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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

So-called “links golf” is a special thing.

According to the British Golf Museum, “a links course is a stretch of land near the coast characterized by undulating terrain, often associated with dunes, infertile sandy soil, and indigenous grasses such as marram, sea lyme, and the fescues and bents which, when properly managed, produce the fine-textured, tight turf for which links are famed.”

Links-golf is played mostly in Scotland and Ireland, plus a few other places.

In the U.S., not so much.

According to Links Magazine, “there are plenty of tracks that aspire to be links.  The first course in the U.S., Oakhurst Links, opened in 1884 in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia.  It had neither dunes, nor infertile soil, nor indigenous links grasses.

“And no one will confuse a view of the sea with one of a spring, or otherwise.  But Russell Montague, the golf pioneer who created Oakhurst, can be forgiven.  He admired the links courses of Great Britain and Ireland, so his choice of name was meant to be an honorific.

“The simply (and misleadingly) named Links Golf Club of Palestine, Indiana isn’t a links golf course, either.  You won’t be buffeted by sea breezes in the middle of the Hoosier State.

“The Links Golf Course of Paso Robles in California says that its course ‘boasts hard and fast Bermuda Fairways, lined by Bermuda and Rye rough.’  No.  Just no.

“Ballyneal in eastern Colorado touts itself as ‘a private, authentic North American, inland links golf experience.’  Ballyneal is a terrific course, but sorry.  There’s no such thing as an inland links.

“National Golf Links of America is a much-worshipped course—a Macdonald/Raynor beauty that many would sacrifice one or more digits to play.  Its setting on Peconic Bay in Southhampton, New York, and golf holes named for famous links forbears like ‘Alps,’ ‘Redan,’ and ‘Eden’ might almost earn it true links status were it not for the nature of its turf.  Sorry.  Awesome course.  But again, not a links as defined.

“Not even granting yourself the grandiose moniker of ‘Royal Golf Links’ will make it so.  The Las Vegas course of that name, with its replica Road Hole, Postage Stamp par three, and Swilcan Bridge, is still just a golf course.  Not a links.”

The Links Magazine writer, David DeSmith, was able to name six courses in the U.S. that qualify as “links courses,” if you are stickler for specific definitions.

In particular, I agree with the first two he mentions – Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes – on the Southern Oregon coast.

The brainchild of golf entrepreneur Michael Keyser, the two courses mimic very well golf as it is played in Scotland and Ireland.  So does a third course on the Oregon Coast – Old MacDonald – another Keyser creation.

Plus, a fourth course there, Bally Bandon, will meet a links-golf definItion as players become more familiar with it.  It just opened on June 1.

I have been fortunate to have traveled five time to Scotland, trips that enabled me to develop a supreme love for links-golf.

Why?

Well, given the lay of the land, often hard by the sea, the golf ball tends to run a lot on the ground.  Challenging to chart the twists and turns on such ground.

While in Scotland, depending, of course, on another factor – wind – I remember playing a 7-iron from almost 200 yards out from the green.  In the same round, I remember hitting the same 7-iron about 50 yards to reach a green.

That’s the draw and simplicity of links-golf.

It’s something pro golfer Phil Mickelson was able to conquer as he won the 2013 British Open (overseas, this is called “The Open”) because he said, he learned the skill of allowing the ground to direct his golf ball.

I will continue to have great fun playing links golf when I next have the chance to do so, which probably be at Bandon Dunes.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

As I write this, I have been involved in three amateur tournaments held by the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) to mark the start of competitive golf in the state during the pandemic.

The courses that have held tournaments are Heron Lakes in Portland, Stone Creek in Oregon City, and Tokatee in Blue River.

In a phrase, the OGA has performed very effectively as it worked to guard the safety of players, volunteers and spectators, plus allow golf to resume after a several-month-long hiatus.

Am I biased as I compliment the OGA?  Probably.  I am privileged to serve on the Executive Committee of the OGA Board of Directors, which oversees a 20-person staff that runs regular and junior amateur tournaments, operates the state’s golf handicapping and course rating systems, and promotes golf as worthwhile recreational opportunity.

More that 200 golf courses around Oregon and Southwest Washington are members of the OGA.

