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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.\

While the U.S. and the world lurches from one controversy to another – from Covid-19 to Black Lives Matter protests – it may seem strange for me to “lurch” – there’s that word again – to an often arcane, not to mention irrelevant, subject…golf rules.

Still, doing so is a way for me to maintain a vestige of sanity in the midst of issues I cannot control or even understand.

This time I deal with this subject:  What it means when handicap values are assigned to each of the 18 holes on a course, one of the ways golf can be played and scores tallied for groups of different abilities as they play together.

The bottom line is that #1 handicap hole is not necessarily the hardest hole on a course, which is a common miss-perception.

Too much to understand?  Yeah.  But, remember, this is golf with a myriad of hard-to-understand rules written in something other than plain English.

Let me try to explain this for at least one reason:  If I write something, it is often a stimulant for me to remember it.

I am indebted to my friends at the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) for this explanation.

“There are two misconceptions about the ‘Stroke Index Allocation.’ The first being that the number 1 ranked hole is the ‘hardest’ hole on the course.  The purpose of the ranking of the holes is to determine where the higher handicapped player deserves the assistance of an extra stroke in order to tie, or halve, a hole with the low handicapper.”

The OGA continues:

“That stroke should be assigned on the hole where the relative difficulty of the hole is more difficult for the higher handicapped golfer than the relative difficulty for the lower handicapped golfer.

“Did you notice that the word ‘hardest’ was not mentioned?

When someone tells us about the ‘hardest’ hole, we often ask back: Hardest for whom?  The difficulty of a hole is relative to the set of tees, the level of golfer, the landing zones where each player hits and more.

“On occasion, there may be a hole where the higher handicapped golfer has less difficulty due to their landing zones being nice wide fairways, but the low handicapper may have a landing zone where they must lay up to not hit through the corner on a dogleg, or they have a very narrow landing zone with close in bunkers, water, trees etc. In that case, the hole might be relatively less difficult for the Bogey golfer than the Scratch.

“The #1 allocated hole should not necessarily be the ‘hardest’ hole on the course.  Often, that hole is one where the relative difficulty is the same or similar for low and high handicapped golfers.”

So, in the arcane world of golf rules and standards, does that make sense?

Well, read it a couple of times and it may make more sense.

And, if I do that – read it more than once – I may be able to explain to my friends why the #1 ranked hole is not necessarily the hardest.

Some achievement?  Right.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The metaphor in the headline refers to a moment this week when the bridge that has carried Donald Trump for years began to crack with the weight of Trump’s stupidity.

Retired General James Mattis ended his self-imposed silence on Trump with these telling words:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us.”

To continue the image in the headline, I hope the bridge capsizes all the way as a show of American intolerance for the worst president in U.S. history.

Washington Post writer David Ignatius deserves credit for the metaphor in a piece this morning.  It read:

“The military establishment’s anger at President Trump’s politicization of the armed forces has been building for three years.  It finally ripped open in the aftermath of Monday’s appalling presidential photo op at St. John’s Episcopal Church.

“The break was a decisive moment in the Trump presidency.  But such inflection points are mysterious.  Why does a bridge that has carried a million vehicles suddenly collapse when one more heavy load rumbles across?  It’s not a linear process but a sudden discontinuity. Mathematicians call it ‘catastrophe theory.’

“The catastrophe Monday was that Trump was advocating what military officers dread most.  He was preparing to mobilize the armed forces to suppress protests by U.S. citizens against racial injustice and police brutality.  For military officers who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, this was overload.  The structure cracked.”

To adjust the metaphor a bit, Trump’s recent threat to use the military to advance his political cause was a “bridge too far” for some.

Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski:  “When I saw General Mattis’ comments yesterday, I felt like perhaps we’re getting to the point where we can be more honest with the concerns that we might hold internally and have the courage of our own convictions to speak up.”

Former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly:  He corrected Trump by saying that Mattis was not fired by Trump – Mattis left the administration left when he could no longer tolerate Trump’s behavior, especially his stupidity toward the military.

Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney:  He concurred with Murkowski and welcomed her into what may a growing group of some Republicans willing to challenge Trump.  [Some, of course, will continue to bow at the altar of Trump and latest to do so again is Senator Lindsay Graham who should be turned of office for his Trump duplicity.]

Retired chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Mullen:  He reached his choke point in a piece entitled “I Cannot Remain Silent.” It challenged Trump’s consideration of using active-duty troops to put down the protesters.  “I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.” Mullen wrote.

Columnist George Will, a long-time Republican:  He wrote a scathing piece for the Wall Street Journal that began this way:  “This unraveling presidency began with the Crybaby-in-Chief banging his spoon on his highchair tray to protest a photograph — a photograph — showing that his inauguration crowd the day before had been smaller than the one four years previous.  Since then, this weak person’s idea of a strong person, this chest-pounding advertisement of his own gnawing insecurities, this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron.”

All of this will be good news for a partner of mine in my old lobbying firm.  He has been very concerned lately that more Republicans are not running away from Trump, including by making public comments about Trump’s clear incapacity for ANY form of cogent leadership.

My partner has a point.  It is past time for all persons – Republicans, Democrats and Independents (like myself) — to rise up in opposition to Trump.  If you don’t have a soapbox to promulgate your opposition, so be it – just oppose Trump.

Such opposition is long overdue.  The best opportunity to express it is at the polls this fall.

Throw Trump out of office give the Oval Office to a person who has leadership credentials to occupy it, the presumptive Democrat nominee Joe Biden.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

If anyone needed another indication that I have too much time on my hands during the pandemic, this will seal the deal.

I report that I read and focused on a piece in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) this morning that focused on a major issue facing us in this country and perhaps even the world.

It is this:

Should there be one space or two spaces between sentences in what we write by one tech device or another?

Definitively, I say two.

See, it was a key issue, right?

I am part of the cabal in this country that believes there always should be two spaces, not one, between sentences.  Since I started composing on a Wang Word Processing System about 30 years ago and, today, on my MAC, I have been committed to the “two space standard.”

Tough to change.  Shouldn’t change.  Won’t change.

In a piece by Duane Daiker, the WS, under this headline, reported on the challenge facing us two-space devotees:

People Who Type Two Spaces After a Period Just Can’t Win

Two-spacers say the extra room after a sentence is easier on the eyes, but the one-spacers keep gaining ground

The story went on – and I quote excerpts to illustrate that great minds – mine and the Wall Street Journal’s — believe this is a crucial issue for our times:

“Ever since computers displaced typewriters, a rift has grown between people who put two spaces after a period and people who put one. Daiker worries he might be on the losing side.

“Daiker, a lawyer in Tampa, Florida, brought Mignon Fogarty, author of the bestselling ‘Grammar Girl’ books, onto his law-themed podcast in March to settle the matter once and for all.  He hoped she would rule in favor of two spaces, as he had been taught in high school.

“Instead, Fogarty predicted that placing two spaces after a period would die out in 10 to 20 years.

“’I’ll have to decide whether or not to leave this on the podcast, right?’ replied Daiker, who is 50, on the recording.

“Two-spacers have fretted for some time they are losing ground to one-spacers who learned to type in the digital age. Jennifer Bell, a 19-year-old student from Columbus, Ohio, summed up the counterargument:  ‘It looks ridiculous.’

“Putting two spaces after a period made sense in the mechanical age, when the letters produced by typewriters were all the same width.  With a single space at the end of a sentence, the page looked a little cramped.  Legal professionals who regularly wade through dense documents loaded with citations are among the loudest proponents.

“A further setback for two-spacers came in April.

“Alan Chen was sitting at home in Denver typing when he noticed something he hadn’t seen before.  The document he was working on flagged as an error the two spaces he customarily leaves after a period.

“’The one spacers have won,’ Chen tweeted.”

Unfortunately, after deeming either one or two spaces as acceptable for years, even Microsoft recently changed the default setting in Word so that two spaces after a period summons the annoying blue squiggle indicating an error.

