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.

Oregon’s new governor, Tina Kotek, has set out an early marker for her time in the state’s top political office.

She wants to make dealing with homelessness a major plank in her platform.

So, as the first two steps:

• She is advocating that the Oregon Legislature, now in session for about four weeks, make $130 million immediately available to begin dealing with the problem.

• She is advocating that, on a longer-term basis, the state build or acquire 36,000 new housing units that could accommodate the homeless.

Both are big asks, especially since lawmakers are anticipating a hint of an economic recession that will reduce tax revenue available for anything, including homelessness.

Whether Kotek succeeds will be an early test of her Administration, including whether she, as a Democrat, will have any ability to reach out to Republicans to find middle ground.

Success also will require a new outlook on the part of many involved in the legislative session – “new” in the sense of a commitment to solving a controversial problem that plagues both urban and rural Oregon and is often beset by huge biases, one of which is homeless persons often are viewed as less than citizens.

One place Kotek and legislators could look for clues on dealing with homeless issue is Church at the Park in Salem.

To be sure, that might not happen because Church at the Park has a “religious bent.”  Which strikes me as a good thing, but might not build a bridge to policymakers.

The Church at the Park vision has been summarized this way, based on scripture found in Luke 14:12-14

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid.  But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Beyond that vision, this list of services:

1. To restore dignity and relieve hunger through shared meals.
2. To listen intentionally to the stories of those who are experiencing homelessness, while looking for opportunities to affirm assets and motivation.
3. To ask those who are homeless about current goals.
4. To meet critical needs of shelter and clothing through relational partnerships.
5. To increase advocacy, awareness, understanding, and love for the homeless in Salem.
6. To invite all who join us to servanthood and leadership.
7. To say no to violence, and yes to making peace as a community.

Does this list solve all the problems?  Of course not.  But it is a start.  And the Church at the Park commitment also involves providing a type of “small houses” for those who are homeless, so they can begin the reality of living in a place with four walls.

Kotek, for her part, proposed the 36,000 housing expansion, which would help to make the Church at the Park goals a reality.

Many solutions to the homeless will be driven by the government and financed by the government, which means such programs must compete against other major government programs – education, transportation, health care, and many others.

Challenges:

• Many of the homeless do not know how to live in a house, much less afford to do it, given basic living expenses.

• Often, homelessness is aggravated by drug and alcohol addictions, or mental health problems, which make dealing with the issue even more expensive.

• One risk is that some citizens will say that everyone is responsible for themselves, so why should we help them?

Back to Governor Kotek’s first pledge upon taking office:  Building the 36,000 new Oregon homes.  This is an ambitious target, perhaps overly so.  One tough target:  Prompting local governments to remove permitting barriers to building homes.

According to the Oregonian newspaper, it’s been nearly five decades since the state produced 36,000 houses and apartments in a single year, and to get there would require the state to increase its production rate by 80 per cent.

But, housing advocates say the target represents an important acknowledgment from the state’s top executive of the state’s dire housing crisis, which has left renters reeling from ever-increasing costs, put homeownership out of reach for many, and contributed to a rise in homelessness that extends to all corners of the state.

So, from me, as I sit in the seats watching the debate, I wish Kotek and legislators success as they deal with what often has been an intractable problem.  And I hope they find time to look to Church at the Park in Salem as one place where at least partial solutions exist.

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.

“Thirty-five years ago when George Bush famously called for a “kinder, gentler nation” at the 1988 Republican Convention, he was referring to the overall state of American society, but he could just as well have been talking about golf courses.

“Back then, several factors had converged to spawn a parade of decidedly unkind and ungentle places to play.”

So began a column by one of my favorite golf writers, George Pepper, who serves as editor-at-large of Links Magazine.

He has a wealth of experience writing about, as well as playing, golf.  A couple years ago, he reported that he had played his 750^th course, an incredible feat…which, by the way, prompted me and a couple friends to compile our own lists.  I got to about 225, a few less than my friends.  But, it was fun to review my life in golf.

