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

When I read a column by Washington Post writer Paul Waldman, I almost laughed out loud.

As this blog headline indicates, so did Waldman as he was writing.

But, while laughing is understandable given the hypocrisy of U.S. House Republicans, it is not the right response.

Instead, using good words, Waldman scoffs at the Republican decision to move ahead to impeach President Joe Biden for “corruption.”  He calls Republicans incredibly hypocritical.  So do I.

In the Post, Waldman started his new column this way:

“If one tried to articulate the principle on which the Republican push to impeach President Biden is based, it would have to go something like this: Public officials shouldn’t be permitted to profit from their positions, and anyone who does should be removed from office.

“Like any principle, this one should apply to every public official regardless of party or ideology.”

But, no.  Republicans apply the test to Biden and not, to put a major point on it, to Donald Trump.

So, rather than say more about what Waldman wrote, let me provide these excerpts from a well-written column:

Error! Filename not specified.If one tried to articulate the principle on which the Republican push to impeach President Biden is based, it would have to go something like this: Public officials shouldn’t be permitted to profit from their positions, and anyone who does should be removed from office. Like any principle, this one should apply to every public official regardless of party or ideology.”But if any Republican said that out loud, the proper response would be to burst out laughing.

“This isn’t just because Republicans have found no evidence that Biden is guilty of wrongdoing, despite the tireless efforts of multiple House committees.  Nor is it because they have defended the relentless quest of the Trump family to profit from former president Donald Trump’s time in the White House.  

“Hypocrisy might be the tribute vice pays to virtue, but Republicans stopped paying any tribute to virtue long ago.  They sped right past hypocrisy to arrive at something entirely different.

“Republicans are not characterizing their impeachment push against Biden as an attempt to bring strict ethical standards back to government.  There’s no high-minded talk of integrity, moral rectitude or the solemn obligations of public service.  That’s because they are in the midst of a years-long crusade to convince the public to not care about corruption.

“That crusade is only partly about defending Trump, perhaps the most shamelessly corrupt president in U.S. history.  He installed his laughably unqualified family members in White House positions.  He spent a good amount of time in office at his various resorts, charging the Secret Service as much as $1,185 a night per room to stay there to protect him.

“His Washington hotel became a destination for anyone who wanted to put some money directly in his pocket; foreign governments spent millions of dollars there, as did a fleet of Republican candidates and party flunkies. Foreign governments also eagerly gave special favors to Trump’s businesses.

“His relentless advocacy for the government of Saudi Arabia while in office was followed by the Saudis giving son-in-law Jared Kushner $2 billion for his start-up private equity firm, even though the Saudis’ own investment advisers found Kushner’s operation ‘unsatisfactory in all aspects.’

“And that doesn’t even get into the litany of Trump associates with flexible ethics, including multiple Cabinet members and a raft of cronies who faced their own scandals and criminal charges.

“Were Republicans bothered by this orgy of self-dealing?  They were not. In fact, judging by the myriad ways they have decimated the legal and normative standards to which public officials must abide, they were perfectly sincere when they insisted that Trump’s actions were nothing worse than what voters should expect of anyone in high office.”

So, enough, except to say that Republicans are nothing if not duplicitous. 

To mount an impeachment charge against Biden is, itself, lawless and inane.  Which fits because that’s what they are — corrupt.

Look only as far as Trump and his minions to know the truth.  They are the corrupt ones.

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 would have liked to see Utah U.S. Senator Mitt Romney run as a third-party candidate for U.S. president.

Had he done so, he would not just have run, he would have enjoyed going after Donald Trump for all the stupid, illegal things Trump has done.

McCay Coppins, an Atlantic Magazine writer, wrote a new book soon to be published.  It’s title is “Romney: A Reckoning,” and will be previewed in the November Atlantic.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Coppins put it this way:

“Yet, even as Romney made up his mind to leave the Senate, he struggled to walk away from politics entirely.

