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 following story appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning and I could not help by post it as my blog.

Dogs in heaven?  Yes.

Both the author, an attorney in the East, and I in the West, say yes!

Here’s the story, with a conclusion from me.

**********

My friend Paul had to put down Bear, his beloved 11-year-old black Lab. Bear’s lungs gave out, and Paul did the humane thing, although not without, in his words, crying hard and often.  Every dog lover understands, for we know all too well how our dogs love us.

My mini bernedoodle, Sugaree, meets me at the door when she hears me on the front porch steps.  She jumps in anticipation — all four legs catching air — until I enter the hallway.  It’s a love that doesn’t diminish.

This is my welcome every weeknight when I come home from work.  I haven’t split the atom, ended world hunger or even brought her a new chew toy, yet I am honored like Pompey the Great in his third Roman triumph.

This nightly greeting has two effects on me.  First, it makes me want to be better, to be worthy of such love.  This reflection, in turn, helps me to love God, whose perfect love never ceases to draw me out from my own imperfections, from the man I am to the man I should be.

Second, it reminds me how silly it is to think I can love too many people or anyone too much.  If loving is willing the good of the other, then there is no upper limit to it.  This insight helps me strive to love my neighbor and to be an instrument of peace.  Sugaree is my role model, as Bear was Paul’s.

I like to think that this life isn’t all there was for Bear.  Years ago, Archbishop Fulton Sheen first perked up my ears, so to speak, on the spirituality of dogs.  In his autobiography, “Treasure in Clay,” Sheen wrote that during his holy hour of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, at times he felt “like a dog at the master’s door, ready in case he called me.”

British writer C.S. Lewis went a step further in “The Problem of Pain,” in which he made a plausible case for hounds in heaven.  Lewis thought sufficient selfhood might exist in dogs and other domesticated animals that their immortality is subsumed within their master’s heavenly destiny.

For my money, though, G.K. Chesterton made the best case for dogs in heaven.  In “Orthodoxy,” Chesterton proposed that perhaps the one thing too great for God to have shown us when he walked the earth was his mirth.  What is more mirthful than the thought of a surprise party on heavenly move-in day where gathered guests include good ol’ Fido?  And who could keep such a joyful secret but someone with infinite patience?

So, chin up, Paul.  I believe you will see Bear again.  God surely has use for a creature that teaches us so much about love.

**********

AND THIS IN CONCLUSION:  One reason why I like this story is that it reminds me of my wife’s and my first dog, Hogan.  We had to put him down with a brain tumor at age 13.

It was a tough day for both of us.

But, we took some solace in thinking of Hogan romping around in the fields of heaven with other dogs that had gone upward, such as Tiger, a dog owned by our good friends who had to put him down.

Our reunion in heaven will be a great day!

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.

Anyone who knows me knows that this blog headline is true for me.  I am a dog lover.

My wife and I have had two dogs.  The first was a miniature poodle, Hogan, who came to live with us about 20 years ago.

We loved that little guy – and “little” means about 15pounds.  He added a lot to our lives.

When he went to heaven, we traveled to the same poodle breeder near where we live – a reputable breeder by all accounts – and got our second poodle, Callaway.  Hogan was probably his uncle or something along that line.

We have had Callaway for more than six years now, and, like Hogan, he is part of our family.

To think about this issue – humans and dogs – I did what I often do, which is to consult Mr. Google.  Here is what I found.

• Most humans love dogs for a variety of reasons.  Dogs are known for their loyalty, companionship, and affectionate nature, which can bring a sense of joy, comfort, and emotional support to their human companions.  Additionally, dogs are often seen as playful, protective, and can provide a sense of security.

• The “love hormone” oxytocin connects us with our pups.  Dogs and people recognize emotions in members of the other species to the degree that is typically only possible within one’s own species.

• Dogs don’t judge us, answer back or lie to us – in fact, they are the source of comfort that many people crave.  It doesn’t matter who you are, what you look like, or what job you do, as long as you are kind to your dog, he or she will love you.

The latter point grabs me in this sense.  When I come home from the golf course, no matter how I played, Hogan in the past and Callaway in the current love me.  I don’t have to shoot a good round to garner their love; it comes naturally.

This week, my wife, Nancy, also a dog lover, sent me this story — Nine Signs of Love From Your Pup.

Here is a reprint:

Do you ever wonder if your dog could possibly love you as much as you love them?  We have many ways to show our love for dogs, including pets, walks, playtime, and caring for them.  While dogs might not be able to talk to you, they have plenty of ways to show you that they love you.  These nine actions are a good sign that your dog loves you back, and it’s not just a one-sided relationship. 

