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 wrote the other day to express my view that protests – including the ones roiling higher education campuses around the country – don’t achieve anything.

Except publicity for the protestors.

[After talking with my wife about this, she reminded me that civil rights protests in this country did achieve objectives.  She is right.  On occasion, protests do play a role in righting terrible wrongs, though not always.]

Now, through solid journalism by the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times and others, we are learning that many protests have been organized by the left.

So it is that presidents at a number of institutions are struggling with what to do, or, perhaps, losing their jobs.

Then, this morning I came across a column in the Wall Street Journal by former U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, now president of the University of Florida.

He does a great of job of laying out the University’s approach, one that I think deserves to be emulated around the country.

The credibility of what Sasse writes prompts me to reprint his column as my blog.

**********

The Adults Are Still in Charge at the University of Florida

Higher education isn’t daycare. Here are the rules we follow on free speech and public protests.

By Ben Sasse

May 3, 2024 5:26 pm ET

Gainesville, Fla.

Higher education has for years faced a slow-burning crisis of public trust. Mob rule at some of America’s most prestigious universities in recent weeks has thrown gasoline on the fire. Pro-Hamas agitators have fought police, barricaded themselves in university buildings, shut down classes, forced commencement cancellations, and physically impeded Jewish students from attending lectures.

Parents are rightly furious at the asinine entitlement of these activists and the embarrassing timidity of many college administrators. One parent put it bluntly: “Why the hell should anybody spend their money to send their kid to college?” Employers watching this fiasco are asking the same question.

At the University of Florida, we tell parents and future employers: We’re not perfect, but the adults are still in charge. Our response to threats to build encampments is driven by three basic truths.

First, universities must distinguish between speech and action. Speech is central to education. We’re in the business of discovering knowledge and then passing it, both newly learned and time-tested, to the next generation. To do that, we need to foster an environment of free thought in which ideas can be picked apart and put back together, again and again. The heckler gets no veto. The best arguments deserve the best counterarguments.

To cherish the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly, we draw a hard line at unlawful action. Speech isn’t violence. Silence isn’t violence. Violence is violence. Just as we have an obligation to protect speech, we have an obligation to keep our students safe. Throwing fists, storming buildings, vandalizing property, spitting on cops and hijacking a university aren’t speech.

Second, universities must say what they mean and then do what they say. Empty threats make everything worse. Any parent who has endured a 2-year-old’s tantrum gets this. You can’t say, “Don’t make me come up there” if you aren’t willing to walk up the stairs and enforce the rules. You don’t make a threat until you’ve decided to follow through if necessary. In the same way, universities make things worse with halfhearted appeals to abide by existing policies and then immediately negotiating with 20-year-old toddlers.

Appeasing mobs emboldens agitators elsewhere. Moving classes online is a retreat that penalizes students and rewards protesters. Participating in live-streamed struggle sessions doesn’t promote honest, good-faith discussion. Universities need to be strong defenders of the entire community, including students in the library on the eve of an exam, and stewards of our fundamental educational mission.

Actions have consequences. At the University of Florida, we have repeatedly, patiently explained two things to protesters: We will always defend your rights to free speech and free assembly—but if you cross the line on clearly prohibited activities, you will be thrown off campus and suspended. In Gainesville, that means a three-year prohibition from campus. That’s serious. We said it. We meant it. We enforced it. We wish we didn’t have to, but the students weighed the costs, made their decisions, and will own the consequences as adults. We’re a university, not a daycare. We don’t coddle emotions, we wrestle with ideas.

Third, universities need to recommit themselves to real education. Rather than engage a wide range of ideas with curiosity and intellectual humility, many academic disciplines have capitulated to a dogmatic view of identity politics. Students are taught to divide the world into immutable categories of oppressors and oppressed, and to make sweeping judgements accordingly. With little regard for historical complexity, personal agency or individual dignity, much of what passes for sophisticated thought is quasireligious fanaticism.

The results are now on full display. Students steeped in this dogma chant violent slogans like “by any means necessary.” Any? Paraglider memes have replaced Che Guevara T-shirts. But which paragliders—the savages who raped teenage girls at a concert? “From the river to the sea.” Which river? Which sea?