More from the WSJ:

“Chen’s discovery went viral.  ‘It’s interesting,’ he said.  “You’d think people would have more to worry about during a pandemic.’

“Kirk Gregersen, partner director of program management at Microsoft, acknowledged not all writers will appreciate the stylistic choice.  So Microsoft added the option for users to tweak their settings so that two spaces don’t get flagged.

“Judge Beth Walker, 55 years old, of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, said she would change her settings.  She said she is tired of being shamed by millennials who she said insist on rushing from sentence to sentence.

“’I suspect that Microsoft’s latest salvo will only unite the commitment of #TeamTwoSpace,’ she said.  ‘To the extent necessary, I will alter any and all automatic settings they attempt to impose.’”

There might be some consolation for me, Daiker and many other two-spacers, given a prediction that it will take one or two decades for the one-spacers to claim ultimate victory.

We won’t be around to see that sad turn of events.

And, judge me by this – in this blog, I have tried to put two spaces between sentences.  If I failed on an occasion, it was an oversight, not intentional.

Rally on two-spacers!

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Given what is happening these days in this country, from the coronavirus to protests over the death of a Black man in the Midwest, there are many opportunities for including information in this department, one of several I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

So, the Department of “Just Saying” is open agai

WHERE IS THE SOLACE AND EMPATHY:  On any grid of government management skills, solace and empathy would reside near the top – or at least should reside there.

It’s a skill that is called for these days in response to the virus, the protests and a range of other issues.

“JUST SAYING” that President Donald Trump does not possess either solace or empathy.  He only exists to aggrandize himself and express hate for all others who don’t share his racist views.

This horrible reality was evident this week as Trump, apparently feeling compelled to speak without any preparation – as usual, l report – said he would call out the military to stop protests.

An option, one he would never choose, is to shut up.  Or, if he was a real leader, express statesmanship and empathy, not rhetoric that inflames the situation.

 A NEW POSE FOR THE MEDIA – AN HONEST EMBRACE OF BIAS:  Van Gordon Sauter, former president of CBS News, made this point in a recent article for the Wall Street Journal.

Here is how he wrote it:

“About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.  She was lamenting what she called the ‘liberal leaning’ media.  As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a ‘liberal tilt’ and could be corrected.

“’You don’t understand,’ she scolded. ‘It’s too late.’

“Kirkpatrick was prophetic.  The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal.  On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Donald Trump.

“News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Trump has accelerated the pace.  The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world.  Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.

“To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed.  That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president.  To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner.  Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the ‘resistance,’ dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys

Sauter suggests that it would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center!  I’m proud of it.  I think our reporting is accurate.  It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!”

JUST SAYING that Sauter may be right.  Why not just admit bias and then, if you are a solid journalist – and the word “if” is important here – behave like it?  Report facts.  Provide context.  And, admit your position on the liberal-conservative scale, even as you strive for accuracy.

WHEN EPIDEMICS GIVE A VOICE TO THE FORGOTTEN:  The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a solid development in journalism and, yes, even social media, during the coronavirus.

The development is that real journalists report the plight of real people affected by the virus – stories of real people that give us a chance to express sympathy and empathy

As the Journal wrote it:  “Even as city streets have fallen silent in many parts of the Western world, the sound of urban voices has been growing louder.  Usa of Facebook, Instagram and Twitter has grown dramatically, and much of that traffic has been devoted to sharing ordinary people’s intimate stories of devotion, courage and tragedy.  Through social media, cities seem to be talking to themselves, and discovering themselves, in a new way.”

JUST SAYING that solid newspaper journalism, such as that employed by the Wall Street Journal on the right and the Washington Post on the left, also provides a way to hear lessons from the poor and disadvantaged as all of us contend with the pandemic.

So, I say, read the solid journalism wherever it is practiced – and that means, for one thing, you should avoid Twitter traffic promulgated by the “what’s his name as president.”