“For months, people in his orbit — most vocally, his son Josh — had been urging him to embark on one last run for president, this time as an independent.

“The goal wouldn’t be to win — Romney knew that was impossible — but to mount a kind of protest against the terrible options offered by the two-party system.

“Romney relished the idea of running a presidential campaign in which he simply said whatever he thought, without regard for the political consequences.  

“He nursed a fantasy in which he devoted an entire debate to asking Trump to explain why, in the early weeks of the pandemic, he’d suggested that Americans inject bleach as a treatment for COVID-19.

“Every time Donald Trump makes a strong argument, I’d say, ‘Remind me again about the Clorox.’”

Excellent point.  Romney’s approach would have been a good, down-to-earth way to illustrate the stupid, illegal stuff that should make it easy not to vote for Trump next time around…if, in fact, he gets the Republican nomination.

If Romney was running, I’d vote for him – and wait for the Clorox questions!

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.

A friend who read my recent post, which, among other things, dealt with out-of-bounds issues in golf, raised a follow-up question.

This:  Is a golfer allowed to move an out-of-bounds stake if his or her golf ball is in-bounds and the stake is in the way of ball, stance or swing.

The quick answer:  No.

Here is the relevant information from the official golf rules:

“Q. May I remove an out of bounds stake?

A. No, objects marking course boundaries may not be moved. If you do move one of these objects before you play and doing so makes your next stroke easier in any way, you must put it back before you make a stroke. If you don’t, you will lose the hole in match play or get two penalty strokes in stroke play (see Rule 8.1a and Rule 8.1c).”

Interesting question because both my friend and I remember past occasions when both of us removed stakes impeding our swings.

No longer.

A further issue is that, in many cases, the stakes either are in cement or dug so far into the ground that it is not possible to move them.  And, under golf rules, they are not considered “immovable objects” from which you get relief; they are boundary markings.

Aren’t you glad to have this confirmed?

And this next footnote, which I cannot help myself but to report:  Yesterday, I asked one of my favorite golf rules officials this – if a golf ball is on the out-of-bounds line, is it in or out.

The answer is that, if the ball is touching the surface of the ground in-bounds, even if it partly on the line, it is in-bounds.  If it is directly on the line, then it is out.

My friend, one of the best rules officials in the region, got this wrong, so I am one up on him.  The self-satisfied look on my face is permissible because, for this footnote, I have not used my friend’s name.

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 I write again on this subject – the rules of golf – some of my friends may wonder why I do so.

Well, there are at least two reasons:

• Golf rules are marked by at least two characteristics – they are long and not always well-written – but, to me, they are fascinating.

• In retirement, I don’t have much else to do.

So, today I write about two golf rules issues that came to up recently.

The first occurred in a junior golf tournament last Sunday at the club where I play in Salem, Oregon.  The second came up in a conversation with a friend of mine who enjoys the subject almost as much as I do.

The First Rules Issue

This arose when a player in the junior tournament raised a question at the scoring table after her 18-hole round.

She said that on one of our greens – one with a lot of slope – she marked her golf ball on the green, then replaced her ball on the proper spot while picking up her mark.  Then, because of the slope, her golf ball moved about three-feet or so away from where it had been marked.

From that new spot, she then putted into the hole.

She asked:  Did I take the right action?

The answer provided by a rules official was “no.”  She should have moved her ball as close as possible to the spot where it had been marked because, as this rules official put it, “she owned that position.”

The result was a two-stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place and – good news – the player demonstrated maturity by accepting the penalty without complaint.

Here is the language in golf rule 13.1, which covers this issue:

“Rule 13.1d revises the procedure for when a ball on the putting green is moved by wind, water or other natural forces.  The ball must always be replaced on its original spot, regardless of what caused it to move.”

The Second Rules Issue

This came up in a conversation with a friend who said a player in his group had hit a golf ball that ended up directly on an out-of-bounds line.

