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

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

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

I am not sure what the answer is.

A couple examples come to mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what to do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her ideas, summarized below, are worth considering.

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

Here is how Marcus started a recent column:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Post included this quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will artificial intelligence change the world?

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

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

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

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

Who knows?

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

Here is a summary of what the writers said:

Error! Filename not specified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI systems should be safe and effective

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

AI systems shouldn’t discriminate

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

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

AI systems should respect civil liberties

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

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

AI systems should be transparent and explainable

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

Putting principles to work

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, BALANCE REQUIRES A BALANCING ACT.

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’s one of the ironies in politics these days – and perhaps long before.

If a deal is scrapped together – consider the current debt ceiling deal — and no one likes all aspects of it, then dislikes are one reason a deal should be passed.

Sure, it used to be that the definition of politics was the “art of compromise.”

But it’s far less so these days as both sides – actually there often are more than two sides – argue strenuously for their point-of-view, all others to be discarded.

But, my definition of compromise goes along these lines:  You are not going to like all aspects of a compromise.  You get something.  You give something.  Thus, the end is just that – a compromise.

Such is the lot of the debt ceiling deal these days – and, as I write this, it is not yet clear whether Congress will support the deal negotiated by President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

The two don’t appear to like each other much, but, with their aides, they get down to business over the last few days and cut a proposed deal that, if passed, would avoid economic catastrophe.

The vote-counting game is on to see if McCarthy can rally troops among both Republicans AND Democrats to get the deal across the finish line in the House.  The process should be a bit easier in the Senate and, of course, if the deal gets to the president’s desk, he will sign it.

In the Washington Post this week, columnist Jennifer Rubin called the deal another feather in Biden’s cap because, she said, he is good at deal-making.

Here is how she made her point:

“President Biden’s capacity to overperform after an onslaught of negative press and Democrat hand-wringing is second to none.  He did it with the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Law, NATO solidification and expansion, and now with the debt ceiling deal.  It’s hard to conceive of an outcome more favorable to Biden.

“Recall where this began:  The Republican House Freedom Caucus making promises such as repealing much of the Inflation Reduction Act (including eliminating $80 billion in new funds for the Internal Revenue Service), capping non-defense spending at fiscal 2022 levels for a decade, and blocking Biden’s $400 billion proposed student debt relief.

“None of that happened.

“To sum up:  Biden brushed back the litany of outrageous demands, kept his spending agenda and tax increases intact, and got his two-year debt limit increase.”

Well, some folks might not give Biden as much credit as Rubin does.

But, I, for one, am willing to grant credit, both to Biden and McCarthy.  They did what political leaders do:  They negotiated.

Here’s the way the New York Times put it:

“No one walked away satisfied by the agreement reached late Saturday to raise the debt ceiling:  House Speaker Kevin McCarthy did not win the most destructive cuts sought by the right, and the Democrat proposals to raise revenue never seriously entered the conversation.  Yet, with the risk of ruinous economic default less than a week away, Congress should pass this agreement as quickly as possible.”

Agreed.

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

This, remember, is one of four departments I run with a free hand to manage as I – and I alone – see fit.

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

So, the Department of Pet Peeves is open now.

USURPING THE MEANING OF THE AMERICAN FLAG:  That’s exactly what Trumpians do!

They should leave the flag alone, for it stands – and should stand – as symbol of what America really is.

Not what Donald Trump is, the worst president in U.S. history.

As we have celebrated Memorial Day, the flag should continue to stand for America!

PHIL MICKELSON:  CRITICIZING GOLF WHICH HAS MADE HIM A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE:  I am very tired of hearing Phil Mickelson gripe about the PGA Tour, which has made him a millionaire.

Of course, he has bolted the Tour to hook up with LIV Golf, which is a decision that will spoil his reputation for ever, given that the money he took came from a terrible country yearning to “sportswash” its reputation. 

In this, I have no room for saying that Mickelson is doing what some American businesses do, which is to work with the Saudis.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

Still, on numerous occasions, Mickelson mouths off about how terrible the PGA Tour is.

I say, “shut up.”  And, as I say that, I also say that Mickelson was one of the my favorite professional golfs.  Note the past tense.

WATCHING REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS JOCKEY ONLY FOR POSITIONS, NOT SOLUTIONS:  Disagreements, sometimes marked by anger, is happening in Salem, Oregon and Washington, D.C.

Both sides want to repel the other side, not reach agreement.

