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.

Ask most golfers today and they will say that the handicap number assigned to each hole on a golf course illustrates its difficulty.

They’d be wrong…mostly.

The actual definition is this:

“The number one handicap stroke hole should be assigned to the thole where the bogey golfer needs an additional stroke in order to halve the hole with a scratch golfer.”

The fact is, however, that the true meaning of the handicap number probably relates more or less to the difficulty, despite the more specific definition.

All of this came up for me recently when the guys I play golf with at The Palms in La Quinta, California, were flummoxed when the new scorecards for this year did not include handicap numbers for holes played from the gold tees – the tees many old folks use at the course.

So, that started a series of requests to prompt the head pro to come up with gold tee numbers.  It was strange that this was not on the scorecard because, if nothing else, the cards last year included gold tee numbers.  So, why not this year?

After a few days, all was well when one of my friends obtained a list of the handicap numbers that we could use to keep score – including “net scores” on the gold tee holes because net scores translate to who wins money in the games every week.

One issue was that the process caused a number of players to come up with their own handicap hole numbers and that’s where the misconception arose.  Some of them didn’t know the real definition.

That prompted me to seek information from the Southern California Golf Association (SCGA) to which I belong, along with the Oregon Golf Association.

The SCGA provided the official definition quoted above.

And, to go to an extreme, what follows is the SCGA’s further guidance on the issue, which will appeal only to those, like me, who don’t have much else to do in retirement than play and think about golf.

“So how does the club determine where the strokes should be allocated? Section 17 of the USGA Handicap System offers two methods by which a course can apply stroke allocation to their golf holes.  It can be a time consuming and mathematically challenging process if done by hand, but one of the benefits member clubs will realize by the SCGA’s January 2010 change to the GHIN handicap system is the ability for the club to capture the scoring information and run the analysis themselves.

“Comparison Method:  Scores of low handicap players are compared to scores of higher handicap players from the same set of tees.  The club collects a sampling of 200 gross, hole-by-hole scores from players whose course handicap does not exceed an 8 for men (Group A), and another sampling of 200 from players whose course handicap is in the 20 to 28 range (Group B).

“Scores should be gross and not adjusted for Equitable Stroke Control. Scores for each hole are then averaged for Group A and Group B, and the difference is then determined for each hole by subtracting the average of Group A from the average of Group B.  The holes would then be ranked starting with the hole where the biggest difference is between Group A average scores and Group B average scores.  Thus, showing the number one handicap stroke hole where the bogey golfer needs that additional stroke.

“Regression Method:  Allows the collection of 400 gross scores from players of all handicap levels.  Scores need to be gross, not adjusted, and scores must be provided from the same set of tees and from the same gender golfer.  Each hole is evaluated by the score and player’s course handicap.”

Then The Palms, with either method, assigns number values to the holes and produces – usually at least – a scorecard bearing the numbers.  That almost happened this year – the proper scorecards, though their lack has now been corrected.

See, there you have it – and aren’t you glad you now know more than you used to know before I went on to this extreme.

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.

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

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

So, the Department of Bits and Pieces is now open.

Two Views of Rittenhouse:  Is there a need for someone else – me — to comment on the Rittenhouse not guilty verdict?  No.  But, remember, I run this department with a free hand, so here is my comment.

Apart from implications of the verdict for gun control, racism and the judicial system as a whole – I’ll leave that commentary to others — I was struck by a couple vivid images in the trial and its end. 

One was of Rittenhouse, when he carried a gun into a protest in Konosha, Wisconsin, swaggering and strutting down the street apparently looking for something or someone to shoot.  He should have stayed home.

The second was of Rittenhouse, acting like a juvenile as he cried on the witness stand or nearly fainted as the verdict was read.

Implications of what I saw?  Probably none, other than the clear need for more gun control to avoid a major weapon to get into the hands of an immature individual like Rittenhouse.

The New 6^th Congressional District in Oregon:  Predictably, the new 6^th Congressional District in Oregon, a result of the 10-year re-districting process, is drawing a welter of candidates, either already declared or apparently planning to do so.

