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 came to the conclusion in this blog headline based on what’s happening in baseball.

Those in charge of what has been labeled “the national sport” are using a pitch clock and a batter clock.  Yes, to force faster games.

I wish the sport I love – golf – would do the same.

It did once, a few years ago in Europe in an event called the “Shot Clock Masters.”

Clocks were put on the backs of golf carts and the carts road on the fairways just behind all player groups.

When a player reached his golf ball, a rules official turned on the clock and the player had 40 seconds to hit his golf ball.  In one case I remember, a player got a warning when it took him 41 seconds to hit.  He didn’t go past 40 seconds again, which, if he did, would have meant a one-shot penalty.

Using a clock would make golf faster and counter the tendency among professional golfers to take forever to play their next shot.  They often stand around deciding what club to hit or waiting for the wind to die down a bit.

[Of course, if there are special circumstances – a lost ball, an impediment affecting the swing, etc. – then the time to hit would be extended as it was in the Shot Clock Masters.]

Back for a moment, to baseball.

One of the best sports writers going, Rick Reilly, wrote a column for the Washington Post that appeared under this headline:  “God bless the pitch clock.  And pizza-box bases.  Baseball is fun again!”

Here is how Reilly started his column:

“I used to love baseball, but I stopped watching when games got slower than sloth races.  Last year, the average game was 3 hours and 3 minutes. No, thank you.  I have Christmas plans.

“But this year?  This year, I’ll be back now that baseball has installed — at loooong last — the wonderful, brain-saving pitch clock.”

Already in spring training, Reilly added, games are finishing in an average of 2 hours and 36 minutes.

“That’s nearly a week and a half faster than your average Yankees-Red Sox game last year.  If there had been a pitch clock earlier in my sports-writing career, I’d be 37 right now.

“Once they get the ball, pitchers have 15 seconds to go into their windup (20 when there are base runners).  If not, the ump calls a ball.  Hitters have to be in the box and looking at the pitcher with eight seconds left on the pitch clock.  If they’re not, the ump calls a strike.”

Great moves for baseball.

I hope golf follows with efforts to speed up the pro game, which would make it more fun to watch. 

It also would provide lessons for young players who would realize that you don’t have to take an eternity to play a shot.  All you have to do is get ready and hit it!

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 answer to the question posed in this headline is not totally clear these days.

The risk is that the words “affordable” and “golf” do not go well together.

I have my own experience with this question here in the California desert where I live in the winter.

For one thing, the cost for a guest at The Palms (where I am fortunate to be a member) has gone up from $125 last year to $175 this year.

Others have told me that it costs about $250 to play at PGA West courses here in La Quinta, California.

Why the increases?

Well, without trying to come across as an economist, I suspect there are at least two reasons:

• Inflation is one.  Everything costs more these days and golf is no exception.
• Second, the market, at least here in the California desert, will bear it.  Even with higher green fees, it has been reported to be difficult to get tee times.

All of this was highlighted this week by a story in the Wall Street Journal that appeared under this headline and subhead:  Affordable Golf Courses That Won’t Sink You.  The cost of tee time has shot up as courses adopt dynamic pricing.”

The story by reporter David Weiss started this way:

“An affordable game of golf is almost as hard to find as that $5 ball you hit into the forest.  One reason:  Some golf operators have adopted dynamic pricing, which means that, depending on demand, premium tee times are not only difficult to book, but can cost more.

“Still, one needn’t pony up $600 for legendary layouts like Pebble Beach; great golf can be played at lesser-known locales for $100 or even less.”

The story highlighted six courses where costs are not out-of-bounds, to use a golf image.  These:

1. Desert Deal

Scottsdale, Arizona, is a snowbird magnet and home to more than 200 area courses, many of which can set you back a car payment for 18 holes.  But with golf, timing is everything:  If you visit after high season ends in April, We-Ko-Pa Golf Club in nearby Fort McDowell offers 36 holes of gorgeous Sonoran Desert golf and one of the best 2-round summer deals in the state at $165.