Young men and women with little grasp of geography or history—even recent events like the Palestinians’ rejection of President Clinton’s offer of a two-state solution—wade into geopolitics with bumper-sticker slogans they don’t understand. For a lonely subset of the anxious generation, these protest camps can become a place to find a rare taste of community. This is their stage to role-play revolution. Posting about your “allergen-free” tent on the quad is a lot easier than doing real work to uplift the downtrodden.

Universities have an obligation to combat this ignorance with rigorous teaching. Life-changing education explores alternatives, teaches the messiness of history, and questions every truth claim. Knowledge depends on healthy self-doubt and a humble willingness to question self-certainties. This is a complicated world because fallen humans are complicated. Universities must prepare their students for the reality beyond campus, where 330 million of their fellow citizens will disagree over important and divisive subjects.

The insurrectionists who storm administration buildings, the antisemites who punch Jews, and the entitled activists who seek attention aren’t persuading anyone. Nor are they appealing to anyone’s better angels. Their tactics are naked threats to the mission of higher education.

Teachers ought to be ushering students into the world of argument and persuasion. Minds are changed by reason, not force. Progress depends on those who do the soulful, patient work of inspiring intellects. Martin Luther King Jr., America’s greatest philosopher, countered the nation’s original sin of racism by sharpening the best arguments across millennia. To win hearts, he offered hope that love could overcome injustice.

King’s approach couldn’t be more different from the abhorrent violence and destruction on display across the country’s campuses. He showed us a way protest can persuade rather than intimidate. We ought to model that for our students. We do that by recommitting to the fundamentals of free speech, consequences and genuine education. Americans get this. We want to believe in the power of education as a way to elevate human dignity. It’s time for universities to do their jobs again.

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.

Back in the day, someone who taught me about writing said it was not smart to start anything with a question.

So, obstinate as I am, I do so in this blog.

Do you care about presidential debates?

I ask because we are on the threshold of who-knows-how-many debates before we vote in the next presidential election.

No less an observer than former Republican political analyst Karl Rove dealt with this subject in his most recent column for the Wall Street Journal.

The column appeared under this headline:

Trump Taunts Biden Over Fall Debates; Will the two men face off?  If so, why not do it the way Kennedy and Nixon did in 1960?

Here is how the column started:

“When President Biden said last Friday that he’d be ‘happy to debate’ Donald Trump, the former president immediately responded on Truth Social:  ‘Everyone knows he doesn’t really mean it, but in case he does, I say, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE.’’

In other words, Trump wanted an immediate head-to-head with Biden.  But, of course, that would be difficult for Trump because he is busy – or perhaps sleeping at the defense table – as he defends himself in a criminal trial in New York.

So far, three debates have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates.  These would take place September 16 at Texas State University in San Marcos, October 1 at Virginia State in Petersburg, and October 9 at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Rove believes Trump gained two small advantages from the most recent back-and-forth with Biden.  First, Rove says, Trump took the opportunity to build public interest in seeing the two men tangle.  

Second, if debates don’t materialize, last week’s moment of controversy helped build the case that it’ll be Biden’s fault.  This could hurt him with voters, especially if journalists press the president on why he ducked a chance to go head-to-head with his opponent in a live event.

Rove hopes, at least, that presidential debates take place this year because they have played an important role in the past in U.S. democracy.  

• Senator John F. Kennedy’s telegenic appearance in 1960 helped him win a razor-thin election.
• President Gerald Ford’s blooper in October 1976 that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” stopped his upward movement.
• And in 1980’s sole debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, Reagan parried Carter’s attacks with grace and wit, causing undecided voters to swing into his column.

In the last two elections, the quality of presidential debates has declined, due mostly to Trump, a man of unregulated emotions, as Rove describes him. 

More from Rove:

“Debates now have an air of spectacle more appropriate to reality television than to a great nation choosing its leader.  We have mobs of donors and cheerleaders, party bigwigs, and corporate underwriters in a gigantic auditorium, hooting and hollering, with ‘special guests’ invited to unsettle the other side.  It’s distracting and juvenile.”