Obviously, there is no incumbent in the race, though it is likely that, given the mostly urban make-up of the district, a Democrat will win.

State Representative Andrea Salinas, who helped to design the new district, is the early favorite, in part because she is likely to get most of the public employee union money to fund her campaign.

On a personal level, one of my friends, Dr. Kathleen Harder, has thrown her hat into the ring, though she’ll have a long and tough road to win against more well-known candidates.  She has a heart for the job, but heart doesn’t always matter in congressional races.

Pelosi – Pro and Con:  I’ve always had mixed emotions about U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Is she good for the country or bad?  I don’t know.

But, I was struck yesterday when I read a column by Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin, which said this:

“Speaker Sam Rayburn served longer.  Speaker John W. McCormack shepherded through the Great Society legislation.  But Speaker Nancy Pelosi might be the most accomplished and consequential speaker in the modern era on the following basis:  The California Democrat passed more major legislation with smaller margins than any of her predecessors.  And yes, she was the first woman to hold the job.

“After tortuous negotiations among the White House, her moderate and progressive House members and Democrat Senators Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona and Joe Manchin from West Virginia, she ushered the Build Back Better $1.75 trillion legislative package through the House, losing a single Democratic vote.

“This follows the largest infrastructure bill in history and the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan in March.  She defied critics who repeatedly pronounced the Build Back Better effort dead, calmed irate members, refrained from making public attacks against Senate Democrats making her life difficult, and attained what may be the capstone of her career.

“Keep in mind that she also got the Affordable Care Act through the House, impeached a lawless president twice, supplied necessary votes to bail out the economy under Republican President George W. Bush, raised the profile of a long list of female legislators (going so far as to put freshmen women in subcommittee chairs) and led her members through the violent insurrection of Jan. 6, during which the vicious MAGA mob tried to hunt her down.”

So, compliments to Pelosi for melding a fractious Democrat caucus.  But, for me, things are a bit more complicated than Rubin suggests.  For one thing, no single individual achieves all Pelosi is credited for achieving.  There is some credit, not total credit.  For another, I am not sure the country can afford the huge price tags associated with the Democrat agenda Pelosi advances at the behest of President Joe Biden.

What Democrats have not learned is that there is a time to say “no” to more government. 

McCarthy – Con:  If you want to consider political idiots, go no farther than U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. 

He took to the well of the House the other day and proceeded to rant uncontrollably for more than eight hours, all to stop Democrats from acting on the Build Back Better bill.

Here’s how Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri wrote about McCarthy’s performance:

“For someone who wants to be speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy is very bad at speaking.

“Usually, when you give a speech (one example would be the Gettysburg Address, which McCarthy invoked several times during his remarks), you try to express ideas using words.  Unless you are Kevin McCarthy.”

No one knew what McCarthy was talking about – and, of course, McCarthy didn’t either.  He just ranted on – and on, and on, and on.  Which, he must think, is a way to become speaker, though to achieve that goal two things have to happen.  One, obviously, is that the Rs have to win the mid-term elections.

The other is that McCarthy has to cater to the over-the-top demands of the Trumpian legislators who are becoming a key part of his party.

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.

A funny thing happened on the way to passage of the major infrastructure legislation in Congress.

Some members began to realize how much good stuff would result from the federal investment.  Need, not just cost.

So, it was not just a piece of legislation that cost $1.2 trillion.  It was money to fund needed highway, bridge, rail and Internet projects around the country – projects that have languished for years.

Nowhere was this put better than in blog written by a former colleague of mine, Joel Rubin, who runs my old firm’s Washington, D.C. office, now called CFM Advocates.

“News coverage of the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act centered on how much it will cost,” he wrote.  “But, in its advocacy for local governments, port districts and transit agencies, CFM focused on how much the investment is needed.

“We don’t advocate in terms of big, round numbers.  Our job on behalf of clients (both those based in Oregon and in Washington) was to help lawmakers see how big the need is and how investments would be made in the communities they represent in Congress.”

