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.

Bandon Dunes, a golf mecca on the Southern Oregon Coast, is set to get bigger.

That’s the news imparted by the recent on-line edition of Links Magazine.

Here’s how the story by writer Al Lunsford started:

“Bandon Dunes Golf Resort is adding even more golf to a resort already home to five 18-hole courses and a 13-hole par-3.

“Set on an inland dunescape between the first hole of Bandon Trails and the Pacific Ocean, development is proceeding on a second par-3 layout (this one spanning 19 holes) affectionately being referred to as “Course No. 7” by the team behind the design—Rod Whitman, Dave Axland, and Keith Cutten.

“In fact, the trio will finish building and turfing the resort’s newest golf offering this year, with the potential for preview play in Fall 2023 and a formal opening expected sometime in 2024.”

So, more development at Bandon, which already has added much – including economic vitality – to the South Oregon Coast.

Mike Keiser, the golf visionary who started the Bandon Dunes development years ago, says he authorized the 7^th course because of the popularity of the first six.

“…if you’ve tried booking tee times there (at Bandon), you understand that demand is high, and reservations must be booked more than a year in advance.”

So, who is Mike Keiser?

Well, he made his fortune in Chicago, co-founding, of all things, a greeting card company that was sold for nine figures.  Working from offices in Chicago, he then gained fame as a golf course developer, constructing courses in Oregon, Michigan, Canada, and Australia.

The addition of another par-3 course at Bandon — complimenting Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw’s 13-hole short course, The Preserve — made perfect sense to Keiser.

According to Links Magazine:

Keiser turned his attention to the south side of the property and found that nature had already done much of the work for him.

He has a scoring system when he walks a routing for the first time, ranking every hole from 1–10.  When he walked this proposed course, he gave it the highest cumulative score he’s ever given.

“Words don’t really do the site justice. It has so much potential.  There are so many natural pockets for greens.  It’s all chopped up with dunes that when you look at them, especially with Rod’s routing at hand, it’s like God laid them out.  It’s great green site after great green site after great green site.  It’s a much better site than The Preserve, in my opinion.”

Holes on the new course are in the range of 60–160 yards, with the option of getting a few up to 180 yards.  There are numerous teeing areas, including a forward tee where players can use their putter on every hole.

The layout begins and ends steps below a new clubhouse, located on one of the highest points on property.  The structure will be comparable to the existing space at Old Macdonald, but while modest in size, the vistas stretching from Pacific Dunes in the north all the way down to the rocks outside of the town of Bandon will be a great visual for guests, and an unquestionably popular place to enjoy a Bandon sunset.

So, what has Bandon Dunes meant to the South Oregon Coast?

To verify what I thought – economic vitality — I turned to local journalism in a newspaper, Bandon Western World.  I wanted to confirm how Bandon had changed from a forestry and fishing village to an internationally-know golf mecca.

Here are excerpts of what was written:

• Top of Form

Bottom of Form

• When Mike Keiser’s staff applied to the Coos County Planning Department in the 1990s to build a golf resort just north of Bandon, they met with more than just a little push-back.  Some residents testified they were concerned an upscale resort would change the nature of the South Coast area and its residents.
• And it has.  But many agree the area has been changed for the better. 
• In 1999, Bandon was still recovering from the economic hardships of the declining timber, fishing, and cranberry industries.  While other areas around the state had switched economic gears, Bandon was sluggishly behind and had not yet fully embraced the idea of the area being strongly marketed as a tourist destination.  That’s a hard sell when people feel protective of their old way of life.
• But the natural landscape and outdoor recreational opportunities of Bandon were begging to be discovered. 
• Bandon needed the influx of visitors who would spend money and prompt the city’s leaders and business owners to prioritize upgrades.  It wasn’t just Bandon.  The county also needed the revenue.  Despite tax break incentives by building in the county’s Enterprise Zone, Coos County officials knew Bandon Dunes would eventually be on the tax rolls as a direct economic benefit.  Job creation, from construction to services, also boosted the economy. 
• Twenty years later, the resort has been more of a success than anyone, including Keiser himself, anticipated.  The resort has five golf courses: Bandon Dunes, which opened in 1999, Pacific Dunes (2001), Bandon Trails (2005), Old Macdonald (2010), the Bally Bandon Sheep Ranch (2020), and the 13-hole par-3 course Bandon Preserve (2012).
• It is ranked by Golf Digest as the No. 1 Golf Resort in North America.
• Notably, Bandon Dunes is one of the largest employers in the county, employing 560 people, with an additional 350-plus caddies during the summer.  [Seriously, some old loggers or fishermen have learned the caddy art over the years.] 
• For years, after the downturn in the lumbering and fishing industries, when young people graduated from high school, they pretty much had to leave home to find good paying jobs.  That is not the case today.  Many of the brightest graduates have great jobs at Bandon Dunes.  

