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.

Golf was in the news again last week, perhaps in part due to the fact that the Tournament Players Club tournament was under way in Florida near the home of the Professional Golf Tour.

The consensus appears to be this:  Pro golf, as we used to know it, is broken.  And the process for fixing it won’t be easy.

Part of the reason is money.  Well, perhaps most of the reason.

I wish this were not true, so the headline in this blog ASKS whether pro golf is broken; it doesn’t posit the answer.

For pro golf, the grasp for money taints the sport because money appears to be THE driver, not the love of the game.

I add quickly that it is inappropriate to offer a huge generalization.  It is likely that some pro golfers still play “for the love of the game.”

Here is a quick summary of the stories last week.

First, the Wall Street Journal carried a story with this under headline:  The Tournament That Became the Biggest Loser in Golf’s Civil War; The Players Championship has an awkward problem — it’s missing a bunch of the world’s best players.

Here is how the story started:

“Ever since the Players Championship first teed off half a century ago, it has been unofficially regarded as golf’s fifth major. The PGA Tour’s flagship event boasts an iconic course, exorbitant prize money, and the promise of the strongest field in all of golf. 

“Except that last part is no longer quite accurate. 

“Among golf’s showcase events, no tournament has been hit harder by the sport’s split.  Most of the top golfers who defected from the PGA Tour to join LIV Golf are still making their way into the major championships.  But not the Players Championship.”

Still, despite the Wall Street Journal story, Data Golf reported that 41 of the world’s top-50 rated golfers competed in the Players, which, to me at least, does not sound bad.  All nine of the missing players had joined the competing organization, LIV.

Second, Golf Digest carried a story under this headline:  Pro golf is broken. How are we going to put it back together?

Editor Jerry Tarde wrote this:

“The first book I remember my father reading was Situation Golf by Arnold Palmer.  The first golf tournament I remember watching was the 1972 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach won by Jack Nicklaus.  

“I’ve been rooting for pro golf my whole life, so take this as a lover’s lament, not the grieving of a cynic:  Pro golf is broken, and I’m worried about how it can be put back together.”

Beyond golf, Tarde says golf’s brokenness shouldn’t be surprising because it follows a familiar pattern.

“Bret Stephens in The New York Times wrote that ‘brokenness has become the defining feature of much of American life: broken families, broken public schools, broken small towns and inner cities, broken universities, broken health care, broken media, broken churches, broken borders, broken government.’”

Why shouldn’t pro golf be broken, too, Tarde asks.

Tarde adds:

“We thought the PGA Tour was invincible until it wasn’t.  We watched every other industry undergo disruption while pro golf only up-ticked continuously.  Tournament prize money increased year after year despite recessions, wars, scandals, pandemics, and all forms of economic turbulence.

“Ever since World War II, pro golf built its foundation on five principles: (1) The top players like Arnie and Jack always put the game above themselves.  (2) Golfers are accountable to their performance — nothing’s guaranteed.  (3) The pro tours are kept in check and balance by the four independent governing bodies controlling the major championships and acting in the best interests of the game.  (4) Pro golf is underpinned by charity; that’s why hundreds of volunteers show up every week to help run the tournaments.  (5) The game’s leaders — not always, but generally — have used the time-honored Masters strategy of leaving money on the table in exchange for control and sustainability.”

It began to break down, Tarde writes, “when suspect morals and unlimited resources tested the first two principles.  Some top players saw themselves as victims of income disparity and thought they were not only entitled to the growing prize money, but it wasn’t enough.  Defections and betrayal followed.”

Still, according to Golf Digest, golf as most of us play it is not doing badly:

•  Rounds played are up 20 per cent since the start of the pandemic (2019), an all-time record at 531 million.

•  More than 90 per cent of golfers expect to play as much or more in 2024.

•  “Green-grass” participation hit 26.6 million last year — the biggest single-year jump since the 2001.

•  On-course participation growth since Covid shows increases in play by youth (up 40 per cent), people of color (up 27 per cent) and women (up 25 per cent).

•  Sixty per cent of the growth since 2019 has been female participation.

•  Latent demand among non-golfers’ interest in taking up the game has hit a record 22.4 million.

