December 20, 2023 by davefiskum

“IS HE WORTHY?”: A MAJESTIC HYMN OF PRAISE

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 before about how Christian hymns use words and melodies that often capture my mind and heart.

That’s even though I cannot sing a lick. Thus, words – lyrics – matter.

So it was that I came across a story in the Wall Street Journal that touted the lyrics and melodies of a relatively new Christian song that asks a question, “Is He Worthy?” Then, it provides a quick and sure answer, “He is.”

A very appropriate hymn for this Christmas season.

Here is the sub-head for the Journal story:

“Written by Andrew Peterson and Ben Shive, the worship song has become a staple in Christian churches around the world thanks to its musical sweep and conversational, call-and-response format.”

The Journal’s writer, Barbara Jepson, regularly wrote about classical concerts, recordings, and musicians for the Journal from 1983 until her retirement last year. This time, in retirement, she wrote about the song, “Is He Worthy.”

Her story started this way:

“More than five decades ago, the spiritual awakening known as the ‘Jesus Movement’ swept through the U.S., bringing hippie culture into evangelical Christian churches, and impacting the sound and feel of worship music.

“Guitars, electronic keyboards and drum sets — previously unthinkable at Sunday morning services — were introduced with far-reaching effect: Contemporary worship bands now co-exist with organs and choirs at many churches or have replaced them altogether.

“And a sizable body of vibrant praise songs and anthems influenced by folk, country, rock, or gospel has been created. The lyrics may incorporate poetic imagery and mantra-like repetitions. The Christian belief in the second coming of Christ is a recurring theme.”

She wrote that “one of the most notable achievements in this still-evolving praise genre is the song ‘Is He Worthy.’”

Released in 2018 on Peterson’s album “Resurrection Letters, Volume I,” which Shive produced, it was quickly copied by Christian mega-star Chris Tomlin. His version reached No. 12 on Billboard’s “Hot Christian Songs” chart in May 2019 after a 26-week run.

According to Christian Copyright Licensing International, the work has been on its “Top 100 List” for nearly four consecutive years, based upon usage data from churches in North America, the U.K., and Australia.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOCIAL COMMITMENTS AND POLITICAL ACTION

The comparison in this blog headline arose because of two current issues for me – higher education’s so-called commitment to “diversity and inclusion” and, of all things, an environmentally-sound winery here in Oregon which my wife and I joined a few weeks ago.

Why do these different issues underline this critical distinction?

For higher education, it is one thing to be committed, ethically and morally, to diversity and inclusion. It is quite another to sign up for a political movement which strains or perhaps ridicules those who don’t sign up for the movement.

As for the winery, the Brooks Winery in Yamhill County, it is committed to environmental way of growing of grapes that are harvested to make wine, so much so that it recently won an international award for its commitments. Again, not an award for joining a political movement; an award for on-the ground environmental stewardship.

Here’s more background.

The acronym, DEI, refers to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” which seeks to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups that have historically been under-represented or subject to discrimination on the basis of their identity or disability.

That’s laudable as a commitment.

What runs afoul of my sensibilities is when DEI becomes a political organization which demands salutes and, if you don’t give those salutes, describes you as an enemy.

The same can be said of the “environment lobby.” If you don’t salute its political agenda, you are an enemy.

A week or so ago in London, The Drinks Business (which is the European top wine and spirits magazine) awarded Brooks the “Green Company of the Year.”

Nominees competed from around the globe. The criteria all were related to “sustainable efforts” in winemaking with a focus on and actions in the last 12 months.

Good for Brooks! Its award is for real, down-to-earth work.

I saw the distinction between commitments and politics play out when I worked as a lobbyist for about 25 years.

Social commitments can be good and beneficial.

When they become political movements, they lose, for me, most of their luster.

So, I say, salute the commitments, not the political movement.

December 18, 2023 by davefiskum

THE DEPARTMENT OF GOOD QUOTES WORTH REMEMBERING IS OPEN AGAIN

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

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

So, here more good quotes – and I start with a special one.