Here is a summary of steps that have been taken and will be taken to assure that amateur golf tournaments can proceed safely, a list I provide based on my work as volunteer at OGA events:

• Everyone who shows up for an OGA event – including players, volunteers and spectators – must sign a liability waiver indicating that there are on-site at a course based on an individual decision to be there.
• Players are allowed to have one spectator, not more, accompany them at a tournament.
• Players are expected to bring all of their own equipment to the tournament site and, the day before an event, receive tournament rules and pin sheets on-line to avoid transmitting multi-touch papers on the day of the event.
• Caddies are not allowed.
• Volunteers are required to wear masks.
• Starters are required to wear masks AND gloves.
• On the first and 10^th holes, players are required to maintain social distancing.
• Rakes are not provided in bunkers, which means there are special rules governing bunkers.
• Flags are to remain in golf holes most of the time, but if a player wants a flag out, he must use a personal towel to touch the flag.
• As players finish their rounds, they are required to sign scorecards and leave the course. There are no leader-boards on the course to avoid the tendency to congregate around them.  Results are provided only on-line.  Volunteers who collect the cards are required to wear masks and gloves.

It is too early to tell if all of these cautions will work.  But, the thought that has gone into the protocols bodes well for safety and success.

Kudos to the staff of the OGA for its work to sustain and promote golf in Oregon.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Some of us have taken heart recently when a few more famous Republicans came out against Trump.

• One was Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. Past time for her to do so.
• Former Defense Secretary James Mattis called out Trump for his threat to use the military to support his photo-op.
• Former Chief of Staff John Kelly joined Mattis in opposing Trump.
• Former Secretary of State and military hero Colin Powell announced that there was no way he could vote for re-electing Trump.
• Utah Senator Mitt Romney has led a growing pack in opposing Trump.
• Former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake was one of the first officials to distance himself from Trump, which stands for me as an act of statesmanship.

Should more Republicans follow suit, I ask, even though, for about 10 years now, I have been an Independent?

I say yes, for the good of the country, which is reeling from the pandemic, the protests and Trump’s failure to deal effectively with either, not to mention his penchant for lying at every turn which makes him the worst U.S. president in history

But, unfortunately, there is no sign yet of a mass exodus from the runaway Trump train.  Such an exodus could occur if Republicans keep getting bad news from polls showing Trump training Joe Biden.

Better if such officials left on the basis of morals and principles, not polls.  But, whatever the reason, leaving is good.

One of my former partners in the lobbying and public policy firm I helped to found continues to rue the day that all Republicans don’t get off the Trump train.  He says not any Republicans do, but I have retorted that more and more are jumping.

May that trend continue.

Unfortunately, if anything, many elected Republicans see themselves as prisoners onboard, calculating that jumping off would lead to almost certain defeat, according to interviews with more than a dozen party strategists, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly in remarks to the Washington Post.

What I would say again is that, if public officials sacrifice ethics, morals and values to get re-elected, then they don’t deserve to hold the positions they seek.

The end-all-be-all of public service should not be to get re-elected.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

It has been and will be a different kind of graduation from college for the Class of 2020.

Most of the ceremonies, if there are ceremonies at all, will occur by way of some kind of technology – and thus will be very different from what occurred for me and many others in my age group.

Still, graduation is a time for thinking about the future, even amidst the pandemic and the protests.

In so doing, one of the best approaches is to note graduation addresses given on-line by former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle.

What they delivered is full of good information and perspective for graduates.

Before providing a few excerpts, it should be said that I was one who had questions about President Obama’s actions in office.  For me, he was often too quick to advocate for a government solution to everything, though, today, that concern could ring a bit hollow as we rely on government to get us through the pandemic.

Still, with Obama, whatever I thought about his policies, I never had one question about his honesty and ethics.  In a phrase, what I saw was what I got.  In that way, he stands in direct contrast to the person now in the Oval Office.

In a clip from Barack Obama’s speech, courtesy of YouTube Originals, the former president highlighted the challenges that the Class of 2020 and the rest of their generation are currently up against, which go well beyond the coronavirus pandemic.

“In a lot of ways,” he said, “the pandemic just brought into focus problems that have been growing for a very long time, whether it’s widening economic inequality, the lack of basic healthcare for millions of people, the continuing scourge of bigotry and sexism, or the divisions and dysfunctions that plague our political system.”

Obama also noted that the ongoing protests in response to the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Nina Pop and other black Americans are not just a response to these particular tragedies, but to a systemic problem that has pervaded the U.S. for centuries.