Of course, that’s exactly what Trump, who professes to be a reality TV star, wants.

Thus, Rove suggests debates should return to something more normal, such as the first presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960.  It was held in a small TV studio.  Only the moderator, a panel of journalists, and a handful of network executives were present.

No adoring crowds for either candidate.  No jeering or cheering.  No made-for-TV sound bites.

“A return to simplicity would mean fewer diversions — no cheering or playing to the cheap seats, since there wouldn’t be any.  A more dignified setting might make it costlier for candidates to act up.  It would be easier for the moderator to ask follow-up questions and give each candidate equal time.

“If debates looked less like a professional wrestling match and more like a serious discussion, voters might get a clearer sense of who would be a better president.”

And, finally, this conclusion from Rove:

“Our politics are broken at a time when the nation’s challenges are large and important.  A real conversation between these two men on how they’d lead America could help restore public confidence.  It might even help voters believe they have worthy choices.  There are limitations to how high-minded a debate could be, but we should welcome anything that even marginally improves the degraded state of our politics.”

I agree with Rove.

If presidential debates were fixed like he suggests, they would not just become another Trump campaign circus, which is, of course, wants he wants.

We might learn something about the distinction between the two candidates.

I’d watch.

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.

As a political junkie, I admit to reading every day about Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York.

And as an avid never-Trump person, I hope he pays a price for his efforts to win election by faulty means.  To a degree he has.  The judge fined him $9,000 yesterday for nine cases of defying a gag order.

Not much money for a guy like Trump, but at least it’s a fine for bad behavior.

The other day a friend of mine made a solid point.

A retired attorney, he said lawyers representing Trump in New York, rather than defending Trump directly, may be setting the stage for an appeal, if Trump loses, which is a growing possibility.

Yes, setting up an appeal.

An appeal always is possible in any civil or criminal trial, but could it be the main objective here? 

The grounds might be that the New York judge, Juan M. Merchan, hasn’t “been fair” to Trump, a possibility, if you think about it, that could undergird many of Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s interchanges with Merchan.

All of this came to my mind as I read a “political memo” in the New York Times that (a) included a summary of Trump’s propensity to utter thousands and thousands of words, most of them false, with many misspellings, and (b) a summary of Blanche’s interchanges with the judge.

Here are excerpts from the Times story:

“The question of what is true — or at least what can be proven — is at the heart of any trial.  But this particular defendant, accused by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office of falsifying business records to conceal a sex scandal, has spent five decades spewing thousands and thousands of words, sometimes contradicting himself within minutes, sometimes within the same breath, with little concern for the consequences of what he said.

“Trump has treated his own words as disposable commodities, intended for single use, and not necessarily indicative of any deeply held beliefs. And his tendency to pile phrases on top of one another has often worked to his benefit, amusing or engaging his supporters — sometimes spurring threats and even violence — while distracting, enraging or just plain disorienting his critics and adversaries.”

Now for the excerpts of what Trump or his legal counsel have said that could relate to an appeal:

• Trump attorneys have tried to use political arguments to justify Trump’s actions in the (hush money) case.  During the gag-order hearing last week, one of the attorneys, Todd Blanche, sought to excuse a collection of Trump’s verbal assaults on  Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels (Both whom will be witnesses in the proceedings against Trump.]  He  (Blanche) argued that, in attacking them, the former president had been responding to political attacks by his adversaries.
• The judge wasn’t buying it.  He told Blanche that he was planning to ask, in every example, ‘What precisely is it that your client is responding to?’  When Blanche did not have the requested information at hand, Merchan reminded him of the purpose of the hearing.
• “I am going to decide whether your client is in contempt or not,” he said, adding, “I keep asking you over and over again for a specific example, and I am not getting an answer.’”

Was Blanche baiting the judge?  Perhaps.

And, if he was, my friend in La Quinta will have been prescient in saying the purpose was to support an appeal.

For my part, as a non-attorney who follows politics carefully in this country, I hope both Blanche and Trump fail.

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 had never heard of the issue – “non-compete agreements” — before I encountered it at the State Capitol in Oregon when I was a lobbyist.