For a couple years, after retiring as editor of Golf Magazine, Pepper, his wife, and his dog moved to St. Andrews in Scotland in a home adjacent to the 18^th hole at the Old Course.  He played there often, writing about it very well in a book called “Two Years at St. Andrews:  At Home on the 18^th Hole.”

I loved reading the book and imagining being there, rain or shine, hard by the North Sea.

Now, in the most recent issue of Links Magazine, Pepper wrote about a current trend in golf architecture to design courses that are fun to play, not difficult to play.

The most difficult ones often were designed by the late architect, Pete Dye, who was known to say, “Golf isn’t fair, so why should a golf course be.”

When I hear about tough courses, my mind often goes to Tetherow in Bend, a course designed by acclaimed architect, David McClay Kidd, who emigrated to Bend from his home in Scotland.  Soon, after designing Tetherow, he realized he had made it too difficult for the average golfer.  Many played it once, but declined to return.  It was very tough.  So, on a couple occasions, Kidd softened it up a bit.

Borrowing ideas from another golf writer, Ran Morrissett, Pepper provided this list of architectural principals for better, more fun golf:

• A course that provides engaging puzzles to solve beats one that does not.

• A course where the ball is encouraged to run beats one where it is not.

• A course where you may carry your bag at any time beats one where you may not.

• A course where you can play quickly while walking beats one where you cannot.

• A course you can enjoy at any age beats one you cannot.

• A course with understated maintenance practices beats one with conspicuous greenkeeping.

• A club that emphasizes the simple game of golf beats one which pursues the trappings of status.

• A course you want to play again and again beats one you only wish to play annually.

So, as Pepper wrote:  “Elation beats frustration, inviting beats intimidation, natural beats manicured, modesty beats pretension, wide beats long, walking beats riding, a ground attack beats artillery practice, and a resourceful recovery shot beats ball hunting.”

I couldn’t agree more. 

However, perhaps, at my advanced age, I would give a nod to riding, not always walking. The moral here is to have fun playing golf and, as Pepper does, salute architects who follow the script.

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 Tina Kotek took over as Oregon governor recently, I noted with interest one of her early comments.

She said she wanted her Administration to function a lot like that of the late Governor Vic Atiyeh, the last Republican governor in Oregon who left office in 1985.

Kotek didn’t know Atiyeh, but, obviously, she had heard about the qualities of his Administration.

I knew Atiyeh well.  I worked for him for several years, finding him to be a very credible governor, one interested in doing a good job for ALL Oregonians without worrying about who got credit for solid results.  He became a friend.

Frankly, we need more governors like Atiyeh, so, if Kotek lives up the brand she said she cherishes, good.

My friend Dick Hughes, former editorial page editor for the Salem Statesman-Journal and now a columnist in his own right, wrote a few days ago under this headline:  “Kotek governorship could be in the spirit of Atiyeh.”

Here is how Hughes started his column which is called “Capital Chatter:”

“In her inaugural address a month ago, Kotek quoted Atiyeh’s 1979 inaugural speech and said she took inspiration from him:  ‘He too was a former legislator with deep knowledge of our state budget.  And we are both ‘firsts’ – he, the first elected governor of Arab descent in the United States – and me, the first openly lesbian governor in the United States, along with the new governor of Massachusetts.

“’I will endeavor to listen and lead with the same authenticity, compassion, and skill that Governor Atiyeh brought to this job.’”

In that spirit, Kotek started what she called her “One Oregon Listening Tour” in Yamhill County a few of weeks ago.  On that visit, and ones to follow, she said she wants “to hear directly from people who are doing the hard work every day to serve their community — especially on issues of shared concern across our state.”

Kotek has promised to visit all 36 counties during her first year in office. However, she might be hard-pressed eventually to match Atiyeh’s travels around Oregon – 250,000 miles during his eight years as governor.