Was the bill in-bounds or out-of-bounds?

The answer:  It was out of bounds.

Golf Rule 18.2 specifies this:

“A ball is out-of-bounds when all of it is outside the boundary edge.  A ball is in-bounds when any part of it touches the ground inside the boundary edge.”

So, the effect of this is that, if a golf ball was on directly on the out-of-bounds line without any part of it being on the course, either if marked by a white line or by sticks in the ground, it would be out-of-bounds.

One more question:  If the ball was in-bounds but close to the out-of-bounds marker, could a player stand out-of-bounds to hit the ball?  The answer is “yes.”

So, with all of this, aren’t you glad you know more about arcane golf rules?  Please don’t answer!

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.

A couple days ago, I spent a few hours in wat could be called the “health insurance shadows,” and, again, there was a surprise lurking around the corner.

This:

Medicare, which is supposedly designed to provide health care coverage and health insurance for senior citizens – yes, persons like me – does not cover routine physical examinations.

Say what?

Here’s what one of my best sources, Mr. Google, says to verify this nonsense:

“As a rule, Medicare does not cover an annual physical.  The exam and any tests your doctor orders are separate services, and you may have costs related to each depending on your Medicare plan.

“Medicare covers an initial preventive physical examination for all new beneficiaries within the first 12 months of joining Medicare Part B. Medicare does not cover yearly physical exams but does cover a yearly checkup called the annual wellness visit.”

So, it seems that, if I and my doctor label a physical exam an “annual wellness visit,” it would be covered under Medicare.  The issue comes down to “medical coding.”

Somebody smarter than me should explain this to me.  It makes no sense.

Medicare should cover physical exams because they are designed to prevent future, more serious problems, which, if they were found to exist, would cost far more to address.  Prevention matters.

But, based on what’s above, I am now taking initiative to ask for a change in the “coding” of my most recent physical exam to “annual wellness visit.”

See.  I told you.  What lurks around the corner in the shadows of health insurance makes no sense.

And this additional example of lurking.

When I raised this coverage issue with my supplemental Medicare insurer, Moda Health, staff there told me they just follow Medicare rules, not their own rules.  So, I ask, why have the supplemental carrier?

My wife, much smarter than me, gave me the answer.  A supplemental insurer is standing by, she said, to cover major health issues if they happen.

Okay.  I’ll accept that answer.

Plus, I’ll stop writing now because I have to get about the business of changing the code for my recent physical exam!

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

It goes by a strange name – the “kicker.” 

What is it?  It is an Oregon law that gives taxpayers money back if the economy keeps growing above a certain rate.

The effect is that the kicker is an effective mechanism to control state spending, which, otherwise could follow a government mantra – spend it all.

In 1979, the Oregon Legislature enacted a “surplus kicker” statute, along with a spending limit and a major tax relief plan.  Voters approved this package in the 1980 primary election.  The 1999 Legislature referred a constitutional amendment placing much of the kicker statute in the Oregon Constitution.

Here is how it works:  The state returns revenue to taxpayers when collections exceed forecasts by more than 2 per cent.  The payouts come at the end of each two-year budget cycle in the form of a credit when Oregonians file their taxes in the spring.

Some Republicans would rather have the state mail refund checks to taxpayers, but, so far, that has not happened.

If you are into politics as I am, you can imagine the competing points of view over the kicker law.

• On one hand, advocates of the law, including those who proposed it many years ago, say it controls state government spending, which, otherwise they believe, would be forever out of control.

• On the other hand, proponents say the law handcuffs state government from spending taxpayer money already in state coffers on important programs, such as education.

Each side has points in its favor, but, over the years, it has been impossible to dispatch the kicker law, though, in every session of the Legislature, there are efforts to do so.

Guess what will happen next year?