On behalf of the Oregon Association of Broadcasters – more than 200 radio and television stations around the state – I had to defend the use of non-compete agreements.

For broadcasters, the agreements were used to protect multiple million dollar investments in top-tier, on-air talent, usually anchors.

What did these agreements mean?  That talent was not allowed to leave for another station for several years after the major investment.

At was at that point, that an Oregon legislator expressed his displeasure with broadcast managers.  He had been a TV sports reporter before winning an election, so generally disliked radio and TV managers.

To express his angst, also with support from broadcast unions, he proposed a new law that would bar non-compete agreements.  It forced me to negotiate a sort-of middle ground position, though with this legislator’s cat-bird seat, the agreement when more his way than mine.

All of this came to mind last week when I read a story in the Wall Street Journal that appeared under this headline:

“Lina Khan’s latest rule instantly invalidates 30 million contracts without Congressional authority.”

Given that headline, the Journal’s editorial board position was clear.  Khan, the Federal Trade Commission chair, had exceeded her authority.

More from the story:

“Is there anything that Khan doesn’t think she can do?  Apparently not.  On Tuesday she and her fellow Democrat commissioners effectively invalidated tens of millions of employment contracts without authority from Congress.

“The FTC’s 570-page rule outlaws so-called non-compete agreements across the economy.  Employers use these agreements to restrict workers from joining competitors or starting their own firms for a specified duration after leaving.  They protect an employer’s intellectual property and investment in worker development.”

Beyond broadcasting, just think for a minute about technology or medical device companies.  They make huge investments in what quickly become “intellectual property.”  So, understandably, they move to protect those investments.

Khan doesn’t care.

Acting at the apparent behest of unions, she torpedoed the ability to put such agreements in place.

She said:  “…such agreements ‘restrict the freedom of American workers and suppress wages’ and ‘stifle new businesses and new ideas.’”

Disregarding reams of evidence to the contrary, Khan led her agency to bar employers from enforcing existing non-compete agreements for workers who aren’t “senior executives.”

The rule also forbids employers from entering future non-compete agreements with “senior executives” in a “policy-making position” who earn more than $151,164 a year.  By the FTC’s estimate, some 30 million workers are currently covered by non-compete agreements, which will now be rendered void.

More from the Journal:

“The fact is that non-compete agreements may frustrate some workers, but they are rarely iron-clad.  Employers usually are willing to negotiate less restrictive covenants to protect their trade secrets and training investments.  They also usually offer more pay and perks in exchange for workers agreeing to a non-compete.

“According to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, 78 per cent of responding employers said they provide additional compensation that spans the duration of an agreement or longer.”

So, the basic impact of Khan’s ruling will mean that workers will earn less, and companies will invest less in them, if workers can easily take the skills they acquire on the job elsewhere.

The Journal also contends, properly, that Khan proceeded without Congressional authority and, so far at least, Congress, which could also restrict non-compete agreements, has not done so.

This is an issue that could benefit from negotiation to find the smart middle ground.  Which means that banning non-compete agreements does not make sense.  Nor does simply allowing all of them.

If there were smart operators in the Legislative or Executive Branches, they’d get their act together and find a workable solution that protects companies and workers.

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.

If I am an expert, “protests” is not one of the categories.

For these reasons:

• Over 40 years involved in public policy in the State of Oregon, I saw many protests on the steps of the State Capitol.
• I had no idea what they achieved, other than, I guess, a sense of satisfaction for those protesting who sometimes got media coverage.
• I don’t remember a public policy issue where protests served a function of bringing parties together to solve a problem.

So it is that I am concerned lately with what’s happening on many college campuses around the country, even though what I know is from a remote location.

Protestors are roiling – there’s one of my favorite words again – as they contend higher ed administrators are favoring the Israeli side in the current Middle East war.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal described the situation at the current fulcrum of the debate, Columbia University.

“Columbia Faces a Day That Lays Out Its Troubles:  Protesters, who stayed in their encampment, continue to negotiate with administrators.  

“Columbia University awoke Wednesday to a calendar that lays bare the breadth of its troubles.