Back to columnist Hughes:

“This month also is an appropriate time to talk about Atiyeh, who died in 2014, because February 20 would be his 100th birthday.  I turned to Pacific University professor Jim Moore, who is writing a biography about Atiyeh, to augment my own recollections and stories as a young reporter covering the statehouse.

Moore noted that Kotek and Atiyeh had been longtime legislative leaders and, thus, understood the triangular relationship among the House, the Senate, and Governor’s Office.

From Moore:

“When Atiyeh became governor, I would argue, it took him about two years to figure out how to be governor rather than a super-legislator.  Some people who worked with him think that he never was able to be a true governor, that he was always a super-legislator. 

“I think he overcame it, but Kotek is in the same situation.”  

“Second,” Moore added, “any governor has to recognize that a governor’s voice comes across as a bullhorn compared with a legislators.  So, you’ve got to be careful how you phrase things.”

And, from my standpoint, this about Atiyeh, with some of the recollections coming from time as his press secretary:

• He held “media availabilities” almost every week that he was in town.  Some observers called them “press conferences,” but the point was that Atiyeh met with reporters and editors, believing they had a solid role to play in good governance.
• Beyond that, he liked to walk downstairs to the press room at the Capitol (it no longer exists in these days of social media) just to talk informally – but on the record – with reporters.
• He often ate lunch with the public in the Capitol café, enjoying the process of meeting others who happened to be there.
• His door was open to almost anyone.  [And, to this day, I recall a comment from one my business partners, Pat McCormick.  Coming from his Democrat roots, he was quick to laud Atiyeh as the most open of governors he had met at the Capitol over many years.]
• He knew the heads of state agencies and held weekly Cabinet Meetings with those heads.  [Along with the Department of Human Resources director for whom I worked, I went to Cabinet Meetings and was able to watch Atiyeh in action.  Once, when he was briefed on a suit against state prisons for enabling what was labeled “cruel and unusual punishment,” he responded with one word – “preposterous.”  The acting attorney general was there and almost jumped out of his seat, fearful that Atiyeh would use the word in front of a judge at some point down the road.]
• He appointed people to his staff, agency leadership, and the courts based on competence, not party affiliation.  [Turns out I was one of those.  I came to his Administration from a position in Washington, D.C. where I worked for a Democrat.  Atiyeh didn’t care.  He and his staff only asked if I could do the job in Oregon.]

And, this in conclusion repeating a point I made above:  Atiyeh was big on saying that it’s amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets the credit.

At many points, he didn’t get credit he deserved, but he would say, “so what.”

I hope Governor Kotek is able to capitalize on her stated goal, which is to “listen and lead with the same authenticity, compassion, and skill that Governor Atiyeh brought to this job.”

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.

“Candy-land?” 

Yes.  That’s what some golf rules analysts call the place where you tee up your golf ball.

Why?

Well, it’s because you can do almost anything there in contrast to any other area of a golf course that is not on the tee where you are playing.

In a previous blog, I wrote about my decision to sign up for a three-month golf rules seminar and it was there that I learned about this — what you are allowed to do on the tee you are playing.

There are a host of restrictions anywhere else – in the fairway, in a penalty area, in a bunker, on the green, or on tee other than the one you are on.

For all of you golf rules nuts, here’s the place where you can find the answer about what you can do on “your” tee: Rule #6(5) and (6).  In abbreviated form, here is the text:

“(5) Ball Is Not in Play Until Stroke Is Made. Whether the ball is teed or on the ground, when starting a hole or playing again from the teeing area under a rule:

• The ball is not in play until the player makes a stroke at it, and
• The ball may be lifted or moved without penalty before the stroke is made.

“If a teed ball falls off the tee or is knocked off the tee by the player before the player has made a stroke at it, it may be re-teed anywhere in the teeing area without penalty.

“But if the player makes a stroke at that ball while it is falling or after it has fallen off, there is no penalty, the stroke counts and the ball is in play.