The results are impressive – Oregon will receive $3.4 billion and Washington $8.6 billion in formula funds for highways, bridges, broadband, EV charging stations, and more.  Those totals will increase as state and local governments successfully compete for discretionary funds.

“The legislation is like a layered cake, consisting of a stack of different federal programs with different objectives,” Rubin explains. “This is a transformational investment that will help states and local communities upgrade their infrastructure, create good-paying jobs and maintain competitiveness.

“The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is not legislation that can be summarized in a paragraph or two because the problems it addresses are complex and variable across the nation.  We prepare the blogs to inform our clients, but also to help the general public see how much thought and consideration by congressional leaders went into the many provisions in the legislation.”

The bill’s provisions and bottom line were hammered out in the Senate last summer when it passed with a bi-partisan 69-30 vote.  Its fate in the House was tied to the even larger Build Back Better initiative rendered in a budget reconciliation resolution, which led to delays and legislative maneuvering.

“The debates and delays generated a rollercoaster of emotions, but final passage should put the doubts and doomsday predictions in the rear-view mirror,” Rubin continued.  “The challenge now, as it should be, is to put the investments to work as quickly and as wisely as possible.  Our role as advocates will now shift to advising our municipal clients how to take advantage of the enriched programs that Congress authorized.”

So, is my purpose to laud Joel and his D.C. colleagues?  Well, yes, but the point is less that than to summarize the reality of the new investments. 

Beyond the federal machinations, another of my former colleagues, Dale Penn, who run’s CFM’s state lobbying operation, wrote about a special infrastructure challenge for Oregon, which no doubt is mimicked in all other states.

It is this:  Oregon Must Develop a Plan to Spend Its Broadband Funding

Significant money will pour into Oregon to expand broadband service in underserved areas, but government watchers should not expect instant connections.  

That’s because it turns out that Business Oregon, the state agency in charge of Internet expansion, doesn’t yet have a plan on how to spend the money.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act contains $100 million for broadband expansion in Oregon.  Something called the “American Rescue Plan” adopted earlier this year provided another $120 million for broadband expansion.  

Both federal bills require Oregon to apply by December 27 for formula fund allocations.

Business Oregon, Penn wrote in one of his blogs, says the cost to ensure all Oregonians are connected could range up to $1.32 billion.  

But, still, a plan must be developed to spend the money.

In a way, the numbers do tell a tale. 

But Rubin and Penn are exactly on target when they contend that most of the attention should now go to two places – (a) verifying the need for infrastructure investments, and (b) assuring that the money is spent wisely. And not – remember this? – like an earlier debacle in the State of Alaska whi

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 had the privilege of playing more than 200 golf courses during my “career” as I followed what some have called “the little white ball” around several-acre tracts of land.

It’s called golf, but how do I know the number?

Well, a couple years ago, I worked hard to make a list of courses I have played during my life as a follow-up to a challenge laid down by the editor of Links Magazine, George Peper.  He said he had his own records showing he had played 750 courses, which was enabled by his position as a long-time golf magazine editor, not to mention his trips to the “home of golf,” Scotland, where he lived for a couple years hard by the 18^th hole at the Old Course in St. Andrews.

I had no idea my number would exceed 200.  Great memories!

But, in truth, I play most of my golf these days on two courses – Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem area where I live above the 7^th hole, and The Palms Golf Course in La Quinta which is about five miles from where my wife and I live during the winter in the California desert.

Both Illahe and The Palms are challenging but fair tracks.  That’s how I describe both to friends of mine who have played neither — tough but fair.

Illahe Hills/All of the 18 holes on this 60-year-old track in Salem lay out in front of you as a golfer.  To be sure, there are dogleg holes, but usually the change in direction occurs as you play your second or third shots into a green.