Oregon taxpayers will see a $5.61 billion “kicker” refund, by far the largest amount ever returned.  State economists confirmed the eye-popping payment last week during their report on the latest quarterly state revenue forecast, which was announced, as always, in a meeting of the Legislature’s Joint Revenue Committee.

Exactly what each taxpayer will get in the way of a refund depends on their individual tax circumstances.

During my 25-year career as a lobbyist at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon, the kicker was not a top tier issue for any of my firm’s clients.

To be sure, it was always in the background in our attempt to analyze the state government budget, which often was a tedious, complicated process marked by a lack of transparency, no matter what some legislators maintain about transparency.

So, for that reason, as well as waiting to avoid an often-shrill debate between “limited-government” and “pro-government” interests, we watched from the sidelines – close to the kicker action, but not at the center.

Limited-government advocates always won, so the kicker law is still just that – the law.

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

Golf, especially, at the professional level, is played too slowly.

It’s often tedious to watch as players take too much time over shots, despite the huge money that is at stake.

And, don’t forget, the official golf rules call for taking 40 seconds to play shots, unless there is a “significant distraction.”  The 40-second rule is rarely enforced.

So it was that, a few days ago in this blog, I posted my solution:  Use a shot-clock positioned in a golf cart behind every group on the course and impose the 40-second rule.  Give warnings and then penalties for times over that limit.

This approach, as I have written previously, was tried a few ago in Europe in what called the “Shot Clock Masters.”

Looked good to me.

But, as I was reading my latest on-line edition of Global Golf Post, another proposal came to my attention.

It came from a letter writer in Florida.  This is a paraphrase:

• Offer an incentive for the entire field in a tournament to increase the pace-of-play. 

• Don’t just penalize one player.

• Agree on an overall pace-of-play standard and, then, if the field exceeds that standard, give 1 per cent of the purse back to the tournament sponsor.  Or, perhaps even a higher percentage.

• And, if pace reaches the standard in the second round, restore the purse.  Etc.

Just think about this for a minute.  Makes sense because a money – slow play associated with it — drives some, though perhaps not all, of tournament play.

The key is to provide an incentive for the entire field to play faster.

Mimicking professional baseball, professional golf should do something – anything – to move along faster.  Viewership depends on it.

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

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

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

SO, “JUST SAYING” — I have been thinking lately about an issue that has been circulating around – member access to the golf course I play in Salem, Oregon, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club, a private facility.

My thoughts have gone to an important management principle I used on many occasions during my professional career.  This:

• Be careful not to take a SNAPSHOT and assume a snapshot reveals the entire picture, or, to put a point on it, the next best steps.

• Rather than snapshots, set out to look at the big picture, which I call a PANORAMA.  If you do, you’ll have a better idea about how to proceed.

When I applied this principle to my role as a state lobbyist, I avoided taking snapshots and then acting on those snapshots. 

Rather, I told myself to look at the big picture when it came to a relationship with any legislator whom I was trying to convince that my client had a good point.

To apply this principle to “my” golf course:

• If you take a snapshot, you might see the course closed for a charity event, which means you cannot play when you want and at the time you want.

• But, if you take a panorama, you’ll find that Illahe members have far greater access to golf than any other private club members to the north or to the south.

SO, “JUST SAYING” – does anyone understand the golf handicapping process?

Well, the answer is yes and she is Kelly Neely at the Oregon Golf Association.

But, me?

No.

This last week a probing question came back to me as a player in the Pacific Northwest Golf Association got a hole-in-one in the Mid Amateur my club hosted.

The question is would he have had to post that round for his handicap, including the “1” on hole #5.  The answer is yes.

But, on that hole, if, say, he would have gotten a “5” or “6,” would he have been able to post that score as part of his 18-hole round.  The answer is no.

The player was a scratch golfer, so he would not get a handicap posting stroke on hole # and thus he would have to settle for “3” for his post.