2. Hawaii Pick

In a state where tourists can drive prices sky-high, golf can be a costly habit, with resort green fees in the neighborhood of $300 per round. Wailua is a seaside marvel in Kauai at a fifth of the price, around $60 per 18-hole round, and is consistently ranked among the best municipal courses in the country.

3. Prairie Golf

Golf cognoscenti are well-aware of the celebrated Sand Hills Golf Club near North Platte, Nebraska, but fewer know that you can find a similar experience at a fraction of the tally at its public cousin down the road.  Set on rolling, sandy terrain, Wild Horse Golf Club in Gothenburg is a great example of minimalist design with wide fairways countered by trickily contoured and speedy greens.

4. Texas Play’em

Better known for musical legends like Buddy Holly and Waylon Jennings, Lubbock is also home to architect Tom Doak’s design for Texas Tech University’s Rawls Course.  What was once a flat cotton field now features bulldozer-crafted valleys and canyons, after the designer relocated 1.3 million cubic yards of topsoil.

5. Going Public

Los Angeles locals are lucky to have a Gil Hanse-designed public course in nearby Ventura County, where Rustic Canyon, in Moorpark, California,  has earned a reputation for its distinctive layout and surprising affordability.  Hanse, who crafted the Rio de Janeiro course for golf’s first Olympic competition in 2016, transformed this former sheep ranch into a links-style experience that favors the ground game most amateurs prefer over precision, high-trajectory approach shots.

6. A Bit of The Brit

For those in the know, Michigan is a sleeper golf destination, and Stoatin Brae — Gaelic for “grand hill” — is a terrific example of superior minimalist design in the southwest quadrant of the state.  A product of celebrated architect Tom Doak’s Renaissance Design firm, the austere layout is inspired by the great inland courses of the British Isles and part of a six-course roster at Gull Lake View Resort in Augusta, Michigan.

So, the moral of this story is to look for golf at a semi-reasonable price.  Even with inflation and what the market can bear, it can be found if you look hard enough.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I have written about this before, but what still stands out for me, as a dedicated golfer, is one of the strangest golf rules on the planet.

I post again because of what I learned from a rules official in Oregon – see below.

The issue revolves around Golf Rule #12, which is in group of rules promulgated jointly by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal & Ancient (R & I) organization overseas.

So, what is it?

It deals with bunkers, those conditions on a golf course that, usually as a regular golfer, you want to avoid.  They are sand-filled holes in the ground.  Golf pros appear not to mind being in those contraptions.  Neither do top-level amateurs. 

But the rest of us?  Me included.  I try to avoid them.

Incredibly, here is what the Rule #12 allows in bunkers:

• Digging in with your feet to take a stance for a practice swing or the stroke,
• Smoothing the bunker to care for the course,

• Placing your clubs, equipment or other objects in the bunker (whether by throwing or setting them down),
• Measuring, marking, lifting, replacing or taking other actions under a different specific rule,
• Leaning on a club to rest, stay balanced or prevent a fall, or
• Striking the sand in frustration or anger.

Consider just the latter.  “Striking the sand in frustration or anger” is acceptable!

But, if you were in Oregon playing in a junior tournament organized by the Oregon Golf Association and you were seen “striking the sand in frustration or anger,” you would likely receive a “code of conduct” penalty.  And you should.

Why writers of the golf rules chose to include the “frustration and anger” clause in Rule #12 is beyond me.  And, if nothing else, the objectionable parts of the rule should be thrown out or the entire rule re-written.  The words could even incent some golfers to engage in the over-the-top behavior.

For now, my objective is not to think about this strange rule and, further, to avoid getting into the contraptions.

Now for the new, additional perspective. 