SAM SKILLERN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SALEM LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION: “Two thousand years ago, things were pretty rough in the Middle East. The Roman Empire was in charge, and it was brutal. Even though the Romans allowed the Jewish culture and systems to remain in place, they ruled with the proverbial iron fist. Royalty and religious leaders had to kowtow.

“Merchants endured a harsh economy. Families worked hard to eke out an existence. The average man was nothing but a peon; women and slaves were nothing. Unspeakable cruelty, including crucifixion, was the norm.

“There was sharp political and theological divide, with an underground revolt smoldering. Cultural and ethnic tensions due to nationality, class, and religion. Concerns about immigration and refugees. Hope for something … or someone … to break into the chaos and bring peace.

“You know the story. It wasn’t the conquering adult warrior many expected. It was a baby, entering into our human existence to walk with us and show us the way. It was a miraculous breakthrough that changed world history forever, something that has been widely documented even outside Christian literature.

“As we consider the times we’re in … are we open to a breakthrough? At this time of year, do we only look back and remember one momentous occasion? Or, in our hearts, do we invite and await a profound 2023 breakthrough? Emmanuel, God with us. An epiphany, manifestation of Christ. These concepts are not new; they have been in play since the manger. But do we perceive them? Especially in times like these?

COMMENT: As usual, Skillern asks probing questions as he has done for years at the helm of the Leadership Foundation, which works hard and effectively to bring various interests to solve community problems.

At this time of year, Christmas, Skillern points us to the real reason for the season – Christ’s birth and what that means for us if we accept His free gift.

FROM WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL WRITERS: Under this headline — “The Supreme Court should not allow Trump to play the justice system” – the writers said this:

“The essential moment in Jack Smith’s 2020 election obstruction case against Donald Trump might have arrived — and, oddly, the substance of the charges has nothing to do with it.

“The special counsel this week filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to speedily review the former president’s claims that he is immune from prosecution, rather than allow an appeals court to do so first. The strategy is gutsy, but it might be necessary to get the case to trial before the general election — and that is a wholly legitimate goal for Trump’s prosecutor.

“By ignoringthat timing in a case with the peaceful transition of power at its heart, the courts would allow themselves to be manipulated by a politician using his status as a candidate to avoid accountability.”

COMMENT: That’s the Trump strategy – delay, forever. And, then if, perish the thought, he becomes president again, he’ll simply pardon himself by instructing the Justice Department to stop.

FROM ATLANTIC MAGAZINE STAFF WRITER TOM NICHOLS: “The public’s cultish fascination with celebrity is not a new problem, but it’s getting worse. Back in 1992, I was a young professor living in New Hampshire. I was teaching political science back in those days, but I had several years of practical experience from working in city, state, and federal politics.

“Nonetheless, I was unprepared for the madness that settles over the Granite State during the presidential primaries. I went to several events, and I started to worry about how dysfunctionally Americans regard the office of the chief executive.

“As various contenders — including the right-wing populist Pat Buchanan — made their way through the state, I got to hear voters directly addressing the candidates. As far as I could tell, they had one overriding message for the people contending to be the Leader of the Free World at a time of tremendous global instability, and it sounded something like this:

“I am an unemployed pipe fitter from Laconia, and I would like to know when you’re going to get me a job.

“Trump has played to both sides of the Superman/daddy concept, encouraging a cult of personality that endows one man with saintly powers—a man who never has to deliver, and who can never fail but can only be failed by others.”

COMMENT: Nichols, a solid writer, makes a prescient case that Americans often place too much faith in the Office of the President. He or she is not superman.

Trump, however, supports the superman myth because to him – he is the smartest person on the planet – he is always right. And, no matter what he does as president, if he gets the office again, it will be for his own good.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “Technology giants strengthened their grip on the top of the annual Management Top 250 ranking of America’s best-run companies.” For the fourth year running, Miscrosoft was at the top of the list.

“Others in the top five were Apple, Nvidia, Alphabet, and IBM in the ranking compiled by researchers at the Drucker Institute, part of Claremont Graduate University.

“The top five companies scored well across a wide range of measurements, from job satisfaction to supply-chain management to shareholder returns — strengths reflected in their standing in the ranking’s five main components.

COMMENT: It’s good to be recognized for overall management strengths. And, from a position far from the action, I think Microsoft deserves the plaudits.