This kind of so-called reality has never made sense to me.  Get a hole-in-one and have to include the score in your handicap post.  Get a double or triple bogey (or higher) and not be able to include that in your handicap post.

Again, never made sense to me.

But, then golf rules, including handicapping rules, don’t much sense to anyone, even to someone like me who cares.

[As an after-thought, I add that if you read what I just wrote and care, well, then, you are golf rules nut like me.]

SO, JUST SAYING…do you know what a hole-in-one on a par 5 is called?

Well, I do.  It is called a condor – and, yes, it is still a bird name like birdie, eagle, and albatross.

How many holes-in-one on par 5s have there been?

Mr. Google says there have been a total of six in golf history.  Three of them came on severe doglegs or horseshoe-shaped holes where the listed yardage could be mitigated by going at the green as the crow flies.  A pair of par-5 aces, however, were made on mostly straight holes.

In the spirit of disclosure, I have made birdies, eagles, and holes-in-one, but never an albatross or a condor.

Is there still time?

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 may have written about this before, but two points – (a) if I have, I am so old I cannot remember, and (b) I love the sport of golf.

Especially in Scotland.

The home of golf.

My current on-line issue of Links Magazine performs a service by listing what it calls “The Top 10 Courses in Scotland.”

I agree with the Links list.  And, it turns out that, on my trips to Scotland with my wife, Nancy (her parents, as children, emigrated from Scotland to the U.S.), I have played all but one of the Top 10.

Here is the list, with a few comments along the way:

1. ST. ANDREWS (OLD), St. Andrews

Six hundred years old and going strong.  The Road Hole, Hell Bunker, Swilcan Burn, and Valley of Sin all await at the world’s most famed and fabled course, which hosted a record 30th Open Championship in 2022.  [It’s a tough tee time to get, but worth the effort.]

2. MUIRFIELD, Gullane

The fairest and most straightforward test on the Open rotation, it can also be the fiercest when the thick rough is allowed to grow and the wind howls off the Firth of Forth.  [In the spirit of full disclosure, I have not played this course, but I did walk it as a spectator when my son, Eric, played in the British Mid-Am.]

3. TRUMP TURNBERRY (AILSA), Turnberry

Several recent renovations, most notably a re-configuring of the 9th and 10th holes beside the iconic lighthouse, have enhanced both the charm and challenge of Scotland’s most dazzling course.  [When I played this course, it was not owned by one Donald Trump.  If it had been, I would not played it.  When I did, the weather was as bad as it had been on any golf course for me, but I was leaving the next day, so I persevered.]

4. ROYAL DORNOCH (CHAMPIONSHIP), Dornoch

Imaginative routing, vexing plateau greens, and a magnificent setting make this gem of the northeast Highlands well worth the trip.  Play it in the spring when the gorse is in full bloom.  [Along with Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club, my home track in Salem, Oregon, Royal Dornoch is my favorite golf course in the world.]

5. CARNOUSTIE (CHAMPIONSHIP), Carnoustie

Even in calm conditions, this is a remorseless test, particularly off the tee, with meandering burns, out of bounds, and penal bunkers all competing for attention.  Add a stiff breeze and it’s one of the toughest tests in the world.

6. KINGSBARNS, Kingsbarns

This two-tiered 21st-century triumph from Kyle Phillips and Mark Parsinen, just 20 minutes from St. Andrews, has been on the must-play list since the day it opened two decades ago.  [This is the one on this list that I have not played, nor walked.]

7. NORTH BERWICK (WEST), North Berwick

It’s impossible not to have fun on this stretch of linksland hard by the Firth of Forth, where a veritable museum of hole templates and architectural gambits awaits.

8. CASTLE STUART, Inverness

Gil Hanse was given an extraordinary piece of land beside the Moray Firth and rose to the occasion with an ingenious routing of 18 holes that are as relentlessly engaging as the views.