AMAZON’S PANDEMIC SUCCESS STORY:  So-called “progressives” and their allies continue to pan Amazon, but it is delivering at least some of what this country needs during the pandemic.

Here’s how Wall Street Journal writer Sean Higgins put it in a piece last month:

“There’s one bright spot in the dismal pandemic economy.  Amazon is trying something that no company has attempted before: Supplying the essential needs of 325 million Americans largely confined to their homes during a pandemic, while keeping its own workforce of more than 500,000 people safe. Yet, some politicians are trying to make it a scapegoat.

JUST SAYING there is no question but that Amazon has made mistakes in the impossible-to-manage coronavirus, but its overall performance should be complimented.

Deliveries continue and the Amazon workforce has persevered.  Plus, Amazon is hiring more than 100,000 new employees to keep operating full tilt.

Good for the company.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

You may wonder how I find time to write about such an arcane subject.  At least two reasons:  I don’t have much else to do during the virus pandemic and I love the game of golf.

So here is the issue.  One of the realities in golf is that handicap values are assigned to each of the 18 holes on a course, which is one of the ways golf can be played and scores tallied for groups of different abilities as they play together.

Too much to understand?  Yeah.  But, remember, this is golf with a myriad of hard-to-understand rules written in something other than plain English.

Let me try to explain this for at least one reason:  If I write something, it is often a stimulant for me to remember it.

The conundrum is this:  When a golf hole on course receives a #1 ranking on the handicap scale, it is not necessarily the hardest hole on the course.  The common perception is that such a ranking would denote toughness.

I am indebted to my friends at the Oregon Golf Association for this explanation.

“There are two misconceptions about the Stroke Index Allocation. The first being that the number 1 ranked hole is the “hardest” hole on the course. The purpose of the ranking of the holes is to determine where the higher handicapped player deserves the assistance of an extra stroke in order to tie, or halve, a hole with the low handicapper. 

“That stroke should be assigned on the hole where the relative difficulty of the hole is more difficult for the higher handicapped golfer than the relative difficulty for the lower handicapped golfer.

“Did you notice that the word ‘hardest’ was not mentioned?

When someone tells us about the ‘hardest’ hole, we often ask back: Hardest for whom?  The difficulty of a hole is relative to the set of tees, the level of golfer, the landing zones where each player hits and more.

“On occasion, there may be a hole where the higher handicapped golfer has less difficulty due to their landing zones being nice wide fairways, but the low handicapper may have a landing zone where they must lay up to not hit through the corner on a dogleg, or they have a very narrow landing zone with close in bunkers, water, trees etc. In that case, the hole might be relatively less difficult for the Bogey golfer than the Scratch.

“The #1 allocated hole should not necessarily be the ‘hardest’ hole on the course.  Often, that hole is one where the relative difficulty is the same or similar for low and high handicapped golfer.”

So, in this arcane world of golf rules and standards, does that make sense?

Well, read it a couple of times and it may make more sense.

And, if I do that – read it more than once – I may be able to explain to my friends why the #1 ranked hole is not necessarily the hardest.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

In a stirring column this morning, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Fred Hiatt contends that it’s not too late for Republican senators to abandon Trump.

For the good of the country.

For the sake of their own moral equilibrium.

Hiatt names a variety of senators and says they should stand up to Trump, even, depending on the state they represent, it might mean that they lose an election.

The best approach is to reprint excerpts from Hiatt’s column because it is so well-written as it conveys the huge stakes for the U.S. six months from the next election.

“Republican senators, you know he is a danger to the republic.

“It is not too late to say so. It is not too late to help save your country, and maybe your self-respect.

“You know it is wrong for a president to be spreading vile fictions about the death of a young woman 19 years ago. You know it is corrosive when he lies, and lies, and lies. And you know it is contemptible when a president, with his nation on edge as civil unrest spreads, can do nothing but threaten, divide and incite.

“How do I know you know? Because nothing in your careers, before the age of Donald Trump, hints at a willingness to tolerate such odious behavior.