I have been to Bandon to play golf a few times over the years.  From Salem, Oregon where I live, it is a four-hour drive.  A couple times, I made the trip in the morning, played 18-holes, then drove back home.

I wouldn’t recommend such a trip. 

But, for anyone who has not played Bandon, I would recommend the trip, if you stay for a few days, either at accommodations on-site or in the small town of Bandon.

It’s a great story to see both good golf and solid economic development.

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 heard of pieces stupidity these days, but one from Fox News the other day takes the cake.

Fox News is touting its “journalistic standards.”

Say what?

Here is the way Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple put it in his most recent column:

“…a motion that Fox News filed on Friday may outpace all the internal correspondence for sheer risibility.  It argues that the Delaware court presiding over the case should maintain the confidentiality of discovery material already redacted by the network, shielding it from the public’s curious eyes.

“As anyone who has read through the Dominion filings can attest, swaths of black lines cover passage after passage in briefs and exhibits.  Could the redacted text be as scandalous as the public text?”

Fox News lawyers, Wemple adds, say one reason for the confidentiality is that competitors will pounce:  “Prematurely disclosing these other details on Fox’s internal and proprietary journalistic processes may allow competitors to appropriate these processes for their own competitive advantage, to Fox’s detriment, and may chill future newsgathering activity.”

For Fox News to emphasize its “news and journalistic standards” is the height if irony.  It maintains few, if any, journalistic standards, given that entertainment, mostly falsehoods, cover its air.

Dominion Voting Systems has filed suit against Fox for setting out intentionally to tarnish Dominion’s reputation.  Even as the suit is winding its way toward a decision, Fox already has lost the public relations battle. 

Quotes from Fox minions, including Tucker Carlson, illustrate that Fox knew it was focusing in lies and innuendo in its “news” broadcast.  Still, trying to gain ratings trashed journalism to a fault.

More from Wemple:

“Hold on here.  Given the revelations that have emerged thus far from the litigation, what ‘journalistic processes’ are in place at Fox News, proprietary or otherwise?  And if another media organization moved to ‘appropriate’ them, wouldn’t its editor-in-chief be sacked?

“One of the tidbits to emerge from discovery in the case, after all, is that Fox has no written editorial guidelines — ‘remarkably,’ writes Dominion in a February 16 brief seeking summary judgment.

“When asked about her journalism standards, Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott responded, ‘I would rather be right than first on a story.… better to have the facts first.’  Dominion argues that Fox News did have the facts at hand in reporting about the company.  When network hosts and guests floated theories that the voting machine company played a role in the alleged election fraud of November 2020, Dominion argues, they knew it was false.

I know a lot of Americans watch Fox News and believe it provides solid information.  But recent disclosures have indicated that Fox reporters propound false information because they believe it infuses ratings. 

Wemple concludes:

“So, whatever the judge’s decision, Fox News’s argument that competitors stand to benefit from the network’s journalistic practices signals a desperation to avoid an additional round of damaging disclosures.  At this point, it’s hard to say which is more severe — its legal predicament or its public relations predicament.”

Agreed.

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.

Fred Hiatt, the late editorial page editor of the Washington Post, wrote a compelling column before his untimely death.

It dealt with the idea that journalists – and others – should choose to capitalize the letter ‘B” in the word “Black.”

Here is how Hiatt started his column:

“How much controversy can there be in a capital letter?  Quite a bit, it turns out.  

“The social justice movement that gained force in the wake of George Floyd’s brutal killing under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer has spurred calls to start capitalizing the word ‘Black.’  Many news organizations have shifted their style.