“(6) When Ball in Play Lies in Teeing Area. If the player’s ball in play is in the teeing area after a stroke (such as a teed ball after a stroke that missed the ball) or after taking relief, the player may:

• Lift or move the ball without penalty (see Rule 9.4b, Exception 1), and
• Play that ball or another ball from anywhere in the teeing area from a tee or the ground under (2), including playing the ball as it lies.”

Frankly, I would not have known this information without taking the rules seminar.

To put it simply, if you are ready to make a swing at a ball on the tee and don’t do so yet, but the ball of its own volition falls off the tee, no penalty.  Just put the ball back on the tee and hit. 

But, if you take a swing and barely hit the ball off the tee so it remains in the teeing area, then you are allowed – surprise here, for me — to tee the ball up again before you take your next swing.  This would be your second shot since the first swing would count.

But, in either case, you don’t have to hit it off the ground without a tee.

I have said or written this before, but golf rules are nothing if not complicated.  One reason is that golf is played out-of-doors on all kinds of land.  Designing rules for all situations is, therefore, complicated.

Rules are designed to achieve at least two objectives:

1. To help players make their way around a golf course fairly and equitably; and
2. To protect the entire field in a tournament to make sure no one gets an unfair advantage.

So, onward to review more golf rules.  Perhaps I’ll find another new one that surprises me.

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 few perceptions about the speech:

• I didn’t watch it so my notions arise from reading media coverage.
• One piece of good news is that it’s over.
• The speech has become more “political theater” than an even-handed summary of the “state of the union.”

To prepare this blog, I could have decided to open one of the four departments I run, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

But, no, I decided just to write about the speech, President Joe Biden’s second of his presidency, now entering its third year.

So, was the speech good or bad?

Well, as usual in political theater, it depends on whom you ask. 

To many of Biden’s fellow Democrats, he did a good job of outlining the status of the country, including good things he and colleagues had done while in office.

To many Republicans, it was more of the same – more government, more government spending, more regulations.

Here are just a few perceptions from commentators.

FROM KARL ROVE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “President Joe Biden considers himself a blue-collar working stiff from middle America.  But another side of Scranton Joe was on display in his State of the Union address Tuesday night:  A high-rolling gambler.

“His speech was one gigantic political bet.  Team Biden knows that Americans feel both that the economy is in bad shape and that things have gotten worse for their families since he took office.  Workers’ wages rose less than prices last year, which probably explains these sour feelings.

“This — along with his malaprops and advanced age — have left only about a quarter of Americans confident in his ability to run the White House.

“It’s remarkable then that Tuesday Biden doubled down.  He’s betting big that the economy is already turning around.  He crowed loudly about its improving state, rewrote history where needed (‘two years ago, the economy was reeling’) and urged Americans to ‘finish the job.’”

Rove concluded, contending that “Biden was elected as a transitional figure and that voters still hope he is.”

FROM AARON BLAKE IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “The last time Biden gave a major speech was back in September, when he delivered some tough words in a prime time address about Republican efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and said that ‘MAGA Republicans’ posed a threat to democracy.

“Tuesday’s speech was much more aspirational, albeit with some tense moments mixed in.  And, despite what could be an acrimonious 2024 campaign ahead, Biden clearly made the decision to preach extensively about bi-partisanship.

“He pitched his first two years in office as a surprising win for bi-partisanship, saying it proved the doubters wrong about the two sides’ ability to come together on issues like infrastructure and toxic burn pits.

“Biden’s dig at Trump-era deficits wasn’t the only indicator of the upcoming presidential race.  He also geared his speech extensively toward blue-collar voters.”

FROM EUGENE ROBINSON IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “The call to action during President Biden’s State of the Union address on Tuesday — ‘Let’s finish the job’ — would never be mistaken for soaring poetry.  But perhaps that’s the point.  In his speech, as throughout his first two years in office, Biden made a powerful case for governing in prose.

“The president took advantage of the national television audience the speech always draws to make the case that his worldview has been proved correct:  Even at a time of extreme polarization, bi-partisanship is not only possible but also necessary.  He said there is ‘no reason we can’t work together and find consensus in this Congress.’