“They speak to decades of anguish and frustration over unequal treatment and a failure to reform police practices and the broader criminal justice system.

“These shocks to the system that we’re seeing right now, just as you prepare to go out into the world — they remind us that we can’t take things for granted.  We have to work together to make things better.”

In her speech, Michelle Obama expressed empathy with all the young people who right now feel as if “everything in your life is turned upside down.”

“Life will always be uncertain,” she affirmed. “It is a lesson that most of us get the chance to learn over the course of years and years, even decades, but one that you’re learning right now.  Look, I’ve been there many times in my life. I felt it most profoundly when my father and my best friend died within a year of each other.  I was in my late twenties — oh, it felt like my whole world was collapsing in on itself.  I would’ve given anything — anything — to bring them back.”

She went on to say that the experience gave her “a kind of clarity,” and a motivation to forge a new path on her own — one devoted to public service.  “Graduates, I hope that what you’re going through right now can be your wake-up call. That it pushes you, not just to think about what kind of career you want to build, but what kind of person you want to be.”

Both Obamas told the Class of 2020, that what these past few weeks have shown us is that the challenges we face go well beyond a virus, and that the old normal wasn’t good enough — it wasn’t working.

So, as scary and uncertain as these times may be, the Obamas said they should be a wake-up call, and “they are an incredible opportunity for your generation.

“Because you don’t have to accept what was considered normal before.  You don’t have to accept the world as it is.  You can make it into the world as it should be and could be.  You can create a new normal, one that is fairer, and gives everyone opportunity, and treats everyone equally, and builds bridges between people instead of dividing them.

“Just as America overcame slavery and civil war, recessions and depression, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and all kinds of social upheaval, we can emerge from our current circumstances stronger than before. Better than before.

They suggested this prescription for being better:

• First, do what you think is right, not just what’s convenient or what’s expected or what’s easy.
• Second, listen to each other, respect each other, and use all that critical thinking you’ve developed from your education to help promote the truth.
• Third, recognize that, for all the good it can do, social media also can be a tool to spread conflict, division and falsehoods — to bully people and promote hate.
• Finally, even if it all seems broken, have faith in our democracy. Participate — and vote. Don’t fall for the easy cynicism that says nothing can change — or that there’s only one way to bring about change.

Good words from both of the Obamas.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The Wall Street Journals’ Gerald Seib made the point in the headline in a piece he wrote for the Journal yesterday.

It was more than just a play on words.  It was a comment about the growing tendency in this country that indicates, as Seib wrote it, “a partisan divide reflecting a broad intolerance of opposing views.”

Seib’s commentary appeared under this headline:

Crises Lay Bare a Goodwill Deficit in America

This spring’s discontents have heightened a partisan divide reflecting a broad intolerance of opposing views

Here are more of his words:

“The brutal shocks hitting America this spring have opened up a variety of financial deficits.  Perhaps more important, though, they have revealed a more pervasive underlying condition:  A goodwill deficit.

“Put simply, too many Americans have stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to those with whom they disagree.”

Seib said what is happening, both in the pandemic and the protests, as well as the lead up to both, reflects “a growing tendency to see those with whom you disagree as not merely wrong, but evil.  There is a diminishing willingness to believe that the person on the other side of the debate—any debate—is well intentioned.

“This is one of the reasons racial justice on the one hand and law and order on the other have come to be seen as opposing goals—much as stopping the spread of the coronavirus by social distancing on the one hand and re-opening the economy on the other came to be regarded as opposing goals.

“Such attitudes helped produce the partisan divide that now colors almost every issue.  This absence of goodwill didn’t begin amid these crises.  The trend was present and documented before, setting the stage for this spring’s discontents.”

Seib, I think, is right.

If someone disagrees with you, it is not possible usually even to discuss that difference of opinion in civil terms.  So, often, even with friends, you don’t discuss certain subjects for fear of offense.

This inability “to disagree aggreeably” marks our politics, as well our friendships.

A 2019 survey sponsored by the Brookings Institution, for example, found that 82 per cent of Republicans think the Democrat Party has been taken over by socialists.  On the other side, 80 per cent of Democrats think the Republican Party has been taken over by racists.

Other statistics show that nearly 60 per cent of Republicans and more than 60 per cent of Democrats agreed that the opposing party is a serious threat to the U.S. and its people.  Just over 40 per cent of those in each party thought the opposing party wasn’t just worse for politics, but “downright evil.”