Multiple sides in the debt ceiling debate are going after the two who cut the deal — President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.  Those two now face a huge challenge to prod folks off their high horses.

Same is true at the Capitol in Salem.

Senate President Rob Wagner and Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp are reported to dislike each other, perhaps even hate each other.  So much so that the Senate is now at standstill.  Even as the 2023-25 state budget awaits approval – and acting on that budget is the only action legislators MUST take as they meet in Saslem.

So, as someone who is interested in politics, it is hard for me to watch.  Might be better to ignore all the bluster.

The just hope for two resolutions – a debt ceiling deal in D.C. to avoid economic catastrophe, and agreement in Salem to work together…finally.

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 think of Memorial Day, tomorrow, several thoughts track through my brain.

A couple of them:

• As we put up our American flag on our deck, I thought how unconscionable it is that, in some quarters, the flag – our flag – has been commandeered by Trumpians to stand for the worst president in U.S. history, Donald Trump. 

Now, he wants to be president again.  Perish the thought!

I was careful to tell several of my friends that, if they saw our flag, it stood for America, not Trump.  They knew, but it was important for me to make the distinction.

• My thoughts often go to my father who served the country with distinction in the military during the World War II.

I wish I would have spent more time with him understanding the full scope of his military service.  I only know just a bit.

But, the point on Memorial Day is that I want to honor his service.  The best way for me to do so would be to take a trip to Sunriver in Central Oregon and visit the bridge over the Deschutes River where he loved to fish.

Better that, I say, than visiting his graveside in the National Cemetery in Portland, with all due respect to that national treasure.

So, to all my friends who served in the military, thank you for your service!

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.

In a story that appeared in the Washington Post, essayist Lance Morrow argues that the answer to the question in blog headline could be “yes.”

The essay appeared under this headline:  “Tim Scott and the Politics of Forgiveness; an upbeat candidacy of national reconciliation seems pitched to break the Trump-Biden stalemate.”

Of course, with all due respect to Morrow, only time will tell.

Morrow started his piece this way:

“America is stuck — deadlocked, frozen, like the armies on the Western Front in 1917.  One side is headquartered at Mar-a-Lago and has no ideas at all beyond revenge and gaudy vindication.

“The other side bivouacs at the White House and has far too many notions in a leftish way.

“Both armies are angry, full of sullen grievance.  Fox and MSNBC lob ritual shells to and fro.  Donald Trump and Joe Biden glare at each other across the cratered American landscape.”

So, is Scott the answer to those who hope for something other than campaigns of revenge and get-even.

Scott’s recently announced candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination points in an interesting direction.  He’s a long shot now, but he might become the kind of leader who could break the American deadlock.

Morrow adds:

“Think of Messrs. Trump and Biden as thesis and antithesis. They are irreconcilable ideas — old sluggers from the Pleistocene, both of them embarrassments by now.  For a moment, allow yourself to imagine Scott as a kind of synthesis — and even a refreshment of the American system.

“Scott is a black conservative.  That somewhat counterintuitive double identity might have its uses in a national drama of reconciliation.  He is from Charleston, South Carolina, a seedbed of the old confederacy.  He was raised in something like poverty, with a devoted, hard-working single mother.  His parents divorced when he was 7.”

But, even with that heritage, Scott became an entrepreneurial, patriotic Republican who won a congressional seat and now is running for the presidency.

Morrow argues that the key to Scott’s presidential venture isn’t so much his qualifications as statesman or politician.  Rather, the key is in his temperament — his manifest goodwill.  His policies are less important at this point than his temperament.  His conciliatory charm isn’t superficial, but rather the product of spirit and character.

And this conclusion from Morrow:

“The only exits from rage are exhaustion and forgiveness.  But sometimes a miraculous change of mood will do.  Almost uniquely among American politicians today, Scott embraces a theology of forgiveness — that great mood-changer.

“Forgiveness requires humility, a virtue in short supply.  It also requires maturity, intelligence, and a capacity for gratitude.”

Those qualities are surely missing in the current Republican contenders for president.  Chief among those without maturity, intelligence or the capacity for gratitude is one Donald Trump. 

He carries no qualities of character that we should expect in a presidential candidate or in someone who holds the nation’s highest political office.  No matter.  He still appears to lead the Republican field.

As for President Joe Biden?  Hard to tell, but, whatever the debates about politics and age, he is manifestly a better person than Trump, with character traits over a life marked by sorrow and loss.

I hope Scott rises to the challenge. 