1. Playing and wrestling with you.  Dogs love to play, and wrestling is their natural way of having fun.  It’s the way that they play with other dogs as well. 
2. Leaning against you.  Dogs love physical attention; when they want more from you, they will lean, nuzzle, or cuddle you for extra love.  It means they feel safe. 
3. Sleeping with you.  Dogs are pack animals and sleep huddled together.  If your dog sleeps near you, it shows that they feel safe and that they care.
4. Cuddling with your belongings.  Dedicated dogs love everything about their humans, including their scent.  They might like to carry around your items and sleep near them.
5. Jumping on you.  While many owners discourage their dogs from jumping up, it is a sign of love.  Your pup is excited that you have returned and is celebrating the moment.
6. Bringing gifts to you.  Dogs will often bring humans their favorite toys to show you that they want to play or share with you.
7. Wagging tails.  The tail isn’t always a sign of happiness, but if the dog is wagging their tail loosely and has comfortable body language, it’s safe to say that they are excited.
8. Holding eye contact.  If dogs are willing to maintain eye contact with you, it’s a sign of trust and love.  Brains release oxytocin when there is maintained eye contact between dogs and humans.
9. Following you around.  Dogs know who is responsible for their food and shelter and will often follow their owners because they love being near you. 
   
   

Few bonds are as close and special – no questions asked – as the one with your dog. 

For my wife and me, Callaway is a special part of our family.

So, find a dog to love and be loved back. 

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.

Consider these recent developments:

1. Oregon State University:  The Beavers, without several of their key players who either transferred or opted not to play – not to mention their coach who left the university hanging by high-tailing it to Michigan – got plastered 40-8 by Notre Dame in the Sun Bowl.  The fact that so many were missing contributed to the lopsided loss.

• Georgia and Florida State:  The latter also was missing a boatload of players, so lost to Georgia by a score of 63-3.

The New York Times wrote this:

“Georgia coach Kirby Smart doesn’t often get on a soapbox and usually tries to avoid making headlines.  This was uncharacteristic.  But it was clear that, as happy as he was about how his team played, he also felt pity for what Florida State coach Mike Norvell and his remaining players had to endure.

“The Seminoles were down more than two dozen players who finished the season with the team, including six starters who opted out to prepare for the 2024 NFL Draft.”

• The University of Oregon:  The Ducks opted for a different approach by emphasizing the importance of the Fiesta Bowl.  And they won by a wide margin – 45-6 against outmanned Liberty University.

What was important about this game was several-fold:  (a) U of O coach Dan Lanning said it was important to finish strong; (b) two players who didn’t have to play – Bo Nix and Bucky Irving – went out strong, even as both head toward pro football careers; (c) and Nix came across as the solid human being he is by giving God credit for his performance as his parents watched from the stands decked out in their U of O regalia.

Good for Nix and the U of O. 

• And, how about this?  The worst football coaching decision this year, if not longer, belongs to Miami head coach Mario Cristobal.

Here is how the Washington Post described the Cristobal mess under this headline:  “Miami declines to take a knee against Georgia Tech.”

“All the Miami football team had to do to defeat Georgia Tech on October 7 was take a knee.  The Hurricanes had a three-point lead with 35 seconds remaining, and the Yellow Jackets were out of timeouts.  One kneel-down would end the game.  Instead, Miami called for a handoff to running back Donald Chaney Jr.  The result:  Calamity.

“Georgia Tech recovered Chaney’s fumble and embarked on a 74-yard drive that took all of 24 seconds.  It ended with quarterback Haynes King completing a 44-yard touchdown pass to a wide-open Christian Leary with one second remaining, giving Georgia Tech a 23-20 victory.

“’Not going to make an excuse for it, say we should’ve done this or that,’ Coach Mario Cristobal said of his decision. ‘That’s it.  We should’ve done it.  Sometimes you get carried away with, just, finish the game and run it.  I should’ve stepped in and said, ‘Hey, just take a knee.’”

I don’t have much respect for Cristobal, given the way he exited the University of Oregon head coaching position several years ago, leaving after exclaiming loudly hat he would not do so.  Defenders might say he was leaving to go home to Florida, but the dishonest way he departed reminds me of what Jonathan Smith just did to Oregon State University.

Perhaps given Cristobal’s football acumen – now in question – better that he left the U of O.

So, on to 2024, when the college athletic scene, especially in football, will undergo even more changes.  The betting is that I won’t like most of them, as if my view matters.

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

This, remember, is one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit, as would any management guru like me.

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

So, here are more good quotes.

FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL WRITERS:  Under this headline – “Maine Casts Its Ballot for Trump,” the writers said this:

“The Democrat secretary of state in Maine played into the former president’s hands by blocking his candidacy.

“This week’s huge in-kind contribution to Donald Trump’s re-election campaign is from Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who announced Thursday that she will unilaterally delete Trump’s name from the presidential primary ballot.  Maine is now the second state, after Colorado, to declare him a January 6 insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  Paging the U.S. Supreme Court, alas.”

COMMENT:  It’s incredibly perverse that anything which goes against Trump becomes only another plank in his platform.  Which assumes that he has a platform other than his own, personal aggrandizement.  He doesn’t.