“House Speaker Mike Johnson was expected on campus to visit with Jewish students.  The university president, Nemat Shafik, was preparing to confer with the university Senate, which could censure her as soon as Friday.  

“And protesters and university officials were negotiating over the possible dismantling of an encampment that is dominating a swath of the campus lawn.  Overnight, the university and protesters narrowly avoided another confrontation that could have involved the police.”

Administrators at campuses across the nation have been struggling to balance two competing interests — free speech rights, including anti-Israel speech, versus the need to protect Jewish students.

The Washington Post reports that some demonstrations have included hate speech, threats or support for Hamas, the armed group based in Gaza that led attacks on Israel on October 7, sparking the war.

Also, this from Washington Post commentator Meagan McArdle:

“Why campus protests against Israel probably won’t be effective:

Error! Filename not specified.

“An alien who landed on our planet during the current news cycle could be forgiven for concluding that the biggest foreign policy issue facing America today is what the U.S. government should do about Columbia University’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.  Otherwise, why would throngs of protesters be crowding the campus to protest actions more than 5,000 miles away?

“The short answer is that they are advocating for a cease-fire in Gaza, for an academic boycott of Israeli universities, and for the administration to divest all of Columbia’s finances, including the endowment, from companies and institutions that profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide and occupation in Palestine.”

Divestment, McArdle adds, has become a popular idea on campus, meant to wound companies that offend protesters in various ways, from running private prisons, to manufacturing firearms, to producing fossil fuels.  

She adds that “it’s not clear what effect this has had on anything other than the returns of the endowments.”

Also, this in the Washington Post regarding the latest move by Texas Greg Abbott to mold his political image:

“As word got out that pro-Palestinian protesters were planning to occupy a lawn on the University of Texas campus, Governor Greg Abbott made a dramatic move:  Calling in more than 100 state troopers with orders to clear them out.

“With that decision, which led to dozens of arrests amid video of riot-clad troopers on campus, Abbott sought to reassure his party — and the rest of the country — that Texas would not countenance a replay of the extended protester camp at New York’s Columbia University.

“It was the latest move by Abbott to position himself as one of the most assertive red-state governors in America, eager for a fight with the political left under the national spotlight.”

Back to my ideas and concerns about protests.

Based on my experience in Oregon – admittedly not in international affairs – I repeat that I do not think protests don’t do any good. 

Better for those who favor protests as a way to express themselves to cultivate relationships with those in power or influence and use those relationships to seek results, even if those results produce solutions in the middle, not on either the right or left extremes.

I fear college administrators will continue to face these protests, which, for me, also recall the Vietnam War era when I was in college.  The school I attended, a relatively small one in Seattle, did not have many protests.  But protests roiled campuses around the country as America fought its way through, by hindsight, what was a stupid war, if any war can be other than stupid.

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.

Based on the last few weeks on the men’s and women’s professional golf tours, this blog headline states the obvious.

So, who is best – Scottie Scheffler or Nelly Korda?

For me, the best answer is both.

Each of these to top pro golfers has done something special over the last few weeks.  No need to pick one over the other.

Here is a quick summary, according to information compiled by The Athletic, published by the New York Times:

• In their last 10 starts, Scheffler and Korda have beaten 1,163 golfers — if you rely on entry lists for the PGA and LPGA Tours.

• For Korda, it’s the first time anyone has won five straight starts since Annika Sorenstam performed the feat in 2004 and 2005.

• Scheffler’s run is the just fifth streak of being first or second in five straight tournaments over the last 30 years – and, in the one where he finished second, he almost won it, too.

• Scheffler also is the first golfer since Bernhard Langer to follow-up a Master’s win with another win at the next tournament — the Heritage Classic at Hilton Head.

• Just think of this – in the last 42 days, Scheffler has earned more than $16 million.

• I don’t mean to leave Korda out of this; it’s just that the women’s tour has a ways to go to catch up with money on the PGA Tour.

• And, one final interesting stat:  Scheffler’s caddy, Ted Scott, has earned more money carrying Scheffler’s bag over the last few weeks than almost any PGA player, including Rory McIlroy.