Those who lead us politically often lead the charge to consider disagreement as being evil.

That’s how President Donald Trump, the epitome of narcissism, acts as a matter of course.  Those on the left are not much better as indicated by such officials are U.S. Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who conducts herself like Trump by seizing every soapbox to ridicule the country where she lives.

As a long-time lobbyist, I have often argued for finding the smart middle ground on the issues we face.  It is tough to do, but that’s where the best solutions, not on either the right or left extremes.

I also have to admit that it is hard to imagine finding middle ground with such antagonists as Trump and Ocasio-Cortez.  They are so over-the-top that middle ground doesn’t exists for them or those who fawn over them.

For others, finding the smart middle will require everyone to consider viewpoints other than their own as at least being worth considering.   That will require a change of heart and mind.

As Seib put it at the end of his commentary:

“A political dialogue that suggests those who disagree with you are morally inferior inevitably widens and deepens the political divide—and that is exactly what we are seeing today. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, released over the weekend, shows the partisan divide appearing on almost every question of public life, and increasingly in private life as well.

“’There are really powerful signs that our partisan filter is the way we see everything in this country.”

And goodwill, Seib writes, has become a casualty of the process, which is a sad state of affairs.

This, remember, is one of three departments I run.  The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of “Just Saying.”

Being in the coronavirus pandemic provides a lot of good opportunities for new quotes.  Here are a few:

FROM GEORGE CONWAY IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “But it’s more than just narcissism that drives this failing, flailing president. However difficult they can be, even extreme narcissists can have consciences. They don’t necessarily cast aside behavioral standards or laws, or lie ceaselessly with reckless abandon.

“Trump’s behavior is conscienceless, showing utter disregard for the safety of others, consistent irresponsibility, callousness, cynicism and disrespect of other human beings. Contempt for truth and honesty, and for norms, rules and laws. A complete inability to feel remorse, or guilt.

“As a New Yorker profile of Trump put it nearly a quarter-century ago, Trump lives ‘an existence unmolested by the rumbling of a soul.’ That’s Donald Trump’s problem yesterday, today and tomorrow.

“It’s our problem, too, for now:  We remain governed by a soulless man with a broken mind. The damage will continue, and it won’t stop until voters end it.  Come November, it will be up to the eligible human population of this country to look to their souls, their consciences, their humanity — and to cast their votes for one of their own.

COMMENT:  Interesting to read Conway and know that he is married to a major Trump acolyte, Kellyanne Conway.  Still, his words are worth reading, especially this sentence:  “Trump’s behavior is conscienceless, showing utter disregard for the safety of others, consistent irresponsibility, callousness, cynicism and disrespect of other human beings.”

FROM WASHINGTON POST FACT CHECKER GLENN KESSLER:  He and his colleagues explore Trump’s tendency to double down on falsehoods in their forthcoming book, “Donald Trump and His Assault on the Truth.”

“One hallmark of Trump’s dishonesty is that, if he thinks a false or incorrect claim is a winner, he will repeat it constantly, no matter how often it has been proven wrong,” they write.  Though ‘many politicians are embarrassed.’ Trump ‘keeps going long after the facts are clear, in what appears to be a deliberate effort to replace the truth with his own, far more favorable, version.’”

COMMENT:  So true.  Trump’s instinct is to lie all the time, especially if lies reflect great, undeserved credit for him given his narcissistic personality.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:  Like Governor Jared Polis, Gina Raimondo in Rhode Island is accepting the reality that the coronavirus will be with us for some time, and the state needs to focus on protecting the vulnerable while mitigating stress on health-care providers. ‘Just because we may re-open the economy with the stay-at-home order doesn’t mean people are going to stop getting sick,’ she said recently.

COMMENT:  Raimondo sounds to me like one of the good governors who is trying “to do the right thing,” as tough as that is when there is tension between life and livelihood.

FROM JENNIFER RUBIN IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “But then, this has been the story from the get-go: Trump minimizing, ignoring and contradicting expert advice as part of his magical thinking that refuses to grapple with reality, especially when reality reflects poorly on him.

“The president sought to obscure major problems by trying to recast them as triumphs,’ The Post reports.  He repeatedly boasted, for instance, that the United States has conducted more tests than any other country, even though the total of 6.75 million is a fraction of the 2 million to 3 million tests per day that many experts say is needed to safely reopen.’