FROM MATTHEW HENNESEY, DEPUTY FEATURES EDITOR OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “Unambiguously, slavery was a cause of the Civil War. It might even have been the primary cause.  But it wasn’t the only cause.

“History is complex and major events never have a single or simple explanation.  A short list of hinge points that fit the description:  The fall of Rome, the French Revolution, World War I, the Great Depression, the rise of Trump.

“The American Civil War belongs on that list.  You can obviously make a case for it, and many have done so.  But a Southern politician on the stump in New England (Nikki Haley) should know better than to try.  And if she’s going to try, she has to be sure she’s going to get it right.

“Sometimes it feels as if we’re living in a dream.  Does anyone else think it strange that, in the waning days of 2023, we’re debating the cause of the Civil War?  It seems even stranger that one candidate for the GOP nomination can casually suggest the public execution of public officials and seemingly pay no political price while another has to spend several news cycles explaining what amounts to a poor choice of words.”

COMMENT:  Haley, who must know that she “always on” as a presidential candidate, made a mistake and she is paying a price for it, no matter how hard she tries to make up for the error.

As for the public execution comment, obviously it’s Trump.  And, as usual, he pays no price for such an over-the-top, if not allegedly criminal, statement.  With the Journal editor, I say, “It seems even stranger that one candidate for the GOP nomination can casually suggest the public execution of public officials and seemingly pay no political price while another has to spend several news cycles explaining what amounts to a poor choice of words.”

MORE FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL WRITERS:  “New York Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill that would have broadly banned employment non-compete agreements.  New York has a highly competitive economic climate and is home to many different industries,” she said in her veto message.  “These companies have legitimate interests that cannot be met with the legislation’s one-size-fits-all approach.

“Businesses use non-compete agreements to restrict employees from going to work for competitors for a specified period after they leave a company.  The purpose is to protect a company’s intellectual property and investment in worker development.  The agreements are most common in high-paying fields such as finance, tech, and bio-tech.”

COMMENT:  Hochul’s wise action reminded me of my involvement in non-compete issues when I was a lobbyist in Oregon.  As I represented the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, an antagonist, a former TV reporter who made it into the Oregon Legislature, proposed to ban non-competes in broadcasting.

Those clauses were used by many radio and television stations to protect their huge investments in high-profile anchor positions.  So, add the broadcast industry to the list above – finance, tech, bio-tech, and broadcast.

To the legislator involved in the issues in Oregon that I handled as a lobbyist, the truth didn’t matter.  He went to work to impose the ban and, with help from my broadcast clients, we managed to save at least part of the non-compete contract issue, so it can to be used by the industry in Oregon.

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

In the past couple weeks, I have written two blogs on a subject I would describe as “reflecting on the past and looking toward the future.”

I did so because one of my friends, in a recent meeting, contended that things were far worse today than ever before.

Several columnists I read considered that premise and said, “no,” things were bad in the past, too, marked by such issues as “the Great Depression,” the holocaust amid World War II, the Vietnam War, and the political divisions in this country, if not the world.

The point was to say what Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote in a piece today that appeared under this headline:  “Get real and read some history. The past was worse.”

Her introduction:

“Nostalgia is a powerful political tool.  Wielding nostalgia for a bygone era — one that is invariably mischaracterized — is a favorite weapon for fascist movements (Make America Great Again), harking back to a time before their nation was ‘polluted’ by malign forces.

“In the United States, such nostalgia none-too-subtlety appeals to white Christian nationalism.  Even in a more benign form (e.g., “Politics didn’t used to be so mean,” “Remember the days of bipartisanship?”) plays on faulty memories.  If you really go back to study U.S. history, you would find two things:  The past was worse, and conflict has always been the norm.”

Rather than write more about Rubin, I choose here to reprint here her column.

**********

The past was simply not “better” by any objective standard.  Economically, we were all a lot poorer.  “In 1960, there were roughly 400 vehicles per 1,000 Americans, about half of today’s car ownership rate. In other words, a family in 1960 could afford a car on one income, but today they would have two cars,” Matthew Yglesias wrote.  

Tom Nichols has written extensively on the politics of false memory. (“Times are always bad. Nothing gets better. And the past 50 years have not been a temporary economic purgatory but a permanent hell, if only the elites would be brave enough to peer through the gloom and see it all for what it is,” he wrote. “This obsession with decline is one of the myths surrounding postindustrial democracy that will not die.”)

Crime was higher by a lot in the 1970s.  Poverty, child mortality, deaths from virtually any major disease, workplace injuries, high school dropout rates, etc., were all much worse in the 1950s.  Also, kids got polio, Jim Crow was in full swing, gays had to be in the closet and no one had cellphones, home computers or microwave ovens.  Very few people had air conditioning or could afford to fly.

You might rightly decry income inequality today.  However, since 2007, income inequality has been on the decline.  The 1930s?  The Great Depression.  You prefer the 1940s?  World war.  Then came McCarthyism and the Cold War.