•  Alternative forms of the game like Topgolf are up 130 per cent, driving a record number of total golfers to 45 million, and people with this off-course experience are five to six times more interested in playing on-course golf, portending even better news for the game’s future.

So, does golf need to be fixed?  Well, I think pro golf does.

As for regular golf, no.  The statistics above show it is alive and well.

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 you have a lot of time on your hands, as I do here in La Quinta, California, questions like the one in the headline cross your mind.

Does Donald Trump, the once and I-want-to-be-again president, ever express regret for any of his actions?

Put differently, goes he ever apologize?

I believe the answer is “no.” 

And, every day he proves I am right.

As a person who has been involved in politics for many years, I always have thought a major credential for those involved is this:  When you make a mistake, admit it, take responsibility, and move on.

One of the best examples of this was George Bush, the younger, who served as president from 2001-09.

Here is the way the Today Show on NBC reported his apology under this headline:  The Iraq war my biggest regret, Bush admits.

“George Bush, in a moment of reflection ahead of his departure from the White House, admitted that the decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein on the basis of flawed intelligence was the biggest regret of his presidency.

“The acknowledgment marks the first time that Bush has publicly expressed doubts about his rationale for going to war on Iraq.

“In the run-up to the war, the White House adopted a position of absolute certainty that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, basing its arguments on intelligence that was later exposed as flimsy and wrong.

“The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq.  I wish the intelligence had been different.”

In his post-presidency book, Decision Points, Bush makes the same apology.

Good for him, I always have thought.

But, I also have thought that any president bases his or her action on the information each has at the moment.  If that information proves later to have been wrong, well, that is the benefit of hindsight.

Given the information he had AT THE TIME, it is not hard for me to understand why Bush and all his military advisors decided to go to war.  They were out to protect America from what they thought were “weapons of mass destruction.

So, back to one Donald Trump.

Why doesn’t he feel the need to apologize for his missteps, since there have been so many?

• His sexual assault against Jean Carroll.
• His criticism against John McCain for being captured as McCain fought for America in Vietnam War when Trump never served a minute in the military.
• His actions to overvalue his assets for PR purposes, then undervalue the same assets for tax purposes.
• His advocacy for sedition as Americans he valued – not to mention came close to order — invaded the U.S. Capitol after his election loss to Joseph Biden.  The goal, orchestrated by Trump, was to try to overturn the result.
• Others, too numerous to list here.

The answer on why Trump never apologizes:  He is the epitome of the narcissist who believes he always is right, no matter the reality.

And, for me, that is not a trait Americans need in a president.  

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

I answer the question in the headline this way:

On the night Harry Truman beat back expectations to defeat Thomas Dewey in the 1948 presidential election, I was just being born.

Yes, on November 2, 1948.

Do I remember that time?

Well, not exactly.

But, since then, I have come to remember the date because Truman overcame a huge deficit to defeat Dewey.  And, some newspapers wrote headlines heralding Dewey’s win on November 2, then had to apologize and back-track with new headlines proclaiming Truman the victor.

Wall Street Journal columnist and former Republican operative Karl Rove recalled all this for me when he wrote for the Wall Street Journal under this headline:  Biden Can Shout, but He’s No Truman.

Rove added this:

“America’s octogenarian president delivered a 67-minute State of the Union address last week.  Joe Biden did it with what the press called ‘high energy,’ a synonym for lots of shouting.  His address was punctuated by Democrats chanting ‘Four more years, four more years!

“Biden did what he had to do.  He exceeded the low expectations many Americans had for his performance.  He calmed — for the moment — Democrat bed-wetters concerned about his stamina, energy, and ability to deliver a message.

“Still, it is far from clear he changed voters’ fundamental concerns.  He is too old.  He has memory problems.  He does lack stamina.  And shouting or no, Americans know it.

“Polls in the coming weeks are likely to show little or no positive impact of Biden’s State of the Union performance on his standing on the issues or with voters.  The Democrat nervous Nellies may start hyperventilating again.”

I like Rove because he goes after any candidate he believes is having difficulty with campaigns.  That means, in the current presidential context, both Biden and Trump, not just the Democrat.