But, Hiatt asked, if you capitalize “Black,” what about “white”?  A capital “W,” he said, can evoke the odious writings of white supremacists, so many people resist that change.

Hiatt continued that historian Nell Irvin Painter wrote that, “One way of re-making race is through spelling — using or not using capital letters.  A more potent way, of course, is through behavior.”

That’s right.

Changing behavior to avoid racism matters more than just capitalization.

But, as one admittedly small step in that, direction, I intend in the future to capitalize all words that describe a person’s ethnicity because ethnicity is important and a key part of who a person is.

Black.  White. Brown.  Etc.

So be 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.

Scottie Scheffler occupies this spot – my favorite pro golfer.

Actually, he has been close to the top for most of the last year as he has carved out a special place in golf.

But, with this Players Championship win last weekend, the top spot is his.

I first ran into Scheffler when I watched him play in the NCAA Men’s Golf Championship in 2015 as the event was held at Eugene Golf and Country Club.  Scheffler led his University of Texas team into the match play portion of the tournament.  In the finals, Texas played the University of Oregon Ducks.

Eventually, in a great result for U of O coach Casey Martin, a Eugene resident, the Ducks prevailed 3 and 2.

In one of the five matches, Scheffler played the Ducks’ number one player, Aaron Wise, and beat him.  Still, the Ducks won.

Besides being a great final, it was, overall, a star-studded field, with four players in the field who are now making a name for themselves on the PGA Tour – Scheffler, Wise, John Rahm, and Beau Hossler. 

I used to say that Phil Mickelson was my favorite golfer, but his defection to LIV golf, not to mention his antics since bolting, have removed him from my favor.  However, I suspect he wouldn’t care.

While there are a handful of pro golfers I also like – Justin Thomas, Jordan Spieth, Max Homa, to name three – Scheffler stands alone.

Here’s why:

• His style of playing is to illustrate that old golf question and answer:  What’s the most important shot in golf?  The next one.  He talks about “staying in the moment,” which is hugely important in pro tournaments.

• His Christian lifestyle is attractive and he often talks about his “values,” which include living a life for God.

• He values his family and talks about the great relationship he has with his wife, as well as his parents, his siblings, and his grandmother.

• After a victorious round, such as the one last Sunday, he is quick to praise his caddy, Ted Scott, for the role he played in producing the victory.  Many players don’t do that; I like that Scheffler recognizes his accomplishments are not singular.

Shortly after Scheffler and Scott got together more than a year ago, they shared how their Christian faith had buoyed them individually over the years and how their shared values would form a solid foundation for their tandem.

So, here’s to both of them – Scheffler and Scott.

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

In my career as a journalist, state government manager, and lobbyist, I often thought about leadership.

What did it entail?  What are its aspects?  How did good leaders go about their business?

All good questions, with no easy or pat answers.

I asked one of my friends, a business consultant, and he said the answer would depend on the specific situation in corporate life, which is where he consulted.  His basic answer, however, was that a good leader would know how to take appropriate advantage of the perspectives of those under him or her, giving them a sense that they had a stake in the outcome of any decision or operation.

As I thought about this issue, I reflected on a person for whom I worked in Oregon state government.  In corporate terms, he held the position of “chief operating officer” in the Oregon Executive Department and reported to the CEO, the governor of the State of Oregon.

It was huge job.  So, this manager surrounded himself with four leaders whose perspectives he valued and who, based on their individual attributes, could help him manage Oregon state government.

I was fortunate to be one of the four.

My skills revolved around communications.  The other three persons included those with expertise in budget management, personnel management, and executive recruitment.

Call this a team, for that is what it was.  To use an athletic image, the COO was the quarterback and the four of us played on offense under his direction.  We found ways to work together well, merging our various skills and the process produced results for the benefit of state government.

We often would gather in a room and talk about challenges we faced.  It was open communication.  Every one of us was free to talk, even argue.

I give the COO huge credit for the way in which he worked.  He was “in charge,” but knew he needed help, so gave all four of us a stake in the outcome.  As I look back on a 40-year professional career, this experience is clearly one of the highlights.  And, frankly, the dynamics of this experience was one of the major reasons I had mixed emotions about leaving state government in 1990.