It comes from Clifford Shahbaz, an excellent rules official in Oregon who works often for the USGA in national tournaments and, at the moment, is helping me and others participate in a rules seminar offered by the OGA.

When I asked him a question about the rationale for the stuff contained in Rule #12, here is what he wrote to me:

“The actions penalized under Rule #12 are directly related to testing the sand conditions or improving conditions affecting the stroke, which gives a player a potential advantage over opponents or other competitors.  These actions should be penalized.

“The actions allowed without penalty do not test sand conditions, improve conditions affecting the stroke, nor give a player a potential advantage.  Therefore, there is no penalty.

“You are correct that the OGA has a Code of Conduct…however, only Oregon Junior Golf has such a Code of Conduct.  The adult OGA tournaments do not have such a policy.  Nor does the USGA.”

There.  A decent rationale for the policies contained in Rule #12, though I could argue, I guess, for including a code of conduct policy, as well as re-writing portions of Rule #12.

I still wonder why the “frustration and anger” clause is included. 

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 question in the headline is one that interests me because of my background in journalism, as well as my interest in how the industry performs these days.

For one thing, the question presumes journalism has lost objectivity, but that notion is not abundantly clear.  Sometimes true.  Sometimes not.

A few days ago, I wrote a blog contending that:

• Journalists should retain objectivity as they report, not opine.
• Journalists should work to report the truth, not let lies stand such as those promulgated, as a matter of routine, by one Donald Trump and his minions.  Or at least label lies as lies and put them in context.
• Editors should make sure opinion is labeled as such to distinguish it from general reporting.

The Wall Street Journal recently carried a piece by Walter Hussman, Jr., chairman of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and the newspaper’s publisher from 1974-2022.  It appeared under this headline:

“Too many editors are responding to a crisis of public trust by abandoning traditional news values.”

Here is how Hussman started his opinion piece:

“Beyond objectivity or back to objectivity?  That seems to be an essential question for American journalism.

“Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication recently released a survey of some 75 journalists titled ‘Beyond Objectivity.’  Many of them argued that objectivity should no longer be the standard in news reporting.”

For his part, Leonard Downie, Jr., former executive editor of the Washington Post, says he “never understood what ‘objectivity’ meant.”

“My goals for our journalism,” he adds, “were, instead, accuracy, fairness, non-partisanship, accountability, and the pursuit of truth.”

More from Hussman:  “While journalists argue over semantics, and Washington Post Executive Editor Sally Buzbee calls the word objectivity ‘a political football,’ the public understands objectivity, which a dictionary defines as ‘not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.’  You will never get politics out of opinion commentary, nor should you. But politics shouldn’t influence news reporting.”

More from Buzbee and a counterpart:

“We stress the value of news reporting, so you (the reader) can make up your own mind,” Buzbee says.  Joseph Kahn, editor of the New York Times, says “You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time.”

Today, media carries more opinions than ever.  More opinions, especially contrasting opinions, are good.  What is bad, and erodes public trust, is blurring opinions with news reporting.  

Why does this happen?  Hussman says human nature explains why we want others to think like we do and agree with us.  But that isn’t what the public wants from news reporting, he contends.  They want the who, what, when, where, how, and why without any personal bias – or at least not much, given that no one is perfect, including reporters.

The best reporters don’t want popularity for what they write.  They want respect.

So, back to my prescription.  Journalists should set out to be objective, but, at the same time, emphasize the truth, not the lies of those who tell them routinely, or at least, as I wrote above, put those lies in context and call them what they are – lies.

Separating fact from fiction should be a priority for reporters. 

And, opinions should be clearly labeled as that – opinions.

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 is one of four departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

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

FORESIGHT VS. HINDSIGHT:  This dichotomy came up for me in a piece written by John Bolton that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.  Bolton is the author of “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” served as the president’s national security adviser from 2018-19, and was ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06.

Here is a summary of what he wrote dealing with the foresight that prompted Bush to seek out weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the hindsight that criticizes his decision.