“Where Trump leads, his cult will follow.  Trump can rely on his base’s anti-science bent, especially when he drowns out or ignores his own advisers. If he does not pay attention, why should his followers?”

COMMENT:  For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many Americans continue to support Trump who clearly stands as the worst president in U. S. history.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

It was an incredible photo.

Unbelievable.

There Donald Trump stood with a Bible in hand, as if, (a) he had read it, (b) had ever paid attention to what it said, and (c) it gave him the authority to violate the Constitution, also something it appears he had never read.

It was a photo op designed, I suspect, to appeal to the so-called “evangelicals” who are part of his cabal.

As an aside, I hate to denigrate the term “evangelical” by using it in connection with Trump.  He lowers a good term to be a useless one.

In the Washington Post, columnist Michal Gerson, one of my favorite writers, made the same points in a piece he wrote for Friday’s edition.  It appeared under this headline:

Trump wants to turn his opponents into infidels to be destroyed, not defeated

The best approach is to reprint excerpts of what Gerson wrote because his words are so telling:

“In addition to being an act of sacrilege, Trump’s (literal) elevation of the Bible following the Battle of Lafayette Square was a culmination of the president’s approach to communication.

“In front of St. John’s Episcopal Church, the president removed a syllable from his monosyllabic rhetoric and only held up a symbol.  His awkwardness in handling the Bible made even his silence inarticulate.

“This approach does have the advantage of making the lives of White House communications staffers simpler.  Instead of his next speech on agriculture, Trump could simply hold up a carrot.  When communicating on law and order, he could have jackbooted enforcers of his whims throw flash-bang grenades and pepper balls at citizens assembled in lawful protest.

“Sorry, Trump already thought of that.

“The problem with symbols, however, is that they don’t interpret themselves.  In other settings, holding up Holy Scripture might have been the president’s way of saying:  “BIBLE GOOD!”  But the context here is more sinister.

“Following the brutal clearing of Lafayette Square, Trump seemed to be using the Bible as a symbol of conquest.  It was a bit like planting the flag at Iwo Jima — except without the courage, honor or patriotic purpose.

“Trump seeks to employ the sacred as a means of political influence.  And more than that, he is now using the Bible to sanctify the physical abuse of peaceful protesters.  It is a strategy that doubles as blasphemy.  Trump is, in effect, proposing his own bent Beatitude:  Blessed are the brutal, for they shall dominate the battlespace.”

“Trump is attempting something ambitious and revolting — he is trying to reshape the content of Christian social engagement in his own image.  He is making the claim that brutalizing protesters, disdaining migrants, excluding refugees, discriminating against Islam and treating opponents with casual cruelty are the natural elements of a biblical ethic.

“And he is using the Bible itself as a kind of talisman or fetish, carried into culture war conflicts.  ‘In this sign,’ Trump seems to be saying to his followers, ‘you will conquer.’

“But, for Christians, the Bible is not a charm to be borne into battle.  It is not the words and pages that are holy; it is the message they contain.  And that message, as Jesus summarized it, is this:  “He has sent me to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to liberate the oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

This statement of purpose stands in opposition to everything Trump promotes.

There are those on the evangelical right who have clearly abandoned the proper conception of scripture.  They display, as Gerson, writes, “not the transformed heart of the believer, but an iron stomach of a political operative.  They will swallow anything.  If Trump stepped on the Bible, they would interpret it as ‘the foundation of his life.’  If Trump lit it on fire, they would regard it as ‘lighting the way to a better future.’  Their tolerance for sacrilege is the revelation of their true priorities.”

The good news of Jesus Christ is the story of extravagant, creative, sacrificial, relentless, divine love.  If the biblical account of that love is true — as genuine evangelicals would uniformly contend — trading it for the gospel of Trump is an act of monumental foolishness.

So, it’s time – past time – for the end of Trump.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.\

While the U.S. and the world lurches from one controversy to another – from Covid-19 to Black Lives Matter protests – it may seem strange for me to “lurch” – there’s that word again – to an often arcane, not to mention irrelevant, subject…golf rules.

Still, doing so is a way for me to maintain a vestige of sanity in the midst of issues I cannot control or even understand.

This time I deal with this subject:  What it means when handicap values are assigned to each of the 18 holes on a course, one of the ways golf can be played and scores tallied for groups of different abilities as they play together.