Another highlight was when the State of Oregon was threatened with labor unrest, even a strike.  This COO was not sure how to proceed, so with three of us, all of us asked for help from another state agency head.  Before joining state government, he had a background in labor relations, so his advice was helpful and on-target.

He agreed to consult with us, he said, based on his desire that, rather than fight employees, we would try to find middle ground with their union negotiators.  That’s often to find, but this agency helped us greatly.  So, for a time, it was five, not just four!

For me, what appears below are not magic answers to the question of leadership.  Instead, they are standards I watched in action, such as in the examples above, and to which I aspired when I held leadership positions.

These are all important; they appear in no particular order of priority.  

• Place a priority on listening before talking.

• Think of the long-term, not just the short-term.

• Value the perceptions of those who report to you – and let them know it.

• Assume a main mantle of leadership, which is to set expectations with an open hand, not a closed fist.

• Honesty and integrity are always the best policies.

• Understand what you know AND what you don’t know, which often these days is a lost art.

• Don’t allow criticism to affect your leadership, though assess the criticism carefully, as to source and content.

• And, in whatever discipline, know there is always room for improvement.

Two other points I often made back in the day: 

1.  First, you know leadership when you see it in action, not when someone talks about having it.

•  Second, leadership works well when the leader doesn’t set out to get credit for good results.  He or she deflects credit to others.  [The best example I saw of this was when I had the privilege to work for Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh, the last Republican to hold the state’s highest office.  He worked hard and well as governor, always deflecting credit to others.]

I was fortunate to see this kind of leadership in action and I hope I have been able, at least on occasion, to mimic 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.

I came to the conclusion in this blog headline based on what’s happening in baseball.

Those in charge of what has been labeled “the national sport” are using a pitch clock and a batter clock.  Yes, to force faster games.

I wish the sport I love – golf – would do the same.

It did once, a few years ago in Europe in an event called the “Shot Clock Masters.”

Clocks were put on the backs of golf carts and the carts road on the fairways just behind all player groups.

When a player reached his golf ball, a rules official turned on the clock and the player had 40 seconds to hit his golf ball.  In one case I remember, a player got a warning when it took him 41 seconds to hit.  He didn’t go past 40 seconds again, which, if he did, would have meant a one-shot penalty.

Using a clock would make golf faster and counter the tendency among professional golfers to take forever to play their next shot.  They often stand around deciding what club to hit or waiting for the wind to die down a bit.

[Of course, if there are special circumstances – a lost ball, an impediment affecting the swing, etc. – then the time to hit would be extended as it was in the Shot Clock Masters.]

Back for a moment, to baseball.

One of the best sports writers going, Rick Reilly, wrote a column for the Washington Post that appeared under this headline:  “God bless the pitch clock.  And pizza-box bases.  Baseball is fun again!”

Here is how Reilly started his column:

“I used to love baseball, but I stopped watching when games got slower than sloth races.  Last year, the average game was 3 hours and 3 minutes. No, thank you.  I have Christmas plans.

“But this year?  This year, I’ll be back now that baseball has installed — at loooong last — the wonderful, brain-saving pitch clock.”

Already in spring training, Reilly added, games are finishing in an average of 2 hours and 36 minutes.

“That’s nearly a week and a half faster than your average Yankees-Red Sox game last year.  If there had been a pitch clock earlier in my sports-writing career, I’d be 37 right now.

“Once they get the ball, pitchers have 15 seconds to go into their windup (20 when there are base runners).  If not, the ump calls a ball.  Hitters have to be in the box and looking at the pitcher with eight seconds left on the pitch clock.  If they’re not, the ump calls a strike.”

Great moves for baseball.

I hope golf follows with efforts to speed up the pro game, which would make it more fun to watch. 

It also would provide lessons for young players who would realize that you don’t have to take an eternity to play a shot.  All you have to do is get ready and hit 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.

The answer to the question posed in this headline is not totally clear these days.

The risk is that the words “affordable” and “golf” do not go well together.

I have my own experience with this question here in the California desert where I live in the winter.

For one thing, the cost for a guest at The Palms (where I am fortunate to be a member) has gone up from $125 last year to $175 this year.

Others have told me that it costs about $250 to play at PGA West courses here in La Quinta, California.

Why the increases?