But I also think Rove sells Biden short, though he, Biden, will have to do a lot to counter Trump.

As for hyperventilating, that’s probably what I do when it comes to Trump.

If, as Rove contends, wrongly I submit, that Biden’s age is a disqualifying factor to run for president, then Trump is not qualified because he is nothing if not a jerk. 

He ridicules people.  He criticizes everyone.  He hates military heroes, including Vietnam War hero John McCain when he, Trump, never served.  He inflates his net worth, except when it comes to paying taxes where he deflates.  He asks his followers to subvert the U.S. Constitution and declare him to be president despite the FACT that he lost the last election.

So, when the time comes for the next presidential election, now only a few months away, will there be an upset as there was in 1948.  And, if there was an upset, what would that be – Biden over Trump or Trump over Biden?

As in 1948, we’ll find out in early November…on or about my birthday.

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

This is one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit, given my long career in top-level management positions.  Yes, a long career!

The other departments are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of “Just Saying,” the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, and the Department of Words Matter.

So, now for new good quotes.

FROM A SALEM FREE CLINIC E-MAIL:  “We are so pleased and thankful when we look back on 2023. 

“With the generosity of our volunteers, donors, partners, and staff, we were able to provide move than 5,800 free patient appointments in 2023.

“This past year, we also teamed up with the Salem-Keizer School District to promote sports physicals as part of our services.  We were able to provide 185 such physicals to students who had no access or where otherwise unable to obtain one.

“We had the privilege of serving patients ranging from 1 years old to 97 years old.  Among many patients, 15 different languages were represented.  From Chuukese, to Spanish, to Swahili, we are proud that all are able to receive compassionate care, in their own language.”

COMMENT:  Salem Free Clinics is clearly one of the pieces of good news around Salem.  It was started by churches several years ago – churches like the one my wife and I have attended for 30 years, Salem Alliance.

More than 70 churches are involved supporting the clinic and helping to fund it in its main location at our church.

To me, it is a good story of “putting feet to the gospel of Christ,” because Christ loves ALL people.

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:  “Immigration has propelled the U.S. job market further than just about anyone expected, helping cement the country’s economic rebound from the pandemic as the most robust in the world.

“That momentum picked up aggressively over the past year.  About 50 per cent of the labor market’s extraordinary recent growth came from foreign-born workers between January 2023 and January 2024, according to an Economic Policy Institute analysis of federal data.

“And even before that, by the middle of 2022, the foreign-born labor force had grown so fast that it closed the labor force gap created by the pandemic, according to research from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.”

COMMENT:  I have written several times recently on the immigration issue, especially because Donald Trump and his ilk have turned the issue into a political one, not a substantive one based on fact.

Now the NY Times joins with another fact:  Immigrants are helping to fuel U.S. economic growth.

That should be recognized, but, also, not used as a shield by those in Congress to avoid doing something about the illegal immigrant issue.  They had a solution in their sights a couple weeks ago until Trump said he wanted no public policy solution so he could continue to play loose with facts on the campaign trail.

FROM PEGGY NOONAN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “A man on CNN is reporting live from outside a polling place in suburban South Carolina and recounts a small story.  An 18-year-old man had just voted, and the election clerk called out, ‘Ladies and gentlemen we have a first-time voter.’  The room burst into applause.  ‘They say that’s a tradition here,’ the reporter said.  It touched me.

“All the networks had been showing all these normal Americans who showed up to vote, the people who make the country work, and interviewing them on the way in and out.  ‘I voted for Trump because . . .’  ‘I’m for Haley.’  All of them patient and good-natured with the media folk.

“I thought, not for the first time, that America has become an 80/20 country, with 80 per cent so sterling and responsible and constructive, taking part, keeping the whole edifice up and operating, of all faiths, colors and persuasions. 

“But we only pay attention to the 20 per cent because they make all the news — outrageousness of every sort, hurting people on the street or making threats on TikTok or acting out in every field, including politics, in some ignorant way.

“The 80 per cent never make news because they’re modestly doing what’s expected.  But we should never forget who we are, a good people, and by an overwhelming majority. That gets drowned out in the daily drumbeat.”