December 17, 2023 by davefiskum

A MAJOR POLITICAL BATTLE IS BREWING IN OREGON: IT’S OVER AN ISSUE WITH A STRANGE NAME, “THE KICKER LAW”

A major political battle is brewing in Oregon and the debate could go to the heart of what state government means here.

The title is strange: The so-called “kicker law.” But, many Oregonians know about it because it has existed for years and often means regular citizens have more money in their pockets.

If you want to read a solid article on this subject, go to the Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) website.

There, reporter Dirk VanderHart writes a long story on the law. His work deserves plaudits as a solid piece of journalism, which, I add, is typical of OPB, the state’s best news and public affairs outlet.

[In the spirit of full disclosure, I was OPB’s lobbyist for more than 10 years in Oregon and my old firm still represents the company.]

Here is the bottom line. All of us can read all we want about the kicker law and other elements of Oregon state government budgeting, but the issue boils down to this salient point: Politics is what matters, not intricate tax and budget detail.

From OPB, here is a summary of the kicker law:

“The kicker is an Oregon institution, triggered whenever personal income taxes and other non-corporate revenue streams come in at least 2 per cent higher than state economists predicted when legislators were building a two-year budget. In those increasingly common cases, all the excess is ‘kicked’ back to taxpayers.

“The law was fashioned in 1979 as a blunt tool to keep state spending in check, but Oregon has never seen anything close to the $5.6 billion refund headed out the door next spring.”

The sheer magnitude of the payout is kick-starting – pardon the play on words — a fresh set of questions in the Oregon Capitol and beyond.

For their part, Democrats are increasingly pointing to the refund to explain why they can’t pay for a growing list of what they call “crises” — housing and homelessness, public defense, mental health, and K-12 education.

Further, the state’s largest labor union is calling out the economists whose consistent underestimations of income tax revenue have sent $10.2 billion out of state coffers over the last decade.

Here is a quick summary of the politics:

Conservatives, including many Republicans, believe the tax money belongs to taxpayers and, so, if there is more than expected, it should be sent back.
Liberals, including many Democrats, believe state government – including such programs as K-12 education, higher education, public safety, and social services – needs the money more than taxpayers, so it should be saved for government.

State Senator State Senator Lew Frederick is one of the most vocal opponents of the kicker – and because I know him well from having lobbied him at the Capitol, I report his position.

As a Portland Democrat, Frederick needs little prompting to expound on all the things Oregon could do with the forgone money: From his perspective, fully fund schools, bolster mental health care, pay for road maintenance.

“We have the money,” Frederick said. “It’s not available because of the way we’ve designed the kicker, and because folks have been told that somehow spending it is taking money from them. It’s not.”

Of course, to others, it is – it’s “taking” someone’s money.

A third political issue lurks on the horizon.

A number of years ago, Republicans, concerned that the “spend it all” attitude would prevail, managed to “enshrine” – yes, that is the word that often is used – “enshrine” the kicker law in the State Constitution.

That means it would take a statewide vote of the people to change it or get rid of it, not just legislative action at the Capitol in Salem.

The very size of the kicker this year – OPB says the “state will send a jaw-dropping $5.6 billion back to taxpayers next year” – has ratcheted up pressure on changing the tax policy, despite how much voters may love it.

There is talk around the Capitol that, (a) the state economist, John McMullen, has not done his job well because his estimates on revenue have been so far off, and, thus, he should be let go, (b) it is time for discussions about how to change the law, so government has money for schools and other programs.

An interesting sidelight, at least so far, is that the state’s highest-ranking Democrat, Governor Tina Kotek, has shown no appetite to propose spending kicker money. She has repeatedly declined to entertain the idea of diverting the refund to address her top issues of housing and education – and it would take a vote of people, as explained above, to do that deed.

“That personal income tax relief that will come in next year’s taxes is really important to Oregonians,” Kotek told reporters in October. “If Oregonians want to have a conversation of where the personal income tax kicker goes in the future, let’s have that.”

It may not be smart to bet on politics, but if I was doing so on this issue, I would bet that Oregonians would not vote to get rid of the kicker.