The course is in great shape, even during the winter.  And this is due to the expertise of Illahe’s greens superintendent, Steve Beyer, who came on board about three years ago.  He had the tall task to replace a legend, the former super Bill Swancutt, who had spent more than 30 years in his role at Illahe, watching it, under his leadership, become one of the “must visit” courses in the Pacific Northwest.

The greens at Illahe are known as among the best in the region and, today, Beyer keeps them running fast, even in the winter.

Illahe also re-built all of its bunkers three or four years ago, a project that was due, if only because in the Northwest, it is tough to maintain bunkers beyond about 10 years, given the winter rain.

If I had to choose one course – and only one – to play for the rest of my life, it would be Illahe.

The Palms/This course, now just more than 20 years old, is very different than Illahe.  That may because it lies in the California desert rather than the rainy Northwest.

Like Illahe, however, The Palms lays out in front of you as golfer, with no tricked-up holes.  On occasion at The Palms, it makes sense to twist your tee shot one way or the other given the contours of the holes, but there is not a blind shot to be found.

What I tell my friends who have not played the course is that its main defense is the 18 greens – hitting them, holding them, and putting on them.

When I arrived as a member about four years ago, veteran Palms players told me this about the greens:  “You can try to read them, but the best way to play them is to memorize what putts do.”

The greens are good enough that legend has it that Canadian golfer, Mike Weir, came to The Palms to putt on the greens as a tune-up for the Masters Tournament in Augusta, Georgia, which he then proceeded to win for his only “major.”

Several other factors distinguish The Palms:

• There are no tee times.  The pros work you in on the first tee as you arrive at the course.

• You are required to play 18 holes in three hours and 40 minutes, which is unusual for desert courses.

• You can walk the course, if you choose to do so – and that, too, is unusual for desert courses.

Well, let me quit writing about these two courses, at least for now, though it’s fun for me to compare the two – and to remember as many as possible of the other courses I have played.

But, now, it’s time for me to go play golf…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 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 came up with a few more perceptions based on the last few days as my wife and I made our annual trek by car from Salem, Oregon to our winter home in La Quinta, California.

I did so on the 16-hour drive south because I had nothing else to occupy my mind, other than staying in my lane (see below).

Dollar general:  I don’t know why exactly, but I noticed a lot of Dollar General big rigs on the drive south.  Who knew that a store specializing in buying stuff for $1 could become big enough to buy a fleet of big trucks?  I never have been to a Dollar General store, but those that exist must attract a lot of customers.

Amazon prime trucks:  As always, I saw lot of Amazon trucks, carrying stuff from one place to another so Jeff Bezos could continue making millions, if not billions, thus funding more private space travel.

Fog:  Driving in fog is not fun and we had many hours of that reality on the trip south.  It was not bad enough for us to feel trapped, but it was a tough slog.

Road conditions:  There were bad road conditions a lot of the way south, both on U.S. 99, which we traveled for a number of miles on our second day, and also, on I-5.  Then, heading east on I-10 heading, the road was basically under construction.

On some of the roads, highway engineers – perhaps that’s an oxymoron – appeared to have created an additional lane heading east.  That made the lanes very narrow.   On several occasions, I felt hemmed in by big trucks on both sides.

I did hear our GPS voice say something like, “Stay in the right five lanes,” a distinctly California phrase you would never hear in Oregon.

Our Air BNB in Lodi, California:  We have stayed in an Air BNB in Lodi, California on several of our trips north and south.  The other day as we arrived in Lodi, we checked with our “landlord” and learned that a person who had stayed in the Air BNB site reserved for us had come down with Covid and was so sick she could not leave the house.

Of course, we wouldn’t have wanted to stay there anyway, with its exposure to Covid.  But our landlord said he would make other arrangements for us.  And he did – another Air BNB in the area.

We made the best of this potentially bad situation by venturing a few blocks away to a winery where he whiled away a couple hours with drinks in hand.  That reminds me to say that the Lodi area is much like Yamhill County, both in terms of topography and wine.

Is the middle ground always the best?  As I drive, I thought of this question because a friend of mine had raised it in regard to issues between Packer quarterback Aaron Rodgers and one of the companies he endorses, State Farm.