COMMENT:  Noonan looks on the bright side – and that’s worth doing on occasion with all the “bad news” going on around us, especially in politics. 

Good that she does this to remind us to remember that many Americans are trying to do the right thing these days, even as stupid Americans tend to get all the publicity.

FROM SALEM REPORTER, WITH ADDITIONS FROM ONE MY EARLIER BLOGS:  “Salem Reporter performed a solid public service a few days ago when it hosted an evening public seminar on the prolific use of guns in the Salem-Keizer community.

As chronicled by Salem Reporter Editor Les Zaitz, various citizens stopped him in the lobby of the Elsinore Theater, site of the event, to thank him for Salem Reporter’s initiative to arrange and host the Town Hall.

As Zaitz put it in a summary of the event:

“Really, it is those who attended or watched on TV who deserve the credit, not Salem Reporter.”

He went on:

“The amount of gun violence in Salem was the issue.

“Over the months, we’ve reported on gun crimes.  And we have provided details of the Salem Police Department’s analysis, but we judged it was time for more stories.” 

COMMENT:  And time for citizens of goodwill and solid intent to gather in one place to talk about the problem.

Zaitz said talking together and forthrightly can be the start of finding solutions in a very complicated issue.

As I wrote above, Salem Reporter performed a valuable public service by organizing and hosting the public forum.  Better than just standing by to watch more gun violence.

So, overall, kudos to these journalism outfits:  The New York Times for its report on immigration and the economy; the Washington Post for its report on an immigration test that sets the record straight on the facts, not the innuendo; Salem Reporter for its focus on gun control, and the Wall Street Journal for finding out that there is, at least on occasion, a bright side in politics.

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.

Knowing how untrustworthy Donald Trump has been, would you give him access to United States national security data?

My answer is no.

But, Trump, as the official Republican candidate for president, is “entitled” – and I use that word advisedly – to such data.

That is unless President Joe Biden intervenes.

Were Biden to intervene, it would cause a political furor.  But, for me, better a furor than the risk of how Trump would pervert the use national security data before he reaches the Oval Office, if he does.  His view of national security would focus on how it would help him.

This was covered this week in an excellent column by Atlantic Magazine writer Tom Nichols.  He made a few points that I not seen elsewhere.

Here is a quick summary of what Nichols write under this headline:  “An Insider Threat.”

“According to reports last week, the U.S. intelligence community is preparing to give Donald Trump classified intelligence briefings, a courtesy every White House extends to major-party candidates to ensure an effective transition.

“An excellent tradition — but not one that should not be observed this year.

“The decision rests, as always, with the sitting president, and Joe Biden is likely to continue this practice so that he will not be accused of ‘politicizing’ access to intelligence.

“Such accusations need not be taken seriously; they would only be more meaningless noise from a GOP that has already stumbled in a clumsy attempt to impeach Biden after leveling charges of corruption at both him and his son.  And although denying Trump access to classified briefs would produce squawks and yowls from Republicans, it would also serve as a reminder that Trump cannot be trusted with classified information.”

Nichols, in a public service, outlines some of what Trump could or would do with national security information. 

• The risks of denying Trump these early briefings are negligible.  As we learned from his presidency, Trump is fundamentally un-briefable:  He doesn’t listen, and he doesn’t understand complicated national-security matters anyway.  The problem with giving Trump these briefings, however, isn’t that he’s ignorant.  He’s also dangerous, as his record shows.  Indeed, if Trump were a federal employee, he’d have likely already been stripped of his clearances and escorted from the building.
• Government employees who hold clearances have to attend annual refresher courses about a variety of issues, including some pretty obvious stuff about not writing down passwords or taking money from a friendly Chinese businessman wearing an American baseball cap.
• One area of annual training is always about “insider threats,” the people in your own organization who may pose risks to classified information.  Federal workers are taken through a list of behaviors and characteristics that should trigger their concern enough to report the person involved, or at least initiate a talk with a supervisor.  Trump checks almost every box on those lists.
• Opposing U.S. policy, for example, is not a problem for people with clearances, but Trump’s hatred of the current Administration is wedded to a generic contempt for what he calls the “deep state,” a slam he applies to any American institution that tries to hold him accountable for his behavior.  This kind of anti-establishment rage would put any clearance in jeopardy, especially given Trump’s rantings about how the current government (and American society overall) is full of “vermin.” 
• Meanwhile, a federal worker who had even a fraction of the cache of classified documents Trump took with him after he left Washington would be in a world of trouble — especially if he or she told the Justice Department to go pound sand after being instructed to return them.  And by “trouble,” I mean “almost certainly arrested and frog-marched to jail.”
• Trump’s knotty and opaque finances — and what we now know to be his lies about his wealth — in New York before he was a candidate would likely also have tanked his access to highly classified information.
• Trump’s open and continuing affection for men such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and North Korean Maximum-Weirdo Dynasty Boss Kim Jong Un would also be, to say the least, a matter of concern for any security organization.
• But even if Trump could explain away his creepy dictator crushes and clarify his byzantine finances, he is currently facing more than half a billion dollars in court judgments against him.
  