One of the state’s most reputable polling firms, DHM research, says essentially the same thing – 68 per cent of voters want to keep the kicker and only 28 per cent are open to change.

Plus, in the end, most voters will want to keep money in their pockets.

December 15, 2023 by davefiskum

TWO VIEWS ON HIGHER EDUCATION CHALLENGES

It is not possible read national newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post these days without coming into contact with stories on higher education.

And, if you read carefully, you’ll find a multiplicity of views.

Some say higher education is in deep trouble.
Others say higher education has a chance to correct itself, if only it will act to return to learning as its main purpose, not political action, especially from the left.
Still others advocate for outside intervention.

This week, I read two views on higher education in the same edition of the Wall Street Journal. One was by partially retired columnist Daniel Henninger. Another was by a letter writer from the East Coast.

Here is a summary of the two views:

HENNINGER: He wrote under this headline and sub-head: University Presidents Flunk Out; What six-syllable word describes the testimony of Claudine Gay and Liz Magill?

First, Gay and Magill are two of the university presidents who appeared before a Congressional committee a couple weeks ago and offered comments that continue to make headlines. One reason is that, looking back, they were not as definitive as they should have been in condemning genocide against Israelis.

To a degree, they answered in an understandable fashion because of the tension between over-the-top speech and America’s commitment to freedom of speech. Tough topics that don’t lend themselves to an appearance in Congress.

Still, to me, a simple declaration that “all advocacy for genocide is wrong and cannot be tolerated” would have avoided the controversy, part of which owes to a trap sent by Representative Elise Stefanik, herself a vapid office holder who seeks to garner headlines, not make sound policy.

From Hennninger: “It may be no coincidence that colleges are abandoning SATs at the same time as three university presidents were flunking questions in public about genocide. After receiving Fs for insisting that the answer to any direct question is ‘It depends on the context,’ University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill lost her job and Harvard’s Board of Governors retained Claudine Gay with a limp vote of confidence — ‘she is the right leader to help our community heal.’ Uh-huh.

“This may be the moment to bring back vocabulary tests.

“Question: What six-syllable word describes the three university presidents who testified before Congress?

“Answer: Pusillanimity.”

Capitalizing on his choice of a word, Henninger challenged readers to name as many synonyms as they could for “pusillanimity.” He answered his own question: Cowardice, cravenness, gutlessness, spinelessness and — his favorite — poltroonery.

Henninger attributes the loss of esteem for universities to their adoption of “cancel culture,” which he said should have been another “sign their schools were off the rails.”

To this, the letter writer to the Wall Street Journal, Tom Littleton, says this: “The College Presidents Were Right: Questions about speech codes demand nuance and, yes, context.”

“I reject Representative Elise Stefanik’s narrative that the presidents of Harvard, M.I.T. and Penn are morally unclear. Had they been asked if they find anti-semitism contemptible, all would have answered yes. Instead, they were bullied into answering binary questions about whether certain speech was in violation of their institutions’ codes of conduct.

“Those questions demand nuance and, yes, context. The moment we start punishing speech that doesn’t specifically threaten individuals or incite violence, we become no better than Russia.”

There you have it. Two views on higher education.

To conclude, I turn to Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan who wrote this, quoting Fareed Zakaria on his CNN news program:

“’When one thinks of America’s greatest strengths, the kind of assets the world looks at with admiration and envy, America’s elite universities would long have been at the top of that list,’ he said. ‘But the American public has been losing faith in these universities for good reason.’

“He scored the three presidents who’d come under fire in the House for their ‘vague and indecisive answers when asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their institutions’ codes of conduct.’

“Their performance was understandable if you understand that our elite universities ‘have gone from being centers of excellence to institutions pushing political agendas.’ Those agendas, ‘clustered around diversity and inclusion,’ began in good faith, ‘but those good intentions have morphed into a dogmatic ideology and turned these universities into places where the pervasive goals are political and social engineering, not academic merit.’”

So, again, back to learning as a central goal of higher ed. It cannot come too soon.

December 14, 2023 by davefiskum

THE DEPARTMENT OF INQUIRING MINDS IS OPEN AGAIN

This is one of four departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit because, you see, I am a management guru.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of “Just Saying,” and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

So inquiring minds want to know:

How do cardiologists do what they do?