“Yes, I’m talking to you, Lamar Alexander. And you, John Barrasso. And Roy Blunt. Richard Burr. Susan Collins. Mike Crapo. Joni Ernst. Cory Gardner. Chuck Grassley. Mike Lee. Lisa Murkowski. Rob Portman. Jim Risch. Pat Roberts. Marco Rubio. Ben Sasse. Tim Scott. Dan Sullivan. John Thune. Roger Wicker.

“And others in your caucus, too. Even you, Lindsey Graham. Even for you, it’s not too late.

“Five years ago, could any of you have imagined excusing a leader who praised white supremacists, called his former opponent a criminal and a ‘skank,’ mocked the weight and appearance of your fellow leaders?

“Could you have imagined tolerating a president who sought to bend law enforcement, diplomacy and intelligence collection to his personal needs and whims?

“You know, you all know, that he has imperiled the country and cost thousands of lives with his contempt for science and expertise.

“Many of you have championed funding for the National Institutes of Health. Could you have imagined, five years ago, biting your tongue when a president told a country in peril that a virus would “magically” disappear? Would you have endorsed dangerous nostrums or mocked sound public health advice?

“You know that he has eroded what turns out to be the surprisingly fragile system of checks and balances laid out in the Constitution that you have sworn to support and defend. Five years ago, you would not have tolerated a president spending money that Congress — your Article I branch — had explicitly decided not to spend, or shrugging off any attempt at congressional oversight, or firing inspectors general at will.

“You know that he has dangerously eroded the United States’ security and standing in the world with his impulsiveness, his contempt for allies, his trashing of core American values and his naive embrace of America’s foes.

“How do I know you know? Because many of you have spent your careers defending those values, building the institutions that undergird them, cultivating relationships across oceans. You shuddered when he trusted Russia’s leader over our own intelligence community, when he hailed the boss of the Chinese Communist Party as “a good man” and “a very, very good friend,” when he “fell in love” with the criminal strongman of Communist North Korea. Before the age of Trump, you could not have imagined staying silent in the face of such abominations.

“So why do you stay silent now? Why does your colleague Mitt Romney seem so lonely in maintaining his moral compass?

“It’s not hard to guess. You see your former colleagues Bob Corker and Jeff Flake, cast into political irrelevance for raising the most timid of objections. You think, better to stay viable. Keep your head down, don’t provoke the bully, and you can help restore sanity when he is gone.

“But if he is re-elected, restoring sanity may not be an option. The Republic will be forever altered, as you know.

“And you know this, too: Joe Biden would be a better choice for the country, at this moment. Of course, you disagree with many of his policies. You dislike some of the people he would bring into government. But he would respect the Constitution, the rule of law, simple human decency and the norms that have kept this experiment alive.

“So why not hang together, announce you are voting for Biden, and help save your country? Explain that the president has left you no other honorable choice. You can still campaign for a Republican majority in the Senate to act as a check on a Democratic administration and its judicial picks. At best, you might help save your party and rescue your country.

“At worst, you would meet the fate of Corker and Flake. That may seem unbearable to you. But if Trump is reelected, history will remember them far more kindly than those who, silently or actively, were complicit in the degradation of our democracy.”

Hiatt is exactly right about the evident misdeeds of Trump which imperil future of this country.  It’s time for more Republicans to act based on conscience, ethics and morality.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it where you want to be on a golf course.

Since it opened about 20 ears ago, Bandon Dunes on the South Oregon Coast has produced an international reputation largely due to the creator, Mike Keiser, who has gone on to create acclaimed golf venues in such faraway places as Nova Scotia and Tasmania.

Great golf.  Like exists in Scotland and Ireland.  Great vistas of the Pacific Ocean.  Links-style “golf as it was meant to be,” to use the official Bandon Dunes slogan.

Measuring the impact of the original Bandon Dunes course on modern golf is difficult, given that the resort grew so quickly after its opening and the effects are still ongoing. We do know that, before Bandon, American golfers were largely apathetic toward the bouncy, firm, links-like golf they found in the British Isles.

