams because they are designed to prevent future, more serious problems, which, if they were found to exist, would cost far more to address.  Prevention matters.

But, based on what’s above, I am now taking initiative to ask for a change in the “coding” of my most recent physical exam to “annual wellness visit.”

See.  I told you.  What lurks around the corner in the shadows of health insurance makes no sense.

And this additional example of lurking.

When I raised this coverage issue with my supplemental Medicare insurer, Moda Health, staff there told me they just follow Medicare rules, not their own rules.  So, I ask, why have the supplemental carrier?

My wife, much smarter than me, gave me the answer.  A supplemental insurer is standing by, she said, to cover major health issues if they happen.

Okay.  I’ll accept that answer.

Plus, I’ll stop writing now because I have to get about the business of changing the code for my recent physical exam!

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.

It goes by a strange name – the “kicker.” 

What is it?  It is an Oregon law that gives taxpayers money back if the economy keeps growing above a certain rate.

The effect is that the kicker is an effective mechanism to control state spending, which, otherwise could follow a government mantra – spend it all.

In 1979, the Oregon Legislature enacted a “surplus kicker” statute, along with a spending limit and a major tax relief plan.  Voters approved this package in the 1980 primary election.  The 1999 Legislature referred a constitutional amendment placing much of the kicker statute in the Oregon Constitution.

Here is how it works:  The state returns revenue to taxpayers when collections exceed forecasts by more than 2 per cent.  The payouts come at the end of each two-year budget cycle in the form of a credit when Oregonians file their taxes in the spring.

Some Republicans would rather have the state mail refund checks to taxpayers, but, so far, that has not happened.

If you are into politics as I am, you can imagine the competing points of view over the kicker law.

• On one hand, advocates of the law, including those who proposed it many years ago, say it controls state government spending, which, otherwise they believe, would be forever out of control.

• On the other hand, proponents say the law handcuffs state government from spending taxpayer money already in state coffers on important programs, such as education.

Each side has points in its favor, but, over the years, it has been impossible to dispatch the kicker law, though, in every session of the Legislature, there are efforts to do so.

Guess what will happen next year?

Oregon taxpayers will see a $5.61 billion “kicker” refund, by far the largest amount ever returned.  State economists confirmed the eye-popping payment last week during their report on the latest quarterly state revenue forecast, which was announced, as always, in a meeting of the Legislature’s Joint Revenue Committee.

Exactly what each taxpayer will get in the way of a refund depends on their individual tax circumstances.

During my 25-year career as a lobbyist at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon, the kicker was not a top tier issue for any of my firm’s clients.

To be sure, it was always in the background in our attempt to analyze the state government budget, which often was a tedious, complicated process marked by a lack of transparency, no matter what some legislators maintain about transparency.

So, for that reason, as well as waiting to avoid an often-shrill debate between “limited-government” and “pro-government” interests, we watched from the sidelines – close to the kicker action, but not at the center.

Limited-government advocates always won, so the kicker law is still just that – the law.