The issue was that Rodgers provided faulty information about his Covid vaccination status, leaving the impression that he had been vaccinated, though he used the word “immunized,” instead of “vaccinated.”  But, he finally admitted that he had not been vaccinated.

Based on his invalid assurances, he came under intense criticism, including having to sit out for a game and pay a National Football League fine (which did not amount to much because of his high salary).

Now, as for the middle ground, it’s this.

State Farm tried to have it both ways as it, (a) criticized Rodgers’ conduct, but (b) said he was entitled to his personal views.  So, it would not remove him as an endorser. 

In politics, I have long been an advocate for middle ground on pressing public policy challenges.  After all, that’s often where the best solutions lie.

But, is middle ground always right?  No.  In the case of Rodgers and State Farm, I believe the insurance company should have fired him, given the terrible example he set in the face of a continuing national tragedy – the pandemic.

Then how about this imponderable?:  If you send something by ship, it is called “cargo.”  But, if you send it by car or track, it is called “shipment?”

Why?

Inquiring minds want to know.

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.

The latest on-line edition of Global Golf Post heralds a new day for Muirfield, one of Scotland’s great, old golf courses.

Why?

The Honourable Company of Muirfield golfers (yes, that’s the way you spell “honourable” in Scotland) reached a momentous decision in 2017:  After 275 ears of being a “men only” club, women were admitted, a total of 12 of them whose membership finally was effective as of last July 1.

Too late, you might say.  A long time coming, you might say.  Not so “honourable” you might also add.

I agree.

But the fact is that Muirfield eventually made the right decision and it will be a good one for the game of golf in Scotland, which is known as the “home of golf,” but don’t tell golfers in the Netherlands who believe the game started in their country.

One of the reasons for the Muirfield decision was that the men-only policy had meant the course could no longer be in the rotation of Scottish courses to host “The Open.”  Which, in fact, is what we in America call the “British Open,” though Scots and Brits stoutly prefer “The Open” and glance sideways at you if have the temerity to add the word British to the title.

All of this conjures memories for me.

It was about 20 years ago when son Eric, after playing well in the U.S. Mid-Amateur in Connecticut, made it into the field for the British Mid-Amateur.  The site was Muirfield.

My wife, Nancy, Eric’s wife, Holly, and I made the trip to Scotland with Eric for the wonderful experience of being in that country, the homeland of my wife’s parents.  And, yes, the major reason was the golf tournament.

Muirfield, back in the 1980s, was the original #1 golf course, as ranked by Golf Magazine in its inaugural listings.  The roster of Muirfield Open Champions attests to the greatness of this Scottish links, with names such as Cotton, Player, Nicklaus, Watson, Faldo, Els, and Mickelson.

The Muirfield course is revered by pros and amateurs alike because of its straightforward challenge.  Each hole at Muirfield is unique and difficult, but with no hidden hazards and only one blind shot.

It also is one of the oldest clubs in the world, dating from its first beginnings in Leith in 1744 to its later move to Musselburgh, and finally in 1891 to Muirfield in East Lothian.

Now, back to Eric’s tournament there.  He played well, missing the two-round cut by only a stroke.  He had a Scottish caddy and, when that caddy talked to other Scots, you could not understand a word because of the deep the Scottish brogue.  When the caddy talked with Eric, however, he changed his inflection so he was understandable.

Eric’s tournament occurred long before Muirfield made the rational decision to admit women.  But, given that the British Mid-Amateur would host families of players, including women, the club had no choice but to allow women on the premises for that tournament, even though women were not normally allowed inside the front gate.

It was the beginning of the end for “men only.”

And, for the club’s “old guys,” the change was quite a reach.

Wife Nancy loves to tell story of one old guy when she sat near him in one of the traditional long tables in the clubhouse restaurant.  Both were having a meal.  Beyond her very presence, the old guy was even more flustered when Nancy told him that her father grew up in very poor part of Glasgow and, in the normal flow of life, would never have set foot on the Muirfield grounds.  Yet, here was his daughter…in person.