Bandon Dunes has always seemed like the right course at the right time.  The four subsequent courses built at the resort directly inspired Chambers Bay, Streamsong, Erin Hills, Barnbougle Dunes, and others to seek out naturally rolling golf ground and choose traditional cool-season golf grasses.

Bandon Dunes changed course architecture in America by reminding the industry of the beauty of coastal golf, and that not only can old school, hands-on, minimalistic design still produce the best results, it can also produce the best profits.

The opening of the fifth course at Bandon – Bally Bandon, formerly called “The Sheep Ranch” — only will add to the lustrous reputation.

That is due to occur tomorrow, June 1.

Those words – “Sheep Ranch” — brought back fond memories for me.

It’s now more than 10 years ago, but the golf course superintendent at Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Bill Swancutt, took three of his friends – me included – on a visit to the Sheep Ranch.  The goal was to play golf on pure, untested ground.

As we arrived by car at the Southern Oregon Coast, Bill – or Swanny as we called him then and use the nickname to this day – knew where to take us to a gate overlooking the Sheep Ranch, with sterling views West to the vast ocean as it crashed on the shore.  The superintendent at the Sheep Ranch – he said he had the best job in the world, running a golf course with no golfers – met us just inside the gate.

He talked us through us playing the course, which was not fully a golf course in the sense that it had not yet been designed.  He had a slip paper in his hands and, with golf course pencil in hand, drew a routing for the first 15 holes.  And, then, he said, just design the last three holes you want to play with our own routing.

As we looked West, we could see 18 golf course flags.  When you get to a hole, the super advised, just putt out, and then find a level spot of land near that green and tee off toward the next flag.

We did that 18 times – and it was great fun.

Now, of course, the Sheep Ranch has been transformed into a real golf course in the sense that it has been designed by the acclaimed design duo, Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore.

Here’s the way Jason Lusk, writing in Golfweek Magazine, described what he called “a cliff top thriller.”

“There never was a question that the land immediately north of Bandon Dunes Golf Resort is stunning with a mile of shoreline, 100-foot cliffs above the Pacific Ocean and plenty of sand for a bouncy, rollicking American links.

“Previously the site of a somewhat secretive 13-hole, play-’em-as-you-like routing known as the Sheep Ranch, the property is being turned into the 18-hole Bally Bandon Sheep Ranch, set to open in the spring of 2020. Grassing has commenced at the design created by the team of Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw, which will feature nine greens on the cliffs’ edges.  [Note:  When we played the Sheep Ranch, we played a full 18 holes.]

“You read that right:  Nine greens on the cliffs.  That’s three more than any of the 18-hole courses at Bandon Dunes Golf Resort’s foursome of 18-hole courses, all of which rank in the top 14 of  Golf week’s Best Modern list  of U.S. courses.

“Quoting the designers, he wrote that ‘We’re going to have some more design sophistication, some really cool holes.  Before we had some really cool sites, and now the greens themselves will be improved upon.’

“Property owner Phil Friedmann has again partnered with Mike Keiser, owner of Bandon Dunes and Friedmann’s co-founder of Recycled Paper Greetings, Inc., to transform the site into what likely will be the most-talked-about U.S. course opening in years.  They will operate the new Sheep Ranch as a separate entity apart from Bandon Dunes, but much of the existing resort’s infrastructure and amenities will be used at the Sheep Ranch.  Players will be able to book rounds at the Sheep Ranch as part of their stay at Bandon Dunes.”

“Friedmann said he had considered building a full course on the 400-acre site for years.  He and Keiser credited Coore with developing a layout that fits onto the property’s lower 140 acres without climbing into the wooded acreage farther from the cliffs.  Coore also pitched a design with no bunkers, letting the wind and terrain provide the challenges, and the owners signed off on the no bunker approach.

“I told Bill when I last saw him that it is a collaboration between him and God.  God created the land, and Bill chose where we get to walk on it.