The bottom line is that #1 handicap hole is not necessarily the hardest hole on a course, which is a common miss-perception.

Too much to understand?  Yeah.  But, remember, this is golf with a myriad of hard-to-understand rules written in something other than plain English.

Let me try to explain this for at least one reason:  If I write something, it is often a stimulant for me to remember it.

I am indebted to my friends at the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) for this explanation.

“There are two misconceptions about the ‘Stroke Index Allocation.’ The first being that the number 1 ranked hole is the ‘hardest’ hole on the course.  The purpose of the ranking of the holes is to determine where the higher handicapped player deserves the assistance of an extra stroke in order to tie, or halve, a hole with the low handicapper.”

The OGA continues:

“That stroke should be assigned on the hole where the relative difficulty of the hole is more difficult for the higher handicapped golfer than the relative difficulty for the lower handicapped golfer.

“Did you notice that the word ‘hardest’ was not mentioned?

When someone tells us about the ‘hardest’ hole, we often ask back: Hardest for whom?  The difficulty of a hole is relative to the set of tees, the level of golfer, the landing zones where each player hits and more.

“On occasion, there may be a hole where the higher handicapped golfer has less difficulty due to their landing zones being nice wide fairways, but the low handicapper may have a landing zone where they must lay up to not hit through the corner on a dogleg, or they have a very narrow landing zone with close in bunkers, water, trees etc. In that case, the hole might be relatively less difficult for the Bogey golfer than the Scratch.

“The #1 allocated hole should not necessarily be the ‘hardest’ hole on the course.  Often, that hole is one where the relative difficulty is the same or similar for low and high handicapped golfers.”

So, in the arcane world of golf rules and standards, does that make sense?

Well, read it a couple of times and it may make more sense.

And, if I do that – read it more than once – I may be able to explain to my friends why the #1 ranked hole is not necessarily the hardest.

Some achievement?  Right.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The metaphor in the headline refers to a moment this week when the bridge that has carried Donald Trump for years began to crack with the weight of Trump’s stupidity.

Retired General James Mattis ended his self-imposed silence on Trump with these telling words:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us.”

To continue the image in the headline, I hope the bridge capsizes all the way as a show of American intolerance for the worst president in U.S. history.

Washington Post writer David Ignatius deserves credit for the metaphor in a piece this morning.  It read:

“The military establishment’s anger at President Trump’s politicization of the armed forces has been building for three years.  It finally ripped open in the aftermath of Monday’s appalling presidential photo op at St. John’s Episcopal Church.

“The break was a decisive moment in the Trump presidency.  But such inflection points are mysterious.  Why does a bridge that has carried a million vehicles suddenly collapse when one more heavy load rumbles across?  It’s not a linear process but a sudden discontinuity. Mathematicians call it ‘catastrophe theory.’

“The catastrophe Monday was that Trump was advocating what military officers dread most.  He was preparing to mobilize the armed forces to suppress protests by U.S. citizens against racial injustice and police brutality.  For military officers who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, this was overload.  The structure cracked.”

To adjust the metaphor a bit, Trump’s recent threat to use the military to advance his political cause was a “bridge too far” for some.

Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski:  “When I saw General Mattis’ comments yesterday, I felt like perhaps we’re getting to the point where we can be more honest with the concerns that we might hold internally and have the courage of our own convictions to speak up.”

Former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly:  He corrected Trump by saying that Mattis was not fired by Trump – Mattis left the administration left when he could no longer tolerate Trump’s behavior, especially his stupidity toward the military.

Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney:  He concurred with Murkowski and welcomed her into what may a growing group of some Republicans willing to challenge Trump.  [Some, of course, will continue to bow at the altar of Trump and latest to do so again is Senator Lindsay Graham who should be turned of office for his Trump duplicity.]

Retired chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Mullen:  He reached his choke point in a piece entitled “I Cannot Remain Silent.” It challenged Trump’s consideration of using active-duty troops to put down the protesters.  “I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.” Mullen wrote.

Columnist George Will, a long-time Republican:  He wrote a scathing piece for the Wall Street Journal that began this way:  “This unraveling presidency began with the Crybaby-in-Chief banging his spoon on his highchair tray to protest a photograph — a photograph — showing that his inauguration crowd the day before had been smaller than the one four years previous.  Since then, this weak person’s idea of a strong person, this chest-pounding advertisement of his own gnawing insecurities, this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron.”