Achievements by Scheffler and Korda are just the latest step in a never-ending debate about the best pro golfers.

On the men’s side, two usually are mentioned – Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods.  Sometimes Arnold Palmer joins that twosome.  And, while it is early, TV commentators say Scheffler is on his way to becoming part of the conversation.  He’ll have to continue performing over a few more years to win that accolade.

On the women’s side, again two usually are mentioned – Annika Sorenstam and Nancy Lopez.  Others sometimes join the list.  And Korda could be named, as well, if she continues playing top-level golf.

Frankly, I often tire of such debates about who is best, if, for no other reason, than that it is subjective, not objective.

I say mention all of the great players, then relish their accomplishments.  Enjoy golf as it was meant to be played.

Of course, none of us as amateurs will reach their level of pro greatness.

So what?  Fun to watch!

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.

First, this is a respite from focusing on Donald Trump and all he means – all bad – for our country, as he sits as the defendant in a News York criminal trial.

Enough about Trump, at leasts for one day.

The Department of Words Matter is one of five I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

• No one needs to be around to help me because I am a brilliant manager.

• No oversight board needs to be appointed because I don’t need that distraction.

• Nothing…just me.

The other departments are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remember, the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to know, and the Department of “Just Saying.”

So, here goes with words matter and, this time, it will just be a list words that roll easily off the tongue and contain useful meaning.

LURKS:  This word can apply to many subjects.  A golfer lurks just around the corner as he or she tries to overtake a leader.  A political figure – think Donald Trump – lurks in the foreground or background as he or she tries to win election.

The definition:  “To remain hidden so as to wait in ambush for someone or something.”

ROILS:   I use this word mostly these days as a way to describe what is happening in politics in this country.  No longer is there a quest for the smart middle ground.  The penchant these days is to roil, as illustrated by this dictionary definition. 

The definition:  “To disturb or disquiet; irritate; vex.”

TO’ING AND FRO’ING:  This is a word series – actually it is my own made-up word series – that I often use to describe what is happening in politics.  Everyone is going this way and that way, either to try to find a solution or block someone else’s solution. 

The definition:   The dictionary contains no definition.

DISCOMFIT:   I have come across this word – one I had not used before – in several stories about Trump.  If you read the definition below, it fits Trump – simple and direct.

The definition:  To confuse.

EGO:  This word has come to my mind again with respect to Trump, though it fits many others, including, in a way, for all of us who have some amount of ego.  Trump has far too much, which relates, also, to the word below, narcissist.

The definition:  “A person’s sense of self-esteem or self-importance.”

NARCISSIST:  That’s what Trump is — someone who focuses on himself to the exclusion of others.  It’s always about him.

The definition:  “A person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves.”

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 New York Times wrote a “political memo” this last weekend that ran under this headline:  Trump’s Trial Challenge: Being Stripped of Control

It was a good piece of journalism. 

The story started this way:

“Everything about the circumstances in which the former president comes to court every day to sit as the defendant in the People v. Donald J. Trump at 100 Centre Street is repellent to him.  The trapped-in-amber surroundings that evoke New York City’s more crime-ridden past.  The lack of control.  The details of a case in which he is accused of falsifying business records to conceal a payoff to a porn star to keep her claims of an affair with him from emerging in the 2016 election.”

Of the four criminal cases Trump is facing, the current case is the most acutely personal.  People close to him are blunt when privately discussing his reaction:  He looks around each day and cannot believe he has to be there.

More from the Times:

“For the first few minutes of each day during jury selection, a small pool of still photographers was ushered into Part 59 on the 15th floor of the courthouse.  Trump, obsessed with being seen as strong and being seen generally, prepared for them to rush in front of him by adjusting his suit jacket and contorting his face into a jut-jawed scowl.  But, by day’s end on Friday, Trump appeared haggard and rumpled, his gait off-center, his eyes blank.”

Of course, at one point, he also fell asleep.

He has often seemed to fade into the background in a light wood-paneled room with harsh neon lighting and a perpetual smell of sour, coffee-laced breath wafting throughout.