9. ROYAL ABERDEEN (BALGOWNIE), Aberdeen

A classic out-and-back links running beside the North Sea, its majestic front nine is framed by mammoth dunes with the testing return on wind-whipped higher ground.  [There also is another adjacent to Royal Aberdeen.  It is called Murcar and legend has it that, at one point, a group of Japanese players made a mistake and played nine holes at Royal Aberdeen and nine holes at Murcar.]

10. CRUDEN BAY (CHAMPIONSHIP), Cruden Bay

One of the game’s great walks and a certified charmer, it winds in a figure eight past a tiny harbor through huge sandhills and beside a stunning beach.  Blind shots, huge drops, drivable fours, and back-to-back threes add to the joy.

There!  A list of great courses that, for me, bring back many fond memories.

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 there was one way to improve the pace-of-play in golf, it would be this:

Enforce the “40-second rule.”

What is that?

Well, a specific rule in golf, rule #5.6, encourages prompt pace-of-play by recommending that:

• Players should recognize that their pace of play affects others and they should play promptly throughout the round (such as by preparing in advance for each stroke and moving promptly between strokes and in going to the next tee)
• A player should make a stroke in no more than 40 seconds (and usually in less time) after the player is able to play without interference or distraction

If you watch professional golf on TV as much as I do (or, for that matter, attend professional golf tournaments on occasion), the 40-second rule does not appear to exist.

In fact, I have never seen it enforced.

This was true last week as I attended the United States Golf Association (USGA) Senior Women’s Open, which was held in Oregon.  There, as a volunteer, I watched play take forever.  On occasion, there were even three holes between one group and the next.

For senior women, it could be argued that, given their age, they deserve a little leeway.  But three holes behind?  No.

Still, when it comes to pace of play, it could be more appropriate to consider general professional events for men and women rather than senior tournaments.  In regular events, where is the 40-second rule?

For the major men’s tour, the PGA Tour, here is the current reality:

“The PGA TOUR rules for pace of play includes the 40-second time limit, but also allows an extra 20 seconds (for a total of 60 seconds) under the following circumstances:  The first player to play a stroke on a par-3 hole.  The first player to play a second stroke on a par-4 or par-5 hole.”

So, apparently, an abridged 40-second rule.

For its part, the USGA says this about the rationale for the 40-second rule:

“By giving players affirmative guidance, support and encouragement on prompt play, rule changes help in:

• Setting expectations for both beginners and experienced players on what types of behavior are considered prompt play, including the maximum amount of time it should normally take to make a stroke.
• Encouraging players to play faster by confirming that it is proper to play out of turn in stroke play when it is safe and responsible to do so (that is, to play “ready golf”).

“Enforcing pace of play continues to be primarily up to each Tournament Committee, as there are limits to what the rules themselves can do to insist that players play promptly.

“…rules enable Committees to point to specific expectations set by the rules when using their authority to enforce prompt play and encourage every Committee to adopt a pace of play policy so that all players on the course, whatever the type or level of play, know what is expected of them.”

Lots of words. 

Now, one of the things I did recently was talk to one of Oregon’s best rules officials whom I know well.  I asked him about the 40-second rule and he confirmed that it is not regularly enforced unless a player gets out of position.  Then, based on the decision of a rules official following the group, it would (or at least could) be enacted.

In previous blogs, I have advocated for doing whatever could be done to move professional golf along faster much like professional baseball administrators have done recently with that sport.

And, I also have advocated for considering what was done in Europe a few years ago in what was called the “Shot Clock Masters.”  There, a golf cart with a shot clock was following every group, and, then, when the player got close to his or her ball and had pulled a club, an official in the cart started the clock.

In one case, a player who could 41 seconds was given a warning.

Give a player one time to go past 40 seconds (or 60 seconds as described above) and do what was – give a warning.  Then, for a second violation, apply a one-stroke penalty.  Etc.

Enforce the 40-second rule deftly and then watch golf tournaments go faster.