I ask this question based on my experience with very capable cardiologists who work for the Oregon Heart Center here in Salem, Oregon.

One, Dr. Kevin Thompson, takes care of me and he has done a great job over the years. We are not just “patient and doctor;” we are friends.

The other is Dr. Raghu Kamenini, who has taken care of my wife recently. He also is positive in disposition and outlook.

What impresses me most: On a routine basis, these two – plus their colleagues – regularly insert stents into hearts to save lives. Often, they go through the wrist and up into the heart, conducting an angio-gram if that is indicated, but, then based on what they find, inserting a stent immediately if that, too, is indicated.

If not through the wrist, they go through the groin.

Don’t ask me how they do what they do. For them, it’s routine.

But for patients, it is anything but routine. So, it is great to have quality cardiologists on your side as we do here in Salem.

How does John Kirby manage the ins and outs of commenting on the Israel-Hamas war?

Who is John Kirby?

He is the public spokesman for the federal National Security Council and has been joining President Joe Biden’s regular press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, to brief the press on two wars — the Israel-Hamas War and the War in Ukraine.

A retired rear admiral, he has been a commanding presence in the briefing room because he has kept messaging clear and straightforward, a tall task when it comes to reporters and editors who are at least skeptical of government, if not cynical.

Error! Filename not specified.After another day of crisis in Gaza last month, a reporter asked John Kirby in a White House press briefing whether President Biden’s support of Israel’s military response against Hamas constituted support for “genocide” against Palestinians.

According to the Washington Post, he said, for example, “that the word, ‘genocide,’ is getting thrown around in a pretty inappropriate way by lots of different folks. What Hamas wants, make no mistake about it, is genocide. They want to wipe Israel off the map. If we’re going to start using that word, fine. Let’s use it appropriately.”

From the Post: “It was a typical Kirby response: Direct, plain-spoken and unmistakably supportive of the Administration’s pro-Israeli policies.”

All of this called to mind for me a role I had more than 40 years ago, serving as press secretary for Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh. Of course, the stakes were lower – for the governor, I was not commenting on any war, nor was I in Washington, D.C.

But, here in Salem, Oregon, I tried purposefully to measure my words as to accuracy and honesty so there would be little room for misapprehending the views of the governor.

Kirby has a job these days that almost no one would want. And I continue to be impressed by his top-level performance.

December 13, 2023 by davefiskum

IT’S NIKKI HALEY OR BUST FOR THE GOP

Rather than build toward a conclusion, I’ll start with it.

My fond hope is that someone other than Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination for president.

We don’t need any more of Trump’s bombast, narcissism, and failure to abide by laws of the land.

So, here’s hoping that Nicki Haley can rise to the challenge.

Washington Post Columnist Jennifer Rubin agrees with me, or perhaps I agree with her.

Here is what she wrote the other day:

Error! Filename not specified.

“Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has taken on the unmistakable aura of a loser. Vivek Ramaswamy has proved to be an annoying, incoherent dilettante. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie simply has not caught on with GOP voters. And neither Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin nor any other white knight has emerged to save the Republican Party from itself.

“That means only one Republican presidential candidate with the ability to dislodge Donald Trump remains: Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley.”

As Politico reported recently, “Haley is benefiting from this recent surge of support. She is now polling ahead of DeSantis in New Hampshire, the first primary state, and in her home state of South Carolina. One recent survey showed her running neck and neck with DeSantis in Iowa.”

Establishment donors (including the Koch network) are also shifting her way.

“’In recent weeks, a number of chief executives, hedge fund investors and corporate dealmakers from both parties have begun gravitating toward. Haley and, in some cases, digging deeper into their pockets to help her,’ the New York Times reported.

“Her ascent in the polls and strong debate performances have raised hopes among Republicans hungering to end the dominance of former President Donald J. Trump that maybe, just maybe, they have found a candidate who can do so.

“That hardly makes her a likely winner, not with a majority of the primary electorate seemingly locked in for Trump. But it does make her the only candidate in the primary who does not pose an existential threat to democracy and who has a chance to disable Trump.”