“Biden came prepared for catcalls from far-right members of the new House majority.  I wondered at times whether I was watching a State of the Union address or a raucous session of Prime Minister’s Questions in the British House of Commons.  Rather than being rattled or angered by GOP outbursts, Biden seemed to relish them — at times, even to provoke them.”

In conclusion, I found the event to be a jeer-filled affair, no more so than when the flake, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, got just what she wanted as, in a loud voice, she called Biden a liar.

There were photos of her outburst, one she capitalized after the speech by using what she said to raise money from her supporters. 

The best photo:  The one, where in a white coat with a huge collar, Greene was shown with mouth wide open, yelling and screaming.  Standard behavior for her.

Worthy behavior on the occasion of a State of the Union address?  No.  But that’s what we now have in political theater. 

So, I am happy to join Washington Post columnist David Von Drehle who says it may now be time to scrap the “State of the Union” which has outlived its usefulness.

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 arose because of a quote in the Wall Street Journal under its “notable and quotable” section.

This:

“Increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality.”

The quote came from Leonard Downie, an American journalist who was executive editor of The Washington Post from 1991 to 2008 and who worked in the Post newsroom for 44 years. 

It raises a question that has come up for writers and editors in the days since Donald Trump rose to power in this country.  And, it exists for me, a former daily newspaper reporter, though that stint was a long time ago.

And, as Downie put it below, it is a question that also deals with a variety of cultural trends in this country.

Here’s how I put the question:  Does journalistic objectivity make sense when you deal with a person (or allies of that person) who lie and make up stuff as a matter of course?  Do those who write about this stuff have an obligation to write the truth or, by contrast, continue to engage in what has been labeled ‘bothsideism.’?

Downie added this:

“Amid all the profound challenges and changes roiling the American news media today, newsrooms are debating whether traditional objectivity should still be the standard for news reporting.  Objectivity is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings, or prejudice.

“But increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality.  They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world.

“They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘bothsidesism’ in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change, and many other subjects.

“And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”

To this, I would emphasize the difficulty of covering political figures – Trump is the best example – who lie as a matter of course.  So, as a reporter, do you cover the lies as if they are true?  I say no.

The risk, of course, is that, if journalists don’t try to practice objectivity, they become like gods – yes, that’s an overstatement – but they presume to decide what is truth and what is not.

So, based on my early days as a reporter, as well as on the rest of my career where I devoured newspapers intentionally:

• I have a history of believing that it is critical to cover both sides – or all sides – in writing a story for a newspaper.  How else to be fair to all sides in what could be a spirited dispute?  By taking a side, I did not want to presume to know how to resolve a pending dispute.
• At the same time, I was hesitant to include comments from one side when what that side said was lying or over-the-top rhetoric.  There is a difference between outlining your point of view and yelling or screaming. 
• In the Trump example above, it would be enough for me for a reporter to describe comments from someone like Trump as lies by citing the truth, not the Trump-fiction.

Don’t forget, I am a former lobbyist, so I don’t have to fall down on one side or the other of such contentious debates. 

I try to find what I call the smart middle.

Here, the smart middle is this: 

1. General assignment reporters should continue to try to cover both or all sides of contentious issues.  Report the issue, including having the courage to call out lies.
2. Editors and opinion writers should fall down on the side of what they believe to be the truth and assure that their opinions are labeled as such as they advocate for beliefs.

Sound good?

I think so.

And, it’s why I continue to read both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.  Both practice what I preach above.

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.

Like a dummy, I signed up the other day for a three-month seminar on golf rules.

Why?

A couple reasons:

• First, I like the subject, which I know is a strange affliction.

• Second, the seminar is being run by the Oregon Golf Association (OGA), not a national golf association, so the content will be easier to understand as local officials help all of us deal with an often-arcane subject.

The seminar will be offered on-line every Tuesday and Thursday from 5:30-7:30 p.m. each evening, starting on January 31 and running through March 9.