“While George Bush 43’s father would undoubtedly endorse calls for more ‘prudence,’ is that really more than merely a talisman for national-security decision-makers?  Academics should recall Dwight Eisenhower’s hand-written draft statement, hastily written for use if the D-Day invasion had failed.

“Eisenhower stood ready to take full responsibility for defeat. ‘My decision to attack at this time and place,’ he wrote, ‘was based upon the best information available.’  The same was true for Bush and his Administration.  What else could they, or anyone else, base their decisions on?

“Which of the two camps was the more prudent?  What would be history’s judgment have been if America hesitated, and suffered another devastating terrorist attack?  That no such attack occurred says more about the merits of overthrowing Saddam than anything else.”

COMMENT:  The Bolton quotes relate to the Bush Administration decision to go to war in Iraq given the possibility, if not the probability, that there were “weapons of mass destruction” there that could be used against the United States and other countries.

Thus, my notion about “foresight vs. hindsight.”

Without much information other than what I read in national newspapers, I always have thought that Bush made the right decision.  The insider intelligence he had at the time said weapons of mass destruction were ready to be used.  Based on foresight, I thought he had no real choice but to proceed as president.

Of course, hindsight has found him to be wrong and critics say – I emphasize using hindsight, which is easy – his wrong decision cost lives and the reputation of the U.S.

FROM DANA MILBANK IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  Milbank skewers George Santos in this Post column.  Frankly, that’s easy, given Santos’ make-believe status.

Milbank writes:

“But the interview (one with British interviewer Piers Morgan) offered some insight into the fabulist’s strategy for political survival — and why it may resonate with some in the MAGA crowd.  True story:  Santos claims he is the victim.  His lies are everybody else’s fault — honest!

“This politics of victimhood, of course, is the essence of Donald Trump (who could, and did, claim it was sunny when it was raining).  Trump loved to complain about how unfairly he was treated by the fake news, about the witch hunts and the hoaxes — and many Republicans believed it.

“Naturally, the technique has filtered down to the rank and file.  Where once there was shame, there is now only grievance, directed at imagined conspiracies of dark forces.

“Like Trump, Santos claimed to be the victim of a ‘witch hunt’ by ‘desperate journalists’ who are ‘not interested in covering the facts.’  He complained of victimization by politicians and party leaders — including Republican officials who he suggested doctored his résumé without his knowledge to include fake test scores and a fake MBA from New York University.”

COMMENT:  Santos claims to be a victim.  No.  Anyone who voted for Santos, or cares about what he says or does, is the victim.  And, on that point, I pledge that this the last I will write about this scofflaw to avoid giving him any additional publicity.

FROM PEGGY NOONAN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, writing about former president Jimmy Carter as he has decided to remain in hospice at his home in Georgia as he waits for death:  “I’ve been meaning for the longest time to write about Jimmy Carter’s ‘malaise’ speech, long derided by history and cited to explain his landslide drubbing by Ronald Reagan 16 months later.

“It was, in fact, a good speech — brave, original and pertinent to the moment.  It failed because he was exactly the man who couldn’t give it, and he gave it at exactly the moment it couldn’t be heard.

“The backdrop was an air of crisis.  Summer 1979:  The oil crisis, inflation entering double digits, interest rates rising, unemployment too.  There was widespread fear America had lost its economic mojo, perhaps forever.”

COMMENT:  Noonan goes on to make a very salient point.  In hindsight, Jimmy Carter may not have been a great president but, at least according to consensus history, it is clear he has been an excellent “ex president.”

Noonan put it this way:  “He had felt called to the presidency.  His true calling was to be an ex-president, one of the most constructive and inspiring in our history.

“What a good man who tried so hard to understand America and help the world.”

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.

On occasion, the best way to make a point is to use an example, not a lot of verbiage.