“Don’t get me wrong,” Rubin adds. “Haley is an unabashed opportunist who has never fully denounced Trump. She even suggested she might pardon him. She’s enamored of trickle-down economics and more tax cuts for the rich. And her views on abortion are anathema to those who want women to retain first-class citizenship and control over their own lives.

“However, the question is not whether Americans strongly inclined to vote for President Biden would vote for her in the general election. The question is whether, if she managed to topple Trump, she would break with the MAGA cult of personality, decline to bow and scrape before Russian President Vladimir Putin, decline to weaponize the Justice Department against her enemies, and return to some version of normal Republican politics.

“All indications suggest that, yes, she would refrain from subverting constitutional democracy if she somehow won the nomination and went on to win the presidency.”

At this moment, far from the election, it is not clear that Haley has the chops to win the Republican nomination. But she got a dose of good news the other day when New Hampshire Governor John Sununu endorsed her presidential bid.

Some observers had hoped that Sununu would run himself, but he passed on the “opportunity.”

I don’t agree with Halen on many of her policy stands, but one center fact is true: She is better than Trump – which isn’t saying much – but she might be the only Republican who can still beat Trump.

If I was a Republican and not an independent, I would vote for her.

December 12, 2023 by davefiskum

CHANGING MAJOR GOLF RULES? I PROPOSE ONE

If there is one golf rule to change, it would be easy for me: If your drive lands in a divot in the fairway, you would get free relief.

Too often, I have seen pro golfers hit a good drive only to be foiled by a fairway divot.

While pros have ability to hit out of a divot, they should not be faced with that challenge.

Neither should we as recreational golfers. And, of course, in a gentlemen’s game at my Club, we would probably take relief from a divot, as long as we weren’t playing in a tournament with formal golf rules in place.

My on-line Links Insider asked this question in its most edition: For PGA Tour players what One Golf Rule You’d Love to Change?”

Here is a summary of the results, with, first, a couple introductory paragraphs as written by Shaun Tolson:

“The rules of golf are generally clear, straightforward, and — most importantly — agreeable. Every once in a while, however, golfers will come across a rule that seems antiquated or flat out unnecessary. Amateurs aren’t taking their rulebooks out for most casual rounds of golf, but the pros are well-versed in the statutes of the game.

“With that in mind, we asked a handful of PGA Tour players which rule — either specifically for the tour or a general rule of golf — they’d most like to change or eliminate completely.

A Scorekeeper’s Dilemma

It may not happen often, but occasionally, a player will be disqualified from a tournament for signing an incorrect scorecard. It’s understandable that in the early years of competitive golf, such a rule was necessary to curtail cheating, but these days there are plenty of preventative measures in place for that.

Keep It Moving

“If you find your ball out of bounds [after your tee shot], you have to go back to the tee. Pro golfer Stewart Cink says the current rule doesn’t have a place in casual rounds. “I just don’t see how that really fits into weekend golf. If you’re playing on a crowded Saturday and you find your ball out of bounds, you’ve got to go back to the tee and tell the group behind you, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, I need to come back here and hit another shot while you wait.’ To me, that just doesn’t make any sense.”

Lightening the Load

A rule change that pro Russell Knox would like to see implemented — at the professional level, at least — is a reduced number of clubs allowed in a player’s bag. “I think 14 clubs is too many,” he says, adding that he’d limit the number of clubs to a dozen. “The shot-making part of golf is the lowest it’s ever been. With the latest technology, guys are turning the game too much into robot science. It would be more fun if guys had to be a little more creative with shots and eliminating clubs would definitely help that.

Playing Dirty

For many players, including pro Billy Horschel, the obvious rule to change pertains to balls that come to rest in a divot in the fairway. “As I understand it,” Horschel says, “the definition of ‘ground under repair’ fits that perfectly. If you’re on the green and you land in someone else’s pitch mark, you’re able to fix it. It should be no different, in my opinion, when you’re in the fairway.”

Or This

Instead, the big deal for pro Zach Johnson is not being allowed to clean mud off a golf ball that has come to rest in the fairway. “If you have mud on your ball… arguably, you now have zero control out of the middle of the fairway. But if you hit a worse shot off the tee — if you hit it 20 yards right in the intermediate rough — you can have more control. There’s something wrong with that.”