It is hard to recall any other time when Trump had to sit and listen to insults without turning to social media or a news conference to punch back.  And it is just as hard to recall any other time he has been forced to be bored for so long.

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin said the process in court makes Trump look like a “shrinking man.”

“For months, the news coverage of Trump’s legal ordeal eagerly amplified the four-times-indicted former president’s narcissistic spin:  He would use his trials to his benefit, dominating the 2024 campaign.

“Last August, the New York Times insisted that Trump’s trials display ‘an upside-down reality where criminal charges act as political assets — at least for the purpose of winning the Republican nomination.’”

And this final thought from the Times:

“Many in Trump’s orbit are pessimistic about the case ending in a hung jury or a mistrial, and they see an outright acquittal as virtually impossible.  They are bracing for him to be convicted, not because they cede the legal grounds, but because they think jurors in overwhelmingly Democrat Manhattan will be against the polarizing former president.

“But the shared sense among many of his advisers is that the process may damage him as much as a guilty verdict.  The process, they believe, is its own punishment.”

So, from me, punishment, either by process or result, is what Trump deserves as he has catered over the years to his own whims and caprice, no matter the damage done to others or, for that matter, to America.

Now, he wants the country’s highest political office.  Perish the thought.

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.

Atlantic Magazine came up this week with a few new thoughts for journalists as they continue to deal with the unprecedented challenges of covering the current presidential campaign.

I paid attention to this for a couple reasons:

• First, as a former journalist, I still have newspaper blood in my veins.  While journalism these days encompasses social media, newspaper journalists still face stiff challenges to get what they write right.
• Second, the candidacy of the scofflaw Donald Trump who wants to be dictator lends special credibility to the work of reporters.

So, more from the Atlantic:

The writer, Charles Sykes, indicated he had participated in a panel discussion at the International Symposium on Online Journalism where several journalists, he reported, discussed the question: 

“Are we going to get it right this time?   Has the media learned its lessons, and are journalists ready for the slog of the 2024 campaign?”

His answer:  Only if journalists realize how profoundly the rules of the game have changed.

“Lest we need reminding, this year’s election features a candidate who incited an insurrection, called for terminating sections of the Constitution, was found liable for what a federal judge says was ‘rape’ as it is commonly understood, faces 88 felony charges, and — I’m tempted to add ‘etcetera’ here, but that’s the problem, isn’t it?  The volume and enormity of it all is impossible to take in.”

“The man,” Donald Trump, “is neither a riddle nor an enigma,” Sykes writes.  “He lays it all out there:  His fawning over the world’s authoritarians, his threats to abandon our allies, his contempt for the rule of law, his intention to use the federal government as an instrument of retribution.  Journalists must be careful not to give in to the ‘Banality of Crazy.’  There have been so many outrages and so many assaults on decency that it’s easy to become numbed by the cascade of awfulness.”

In a recent newsletter, former White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer added to the context by pointing out a recent example:  “On a radio show earlier this month, Donald Trump bizarrely suggested that Joe Biden was high on cocaine when he delivered his energetic State of the Union address.  It was a startling moment, yet several major national media outlets did not cover the story.”

Further, when Trump called for the execution of General Mark Milley, the miliary Chief of Staff, Pfeiffer says the over-the-top, criminal comment didn’t have nearly the explosive effect it should have.

“I had expected every website and all the cable news shows to lead with a story about Trump demanding the execution of the highest military officer in the country.  If Barack Obama or George W. Bush had said the same, the news media would have been all over it.”

So, what’s to be done?

Sykes says he doesn’t have easy answers “because I don’t think they exist.” 