Such was the case this morning as I read a piece by Phil Gramm, former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and now a non-resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Gramm’s article in the Wall Street Journal appeared under this headline:   “Some GOP lawmakers have forgotten that politics is about what’s possible, not what’s perfect.”

Great point.  The article attests to the virtue of the real definition of politics, one lost in today’s yelling and screaming to get attention:  Politics is – or should be – the art of compromise.

 Gramm started his article this way:

“Nowhere have Republicans done themselves more harm than in debasing the GOP’s brand as the party of fiscal responsibility, less government, and more freedom.

“The road to adopting the Reagan program and changing America was paved with bitter compromises.  If perfection is what you’re after, then running for Congress was the wrong decision.  I never wrote or voted for any major legislation that didn’t contain something I opposed.  If you can’t compromise, you can’t legislate or govern.”

Gramm added that every part of the Reagan budget, defense build-up, and tax cuts contained “gut-wrenching defeats and painful compromises.”

He pointed to what he called “one bitter example.”

“Nobody who ever took the oath of office was more committed to free trade than I was.  My conviction was based on evidence, not just faith.  I understood trade and its importance to America’s prosperity and success in the Cold War.  

“During my first year in the Senate that core conviction was tested when I put my political future in jeopardy by killing an amendment to impose an oil import fee and had to spend nine long months defending that vote all over Texas.

“Earlier, during debate on the 1981 Reagan budget reconciliation bill, Democratic then-Representative John Breaux came to me with an offer:  He and his Louisiana colleagues would vote with us on all amendments and on final passage in exchange for our commitment not to try to kill the sugar program — one of the most rotten in a government festooned with rotten programs.  Its protective quota doubled the price of sugar to benefit a very small special interest.”

Gramm recalled that he trudged down to the White House to relay Breaux’s offer and told the president that it was the best that could be done to save the reconciliation bill, with its spending cuts, defense increases, and tax cuts.”

Reagan was reported to have called this “kissing the pig.”

All of this recalled for me a couple cases in my time as a state lobbyist that involved, so to speak, “kissing the pig.”

In one case, as a lobbyist for the Port of Portland, I was trying to gain approval for the first installment of state dollars to fund deepening the Columbia River channel to allow deeper-draft ships to ply the river between Astoria on the coast and Portland 100 miles inland.

To get something I wanted, I had to settle for something I didn’t want.

To get the funding bill through the House in Salem, Oregon, I had to settle for three “pork-barrel” allocations from leaders of the Joint Ways and Means Committee.

Was it worth it?  Yes.

Did it turn my stomach, at least a bit?  Yes.

Would the bill have passed without the pork?  No.

Would I do this again?  Yes.

In the second case, I was at the Capitol to try to approve an “immunities clause” in legislation to implement the new assisted suicide law worked in Oregon.  It was a tall task to gain approval for ethical ways to avoid having to be involved in suicide.

An Oregon Senate leader, Neil Bryant (now a close friend) created what he called “a work group” to design a compromise bill behind the scenes, which, if successful, would have involved public votes in the full Senate and the House.

A willingness to compromise was required, so, for that reason, Bryant would not allow the Oregon Catholic Conference into the room.  Why?  As a lobbyist for a religion, the conference could not compromise.

The bill that eventually passed included protections that that my client, Providence Health System, wanted.  But it also had to settle for something it hated.  In return for avoiding assisted suicide in our system, we had to agree to “refer” patients out to a reputable provider if they wanted the service.  But, to a Catholic, referral constituted “agentry,” which was against doctrine.

But, as a hospital system affiliated with, but not specifically part, of the Catholic church, we chose to settle for the compromise?  Was it worth it?  Yes.

For me, these tales are prime examples of what Gramm said in his article:  Politics is about what’s possible, not what’s perfect.

My fond hope is that political leaders in Washington, D.C. and Salem, Oregon – as well as other places around the country – would learn this important lesson, plus practice it.  If they did, government would be better.