Too Much Information

If pro J.B. Holmes could change one aspect of the rules on tour, he wouldn’t change a rule, per se, so much as he’d change the way a rule is implemented. More specifically, he’d prevent television viewers from calling in to alert tournament officials of a potential rules violation.

Moreover, he explains that, in many instances, players might be doing everything right to determine what their ball did prior to ending up in a precarious situation, since those details will determine if they’re entitled to a free drop. However, if a camera used for a television broadcast captures evidence that runs contrary to what a player may have seen or what he has been told by witnesses on the ground, retroactive penalties can be administered, even if the player did everything by the book.

“It’s also unfair in that sense because not everybody in the field has a camera on them.”

And this conclusion. The Links writer, Tolson, starts his story with this sentence: “The rules of golf are generally clear, straightforward, and — most importantly — agreeable.”

No. I have no idea how he reaches that conclusion. To me, the opposite is true. Golf rules are not clear, not straightforward, and not agreeable.

So, one of the best ways to answer the question about golf rules to change is to re-write them in a way that makes them more understandable. Do they have to be a bit complicated? Yes, because they apply outdoors to all kinds of settings.

But, as complicated as they are? No.

December 10, 2023 by davefiskum

“STENTOLOGY”

“Stentology.”

Yes, this is a word I coined to describe what has happened recently to my wife, Nancy.

And, what happened to me now just more than 19 years ago.

What? Insertion of what are called “stents” in our hearts to re-enable adequate blood flow after arteries and other vessels had been blocked.

So, what is a stent? It is a small mesh tube that cardiologists insert – incredibly, yes “insert” — into the heart to re-enable the blood view in coronary arteries, which provide the heart with oxygen-rich blood.

Nancy and I are two of an estimated two million people who get coronary artery stents every year, and if you have coronary artery disease, there is a good chance your doctor will suggest you get one, as happened in our two situations.

Apart from a statistic such as this, one aspect of our experience impressed me more than any other: It was the capability of our cardiologists for whom inserting stents is a routine practice. To do the job, they either go through your wrist (yes, your wrist!) or your groin (yes, your groin!) to fish a tube up or over to your heart.

This occurs when cardiologists do angio-grams or when they insert stents. Sometimes, the two processes occur at the same time.

Here is quick background on the two separate situations affecting my wife and me:

For me, I became sick on the evening of December 1, 2004, so, with my wife’s help, went to the hospital emergency room in the city where we live, Salem, Oregon. It turned out that, as I arrived by ambulance, I was having a heart attack (I still call it an “episode,” a term I like better), so the doctor on call immediately inserted a stent that saved my life.

I had two more non-emergent stents inserted the next day before I began a recovery process. So, I now have three stents!

For my wife, discomfort in her left shoulder a few weeks ago prompted her to consult a cardiologist. And, while she did not have a heart attack, one was close, she was told, so the cardiologist inserted what turned out to be an emergent stent, then another one three weeks later. So, she now has two stents, one less than me!

As I often do these days, I went on-line to get more information on what I call “stentology.” So, I limit myself to the following top-10 list of questions and answers, which appear in no particular order of priority:

What percentage of blockage requires a stent?

Jon Resar, an interventional cardiologist and director of the adult cardiac catheterization laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital says this: By clinical guidelines, an artery should be clogged at least 70 per cent before a stent is placed. A 50 per cent blockage doesn’t need to be stented.”

How long does recovery take after a heart stent is placed?

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute suggests that, for many people, a full return to normal, everyday activities can take as little as a few days or a week.

What should you avoid after a stent?

In most cases, you’ll be advised to avoid heavy lifting and strenuous activities for about a week, or until the wound has healed. Plus, no car driving for about a week.

How long does a stent last in a person?

It is permanent. There is just a 2–3 per cent risk of narrowing coming back, and if that happens it is usually within 6–9 months after installation.

Why do I have to carry a stent card?

It documents the patient’s details, the length of time the stent should remain, and contact details for the patient to use if they have not received any dates for stent change or removal. All of which is helpful information in the case of an accident or further hospitalization.