The “all” refers to about 40 from Oregon who have joined me to take the course – or perhaps, better put, I joined them.

Based on the first sessions, it appears that Brent Whitaker, a friend of mine who directs all OGA golf tournaments, will be the instructor.  That’s good because he knows many of us who have signed up for the seminar need a lot of help understanding the rules.

Further, one helpful feature of the course is that, on a weekly basis, in addition to the on-line class, there will be a “office hours” session.  That’s where a small group of those who have signed will have at least an hour of time with an OGA rules official to engage in an interactive session.

Based on the first such yesterday afternoon, it will be time well spent.

So, beyond the two reasons cited above, why do I do this?  Well, I want to gain more rules knowledge, if not rules certification, so I can add that to my goal to continue serving as a “starter “for OGA tournaments for junior or adult amateurs.

Being a starter is rewarding.

First, you are “around golf.” 

Second, at every tournament, you meet and greet the players on the 1^st or 10^th tees, welcome them, and review basic rules of the competition.  Plus, once all players have teed off, a starter usually gets to go home while rules officials must stay around for hours so all players can finish their round under rules supervision.

I hope my increased rules knowledge will come in handy as I continue to support golf in Oregon.

Let me add that golf rules are arcane, complicated, and difficult.  Look at it this way:  Rules have to be applied to all kinds of outdoor areas around the world.  Far different than drafting rules for a stadium or an indoor gymnasium.

Could the rules be written more simply?  I believe the answer is.

From a wordsmithing perspective, I’d love to take a crack at it.  But, I am too busy now attending another rules seminar.

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.

“Scotland is notably famous for its Open Rota venues — celebrated courses where you can experience links golf at its finest and walk in the shadow of history.

“These acclaimed courses each merit high ranking on any traveling golfer’s bucket list.  But there’s so much more to Scottish golf than the courses you see on television.”

That’s how a recent Links Magazine on-line article started.  And the description reminded me of my five trips to the “Home of Golf” where I played many courses located in small towns around the country, not just the most famous venues.

More from Links:

“There are over 500 golf courses in Scotland, a country about the size of South Carolina.  So, you’re never far from a visit-worthy course when you’re touring Caledonia.  And it’s easy to combine rounds at some of the more exalted courses with visits to lesser-known but equally enjoyable ones—courses where the emphasis is on fun rather than fame.”

That was exactly my experience in Scotland.

I could play the Old Course in St. Andrews on one day (that is, if I could get a tee time) and the play Brora the next day.

I loved playing the small Scottish courses in the small towns.  Each town has one or two courses.  The proprietors welcome you with open arms and often pair you up with local residents who love to play, even as they talk you around a course using their characteristic Scottish accents.

Then, at the end of the round, it’s time for a “wee dram,” which means whiskey and, while I don’t much like the drink, it does warm you up after a round in the often-cold Scot weather.

I chose “links-style” courses in Scotland rather than the parkland courses characteristic of courses in the United States.

What’s the difference?

The main one is that, on links-style courses, you play many shots close to the ground and the ground works its will on the golf ball.  I often played a 7-iron from 50 yards or from 150 yards.  There are few, if any, trees.  On parkland courses, the challenge is target golf, with a lot of trees as you aim at pins.

Both are fun types of golf, but very different.

The Links Magazine article went on to list several small-town golf courses in Scotland that are worth playing.

• Crail Golfing Society (Craighead Links)—Crail, Fife [I have played this course, which features knee-high fescue rough.]
• Gleneagles (Queen’s Course)—Auchterarder, Perthshire  [I have not played this course, which is listed as, perhaps, the toughest par 68 course in the world, but, of course, I have heard of the several Gleneagles Courses.]
• Gullane Golf Club (No. 2)—Gullane, East Lothian  [I have played this course.  Actually, there are three courses at Gullane, which lies close to Open-Rota Course Muirfield Links.]
• Kilspindie Golf Club—Aberlady, East Lothian  [I have played this course, which lies in the first small town my wife and I visited in Scotland, Aberlady.]
• Panmure Golf Club—Carnoustie, Angus  [This course lies almost adjacent to Open Rota venue, Carnoustie.  It’s worth playing, as is, of course, Carnoustie, which is as difficult as any course I have played in Scotland.]
• Prestwick St. Nicholas Golf Club—Prestwick, Ayrshire  [I have played this course.  At one time, it was part of the Open Rota, but these days it is not long enough to accommodate pro golfers.  It accommodated me just fine.]