All of this will be good news for a partner of mine in my old lobbying firm.  He has been very concerned lately that more Republicans are not running away from Trump, including by making public comments about Trump’s clear incapacity for ANY form of cogent leadership.

My partner has a point.  It is past time for all persons – Republicans, Democrats and Independents (like myself) — to rise up in opposition to Trump.  If you don’t have a soapbox to promulgate your opposition, so be it – just oppose Trump.

Such opposition is long overdue.  The best opportunity to express it is at the polls this fall.

Throw Trump out of office give the Oval Office to a person who has leadership credentials to occupy it, the presumptive Democrat nominee Joe Biden.

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 it what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions like.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

If anyone needed another indication that I have too much time on my hands during the pandemic, this will seal the deal.

I report that I read and focused on a piece in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) this morning that focused on a major issue facing us in this country and perhaps even the world.

It is this:

Should there be one space or two spaces between sentences in what we write by one tech device or another?

Definitively, I say two.

See, it was a key issue, right?

I am part of the cabal in this country that believes there always should be two spaces, not one, between sentences.  Since I started composing on a Wang Word Processing System about 30 years ago and, today, on my MAC, I have been committed to the “two space standard.”

Tough to change.  Shouldn’t change.  Won’t change.

In a piece by Duane Daiker, the WS, under this headline, reported on the challenge facing us two-space devotees:

People Who Type Two Spaces After a Period Just Can’t Win

Two-spacers say the extra room after a sentence is easier on the eyes, but the one-spacers keep gaining ground

The story went on – and I quote excerpts to illustrate that great minds – mine and the Wall Street Journal’s — believe this is a crucial issue for our times:

“Ever since computers displaced typewriters, a rift has grown between people who put two spaces after a period and people who put one. Daiker worries he might be on the losing side.

“Daiker, a lawyer in Tampa, Florida, brought Mignon Fogarty, author of the bestselling ‘Grammar Girl’ books, onto his law-themed podcast in March to settle the matter once and for all.  He hoped she would rule in favor of two spaces, as he had been taught in high school.

“Instead, Fogarty predicted that placing two spaces after a period would die out in 10 to 20 years.

“’I’ll have to decide whether or not to leave this on the podcast, right?’ replied Daiker, who is 50, on the recording.

“Two-spacers have fretted for some time they are losing ground to one-spacers who learned to type in the digital age. Jennifer Bell, a 19-year-old student from Columbus, Ohio, summed up the counterargument:  ‘It looks ridiculous.’

“Putting two spaces after a period made sense in the mechanical age, when the letters produced by typewriters were all the same width.  With a single space at the end of a sentence, the page looked a little cramped.  Legal professionals who regularly wade through dense documents loaded with citations are among the loudest proponents.

“A further setback for two-spacers came in April.

“Alan Chen was sitting at home in Denver typing when he noticed something he hadn’t seen before.  The document he was working on flagged as an error the two spaces he customarily leaves after a period.

“’The one spacers have won,’ Chen tweeted.”

Unfortunately, after deeming either one or two spaces as acceptable for years, even Microsoft recently changed the default setting in Word so that two spaces after a period summons the annoying blue squiggle indicating an error.

More from the WSJ:

“Chen’s discovery went viral.  ‘It’s interesting,’ he said.  “You’d think people would have more to worry about during a pandemic.’

“Kirk Gregersen, partner director of program management at Microsoft, acknowledged not all writers will appreciate the stylistic choice.  So Microsoft added the option for users to tweak their settings so that two spaces don’t get flagged.

“Judge Beth Walker, 55 years old, of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, said she would change her settings.  She said she is tired of being shamed by millennials who she said insist on rushing from sentence to sentence.

“’I suspect that Microsoft’s latest salvo will only unite the commitment of #TeamTwoSpace,’ she said.  ‘To the extent necessary, I will alter any and all automatic settings they attempt to impose.’”

There might be some consolation for me, Daiker and many other two-spacers, given a prediction that it will take one or two decades for the one-spacers to claim ultimate victory.

We won’t be around to see that sad turn of events.

And, judge me by this – in this blog, I have tried to put two spaces between sentences.  If I failed on an occasion, it was an oversight, not intentional.

Rally on two-spacers!