Can you live a long life with stents?

A person with a stent(s) can be more physically active, travel, feel more energetic, and notice improvement in overall health. As long as one follows a person’s doctor’s advice and consults the doctor regularly, there is every chance that one has a longer and healthier life span post an angio-plasty.

How often should a heart stent be checked?

As recommended in the National Disease Management Guidelines, patients with coronary heart disease and those who have undergone stent implantation should be followed up regularly (every three to six months) by their cardiologists.

Which is better bypass surgery or stents?

A narrowing or blockage in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) is more serious than narrowing or blockage in the other arteries. Bypass surgery usually is the best choice for a blocked LAD. If the LAD is not blocked, and there are no other complicating factors, stents are more likely to be used, even if both other arteries are blocked.

How do you keep a stent from clogging?

Although drug-coated stents are much less likely to close up than bare-metal stents, the price of this benefit is taking anti-clotting medications for a year or more and then aspirin indefinitely to prevent the rare but potentially deadly formation of a blood clot on the stent.

Can you go through a metal detector if you have a stent?

You will not set off any metal detectors after stent implantation.

Okay, enough, but this final question: How much does a stent cost? Well, the answer, pertaining to a stent that is coated with medicine (as most of them are now), is $38,000.

For my wife and me, worth every penny!

December 9, 2023 by davefiskum

“ALTHOUGH NOT ALL WORRYWARTS ARE PROGRESSIVES, ALL PROGRESSIVES ARE WORRYWARTS”

The line in this blog headline came from a column in the Washington Post by George Will.

Agree with him or not, he writes well, including in the words in the headline, which convey volumes.

So it was that he started his most recent column with these excellent paragraphs:

“Although not all worrywarts are progressives, all progressives are worrywarts. They believe that there are evermore things urgently in need of their supervision — things to ban or mandate or regulate to help society shimmy up the pole of progress.

“Senator Elizabeth Warren is progressivism incarnate. The former Harvard Law School professor should possess, if there were such, a Ph.D. in Advanced Worrying.

“She represents the cutting edge of modern fretting, forever anxious lest something, somewhere, escapes the government’s improving attention. So she has Xed (tweeted, for those who are not au courant) her joy that the Federal Trade Commission recently has been preoccupied with the menace of Big Tech is turning its disapproving squint at Big Sandwich.”

Will continues.

“Roark Capital, a private equity firm, owns or otherwise supports various fast-food chains (Arby’s, Sonic Drive-In, Jimmy John’s, McAlister’s Deli, Schlotzky’s) that serve sandwiches. The government disagrees with itself about the definition of ‘sandwich.’ Now, Roark reportedly plans to purchase the Subway chain for $9.6 billion. The FTC evidently shares Warren’s worry that this might create, what she calls, ‘a sandwich shop monopoly.’”

So, regulation is in the wind.

Will, for one, cannot believe it.

And neither can I.

For one thing, the Warren proposal indicates a far too aggressive stance on the role of government. If it moves or has life, then Warren wants to get government involved.

Further, I have often railed against the use of the word “progressive” in politics because it conveys that liberals like Warren who want an ever-expanding role for government believe their views will make “progress,” thus are progressive.

No. They often regress, not progress.

Like regulating sandwiches.

So, I say, stop!

Instead, devote government time and effort to a host of issues that need to be considered by those in Congress, such as:

Immigration
The war in Ukraine
Anti-semitism, including on university campuses
Simmering tensions in the Middle East
The next presidential election in the United States
Climate change that can be proved by science, not politics
How to save American democracy
Etc.

Leave sandwiches alone.

	Shelley Lewelling on ANOTHER GREAT SUNDAY!
	literarywanderings on MATT GAETZ: JUST WHAT NO ONE…
	literarywanderings on THE DEPARTMENT OF GOOD QUOTES…
	Bentley Gilbert on BIDEN STRIKES APPROPRIATE ADMO…
	S.B. Lewelling on AN AWE-INSPIRING EXPERIENCE TH…

Perspective from the 19th Hole

Thoughts from a lobbyist who has represented clients in Oregon and Washington, D.C. for more than 40 years.

Uncategorized