That’s enough for now. 

Suffice to say that golf in Scotland is a pleasure.  You relive history every time you visit a course, even a small one in a small town.

Great golf.  Great country.

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.

“Earmarks” – the process by which Members of Congress gain federal funding for their home districts – is always an issue that sparks debates on both sides.

• Those who hate earmarks say all they do is inflate federal spending.
• Those who like earmarks say they provide funding for important local projects.

All of this arose again in a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal that appeared under this headline:  “Steny Hoyer is part of the problem in Congress.”

Well, who is Steny Hoyer anyway? 

Well, he is – or, perhaps better, “was” — a major leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.  As a Democrat, he is now out of leadership in a body controlled by Republicans, but he was a major aide and confidante of long-time House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Here is how the letter to the editor started:

“The January 3 Metro article gave high praise to Representative Steny H. Hoyer for his ability to obtain ‘dividends to Maryland.’  Clearly, Hoyer’s track record of looting the national treasury to benefit his constituents is considered a great achievement.

“In fact, Hoyer is a perfect example of congressional dysfunction.  As a career politician, with more than 40 years in Congress, he continues to be re-elected by ‘bringing home the bacon’ to his constituents.  Other members of Congress support his efforts to loot the national treasury for the simple reason of reciprocity.

“If they support him, he will support them in their efforts to send their constituents some of the public largesse.  This process of reciprocal unrestrained spending has resulted in a national debt exceeding $31 trillion and in the maintenance of a permanent political class in the legislative branch of the federal government.”

Well, as strong as those words are, there is another side to the story.  This.

If a senator or representative works well and above-board in Congress, he or she can become advocates for important, not to mention reasonable, federal investments in their home communities. 

Money to fund new roads.  Money to fund new education services.  Money for special health care programs.  Etc.

All are the types of local investments that can make sense and also can be a testament to a Member of Congress’ ability to work for those they represent back home.

So, as I said, the argument cuts both ways.

Further, I have been involved directly in earmarks in the past.

Back when I worked in Washington, D.C. for a Member of Congress from Oregon, we worked hard to secure investments for our home district.  All those potential investments were analyzed on their merits, not just from a “bring home the bacon” perspective, although, frankly, that was important, too.

Then, in the public relations and lobbying firm in Oregon from which I retired in 2018, our staff in Washington, D.C. worked hard to secure local investments for clients throughout the states of Oregon and Washington.  Again, investments that rested on their merits.

Of course, on the anti-side, there is the old story about a U.S. senator from Virginia, Robert Byrd, who made a career of bringing home federal money, so much so that one time the money built a “bridge to nowhere.”

So, on earmarks, make up your own mind.

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 what I wrote earlier this week, I should have given the new governor credit for this:

• In her “Recommended Budget for 2023-25,” she did not just propose a bunch of numbers.

• Rather, she proposed “policy priorities” and then summarized how to fund them.

That doesn’t mean her recommendations will emerge unscathed in the Oregon Legislature.  It just means that, based on her work, it is at least possible that lawmakers also will focus on policy, not just numbers.

Such policies as affordable housing.  Dealing with homelessness.  What “quality education” means.  Improving health care and human services programs.  Etc.

That’s what supposed to happen with a “Governor’s Recommended Budget.”  It did this time.

We’ll see how Kotek’s proposals fare in the next five months at the Capitol.  Usually, about 80 per cent of what a governor recommends survives and she also has the benefit of a Legislature controlled by Democrats.

So, with this post, I correct my omission.