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.

Memories can last a lifetime. 

That is true for me with respect to the major word in the headline – Vietnam.

Not because I went to Vietnam in that war, which reached a crescendo just as I was graduating from college in 1970.

But because I lived through that terrible war and saw, sometimes almost firsthand, the damage it did to others who served.  Not to mention the plight for our nation as opposition to a pointless escapade – perhaps even an illegal one — overseas grew into demonstrations and violence at home.

So it was other day that I was surprised to learn one of my brothers and his wife were heading off to Vietnam on vacation.  They were scheduled to head first to Ho Chi Minh City where they would meet up with friends for a walking and biking tour of the countryside.

I don’t oppose this trip for them, for I have heard from others that the vacation experience there has been worthwhile despite the region’s history for persons of my age.

Further, I cannot stomach heading to that far off land, which took the lives of many friends and left the U.S. far worse off than before the war.

Vietnam lives on in various films depicting the war such as Full Metal Jacket, We Were Soldiers, The Green Berets, and Apocalypse Now.  I know about them, but I never watched them through to the end.  Too graphic.

The statistics are mind-boggling for the U.S. which started a troop build-up in 1964 that mostly ended with the Fall of Saigon:

• More than 185,000 U.S. troops were sent off to war.

• More than 58,000 did not return; they were killed in action.

• Many more were maimed.

• Most who returned were treated as villains for participating in what was viewed by many as an unjust war, though the fact that some young men soldiered on stood for me as an example of sacrifice and honor.

• Plus, thousands of South and North Vietnamese died in the conflict.

On-line, war analysts put it this way:

“The Vietnam War was a disaster from its bad beginning until its tragic end.  It killed four million Vietnamese and more than 58,000 Americans. Millions more Vietnamese and Americans were wounded by shell or shock and the war came close to ripping the U.S. asunder.”

The worst of Vietnam happened while I was in college from 1966-70.  In that last year, I was subject to the draft, which, for the first time, was conducted by a lottery.

I remember sitting in my apartment listening to the radio intently as birth dates were drawn and announced.

At the time, the prediction was that men with birthdays in the first 150 days of the year would be subject to being called up.  Those beyond that date might be lucky enough to avoid being drafted.

For me?  My birthday was called as number 32, so I knew immediately that I was subject to being drafted.

So, the next day, I went down to the U.S. Army Recruiting Office in Seattle, Washington (that’s where I attended college) and signed up for a six-year hitch in the Reserves, which, back in those days, operated much like the National Guard. 

I thought I would be a long line of guys around the block waiting to do the same. 

But no.  I was the only one there.

As for my motivation, it was not a high-calling.  It was to avoid having to go to war in Vietnam.

Therefore, my perceptions about Vietnam are colored greatly by this experience, now so many years ago.

They also are colored, frankly, by the cases of my friends who died in the war, one of whom came home from service as a medic, only to come down with cancer from Agent Orange and succumb later to that dread disease.

So I cannot imagine touring places where so many persons – both Americans and Vietnamese – died such horrible deaths without knowing why.

Glad it’s my brother and wife making this trek, not me. 

But I do wish them well, even as my intent is to leave Vietnam behind – never going there and trying to forget its tragedy.

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 wrote about new golf driver models the other day, I should have noted that the post from Links Magazine left out several.  Including these four:

• PXG, which no doubt irks the makers of the club who spend so much money on TV advertising.

• Tour Edge, which gains a lot of notice from being played by several solid Champions Tour players, including the venerable Bernhard Langer, who keeps winning, including last weekend.

• Srixon, which is making a name for itself in, at least, golf balls.

• Honma, which got a lot of publicity a couple years ago when pro golfer Justin Rose chose the made by the Japanese manufacturer, but its profile declined when Rose soon went away from the brand.

I have no idea why these club models were omitted from the Links coverage.  And it also is true that I don’t much care because my loyalty will remain with Callaway.