“The highlight probably will be the double green situated atop Fivemile Point, which juts into the Pacific Ocean.  Unlike the oceanfront at Bandon Dunes, where the existing holes are plotted alongside the cliffs but never really offer a view back at the cliffs or a shot over the steep rock walls, the Sheep Ranch will require balls fly over the cliffs from tees and to greens set on the promontory.

“’It’s certainly a dramatic addition,’ Keiser said. ‘Fivemile Point is out in the ocean, and isn’t it exciting to see breakers rolling past you and internal to you?  It has always beckoned.’”

So, the addition of Bally Bandon only adds to lure of the place, now five golf courses (Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Old MacDonald, Bandon Trails and now Bally Bandon), a putting course, a short-hole track, and practice facilities to entice any golfer

Despite the current virus pandemic, Bandon Dunes will host the U.S. Amateur in August.  It will be a treat for top amateurs.

And it will be for me, too, when I next venture south to Bandon Dunes.

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, 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.

One of my former business partners made the contention the other day that there are no Republicans who oppose Trump.  On its face, the contention was silly, I contended, and I told my former partner so.  Still, he persisted by asking me “to name one Republican who opposed Trump.”

I could easily do so, though I said many Republicans who oppose Trump don’t have a public pedestal to express their opposition.

Then, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) posted a story this week about the Lincoln Project, a super political action committee launched by a group of Republicans operatives seeking to defeat Donald Trump this fall.  The specifics dealt with a decision by Stuart Stevens, the former chief strategist for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, to join the Lincoln Project.

There, I told my former partner – you have one example of a Republican who opposes Trump – Stuart Stevens.   Of course, I also could have named Senator Mitt Romney as another.

Here is more from the WSJ story:

“Stevens said in an interview with The Washington Post that the group will likely be his sole political endeavor for the remainder of the year and that he will advise its team on anti-Trump advertising and strategy.

“I will just try to fit in with the team and see where I can be helpful.  We’ll see how it goes.”

“They’ve proven to be effective.  They remind Republicans that it doesn’t have to be this way. They remind Republicans of principles that the party had said it long stood for. Clearly, they’re inside Donald Trump’s head.

“The Lincoln Project’s leadership includes strategists John Weaver, Rick Wilson, Steve Schmidt and former New Hampshire Republican Party chair Jennifer Horn, who last year worked with Stevens on the long-shot GOP presidential primary campaign of former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld.  Lawyer George T. Conway III, who is married to White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, is also involved.

“Weaver said in an email that Stevens is the ‘gold standard’ and to have him join us in the Lincoln Project in a senior role will help the group convince voters that “Donald Trump must be trounced, along with his enablers.”

So, I say to Stevens and others who share his animosity for Trump, you have many supporters across the country, including me, though it should be added that I am not a Republican, having been an Independent for a number of years, a title better suited to my role as a state lobbyist for many years.

Many Republicans and Independents, not to mention Democrats, yearn for better days from the Oval Office.  The occupant there should have solid character – solid enough to lead the country in “normal” times if those ever return, but also during such a major challenge as the current pandemic.

When it comes to solid character, Trump does not qualify – and many Republicans know it.

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, 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 hadn’t heard the word “lexophile” until a guy I play golf with in La Quinta, California sent it my way a couple weeks ago.

It came with a list of what, I guess, are called” lexophiles” as published a few weeks ago by the New York Times, which holds an annual competition to see who can come up with the best “lexophile.”

It’s tough to define the list that appears below, but it is enough to just say they are phrases that embody interesting words that go together well – and leave you laughing, if only at the ingenuity of the person who came up with the string.

Why do I focus on this? Well, first, it is true that I like words – better than numbers it should be said. Second, I don’t have a lot to do other than golf in the pandemic, so the list below is worth reading.