Well, without trying to come across as an economist, I suspect there are at least two reasons:

• Inflation is one.  Everything costs more these days and golf is no exception.
• Second, the market, at least here in the California desert, will bear it.  Even with higher green fees, it has been reported to be difficult to get tee times.

All of this was highlighted this week by a story in the Wall Street Journal that appeared under this headline and subhead:  Affordable Golf Courses That Won’t Sink You.  The cost of tee time has shot up as courses adopt dynamic pricing.”

The story by reporter David Weiss started this way:

“An affordable game of golf is almost as hard to find as that $5 ball you hit into the forest.  One reason:  Some golf operators have adopted dynamic pricing, which means that, depending on demand, premium tee times are not only difficult to book, but can cost more.

“Still, one needn’t pony up $600 for legendary layouts like Pebble Beach; great golf can be played at lesser-known locales for $100 or even less.”

The story highlighted six courses where costs are not out-of-bounds, to use a golf image.  These:

1. Desert Deal

Scottsdale, Arizona, is a snowbird magnet and home to more than 200 area courses, many of which can set you back a car payment for 18 holes.  But with golf, timing is everything:  If you visit after high season ends in April, We-Ko-Pa Golf Club in nearby Fort McDowell offers 36 holes of gorgeous Sonoran Desert golf and one of the best 2-round summer deals in the state at $165.

2. Hawaii Pick

In a state where tourists can drive prices sky-high, golf can be a costly habit, with resort green fees in the neighborhood of $300 per round. Wailua is a seaside marvel in Kauai at a fifth of the price, around $60 per 18-hole round, and is consistently ranked among the best municipal courses in the country.

3. Prairie Golf

Golf cognoscenti are well-aware of the celebrated Sand Hills Golf Club near North Platte, Nebraska, but fewer know that you can find a similar experience at a fraction of the tally at its public cousin down the road.  Set on rolling, sandy terrain, Wild Horse Golf Club in Gothenburg is a great example of minimalist design with wide fairways countered by trickily contoured and speedy greens.

4. Texas Play’em

Better known for musical legends like Buddy Holly and Waylon Jennings, Lubbock is also home to architect Tom Doak’s design for Texas Tech University’s Rawls Course.  What was once a flat cotton field now features bulldozer-crafted valleys and canyons, after the designer relocated 1.3 million cubic yards of topsoil.

5. Going Public

Los Angeles locals are lucky to have a Gil Hanse-designed public course in nearby Ventura County, where Rustic Canyon, in Moorpark, California,  has earned a reputation for its distinctive layout and surprising affordability.  Hanse, who crafted the Rio de Janeiro course for golf’s first Olympic competition in 2016, transformed this former sheep ranch into a links-style experience that favors the ground game most amateurs prefer over precision, high-trajectory approach shots.

6. A Bit of The Brit

For those in the know, Michigan is a sleeper golf destination, and Stoatin Brae — Gaelic for “grand hill” — is a terrific example of superior minimalist design in the southwest quadrant of the state.  A product of celebrated architect Tom Doak’s Renaissance Design firm, the austere layout is inspired by the great inland courses of the British Isles and part of a six-course roster at Gull Lake View Resort in Augusta, Michigan.

So, the moral of this story is to look for golf at a semi-reasonable price.  Even with inflation and what the market can bear, it can be found if you look hard enough.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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 about this before, but what still stands out for me, as a dedicated golfer, is one of the strangest golf rules on the planet.

I post again because of what I learned from a rules official in Oregon – see below.

The issue revolves around Golf Rule #12, which is in group of rules promulgated jointly by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal & Ancient (R & I) organization overseas.

So, what is it?

It deals with bunkers, those conditions on a golf course that, usually as a regular golfer, you want to avoid.  They are sand-filled holes in the ground.  Golf pros appear not to mind being in those contraptions.  Neither do top-level amateurs. 

But the rest of us?  Me included.  I try to avoid them.

Incredibly, here is what the Rule #12 allows in bunkers:

• Digging in with your feet to take a stance for a practice swing or the stroke,
• Smoothing the bunker to care for the course,

• Placing your clubs, equipment or other objects in the bunker (whether by throwing or setting them down),
• Measuring, marking, lifting, replacing or taking other actions under a different specific rule,
• Leaning on a club to rest, stay balanced or prevent a fall, or
• Striking the sand in frustration or anger.