We need a candidate – no worries about party affiliation – who displays the character to lead the free world from the Oval Office.

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.

Florida governor Ran DeSantis has done some stupid stuff in recent years.

Just ask some Florida as DeSantis has gouged Disney World (a huge provider of jobs and tax revenue in Florida), declared war on school districts, and tried to make universities in his own, bereft image.

But, he exceeded himself yesterday as he went on Twitter to announce his campaign for president.  He did so with Twitter owner Elon Musk sitting by his side.

Wouldn’t you know it, Twitter didn’t work.  Technology went to…well, you know where.

So, there he sat as he and Musk watched and heard Twitter go bang.  Must have reminded Musk of when his attempt to launch his Space X rocket blew up.

If you listened to the Twitter announcement, apparently you couldn’t hear much. 

Let provide assurances that I did not tune in – or try to tune in.  I let the moment pass.

Atlantic Magazine columnist Tom Nichols got it right when he wrote this the day before the Twitter fiasco:

“I am not going to open Twitter this evening to hear Ron DeSantis announce — finally, for real, no joke, this time he means it — his campaign to become the leader of the free world.

“Neither are you, in all likelihood.  Twitter is composed of a tiny fraction of highly engaged social-media users, and most people in America aren’t on the platform.  Even fewer use Twitter Spaces, the audio component of Twitter where users can tune in to a live conversation.

“More to the point, very few of the people Ron DeSantis wants to reach are on Twitter.  Most of them won’t hear any of the conversation, unless somehow the Ron and Elon Show is blasted from loudspeakers in Florida’s retirement mecca, The Villages.

Nichols says he wonders who came up with the “galaxy-brained idea of matching up two of the most socially awkward people in American public life for a spontaneous discussion on Twitter?”

So, beyond the announcement, on to politics for DeSantis.  He seems to think he can win by making war on Disney, attacking public education, and making phobic reactions to anything regarding race, sexuality, or gender. 

Nichols calls all this “performative cruelty aimed at the most socially and politically retrograde voters, which is another way of saying the GOP-base voters who will decide the primaries.”

I share Nichols’ view that the United States would be better off if Donald Trump does not become the presidential nominee of the Republican Party.  His continued support of violent insurrectionists should render him unfit to participate in our elections.

Anyone would be better on the ticket than Trump, and, for me, that includes DeSantis…barely.

“But, Nichols concludes, “DeSantis has learned from Trump that winning the GOP nomination is not about policy.  It’s about playacting.  He knows that the primary faithful want rallies and revenge, costumes, and chaos.”

Which is why I hope a candidate emerges who can grab the “middle” in the country – persons who are tired of the extremes of right and left.

Too much to hope for?  Perhaps.  But I persist.

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.

Ever get tired of all the media coverage of the “debt ceiling?”

I do, though it could be contended, properly I submit, that the subject is worth noting because it carries so much weight for the future of the American economy.

So far, President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy have been unable to find middle ground because advocates on both sides don’t want to give, apparently no matter the consequences.

Beyond the daily news coverage, I did get a little respite the other day when I read an excellent column by Ben Zimmer who writes on the derivation of words for the Wall Street Journal.  This time his column appeared under this headline:  A depression-era phrase for government spending caps comes from a medieval word for putting a cover on something.

He went on:

“The federal government has been thrown into a precarious financial position as negotiations continue between President Biden and congressional Republicans over the debt ceiling, the limit on how much money the government can borrow.

“That limit is set by Congress, and when it is reached, the debt ceiling must be raised or suspended if the Treasury Department is to avoid a potentially disastrous default.

“The ‘debt ceiling’ is a peculiar metaphor, if you stop and think about it. Unlike a ceiling in a house, the debt ceiling can be raised again and again, as Congress has done in the past.  And some economists argue that the debt ceiling is merely a political distraction and should be removed entirely — not a wise move when dealing with an actual ceiling, architecturally speaking.

Zimmer asks, “how did this economic figure of speech get hoisted up in the first place?”

He answers his own question.

“It did not take long for ‘ceiling’ to take on more figurative uses for something that hangs overhead, like a ‘ceiling of stars.’

“The word ‘ceiling’ goes back to the Middle English verb ‘ceil,’ which originally referred to putting a cover or lining over something.  It likely came via French from the Latin verb ‘celare’ meaning ‘to conceal,’ though it could also be related to ‘caelare’ meaning ‘to carve.’