Plus, in retirement, I don’t have much else to do than to think about stuff like this.

By the way, the top six drivers in the Links coverage were TaylorMade, Callaway, Ping, Cobra, Mizuno, and Titleist.

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 have had the privilege to play a lot of golf courses in the United States, as well as in Scotland.

Along the way, I often have wondered how golf courses got their names. 

Sometimes it’s just logical.  At The Palms in La Quinta, California, where I play in the winter, it’s easy – there are more than 200 palm trees on the course.  Thus, the name arrives quickly.

In Salem, Oregon, my normal home, I have played Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club for more than 30 years.  There, the names doesn’t arrive so quickly. 

Nothing else is called “Illahe” in the region.

The derivation is not clear.  All I have heard is that “Illahe” is a Native American name.  My only idea is that one of the persons who formed Illahe as a golf course more than 60 years ago, faced the obvious challenge of a name.  They came up with Illahe.

So it was that I read with interest an article in my most recent edition of Links Magazine.  It joined the naming fray when it ran a story under the label,  “The Fiercest Golf Course Names.”

Here is how the article started:

“The very best golf course names accurately depict their settings and entice you to play.  Think Pebble Beach, or the Ocean Course at Kiawah Island Golf Resort.  Some course names entice you with prospects of comfort, such as California’s Friendly Hills or Nebraska’s Happy Hollow.

“Other course names are more forbidding.  Either they repel by their very nature, or they tempt with the promise of stern challenges and obstacles to overcome.   A few of our favorite chilling course names that have gone away are Bloody Point, The Witch (both in South Carolina), and Murder Rock in Missouri, a 2007 John Daly design. 

“Nonetheless, countless examples remain of course names that signify fear and foreboding in the round ahead.”

Here is the Links rendition of the 10 fiercest golf course names in the U.S.:

• Bayonet at Puppy Creek (Raeford, North Carolina)
• The Fortress (Frankenmuth, Michigan)
• Purgatory (Noblesville, Indiana)
• Tallgrass (Wichita, Kansas)
• Dubsdread (Orlando, Florida)
• Prison View (Angola, Louisiana)
• Devils Knob at Wintergreen Resort (Wintergreen, Virginia)
• The Creek Course at Hard Labor Creek State Park (Social Circle, Georgia)
• The Bog (Saukville, Wisconsin)
• Hell’s Point Golf Club (Virginia Beach, Virginia)

Not sure I would want to play any of those, unless I ignored the name.

Back to Illahe and The Palms.  Neither is fierce by name.

But, by playing charactistics?  Yes.

At Illahe, it’s important to avoid all the trees on the course and, given the character of the greens – most run downhill from back to front – the best advice is to stay below the hole.

At The Palms, yes, there are many trees, but also the greens carry a certain kind of ferocity.  They always run at least 11 on the stimpmeter and feature various slopes that, if you are not careful, take your ball off the green and down into a swale, even if your shot lands on the green first. 

Plus, veterans at the place told me when I arrived that it was not possible “to read the greens; you had to memorize what a putt would do.”

So, fierce?  “No” by name.  But “yes” by style of play.

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 in this blog presumes everyone wants a new golf driver.

For my part, I don’t, preferring the Callaway Epic I have had for more than five years.  Actually, I have two such drivers because I have one at my regular home in Salem, Oregon, and one at my winter home in La Quinta, California.

If only for that reason – two drivers, not just one – it is difficult for me to become excited about new drivers.  Price, of course.  Double prices.

The most recent on-line edition of Links Magazine showed up with a story on the best new drivers of 2023.  The writer, David DeSmith, focused on various technical abilities in the drivers. 

And, of course, one reason is that driver manufacturers emphasize all of this – and do every year on the apparent theory that technology, plus new names for drivers, matters to buyers.