The 1960s? Riots, assassinations, the Vietnam War.  You get the point.  Though those who rail against modernity, urbanity, pluralism, tolerance, and personal freedom in service of an authoritarian perch would like to turn back the clock, a perusal of history suggests now is the best time to be alive.

And that brings us to the myth of bi-partisanship, unity, and frictionless politics. From the get-go, politics in America was vicious.  The Post’s review of H.W. Brands’s latest book, “Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics,” reminded us that “they all hastened to assume the worst of one another:  Jefferson, watching the government amass power and assume state debt, concluded that Hamilton’s Federalists were royalists and corrupt financiers who had been plotting ‘to betray the people’ since independence.”

In turn, “Federalists, conversely, thought Republicans ideologically deranged to the point of near-treason.  Blind infatuation with a hostile (and anarchic) France, faith in state sovereignty, Luddite opinions on public debt — all of these seemed like symptoms of a deeper mania among Jefferson’s followers.” Consider whether this sounds familiar.

And, so the knives came out quick and often.  The parties established mouthpieces in the media to lambaste one another.  Gossip about the personal lives of leaders was a favorite topic, with Hamilton and Jefferson providing good grist for the rumor mill.  Come Independence Day, 1788, celebratory toasts by one party included wishes of “never-dying remorse, pain, poverty and contempt” for their opponents.

Fast forward to the mid-19th century: The country is torn asunder by slavery, a bloody civil war follows, military occupation (Reconstruction) of the South provides a brief interlude and then strict racial segregation returns.

You can flip through the history of presidential insults, devastating feuds and congressional violence. None of this suggests we ever enjoyed a sustained halcyon period of unity. To be certain, we had brief interludes when World War II united the country and when the ideological gaps between the parties were not as vast.

However, we “got things done” mostly when one party (in modern times, usually Republicans) got wiped out in elections, leaving Democrats to construct the New Deal and the Great Society. Republicans vilified Democrats every step of the way (even testing out a coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt).

What we have not had before is a president who rejected democracy, attempted to retain power by force and wound up indicted on 91 criminal counts. So yes, four-times-indicted Donald Trump was worse than every president who preceded him.  The resulting venom, violence, and loss of faith in elections have taken a heavy toll on our democracy.

Where does that leave us? The past (especially the immediate past president!) was infinitely worse in myriad ways. (This is not to say that we don’t have our problems, from climate change to homelessness to suicide; we do, however, have more resources and knowledge to address these.)

Conflict and even violence have been a constant presence in American life. But so, too, has been progress, albeit halting at times, toward greater freedom and prosperity. We generally are living healthier, longer lives. If nothing else, the 21st century is evidence that we are a resilient people.

So, as we look forward to 2024 be wary:  Nostalgia, especially nostalgia for a time of less freedom, less opportunity, and fewer rights for many of us, is the stuff of snake-oil salesmen.  Instead, bet on American progress.

*********

AND THIS CONCLUSION FROM ME:  Rubin is right on at least this count:  She calls out a presidential candidate – yes, Donald Trump – who campaigns against democracy and, incredibly, is under 91 criminal indictments.

And, another right:  She encourages all of us to find a way to look on the bright side and “bet on American progress.”

Finally, I make this point on the last day of 2023.  Tonight, we head into another year, 2024.  Let’s work to do our part to make it a good year, even if we don’t like some of what we see and hear.

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 the second in a two-part blog series which asks two questions – (a) are things worse today than ever before (that was the first one), and (b) is it possible to look on the bright side (this is the second one)

**********

A Washington Post story made this point the other day:  “These gifts have nothing to do with holidays.  They’re about humanity.”

The writer, Petula Dvorak, started her story this way:

Error! Filename not specified.

“Miss Petula, there’s someone in the lobby here for you,” our security guard, Robin, said when she called up to my desk in our old 15th Street building.

“She has a lot, and I’m talkin’ a LOT of, um, diapers,” Robin said, a little uneasily.  “Can you come deal with this?”

“This is a story about the Christmas spirit — that bursting, full-hearted, pine-spiced, jingle-bell mood — that we’re all soaking in right now.

“Except that these diapers, this beautiful, thoughtful gift, came in April.”

Dvorak went on to cite other instances of neighbor-helping-neighbor which serves as a good contrast to what we see in the media every day – wars, rumors of wars, killing innocent civilians, homeless persons walking the streets, often amid bitter cold, and, then worse, Donald Trump issuing more tripe about immigrants polluting America.

On the latter, I cannot help but state this fact:  All of us, including Trump, are immigrants who have forebears who made a way to have a life in a free country, or are first-generation immigrants ourselves. 

Now, Trump would propose to make into the United States into an autocracy that would not tolerate anyone who was not White.

Okay, enough about Trump.  More about the bright side.

Dvorak continued her story:

“I had just written a column about Juan Jordan, one of the few single fathers living in what was once the shame of D.C.’s shelter system — an abandoned hospital that housed nearly 600 homeless children and their families — with his one-year-old daughter after he was laid off.