Overall, Nancy and Holly were free to find her way around the course and – even – into the clubhouse.

The “old guy” players at Muirfield used to play a distinctive style that may not ully have survived to this day.  They would show up at the course in dress clothes and then change into golf attire for a morning round.  It would always be “foursomes,” which means alternate shot.

After the morning round, they would head to the clubhouse, change back into formal attire for lunch.  And, then guess what?  Back to the locker room to change for an afternoon round, their second of the day.

Strange, but fond, memories of Muirfield.

From what I saw as a spectator, it was – and still is – a great course.  Today, men and women play it as equals, at least in theory.  It may take some time for the equality to emerge.

And, as I write this, I also note that a course in La Quinta, The Plantation, still only tolerates me.  I will admit to having played there only a couple time and, in the parking lot, that was as far as my wife could go.  She had to drop me and head away.

To put it bluntly, I would never join The Plantation and I suspect it will be only a matter of time before the course will have to give up its unfortunate style.

For now, though, I prefer to focus on the “new Muirfield.

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.

When a major new law passes in Congress, it often is difficult to grasp what will happen in Oregon, if anything.

Well, this time around, with passage of the major infrastructure bill, there will be huge benefits for Oregon.  That is, benefits if you favor new roads, bridges, rail service, Internet connections, and other investments.

This week, colleagues in my old firm, now called CFM Advocates, wrote a blog listing benefits for Oregon.  Rather than set out to write something myself, I choose to reprint excerpts from what CFM wrote.  [I add that the Congressional bill includes allocation for “climate change” and for bringing Internet connections to households not yet connected.  It’s too early to suggest if and, if so how, such allocations would affect Oregon.]

**********

$3.4 billion highway formula funding would mainly come through these programs: 

+  National Highway Performance Program is the largest of the federal-aid highway programs.  It supports improvement of the condition and performance of the National Highway System, which includes Interstate System highways and bridges, as well as virtually all other major highways.

+  Surface Transportation Block Grant Program is the federal-aid highway program with the broadest eligibility criteria.  Funds can be used on any federal-aid highway, on bridge projects on any public road, on transit capital projects, on routes for non-motorized transportation, on bridge and tunnel inspection. 

+  Highway Safety Improvement Program supports projects that improve the safety of road infrastructure by correcting hazardous road locations, such as dangerous intersections, or making road improvements, such as adding striping.

+  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program was established to fund projects and programs that may reduce emissions of transportation-related pollutants. 

+  National Highway Freight Program helps states remove impediments to the movement of goods.  Section 1116 requires the feds to establish the National Highway Freight Network, which is made up of the primary highway freight system, critical rural freight corridors, critical urban freight corridors ,and any Interstate System highways not so designated. 

The $268 million for bridge replacement and repair would come through the following: 

+  Bridge Formula Program – The bill appropriates $27.5 billion for a new bridge formula program to provide funding to Statesand Tribal governments to repair and rebuild bridges in poor condition.  

The $747 million in public transportation dollars would mainly come through these programs: 

+  Urbanized Area Formula Program provides funding for public transportation in urbanized areas.

+  State of Good Repair Grant Program provides funding primarily for repairing and upgrading rail transit systems, but also other fixed-guideway systems (such as passenger ferries and bus rapid transit) ,and bus systems that use high-occupancy-vehicle lanes. 

+  Rural Area Formula Program provides funding to states and Indian tribes for public transportation outside of urbanized areas. 

+  Bus and Bus Facilities Grant Program provides funding for capital expenses to purchase and rehabilitate buses and to construct bus-related facilities, such as maintenance depots.  

**********

You get the picture.

As I said earlier, there is a lot to like in the new bill if you favor improvements to roads, bridges, and rail.

Plus, an added benefit is a lot of new construction jobs in Oregon that come along with the investments, which makes the new bill a boon for the country.