Speaking of names, consider Callaway.  It started its so-called “jailbreak technology” series a few years with the name, Epic.  That became Epic Flash, then Rogue, than Mavrik, and now Paradygm.  New technology?  For all I know, yes.  Marketing?  Yes.

DeSmith started his Links Magazine story this way:

“Whether you’re a straight-hitting bomber or a higher-handicapper on the hunt for more distance, the club manufacturers have some attractive new options for you.  But unless you have a full day to test-drive some of these new clubs, sorting them out and finding the best choice for you may not be so easy.

“As has been the case for the past decade, the tech jargon is thick in every manufacturer’s descriptions of their new models.  That tech is there is do some simple (but important) things:  Increase clubhead speed and ball speed, yield more forgiveness on off-center hits, allow for more consistency, and build confidence.  But deciphering all that engineering and marketing lingo isn’t so simple.

“In all cases, because high-handicappers have different needs than tour pros, the clubmakers have created different versions for different kinds of players.  Some key things to look out for in these 2023 drivers:  Clubface design advancements, expanded use of lightweight carbon fiber, and new perimeter weighting options.”

I think I could have predicted the list, but here it is:

TaylorMade Stealth 2 Series:  “When TaylorMade launched its Stealth drivers and ushered in the Carbonwood era in 2022, they didn’t just look different with their bright red faces, they were different.  They featured clubfaces constructed with carbon fiber rather than titanium or steel, and the tech behind that ‘Carbon Twist face, which TaylorMade refers to as Inverted Cone Technology, was designed to boost performance across the entire clubface and provide improved distance and forgiveness.

“The 2023 Stealth clubheads feature almost twice as much carbon. The face of the new standard Stealth 2 is even lighter than last year’s and has a larger sweet spot for even more forgiveness on off-center hits.

Callaway Paradym Series:  Callaway is another manufacturer that has gone all-in on the use of carbon.  For 2023, its new Paradym drivers feature a carbon crown and forged carbon sole that make the clubhead’s chassis 44 percent lighter than a traditional titanium chassis. That’s a lot of weight savings, and it allows Callaway to redistribute weight to places where it can be used to improve performance.

Titleist TSR Series:  Titleist drivers have always been known for their classic good looks and consistent performance.  Where other companies may strut their tech on the outside, Titleist prefers to present a more traditional appearance, and their 2023 TSR line is no exception.  This year’s Titleist drivers—the TSR1, TSR2, TSR3, and TSR4—each present an appealing pear-shaped look at address, unblemished by overt signs of engineering wizardry.

“But beneath the surface, there’s a lot going on.  They all feature Titleist’s Variable Face Thickness—faces optimized in different ways to generate maximum ball speed across a broader cross-section of the face. Enhanced aerodynamics help generate more speed, too—without interfering with the club’s classic appearance.” 

PING G430 Series:  Ping drivers have long been revered for their performance and forgiveness.  PING’s new G430MAX, G430LST, and G430SFT drivers continue that tradition.  Unlike other companies, PING tends to release new club designs not every year but every two years.  From all accounts, the G430 series was worth the wait..

Mizuno ST 230 Series:  The driver news at Mizuno revolves around what it calls its Cortech Chamber—a dense, stainless steel weight encased in an elastomeric material. It sits in the sole behind the clubface, adding weight there for spin reduction and allowing for increased sole flexure and face stress reduction (translation: more power).

Cobra Aerojet Series:  Cobra’s new Aerojet drivers have a serious, traditional appearance on the outside—with a classic shape and glossy crown—but their tech has been dialed up to produce even more clubhead speed than prior Cobras. It starts with aerodynamics (hence the Aerojet name). Each model features a raised skirt (the rear part of the clubhead) and streamlined edges designed to reduce drag and increase clubhead speed.

So, there you have it, no doubt more than you wanted to know about new drivers.

For me, for reasons cited above, I intend to keep playing my Callaway Epic drivers.  Two reasons:  They work for me, and they’re paid for.