“Not only did readers send checks and gift cards for him, but several also showed up in our lobby with boxes of baby clothes, a playpen and this — a giant duffel bag of disposable diapers.  Because every parent knows how crucial and pricey these little things are.”

Why did this occur, Dvorak asks.

Then, she answers her own question:

“Because beyond politics and race, socio-economics, nationality, sexuality, and religion — the topics that occupy so much of our media diet — our humanity connects us through our struggles, our dreams, and our triumphs year-round.

“That human connection brings out the best in people.”

Plus, this additional story from Dvorak:  

“I’m so proud to contribute to this young man’s future.  I can’t think of a better investment to make than in America’s youth,” wrote Robert Scott Bass, in a message accompanying a $1,000 donation to the GoFundMe a reader set help send Kamari Felton to college.

“I wrote about Felton this summer, after he’d been accepted to Frostburg State University and was about to move out of a homeless shelter and into a dorm.  Then, all of his funding was yanked out from under him.

“The university and government officials finally got their acts together and restored his funding after we banged on in this column about the mess.  But in the meantime, in the swampy malaise of a D.C. summer — with no holiday cheer or spirit of Christmas to move them — readers raised $42,900 that won’t just get him to college; it also will help keep him there.”

So, to those who might say “things are worse today than ever before,” it’s not true. 

On one hand, there have been terrible times in other parts of our history, but, if you take time to look on the bright side, you’ll find stories of acts of human kindness and consideration that will give you a positive lease on life.

Further, at this Christmas season, it is good to reflect on the “reason for the season” – that Christ came to earth about 2,000 years ago to give us a way to have a relationship with Him and to value other persons as “real persons” worthy of love and connection.

Which makes bad things on this earth seem far less momentous.

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 the first in a two-part blog series that focuses on two questions –

(a) how bad are things today, and

(b) is there a way to look on the bright side

I participated in a group discussion recently where the leader uttered this phrase:  “Things are worse today than ever before.”

The leader, a friend, made this point by referring to all kinds of violence and unrest roiling our country and the world.

But, was he right?

I don’t think so, for at least two reasons:

• First, if we look back on history, there have been tough times in our country and the world, perhaps worse than what is happening today.  For the U.S., think only of “the depression,” which my age group did not live through.  Or, the Vietnam War years.  I did life through that.  Or, the Holocaust in World War II.

• Second, the influence of the media – especially social media – is so pervasive today that we know much more than our forebears did in their lifetimes.

Here is more information on both reasons, which I provide only for context, not necessarily to make any larger point.

WHAT DOES HISTORY TELL US?:  Here, I had to look no further than a column by Karl Rove that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

His name is not one I would logically associate with a look-back at history because he has made a name for himself, not in that field, but in political consulting, sometimes in controversial ways.

Still, his column resonated.  So here are excerpts.

“America is deeply divided. Our politics is broken, marked by anger, contempt, and distrust.  We must acknowledge that reality but not lose historical perspective.  It’s bad now, but it’s been worse before — and not only during the Civil War.

“Let’s look backward and start with the mid-1960s to early ’70s.  The nation was bitterly divided over civil rights, the “sexual revolution” and an increasingly unpopular war in Southeast Asia.

“The just and peaceful civil-rights protests of the 1950s and early ’60s were often met with state-sanctioned violence.  Then Harlem exploded in 1964, followed by a riot in Philadelphia.  Watts went up in flames in 1965; Chicago, Cleveland, and San Francisco the next year.”

Rove went on to name other tough times in our history, such as the depression I mentioned earlier, plus the Civil War (if any war can be called “civil”).

THE RISE OF SOCIAL MEDIA:  Look only so far as Facebook to understand the influence of social media.

For the record, I quit using Facebook about a year ago, but it was then the largest social media platform in the world, with 2.4 billion users in 2019.

Minus one:  Me.

From Google:

• Other social media platforms, including YouTube and WhatsApp, also had over one billion users each.
• These numbers are huge – in 2019, there were 7.7 billion people worldwide, with at least 3.5 billion on-line.  This means social media platforms were used by one in three people worldwide and more than two-thirds of all Internet users.
• Social media has changed the world.  The rapid and vast adoption of these technologies is changing how we find partners, access information from the news, and organize to demand political change.

And, statistics such as these indicate that, whether we like it or not, we have the ability to know more today than ever before.  Of course, some of what we know is fake or contrived, but, still, we live in an information age.

So, back to the basic question.  Are things worse today than ever before? 

I say the answer is “no,” even though all of us, as Americans, need to be vigilant so we contribute positively to society, not negatively.

And, without being a Poly-Anna, we need to take time to look on the bright side in our world (which I summarize in my next blog).  If we do, we often would like what we see – neighbor helping neighbor, charitable organizations doing good work in communities, solid citizens working on such issues as homelessness, and other examples.

So, recognize that there are problems in the world, but also positive developments.  Be part of that positivity.