  

Nichols ends with this:

“Whether Trump is too erratic or volatile for elected office is a judgment for voters, but his statements and public behavior have long suggested that he is an emotionally unstable person.

“Emotional problems in themselves are not a disqualification; we all have them.  But Trump’s irrational tirades and threats are the kind of thing that can become a clearance issue.  The former president’s lack of impulse control — note that he has been unable to stop attacking the writer E. Jean Carroll, despite huge court judgments against him for defaming her — could also lead him to blurt out whatever he learns from his briefings during rallies or public appearances if he thinks it will help him.

“In sum, Trump is an anti-American, debt-ridden, unstable man who has voiced his open support for violent seditionists.”

So, what would I do if I were Biden?  Easy.  Withstand the political furor and withhold national security data.

Too much rides on the outcome to do otherwise.

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

My on-line edition of Links Magazine Insider came up the other day with a list of water on golf holes around the country which claimed the most golf balls.

If you play golf much, you can probably guess which hole came in first.  Yes, the 17^th island green at the Tournament Players Club course at Sawgrass.

Here is what Insider wrote about that hole:

“If this were a ranking, it’s a safe bet the iconic island green at the home of the PGA Tour’s Players Championship would be No. 1.

“Depending on the source, somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 balls are fished out of the water around this hole every year.

“It’s the most famous hole ever created by Hall of Fame architect Pete Dye (or his wife, Alice Dye), and one many players think about before and all throughout a round at TPC Sawgrass.

“There are even stories of players who take a fresh sleeve of golf balls and throw them into the water off the tee in hopes of appeasing the ‘golf gods’ to get a safe tee shot.”

Well, as I thought about this at my home golf course in Salem, Oregon, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club, I knew that I had never “sacrificed” golf balls to the water.  I just reached the water with a few golf balls over the years, never on purpose.

On eight holes of our 18-hole golf course, water in some form or shape comes into play.

On five of those eight, ponds are in play.  On the other three, there is a creek that sometimes runs dry, but not in the winter when it rains.

In general, water may be the bane of many golfers’ existence.  But it does add beauty to a course – and that’s important.

Plus, as I contend with two kinds of penalty areas on a golf course – water and sand bunkers – I often say to myself, “You can play out of sand, but you can’t play out of water.”

Unless, of course, the golf ball lies in only an inch or two of water.  Then, like a dummy, you can try to hit the ball while getting wet and dirty.

So, from Links Insider, here are major courses with the most water:

Caledonia Golf & Fish Club—18th hole (Pawleys Island, South Carolina)

The closing hole at this Mike Strantz masterpiece isn’t especially long, but it’s among the most anxiety-inducing finishers on the Hammock Coast.  A precise yardage off the tee is critical to setting up the forced carry approach over water on this par four.

The Coeur d’Alene Resort—14th hole (Coeur d’Alene, Idaho)

There’s little margin for error when targeting the floating 14th green at Coeur d’Alene, a 2,200-ton island that can be moved via an underwater cable system.  Divers pull between 25,000 and 30,000 balls out of the lake every year, going down every couple of weeks during the season.  It’s not unusual to see three players out of every guest foursome hit their first shot into the water, says Director of Golf Andy Mackimmie, which is why — for pace of play — the course has a local-rule drop zone after a player rinses his or her first two tee balls.