“To ‘ceil’ a space could mean to cover it with panels, and eventually ‘ceiling’ came to be used for the paneling itself.

“By the 16th century, ‘ceiling’ had narrowed its meaning to the surface covering the upper part of a room, consisting of boards or plaster.  The Coverdale Bible of 1535, the first complete Bible in English, referred to ‘sylinges’ made of cedar in the Song of Solomon, while a 1598 translation of a work by the Roman historian Tacitus told of three treacherous senators who hid themselves ‘between the roofs and the seeling’ of a house.

“The French metaphorical usage may have also played a role in the way that ‘ceiling,’ came to be used in aeronautics, for the maximum altitude that an aircraft can reach.”

In the 1930s, “ceiling” entered the economic realm when, Zimmer reports, it was first applied to the upper limit of prices, spending, and the like.

While Congress began imposing a limit on federal debt as early as World War I, that limit didn’t get called a “debt ceiling” immediately. The phrase first cropped up at the municipal level in a 1933 article in the Indianapolis News about what happened when “the city reached its debt ceiling” imposed by the state legislature.

The following year, an Associated Press report said the national “public debt ceiling” was “still invisible” and bound to rise as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Administration sought more federal spending.

In 1939, Congress began imposing debt ceiling limits, originally at about $45 billion, though, by the end of World War II, the ceiling grew to $300 billion.

How about today?

Well, the current ceiling, the one the subject of so much media, “rests” at $31.4 trillion.  Yes, that’s “trillion!”

It is hard to fathom a trillion.  Only that it’s huge.

Which leads me to two conclusions:

1. Aren’t you glad you now know more about debt ceiling than you did before you happened to read this blog?  Say yes, please.
2. And, with me, don’t you wish the leaders in Washington, D.C. – if that’s what they really are — would get about the business of reaching an agreement to save all of us from more economic travail?  Again, say yes, please.

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.

Leave it to my friend Sam Skillern to write a note that strikes a positive chord with me – and should for a lot of other people.

Skillern, executive director of the Salem Leadership Foundation, put it this way:

“Lotta people making fun of Theodore Cleaver these days.  In fact, some folks downright loathe him and the iconic 1957-63 television show Leave it to Beaver.
 
“The knock is that the Cleaver family and mid-century America represented harmful values.  The parents of Mayfield over-dressed and the kids were goody-two-shoes in a sugar-coated era of white, middle-class privilege.  A time period famously parodied in the 1998 film Pleasantville.
 
“No era is perfect.  It’s true there was racism, sexism, vain facades of affluence, and economic inequities in the 1950s and 1960s.  But, unfortunately, that’s true of every era.  It’s true today.
 
“While conceding that the Leave-it-Beaver world had its flaws, there’s one thing that stands out.  Something that’s sorely scarce these days.  
 
“Decency.

“Simple things, like opening doors or carrying groceries.  Saying ‘good morning’ or ‘good afternoon’ even to strangers.  Bringing meals when a neighbor is sick.  

“Innocence and modesty around life’s rites of passage.  Striving to share a kind word of encouragement … and lip-biting to refrain from shaming or offending.  (Today, trash talking is not only tolerated, it’s celebrated.)
 
“A closer look at Beaver’s world shows more than cotton-candy manners and pollyanna.  Remember the episode where the Beav convinces his Dad to hire the homeless drifter to paint the house?  Or when Wally confronts Eddie Haskell’s cruel bullying?  When the plot wrestled with, rather than laughed at, domestic abuse and alcoholism?  The show actually pushed the envelope in its day.
 
“Again, this isn’t a defense of the prejudice, sexism and injustice that existed then.  And I’m not saying we should go back to everything in that day. 

“How about decency?  A desire for truthfulness, kindness, hard work, sacrifice, a clean tongue, respect for elders, consequences (and forgiveness) for bad decisions, abiding by the rules, faith in God and each other … man, do I sound like an old fuddy-duddy?  But why would these simple virtues be considered obsolete, prudish and mockable? 
 
“In a world where the mottos seem to be ‘You can’t tell me what to do,’ ‘It’s not my fault,’ and ‘I’m entitled,’ … a return to simple decency might actually be the cure for what ails us.”

Skillern, by his selfless work in the Salem-Keizer community over the years, has earned the right to be heard.  More than enough.

So, he has a very valid point.

Let simple decency prevail.  It would solve a lot of problems that appear unsolvable today.

And, just think about how simple decency would upend the current state of politics in this country where both sides – or all sides – appear to hate each other.