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.

Does anyone have the head of a pin available? 

I ask because that’s what I would need to house all I know about the recent decision by the State of Colorado Supreme Court to ban Donald Trump from the presidential election ballot in their state because he incited a riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The basic decision threatens to roil – there, don’t you like that word as much as I do? – the 2024 election.  And, now, it has resulted in threatened violence against the judges who wrote that decision.

On one hand, the ruling goes against Donald Trump.

On the other hand, there are early indications that the ruling could have a reverse spin effect:  That is, it could redound to Trump’s credit for either of two reasons:  (a) Trump, ever the narcissist, will contend the ruling indicates that power structures are out to get him and he remains a victim, or (b) the case is not legally crystal clear and the U.S. Supreme Court may have no choice but to overrule it.

The issues are complicated enough that I am not able to understand all of them, residing as I do in the cheap seats out West.

So, even on this Christmas eve day, when there probably are better things to do, I quote below from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times to provide background on the Colorado case, which is nothing if not monumental.

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:  It has been obvious for months that politics and the law were going to bump into one another in the 2024 campaign, given the double role that former President Donald J. Trump has been playing as a criminal defendant and leading Republican candidate.

But in a way that few expected, that awkward bump has turned into a head-on collision.  It now seems clear that the courts — especially the Supreme Court — could dramatically shape the contours of the election.

The nine justices have already agreed to review the scope of an obstruction statute central to the federal indictment accusing Trump of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.  And they could soon become entangled in both his efforts to dismiss those charges with sweeping claims of executive immunity and in a bid to rid himself of a gag order restricting his attacks on Jack Smith, the special counsel in charge of the case.

…a number of the issues the court is now confronting could drastically affect the timing of the proceedings against Trump, the scope of the charges he should face or his status as a candidate, with potentially profound effects on his chances of winning the election.  

“In this cycle, the Supreme Court is likely to play an even larger role than in Bush v. Gore,” said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a non-partisan group dedicated to improving election administration.

“It’s not just the issue of whether or not Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, which would disqualify him from holding the presidency under the 14th Amendment,” Becker said, “but also issues related to presidential immunity and criminal proceedings in general.”

In fact, there are so many moving parts in the overlapping cases that Trump is facing that it is all but impossible to predict which issues might get taken up, how the justices will rule on the questions they consider and what effects their decisions might have as they flow downstream to the lower courts that are handling the former president’s four criminal cases and his many civil proceedings.

It is important to remember something else:  Trump is interested in more than winning arguments in court.  From the start, he and his lawyers have pursued a parallel strategy of trying to delay his cases for as long as possible — ideally until after the election is decided.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  The Journal wrote under this headline:  “What Is Insurrection?  Trump Puts Once Obscure Questions Before Courts.”

Donald Trump’s efforts to stay in power after losing the White House are forcing judges all the way up to the Supreme Court to confront obscure legal questions that long seemed largely academic but now carry big consequences.

For one, what counts as insurrection against the U.S.?

Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was enacted to keep former Confederate officials from gaining power during Reconstruction.  Congress last invoked the law in 1919, when it refused to seat Victor Berger, a socialist accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during World War I. 

But last year a state court in New Mexico used it to remove a participant in the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol from an elected position as county commissioner.

Soon liberal groups, supported by some conservative opponents of Trump, unleashed a wave of lawsuits against the former president, asserting that his encouragement of efforts to block the peaceful transfer of power to President Biden amounted to an insurrection and disqualified him from running for president in 2024.

The Supreme Court justices could take a range of approaches to deciding the case.

On appeal, Trump will likely argue that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the office of the presidency, since it refers to other federal roles, including Members of Congress and electors, as well as to “officers of the United States,” but not specifically to the president.  

Trump also is expected to argue that Section 3 can’t be enforced by state election officials. The former president’s lawyers have said further legislation by Congress is required to make Section 3 enforceable.

Another consideration will likely be on the justices’ minds in deciding on the case:  Whether, as all of Trump’s rivals for the Republican nomination have suggested, it subverts democracy to have a court rather than voters decide on who they can choose as president. 

AND MORE FROM THE WALL JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD:  Under this headline – “The Folly of Colorado’s Trump Disqualification” – the writers said this:

The decision by four Colorado judges to bar Donald Trump from the state presidential ballot is an ugly turn that augurs nothing but trouble for American law and democracy.  Even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the ruling, as it probably will, the Colorado decision will confirm for millions of Americans that Trump’s opponents will do everything possible to deny them their democratic choice.

Anti-Trump lawyers have been peddling that Trump can be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  Colorado’s 4-3 Supreme Court majority is the first court to buy the argument, and in the process it has blundered into the middle of the 2024 election.  The four Democrat justices join special counsel Jack Smith and New York and Georgia prosecutors in providing ironic assistance to Trump in gaining the GOP presidential nomination, and maybe the White House.