Harbour Town Golf Links—14th hole (Hilton Head Island, South Carolina)

“Just get on the green, take your par and move on.” That’s the advice from Tiger Woods when it comes to Harbour Town’s par-three 14th, which is known as one of the most difficult on the PGA Tour.

Kiawah Island Golf Resort, Ocean Course—17th hole (Kiawah Island, South Carolina)

When it comes to Kiawah’s toughest water holes, one could also pick the par-four 13th hole, a tight squeeze which has a canal running the length of the right side.  But after being roughed up for 16 holes at the Ocean Course, players are faced with a long par three to a narrow target fiercely guarded by water short and to the right. There are two deep bunkers to the left of the green, so the architect, Pete Dye, didn’t leave much bailout room.  And for those high handicappers who did err to the left, it’s not uncommon to see balls from the bunkers shoot across the green and end up in the water anyway.

Mauna Kea Golf Course—3rd hole (Waimea, Hawaii)

Your swing better have rounded into form early at Mauna Kea, where the tee shot at the course’s first par three is one of the most intimidating (and beautiful) you’ll find anywhere.  A full carry over a rocky ocean cove, the hole plays over 270 yards from the back tee.

Pawleys Plantation Golf & Country Club—13th hole (Pawleys Island, South Carolina)

The 13th looks innocuous on the scorecard — a tiny par three.  But once on the tee box, the small green encircled by a wooden bulkhead suddenly seems even smaller.  That’s because of the size of the massive surrounding marsh separating the course from Pawleys Island in the distance.  The plethora of golf balls visible in the marsh when the tide is out doesn’t exactly help ease fears; the club estimates that more than 10,000 balls end up in the marsh there every year.

PGA National Resort, Champion Course—15th hole (Palm Beach Gardens, Florida)

The first hole of the vaunted “Bear Trap” has the most water in play off the tee, with a hazard looming in front, to the right, and long of the green.  While the par-three 17th can be just as fearsome, playing downhill but slightly longer with water to the front and right, the 15th is susceptible to three-club swings because of the wind.

PGA West, Pete Dye Stadium Course—17th hole (La Quinta, California)

Dye’s West Coast version of the 17th at Sawgrass is “Alcatraz.” While not long, it’s a very visually intimidating island green completely encircled by jagged rocks. Slight misses look even worse when they violently ricochet sideways off unforgiving boulders and into the awaiting pond. The Stadium course is one of five at PGA West open to the public and the 17th hole was the site of Lee Trevino’s hole-in-one in the made-for-TV “Skins Game” in 1987, a magic moment that was called by Vin Scully.

River’s Edge Golf Club—9th hole (Shallotte, North Carolina)

Arnold Palmer created ample opportunity to lose golf balls in the marshy waters of the Shallotte River on this par five once called the scariest hole on the Myrtle Beach Golf Trail. Water runs down the entire left side of the hole, which plays to a green pinched on the end of a narrow peninsula.

TPC Sawgrass—17th hole (Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida)

Enough said!

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 Department of Words Matter is open again.  It is one of five departments I run.

Yes.  Five.

That’s because I am a management guru.

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

So, from the Department of Words Matter.

Just think for a minute about words that have outlived their usefulness these days, but us oldsters still might use them when we make a mistake. 

Call them anachronisms.

Say what?

Here is what the word means:  “A thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.”

As noted in the headline for this blog, here’s an anachronism:  Phone booth.

With hand-held phones available to nearly everyone, phone booths are no longer necessary.  Kids these days probably don’t even know what they were, even as they might wonder what those small glass houses are broken up on the sides of some roads.

All this came to mind as I read a story in the Washington Post by Benjamin Dreyer, the former executive managing editor and copy chief at Random House, as well as the author of “Dreyer’s English:  An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style.”

He wrote under this headline:  “If you’re still using these dated words, you’re not alone.”

Dreyer imagines that some words are used “in an anachronistic way, by referring to something in a way that is appropriate only for a former time.”