Two additional thoughts crossed my mind as I read my colleagues’ blog”

• Will there be enough money to fund the proposed new bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Washington?  Not clear, but parties on both sides of the river appear to have been moving toward agreement on the design of a new bridge.  Thus, possible funding.

• Will there be enough money to fund the needed third bridge from Salem to West Salem and Polk County?  It would be a welcome development if such money could be found for the new bridge, but, first, that would require political leaders in the region to do what they have not done so far – which is to establish a site for and design of a new bridge.  Thus, probably a long shot for funding.

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.

If you are a political junkie like me, there often are more reasons for pessimism than optimism about the future of the country.

One of the reasons is that one Donald Trump continues to fulminate about the election President Joe Biden stole from him, as well as suggesting that he, Trump, intends to run for president again in 2024.

But, fulminating is what Trump does.

Then, on Sunday morning, I read a column by Paul Waldman, a columnist who writes for the Washington Post.  It appeared under this headline:

ARE THINGS ABOUT TO GET BETTER? INCREDIBLY, NEW SIGNS SUGGEST THE ANSWER IS YES.

Here is how Waldman started his column:

“Even as Democrats engage in a vigorous round of breast-beating, recrimination and self-flagellation after their predictably poor showing in Tuesday’s elections, there’s one thing they can agree on:  Everything is awful.

“We’re still limping through the coronavirus pandemic, almost two years on.  President Biden’s approval ratings are weak.  Congress is mired in the unsatisfying slog of legislating.”

Then, Waldman, who has been, he says, “relentlessly pessimistic for the last five years or so,” turns optimistic.

“What if things are about to turn around?” he asks.  “For Democrats, but mostly for the country?  What if this is the moment we’ll look back on as a real inflection point?”

Waldman points to several factors that could yield optimism.

• First, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly jobs report for October, showing that the economy created 531,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.6 per cent.  In addition, previous months’ numbers were revised based on more complete data:  The BLS reports that there were 235,000 more jobs created in August and September than had previously been reported.
• Developments on the pandemic front also look promising.  While over a thousand Americans a day are still dying from covid, the vast majority of them unvaccinated, the numbers are heading in the right direction:  New infections are occurring at less than half the rate they were two months ago.
• Meanwhile, Pfizer has announced that a newly developed therapy to be taken early in the onset of covid was shown in a study to reduce hospitalizations by 89 per cent; none of the people taking the drug in the study died.  The therapy is a set of pills patients take at home, making it easy to administer. If it turns out to be as effective as it appears, the result could be a dramatic reduction in deaths.
• Congress enacted “an enormously important” measure when it passed the infrastructure bill.  And, Waldman contended, the “Build Back Better bill” could have demonstrable positive effects on the country and individual Americans’ lives.

For Waldman, putting all of this together “makes it seem like the sun may be emerging from the clouds.”

To be sure, he says, “there are reasons for pessimism, such as the Republican Party showing again the eternal power of the ‘White backlash.’ Democracy is imperiled in much of our country. The Supreme Court is yanking our laws to the right.  We continue to suffer from historic levels of inequality.  Climate change threatens a miserable future for all of us.  Donald Trump is probably going to run for president again.”

But, despite the list in the last paragraph, Waldman advocates optimism.

I do, too, for I prefer to try to find the bright side even when it is easier to focus on the negative.  It never hurts to hope.

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.

A win for the ages occurred this weekend when the U.S. House passed the major infrastructure funding bill.

It now goes to President Joseph Biden who will sign it with at least a bit of pomp and circumstance.

Here’s the way the Washington Post heralded the result:

“Less than 10 months after taking office and several days after his party suffered a stinging defeat in the Virginia governor’s race, President Biden achieved one of his main goals:  A bi-partisan agreement that would make major investments in all 50 states for years to come.

“Shortly before midnight on Friday, as the House passed the bill 228-206 with the backing of more than 10 Republicans, Biden’s slumping political fortunes appeared to suddenly change.  After seeing his poll numbers slide for weeks, he had suddenly fulfilled a core campaign promise and notched a significant victory after months of legislative gridlock.