• You can tune a piano, but you can’t tuna fish
• To write with a broken pencil is pointless.
• I changed my iPod’s name to Titanic. It’s syncing now.
• England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool.
• Haunted French pancakes give me the crepes.
• This girl today said she recognized me from the Vegetarians Club, but I’d swear I’ve never met herbivore.
• I know a guy who’s addicted to drinking brake fluid, but he says he can stop any time.
• A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
• When the smog lifts in Los Angeles, U.C.L.A.
• I got some batteries that were given out free of charge.
• A dentist and a manicurist married. They fought tooth and nail.
• A will is a dead giveaway.
• With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.
• Police were summoned to a daycare center where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.
• Did you hear about the fellow whose entire left side was cut off?  He’s all right now.
• A bicycle can’t stand alone; it’s just two tired.
• The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine last week is now fully recovered.
• He had a photographic memory, but it was never fully developed.
• When she saw her first strands of gray hair, she thought she’d dye.
• Acupuncture is a jab well done. That’s the point of it.
• I didn’t like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.
• Did you hear about the crossed-eyed teacher who lost her job because she couldn’t control her pupils?
• When you get a bladder infection, urine trouble.
• When chemists die, they barium.
• I stayed up all night to see where the sun went, and then it dawned on me.
• I’m reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can’t put it down.\
• I just can’t see myself wearing camouflage.

It may be a waste of time or an investment – depending on your point of view – but I may try to come up with my own example to fit the list above.

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, 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.

Some of the words in the headline for this blog appeared in Washington Post editorial over the weekend.

It makes a good point – the need for verifiable testing if we are to get out from under the pandemic.

But I think there is another missing ingredient in all face in these days of the pandemic – trust.

Trust – in two ways: (1) Trust in government officials who often cash in trust as they behave in unethical ways (just look at Donald Trump, for whom building trust is never an issue), and (2) the loss of mutual trust on the part of citizens who often favor self-centered ways of behaving (just look at those who flocked to beaches and other venues on Memorial Day no matter if they risked infecting others).

Here is the first paragraph on the Post editorial favoring more testing.

“The current approach to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States is based on wishful thinking — that a vaccine or drug therapy will be available by the end of the year, or sooner; that death and illness will taper off with the summer heat, and not come back next fall. But what if none of this happens? What if the novel coronavirus sticks around for a year or two or longer? In that case, diagnostic testing will be critical to our ability to manage lives, jobs, schools and health. Yet, we still lack a federal strategy to get there.”

True.

For me, cultivating trust is a second ingredient in surviving the pandemic — and without it there will be no way to move forward.

Trust in and about government can be built in several ways:

• By telling the truth and saying you don’t know when you don’t know. That was normally a principle when I worked in and around state government here in Oregon for about 40 years.

But, while Oregon is nowhere near as bad as the federal government, building trust has receded as a critical factor in the state.

• Bi-partisanship for the public good. When I see Democrats and Republicans find a way to act together – as they did in the first pandemic relief bills in Congress – it gives a sense of hope that bi-partisanship is possible. Bi-partisanship, however, has tended to recede in view of the next relief bills.

Bi-partisanship is hard to achieve, but possible…except for Trump, as well as those on the far left who wouldn’t know bi-partisanship if it hit them full in the face.

• Deploying a “your word is your bond ethic.” When I worked as a lobbyist in Oregon for about 25 years, I always had this ethic in the back, if not the front, of my mind.

If I told a legislator or another lobbyist something, I stuck to it come hell or high water. If I had to change position because of the inherent tension of issues confronting each other, I would only do so if I told those to whom I had spoken earlier that I had to change.

If the “your word is your bond ethic” existed, it would improve the operation of government.

In my work on an Ethics Committee for Oregon Common Cause, I encountered the following quote from Walter Shaub, the retired director of the Federal Ethics Office. It dealt with the question of ethics, but could just as well have been about the subject of “trust.”

Here is the quote:

“The current ethics program, at least at the federal level, was developed in response to Watergate. The system worked well for 40 years. There was room for improvement, but, for the most part, the system worked well as a preventive mechanism. The flaw was that it was completely dependent on the president’s administration to comply and set an example. The current administration has signaled that it does not want the system to work.”

Building trust in and around government will take concerted work by all involved. It won’t be easy, but nothing worth doing is ever easy. Just worth it.