He says anachronisms abound and provides some examples:

• Residents of New York City still speak of subway token booths, though it has been two decades since anyone saw a subway token, except perhaps at the bottom of a jar of change (or loose coins, also now rolling toward heirloom status).
• We cc people in emails, though carbon copies — made on a typewriter by inserting a carbon-coated sheet between two blank pages — are as dead as the IBM Selectric.
• We listen to podcasts, though who even owns an iPod anymore?
• Some of us, though our numbers are dwindling, still refer to “rolling down” car windows, “dialing” phone numbers and then “hanging up” when the call is over (on those rare occasions when two human beings actually speak on a phone).
• We say we’re “taping” a TV show on a DVR when no videotape is involved — then again, in the age of streaming, DVRs are following VCRs into oblivion.
• We used to use the term “floppy disk.”  The originals, in the 1970s, were made of Mylar and thus bendable, later replaced by harder, more rigid versions.  But everyone still called them floppy.  Today, they don’t much exist.

So, as I cite these issues in the Department of Words Matter, I also note that, in some cases, the very definitions of words have changed.

Just consider the word “gay.”  It used to mean happy.  You know what it means today…something else!

All I can say is that language appears to be alive and well.

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

The question in this blog headline arose for me in two ways:

• First, as a dedicated e-mail user, I have wondered about this as doctors responded to me on-line.
• Second, the Washington Post carried a story recently that appeared under this headline:  Your Doctor Replied to Your Email.  That’ll Cost $25.

Reporter Sumathi Reddy started her story this way:

“The next time you send your doctor an email, don’t be surprised if they charge you a fee to answer.

“More healthcare groups are charging fees to answer patients’ electronic messages, often the ones you exchange via their portal.  Doctors say it’s only fair if they’re spending time on the messages and note that an email discussion can often save you the time of having to come in. 

Some patients, Reddy reports, have been taken aback by the charges.  They are surprised at the notifications on portals about the change, and irritated at the idea of a new fee.

But, for me, charging for this kind of work only makes sense.

I have been among those who are pleased with being able to get a direct response my doctor in an e-mail, or even a response on a patient portal. 

Better, I thought, that going through the pain and agony of trying to book an appointment, then waiting for a response. 

As I reviewed this issue this morning, I learned that federal guidelines exist which are typically followed by private insurers and which say that patients can only get charged for messages that require at least five minutes of a doctor’s time over the course of seven days.

Billable messages also have to involve some sort of medical decision-making rather than just dealing with an administrative matter, like scheduling an appointment, according to those guidelines.  And emails that stem from a follow-up to a visit, such as explaining lab results, aren’t typically billed.

To all of this, I say “good.”  And, I say that it has been helpful to interact with my physicians without alwa

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

The question this blog headline arose because of a column by a good writer, David Brooks, that appeared in the Washington Post.

He made a few good points, he being smarter than I am when it comes to politics.

But, in the end, I disagree with his closing notion.

He contends this:

“…many voters don’t see politics as a place to go for moral affirmation.  They want to know who will create a good environment in which they can lead their lives, and right now they trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the economy, to handle immigration, to be generally competent.  It’s about policies.”

I would like to think that Brooks is right and, if he is, then President Joe Biden should win re-election “based on his policies.” 

For me, perhaps not all of those policies, but, then, that’s a reality for voters.  You may favor a certain political figure, even if you disagree with some of his or her policies.

Brooks goes on this way:

“Those of us in the anti-Trump camp love to play the Horribleness Game.

“Donald Trump does something horrible.  We are righteously appalled.  We send emails to our friends saying, ‘Did you hear about this horrible thing Trump said?’

“We click on articles that fulminate against the horrible thing.  We watch TV shows in which the pundits emote shock and dismay at the horrible thing.  We feel very morally superior about ourselves and very morally appalled by that horrible man.  It’s very satisfying.  In fact, it’s addictive.

“But somehow the horrible thing — or even the sum total of all the horrible things — never seems to end Trump’s career.”

Brooks notes that Trump is still leading in the polls, especially in swing states.  Plus, every time Trump is charged with some new offense, it translates into a fund-raising haul for him.