Consider just the latter.  “Striking the sand in frustration or anger” is acceptable!

But, if you were in Oregon playing in a junior tournament organized by the Oregon Golf Association and you were seen “striking the sand in frustration or anger,” you would likely receive a “code of conduct” penalty.  And you should.

Why writers of the golf rules chose to include the “frustration and anger” clause in Rule #12 is beyond me.  And, if nothing else, the objectionable parts of the rule should be thrown out or the entire rule re-written.  The words could even incent some golfers to engage in the over-the-top behavior.

For now, my objective is not to think about this strange rule and, further, to avoid getting into the contraptions.

Now for the new, additional perspective. 

It comes from Clifford Shahbaz, an excellent rules official in Oregon who works often for the USGA in national tournaments and, at the moment, is helping me and others participate in a rules seminar offered by the OGA.

When I asked him a question about the rationale for the stuff contained in Rule #12, here is what he wrote to me:

“The actions penalized under Rule #12 are directly related to testing the sand conditions or improving conditions affecting the stroke, which gives a player a potential advantage over opponents or other competitors.  These actions should be penalized.

“The actions allowed without penalty do not test sand conditions, improve conditions affecting the stroke, nor give a player a potential advantage.  Therefore, there is no penalty.

“You are correct that the OGA has a Code of Conduct…however, only Oregon Junior Golf has such a Code of Conduct.  The adult OGA tournaments do not have such a policy.  Nor does the USGA.”

There.  A decent rationale for the policies contained in Rule #12, though I could argue, I guess, for including a code of conduct policy, as well as re-writing portions of Rule #12.

I still wonder why the “frustration and anger” clause is included. 

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

The question in the headline is one that interests me because of my background in journalism, as well as my interest in how the industry performs these days.

For one thing, the question presumes journalism has lost objectivity, but that notion is not abundantly clear.  Sometimes true.  Sometimes not.

A few days ago, I wrote a blog contending that:

• Journalists should retain objectivity as they report, not opine.
• Journalists should work to report the truth, not let lies stand such as those promulgated, as a matter of routine, by one Donald Trump and his minions.  Or at least label lies as lies and put them in context.
• Editors should make sure opinion is labeled as such to distinguish it from general reporting.

The Wall Street Journal recently carried a piece by Walter Hussman, Jr., chairman of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and the newspaper’s publisher from 1974-2022.  It appeared under this headline:

“Too many editors are responding to a crisis of public trust by abandoning traditional news values.”

Here is how Hussman started his opinion piece:

“Beyond objectivity or back to objectivity?  That seems to be an essential question for American journalism.

“Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication recently released a survey of some 75 journalists titled ‘Beyond Objectivity.’  Many of them argued that objectivity should no longer be the standard in news reporting.”

For his part, Leonard Downie, Jr., former executive editor of the Washington Post, says he “never understood what ‘objectivity’ meant.”

“My goals for our journalism,” he adds, “were, instead, accuracy, fairness, non-partisanship, accountability, and the pursuit of truth.”

More from Hussman:  “While journalists argue over semantics, and Washington Post Executive Editor Sally Buzbee calls the word objectivity ‘a political football,’ the public understands objectivity, which a dictionary defines as ‘not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.’  You will never get politics out of opinion commentary, nor should you. But politics shouldn’t influence news reporting.”

More from Buzbee and a counterpart:

“We stress the value of news reporting, so you (the reader) can make up your own mind,” Buzbee says.  Joseph Kahn, editor of the New York Times, says “You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time.”

Today, media carries more opinions than ever.  More opinions, especially contrasting opinions, are good.  What is bad, and erodes public trust, is blurring opinions with news reporting.  

Why does this happen?  Hussman says human nature explains why we want others to think like we do and agree with us.  But that isn’t what the public wants from news reporting, he contends.  They want the who, what, when, where, how, and why without any personal bias – or at least not much, given that no one is perfect, including reporters.

The best reporters don’t want popularity for what they write.  They want respect.

So, back to my prescription.  Journalists should set out to be objective, but, at the same time, emphasize the truth, not the lies of those who tell them routinely, or at least, as I wrote above, put those lies in context and call them what they are – lies.