The court said Trump is disqualified under the post-Civil War 14th Amendment because he inspired and “engaged” in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. that took place on January 6, 2021.  They rely largely on evidence compiled by the House January 6 special committee.

Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election through Jan. 6 was disgraceful, and it is one of several reasons not to trust him with so much power again.  It was an attempt to obstruct the counting of electoral votes.  But the evidence is unpersuasive that this amounted to an insurrection or rebellion under the statutory or constitutional meaning of those terms.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:  Even the more liberal Post got into the act under this headline:   “Should courts throw Trump off the ballot? Not so fast.”

Never mind whether Donald Trump should be president a second time:  The U.S. Supreme Court now looks likely to determine whether he even can.  The justices must do so, mindful that the legal issues involved are murky — and that the implications of a court determining whether a candidate may participate in a democracy’s elections are substantial.

Obvious as this analysis might seem to citizens appalled at the then-commander in chief’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, the law is not so clear.  The court had to answer “yes” to a vexing series of questions:  Does Section 3 apply to the presidency?  The answer here is probably “yes.”

The provision doesn’t list that office even as it does list others — but the Colorado court majority found the idea that Section 3 should exclude the most powerful position of all implausible.  

Harder still is the question of whether Congress needs to pass legislation for Section 3 to take effect.  

Yet these puzzles are relatively mundane compared with the case’s most consequential conundrum:  Whether Trump really did engage in insurrection.  

THIS FROM ME:  Now, this conclusion.  I avoid all the to-ing and fro-ing over what federal election law says.  I simply go to what Trump did on and around January 6.  His conduct compels the truth that he not be allowed to be president again, either by court decision or vote.

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

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

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

So, “just saying:”

ON RUDY GULIANI:  His fall from grace has been remarkable and, further, he has done the deed to himself.

After a stint as the “nation’s mayor” for the solid way he responded to the 911 attack, Guliani “extinguished” himself as a pawn for Donald Trump.

And, now, in the facing mounting civil judgments against him, including the most recent $148 million, he has declared bankruptcy. 

To me, just saying, this is not just financial bankruptcy.  It is mental bankruptcy.

ON THE WORLD’S LARGEST CRUISE SHIP, ICON OF THE SEAS:  Just think about the statistics for a moment…

• Icon of the Seas can hold 5,610 passengers.
• It’s nearly 1,200 feet long.
• It has more than five times the tonnage of the Titanic.
• It has more than a dozen decks.
• There’s a pool for every day of the week.
• It has the biggest water park on the water.
• There are 40-plus places to eat and drink yourself silly.

Just saying, I told my wife not to book us on this behemoth.

AND MORE ON CRUISING:  Just saying that a story in the Wall Street Journal under this headline – “The 3-year cruise was canceled.  Enter the 3.5-year cruise” – is not for me.

Here’s more from the Journal:

“Sailing on the Villa Vie Odyssey during its first circumnavigation will start at $115,789 before taxes and fees

“About a month after Life at Sea Cruises canceled its debut three-year voyage because it couldn’t secure a ship, another company has done just that.  Villa Vie Residences, which plans to sail the world in 3.5 years, announced last week it has purchased a 924-passenger ship that is expected to launch in May.

“It’s a continuous cruise that will really never stop,” said Mikael Petterson, Villa Vie Residences’ founder and CEO.  “Our goal is to make this more of a lifestyle and residence, more than your typical cruise.”

So be it.  Just saying, not for me.

ON HARVARD’S PRESIDENT:  Claudine Gay got herself in trouble first when she appeared before a Congressional committee and did not answer well when antisemitism came up as a subject. 

But her Board of Directors supported her.

Then, she got caught in an increasing number of plagiarisms in “her” writing.  So, just saying, it appears likely to me that those lapses may end up costing her the top job at Harvard. 

Just saying it’s hard to treat the president any different than Harvard students who, if caught plagiarizing, will suffer a penalty.

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

It will not surprise those who know me to hear that I enjoyed a recent column in the New York Times by Frank Bruni that emphasized the importance of this craft:  Writing well.

To me, the ability to write well indicates the ability to think well.

Or, take reverse – thinking well can translate to writing well.

So, do I write well?

The answer is, sometimes, but try to do so all the time.  I just don’t succeed every minute.

In Bruni’s column, early on, he emphasizes two attributes that aid readability — the appropriate use of punctuation, and keeping paragraphs short.  On the former, I agree, which is one reason why I employ the use of commas more than most – they aid readability. 

When you see commas, just pause.  Then, move on.

And short paragraphs?  Yes.

Rather than dwell more on my thoughts here, I choose to reprint Bruni’s column because – get this – it is written well.  [A summary of Bruni’s varied background appears below.}

**********

A.I. or no A.I., it pays to write — and to write well

When I go through students’ papers and flag the misplaced modifiers, note the clichés or explain that a 15-sentence paragraph is less approachable than a five-sentence one, I sometimes ask myself a question that the students who get those papers back from me perhaps ponder as well: Does it really matter?