“The ultimate dream of these games,” Brooks writes, “is that the Trump era will end with some massive moral disqualification.  We’ll be morally vindicated.  He will be morally disgraced.  The people who play these games dream of that killer conviction.  They dreamed that 14th Amendment clause would disqualify Trump from even being on the ballot.

“There was a lot to like about President Biden’s State of the Union address, but the most important thing was this:  He understands that if you want to beat Trump, you have to show you have better policies that will improve people’s lives.  It’s less emotionally satisfying, but it’s what people actually vote on.”

As I said earlier, I wish this was true.

I think many people who define themselves as Republicans support Trump because they believe he “fights for them,” even if his definition of fighting is beyond the pale and even features lies, innuendo, and scapegoating – anyone and anything.

Policies?  Yes, let’s find way to agree on them.  And let’s hope that developing good policies will influence voters.

For now, though, count me as a skeptic.

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

I have written too much about Donald Trump lately, so I focus instead on the Oregon Legislature where I worked, in one way or the other, for about 40 years.

Bi-partisan is not a word that recently could be assigned to the Oregon Legislature.

But, by the end of last week, it rang true in Oregon.

Legislators ended a so-called “short session” (five weeks) with agreements on a range of important issues – housing, drug policy, and campaign finance.  Most issues landed in the middle ground, not the extremes, which is one definition of bi-partisan action.

Yes, Democrats, who are in charge of the process in Salem and Republicans who comprise the minority, managed to find agreement.

It was a welcome change.  I say that as a lobbyist who has been retired for a few years, but who remembers days in the past when the two parties were able “to disagree agreeably.”

Here is the way the Oregonian newspaper described the conclusion of the legislative session:

“In a remarkably bi-partisan five-week legislative session, Oregon lawmakers authorized big spending on housing production, revamped the state’s controversial drug decriminalization law, and voted for the first time to impose campaign finance limits.

Various legislators took credit for the result.  One was outgoing House Speaker Dan Rayfield, who stepped down from his post at the end of the session to run for state attorney general.

“This is probably one of the most historic short sessions that we have ever had.  I’m proud to have been a part of it,” Rayfield said.

A list of achievements, according to the Oregonian:

• Lawmakers gave priority to the state’s dual housing and addiction crises, agreeing to major outlays and policy changes that passed with days to spare.
• Prompted by Governor Tina Kotek, legislators approved an extensive $376 million housing package aimed at accelerating home development and improving affordability.
• Lawmakers also rolled back Measure 110, Oregon’s landmark drug decriminalization law, making minor drug possession a misdemeanor crime again and allocating money to build out treatment facilities.
• Against long odds, a “right-to-repair” bill passed that will require electronic manufacturers to provide easily-accessible tools for Oregonians to repair their phones and other electronics.
• An historic campaign finance bill emerged halfway through the session and had the effect of derailing two competing ballot proposals that so-called “good government groups and unions” will now abandon.
• Environmentalists notched a win with the COAL Act, which directs the state treasury to undo the state public employee pension fund’s nearly $1 billion investment in coal mining and energy companies, and prohibits future investment in these sectors.

As lawmakers rushed to adjournment, two controversial bills failed to make it.

One would have prohibited schools from banning books.  A second would have restricted corporate or private equity firms from owning medical practices.

As a retired health care lobbyist, the latter struck me as a clear over-reach.  Private firms have a role to play in health care and, though not always perfect, they perform a service.  No need for a legislative fix – and lawmakers agreed.

Senate President Rob Wagner touted the session.

“There wasn’t a lot of elbowing around, there was just authentic engagement with people to talk about, ‘How do we drive towards solutions?’” Wagner said. “That’s what I’m really proud about this session, and I’m hoping that this leads to more authentic engagement like this when we’re addressing the big thorny problems that are facing Oregonians going forward.”

Back a few years ago, I did not like the idea of annual legislative sessions.  I feared it would threaten to make the Oregon Legislature like Congress, with little incentive to make good law, even as it met continually.

Truth be told, the most recent short session worked as short sessions are supposed to work, which is that they capitalize on agreement, not devolve into acrimony and dissension.

So, kudos to those who rose about the worst of politics to produce the best of politics.

And, just think of how different this is from Congress where members there can’t get their act together on almost anything.