But, he adds:

• First, we should redefine newsworthy.  Journalists need to emphasize the magnitude rather than simply the novelty of political events.  Trump’s ongoing attacks on democracy may not be new, but they define the stakes of 2024.  So, although live coverage of Trump rallies without any accompanying analysis remains a spectacularly bad idea, it’s important neither to ignore nor mute the dark message that Trump delivers at every event.
• Why not relentlessly emphasize the truth, and publish more fact-checked transcripts that highlight his wilder and more unhinged rants?  Emphasizing magnitude is, of course, a tremendous challenge for journalists when the amplification mechanisms of the modern web — that is, social-media algorithms — are set by companies that have proved to be hostile to the distribution of information from reputable news outlets.
• The media challenge should be to emphasize the abnormality of Trump without succumbing to a reactionary ideological tribalism, which would simply drive audiences further into their silos.  Put another way:  Media outlets will need all the credibility they can muster when they try to sound the alarm that none of this is normal.
• It is far more important to get it right than to get it fast, because every lapse will be weaponized.
• The commitment to “fairness” should not, however, mean creating false equivalencies or fake balance.  An exaggerated report about Biden’s memory lapses, for example, should not be a bigger story than Trump’s invitation to Vladimir Putin to invade European countries.
• In the age of Trump, it is also important that members of the media not be distracted by theatrics. The stakes are simply too high to wallow in vibes, memes, or an obsessive focus on within-the-margin-of-error polls.

Sykes concludes his trenchant article by saying this:

“And, finally, the Prime Directive of 2024:  Never, ever become numbed by the endless drumbeat of outrages.” 

Most of which, inevitably, will be from Trump who will come across as wounded whenever his abhorrent conduct is called into question.

Kudos to Sykes for tackling a tough subject when, literally, the future of America as we know it is at stake.

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 blog headline raises a good question:  Golf is on the rise in the U.S. and the world, but its future is murky, at least at the professional level.

More regular people are playing the game, thanks in part to off-course facilities such as driving ranges and Topgolf.  There are reasons to believe the upswing might last.

But reasons do not mean assurance.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) put it:

“The saying goes that golf is a great game but a lousy business.  It makes sense if you consider how the golf industry is like family farming:  Weather-dependent, labor-intensive, taking up vast real estate that could be used for other things, and dependent upon the market choices of consumers who often have more loyalty to price than to brand.

‘But, today, golf is in the middle of a rare boom.  The number of rounds played has been growing nationwide.  There’s an uptick in new golf-course development after more than a decade of shrinking inventory.  And private clubs have waiting lists for memberships — something many haven’t seen in two decades.

“The way people experience golf has changed in recent years, thanks to a combination of technology, the flexibility of golf-course managers, and lessons learned during the early phases of the Covid pandemic in 2020 and 2021. 

“How flush is the industry?  According to the National Golf Foundation, an independent data-gathering and consulting firm in Jupiter, Florida, the number of golf rounds played in the U.S. reached a record 531 million last year, a 10 per cent increase from 2020 and surpassing the 518 million rounds played during the heyday of the Tiger Woods boom years of 1999-2000.

“Course participation (measured in terms of anyone who plays a round of golf) has more than bounced back after declining 9 per cent in the seven years after the 2007-09 recession.  Since 2017, participation has grown 12 per cent, reaching 26.3 million people in 2023.  The U.S. golf population is also more diverse than ever demographically, thanks to gains by women, people of color and junior golfers in the overall share of the golfing populace.

“Demand for tee times has surged, partly because the overall inventory of tee times nationally has shrunk.  Fifteen years ago, there were too many courses and uneven demand for golf rounds; the industry has since shed 12 per cent of its supply of golf courses.  Shrinking supply and increased demand have enhanced competition for tee times, which in some markets has translated into higher green fees.”

The bad news is that professional golf is still marked by dissension and disagreement, a reality that, most of the time, has resulted in declining TV viewership. 

The upstart LIV Golf Tour and the long-standing PGA Tour were supposed to have reached agreement by now about how to work together.  But tough issues remain, one of which is how golfers who defected to the LIV Tour could play again the PGA Tour – or at least what the penalties would be to do so.

Lurking in the background of all are a few general issues.

Among them, the WSJ reports:  The overall state of the economy, inflation, the cost of borrowing, the cost and availability of labor, continued access to water (especially in the U.S. West and Southwest), weather patterns and climate change, and the rapidly escalating cost of maintenance.

So, all in all, golf is in the midst of uncertainty.  On one hand, good news is that golf participation is growing by members of the general public.  The uncertain news is that it will be tough to maintain the trajectory unless pro golf gets its act together.