“I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to suggest that we took a monumental step forward as a nation,” Biden said Saturday morning at the White House with Vice President Kamala Harris. “We did something long overdue, that has long been talked about in Washington, but never actually done.”

But, to go with the headline on this blog, many Republicans – not the 13 members of the U.S. House who voted for it, but other flamethrowers like Representative Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, not to mention Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy – yelled and screamed about how mad they were that their party had a role in giving the Biden Administration a legislative victory.

Or, perhaps a political victory that will lift polling on Biden’s performance as president.

Again, from the Post:

“The bill included lots of popular projects and, in another era, probably would’ve gotten significantly more GOP votes.  But we live in this era, in which delivering a political win for the other side — however popular the bill and however much your constituents might want it — is seen as apostasy.  The demand in the GOP for such devotion to the party line and its election prospects is even greater than on the other side.”

That’s what I mean by grabbing a sense of defeat from the jaws of victory.

Smart Republicans should have heralded the achievement – more and better infrastructure for this country (roads, bridges, rail lines), including for their own districts – instead of griping about a victory for Biden.

All of this is a measure for me about how far our democracy has fallen into disrepute.  There is not even enough room to declare victory, and, then, move on to the next battle.

On that score, there is little doubt be that “next battle” will be fought over a second, larger bill — the $1.85 trillion social welfare and climate change legislation.  A potential deal for Democrats finally materialized late last week when the Congressional Black Caucus proposed passing the infrastructure bill immediately and holding a separate vote on the social bill in mid-November.

You can bet the second vote will be even more acrimonious that the first one.

And, voting on such an expansion of social programs will test both Democrats and Republican, if only because the bill represents a huge expansion of government.  So, in that sense, there will not rank with the potential popularity of infrastructure.

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.

It won’t surprise my friends to know that I like words.

More than numbers.  More than charts.  More than graphs. 

Each of those has its place, but, for me, I need words to explain the numbers, charts, and graphs, if not to replace them.  Though one of my business partners would contend, perhaps with some rationale, that numbers, charts and graphs sometimes tell a story better than words.

Regarding the general subject of words, one I don’t like these days is “progressive.”

It is used by many of those involved in politics to describe what they consider to be useful proposals from the left, sometimes the far left.

To me, better word would be liberal.

Now, some might as, why I would write about this.  Well, a couple answers. 

First, I don’t much else to do in retirement, so I spend time thinking about such inconsequential issues.  Second, I am a political junkie, so, for me, words used in politics always spark an interest in me.  Words such as “progressive.”

The dictionary defines the word this way:  “A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.”

I am not contending that those who use the word are wrong.  They are using the word accurately on the basis of its definition.  It’s just that, for me, the word connotes progress and, sometimes, the best form of progress is to avoid doing something, not to adopt a liberal, left-leaning agenda that almost always calls for more government action.

One of the partners in my old firm, now called CFM Advocates, wrote a piece earlier this week indicating that Oregon’s Fifth District Congressman Kurt Schrader likely would face an election challenge from the left, just as he did two years ago.

The headline on the piece was this:  “Congressman Kurt Schrader Certain to Face Progressive Challenger.”

I beg to differ because the word “progressive” in this headline carries the connotation that Representative Schrader does not support progress.  I know him well, having lobbied him in Salem for several years before he moved to Congress – and he is in favor of progress. 

His definition of progress just differs from what those on the left, sometimes the far-left, favor.  He wants middle ground solutions, which is often where the best public policy solutions lie anyway.  For that reason, he has raised questions about the move in Congress to enact a major new government social and climate change program.

His concern is not with the goals; his concern is with the high price tag.  So, a “progressive” is reported to be running against him because he has not toed the left-leaning line.

Words matter because I want to search for the best ones, not always successfully, I admit, but the search matters.

In politics, “progressive” is not always the best word.  So, I, for one, won’t be using it in the same way it is often used these days.