Separating fact from fiction should be a priority for reporters. 

And, opinions should be clearly labeled as that – opinions.

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 “Just Saying,” and the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

FORESIGHT VS. HINDSIGHT:  This dichotomy came up for me in a piece written by John Bolton that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.  Bolton is the author of “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” served as the president’s national security adviser from 2018-19, and was ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06.

Here is a summary of what he wrote dealing with the foresight that prompted Bush to seek out weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the hindsight that criticizes his decision.

“While George Bush 43’s father would undoubtedly endorse calls for more ‘prudence,’ is that really more than merely a talisman for national-security decision-makers?  Academics should recall Dwight Eisenhower’s hand-written draft statement, hastily written for use if the D-Day invasion had failed.

“Eisenhower stood ready to take full responsibility for defeat. ‘My decision to attack at this time and place,’ he wrote, ‘was based upon the best information available.’  The same was true for Bush and his Administration.  What else could they, or anyone else, base their decisions on?

“Which of the two camps was the more prudent?  What would be history’s judgment have been if America hesitated, and suffered another devastating terrorist attack?  That no such attack occurred says more about the merits of overthrowing Saddam than anything else.”

COMMENT:  The Bolton quotes relate to the Bush Administration decision to go to war in Iraq given the possibility, if not the probability, that there were “weapons of mass destruction” there that could be used against the United States and other countries.

Thus, my notion about “foresight vs. hindsight.”

Without much information other than what I read in national newspapers, I always have thought that Bush made the right decision.  The insider intelligence he had at the time said weapons of mass destruction were ready to be used.  Based on foresight, I thought he had no real choice but to proceed as president.

Of course, hindsight has found him to be wrong and critics say – I emphasize using hindsight, which is easy – his wrong decision cost lives and the reputation of the U.S.

FROM DANA MILBANK IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  Milbank skewers George Santos in this Post column.  Frankly, that’s easy, given Santos’ make-believe status.

Milbank writes:

“But the interview (one with British interviewer Piers Morgan) offered some insight into the fabulist’s strategy for political survival — and why it may resonate with some in the MAGA crowd.  True story:  Santos claims he is the victim.  His lies are everybody else’s fault — honest!

“This politics of victimhood, of course, is the essence of Donald Trump (who could, and did, claim it was sunny when it was raining).  Trump loved to complain about how unfairly he was treated by the fake news, about the witch hunts and the hoaxes — and many Republicans believed it.

“Naturally, the technique has filtered down to the rank and file.  Where once there was shame, there is now only grievance, directed at imagined conspiracies of dark forces.

“Like Trump, Santos claimed to be the victim of a ‘witch hunt’ by ‘desperate journalists’ who are ‘not interested in covering the facts.’  He complained of victimization by politicians and party leaders — including Republican officials who he suggested doctored his résumé without his knowledge to include fake test scores and a fake MBA from New York University.”

COMMENT:  Santos claims to be a victim.  No.  Anyone who voted for Santos, or cares about what he says or does, is the victim.  And, on that point, I pledge that this the last I will write about this scofflaw to avoid giving him any additional publicity.

FROM PEGGY NOONAN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, writing about former president Jimmy Carter as he has decided to remain in hospice at his home in Georgia as he waits for death:  “I’ve been meaning for the longest time to write about Jimmy Carter’s ‘malaise’ speech, long derided by history and cited to explain his landslide drubbing by Ronald Reagan 16 months later.

“It was, in fact, a good speech — brave, original and pertinent to the moment.  It failed because he was exactly the man who couldn’t give it, and he gave it at exactly the moment it couldn’t be heard.

“The backdrop was an air of crisis.  Summer 1979:  The oil crisis, inflation entering double digits, interest rates rising, unemployment too.  There was widespread fear America had lost its economic mojo, perhaps forever.”

COMMENT:  Noonan goes on to make a very salient point.  In hindsight, Jimmy Carter may not have been a great president but, at least according to consensus history, it is clear he has been an excellent “ex president.”

Noonan put it this way:  “He had felt called to the presidency.  His true calling was to be an ex-president, one of the most constructive and inspiring in our history.

“What a good man who tried so hard to understand America and help the world.”