Is skillful writing a prerequisite for accomplishment? For contentment? Even for communication?  You can make your point without punctuating it properly.  The most potent ideas may well survive the most flaccid prose.

Besides which, you can now generate prose without writing at all. Wait, scratch that:  You do need to fashion the prompt that you’re giving ChatGPT — the parameters of the composition you want, the objectives, the guidelines.  But artificial intelligence will do the rest.  It will sweat the structure, the syntax, the semicolons.

When I prattle on about dangling participles and the like, some students hear a sad evangelist for a silly religion.  I can tell.  Even a few of my faculty colleagues look askance at me.

One couldn’t understand my frustration with a student who had toggled repeatedly and randomly between “and” and “&” in an essay. Didn’t the student’s meaning come across well enough?

I suppose so.  But it could have come across a whole lot better, and that’s one of the arguments for writing well — for taking the time and summoning the focus to do so.  Good writing burnishes your message.  It burnishes the messenger, too.

You may be dazzling on your feet, an extemporaneous ace, thanks to the brilliant thoughts that pinball around your brain.  There will nonetheless be times when you must pin them down and put them in a long email.  Or a medium-length email.  Or a memo.  Or, hell, a Slack channel.

The clarity, coherence, precision and even verve with which you do that — achieving a polish and personality distinct from most of what A.I. spits out — will have an impact on the recipients of that missive, coloring their estimation of you and advancing or impeding your goals.

If you’re honest with yourself, you know that, because you know your own skeptical reaction when people send you error-clouded dreck.  You also know the way you perk up when they send its shining opposite.  And while the epigrammatic cleverness or audiovisual genius of a viral TikTok or Instagram post has the potential to shape opinion and motivate behavior, there are organizations and institutions whose internal communications and decision-making aren’t conducted via social media. GIFs, memes and emojis don’t apply.

When my friend Molly Worthen, a history professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a frequent contributor to Times Opinion, took the measure of the influential diplomat Charles Hill for her 2006 book “The Man on Whom Nothing Was Lost,” she noted that a principal reason for his enormous behind-the-scenes influence was his dexterity with the written word.  He took great notes.  He produced great summaries.  He made great arguments — on paper, not just on the fly.

Worthen noted in her book that “transmitting ideas into written words is hard, and people do not like to do it.”  As a result, someone who performs that task gladly, quickly, and nimbly “in most cases ends up the default author, the quarterback to whom others start to turn, out of habit, for the play.”

Good writing announces your seriousness, establishing you as someone capable of caring and discipline.  But it’s not just a matter of show:  The act of wrestling your thoughts into logical form, distilling them into comprehensible phrases and presenting them as persuasively and accessibly as possible is arguably the best test of those very thoughts.  It either exposes them as flawed or affirms their merit and, in the process, sharpens them.

Writing is thinking, but it’s thinking slowed down — stilled — to a point where dimensions and nuances otherwise invisible to you appear.  That’s why so many people keep journals.  They want more than just a record of what’s happening in their lives.  They want to make sense of it.

The subtitle of “The Notebook,” a new non-fiction book by Roland Allen, is “A History of Thinking on Paper.”  In a recent review of it in The Guardian, Sukhdev Sandhu noted that Allen “points to evidence that maintaining a notebook with pen and paper is best for processing and retaining information.”

I think you can take the “pen and paper” out of the equation — replace them with keystrokes in a Google Doc or Microsoft Word file — and the point largely holds.  That kind of writing, too, forces you to concentrate or to elaborate. A tossed-off text message doesn’t.  Neither do most social media posts.  They have as much to do with spleen as with brain.

What place do the traditional rules of writing and the conventional standards for it have in all this?  Does purposeful, ruminative, or cathartic writing demand decent grammar, some sense of pace, some glimmer of grace?

Maybe not.  You can write in a manner that’s comprehensible and compelling only or mostly to you.  You can choose which dictums to follow and which to flout.  You’re still writing.

But show me someone who writes correctly and ably — and who knows that — and I’ll show you someone who probably also writes more.  Such people’s awareness of their agility and their confidence pave the way.  Show me someone who has never been pressed to write well or given the tutelage and tools to do so and I’ll show you someone who more often than not avoids it and, in avoiding it, is deprived of not only its benefits but also its pleasures.

Yes, pleasures.  I’ve lost count of the times when I’ve praised a paragraph, sentence or turn of phrase in a student’s paper and that student subsequently let me know that the passage had in fact been a great source of pride, delivering a jolt of excitement upon its creation.  We shouldn’t devalue that feeling.  

We should encourage — and teach — more people to experience it.

**********

Bruni joined The New York Times in 1995 and has ranged broadly across its pages.  He has been both a White House correspondent and the chief restaurant critic.  As a staff writer for The Times Magazine, he profiled J.J. Abrams and a health-obsessed billionaire who planned to live to 125; as the Rome bureau chief, he kept tabs on Pope John Paul II, and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.