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

My wife and I have now traveled to Brooks Winery twice – and we would go again in a heartbeat.

It’s a great place to go – for vistas to the north and east, for great wine, and for great food.

That’s why we decided to join the Brooks Wine Club, the third one where we are members.  The others are Willamette Valley Vineyards and Left Coast.  Both have great wine AND food, as does Brooks.

Here’s what the Brooks winery website says:

The History

Pascal Brooks is the owner of Brooks, having inherited the winery at the age of eight when his father Jimi Brooks unexpectedly passed away.  Until that time, the son had acted as moral support for his father and the occasional stand-in for punch-downs as soon as he could handle the tool.

After Jimi passed, Pascal came to represent the company at events and spent many of his summers at Brooks, including working during the grape harvest.

He currently resides in France, where he has worked harvest at various vineyards and spends a lot of time with greening projects, trying to bring vegetables to urban spaces, and improving food security.

His family members remain heavily involved in running Brooks on site in Yamhill County, as, of course, he does as the owner.

The Ethics

After traveling the world and experiencing the hard work of winemaking in Beaujolais, Brooks founder, Jimi (mentioned above), returned to Oregon to find a burgeoning wine world.

He devoted the rest of his life to holistic farming and winemaking in the Willamette Valley, showcasing the region’s potential for expressive, complex, and balanced Riesling and Pinot Noir.

His strong commitment to bio-dynamic farming, his gentle approach to winemaking, and his excitement for the Willamette Valley terroir live on through Brooks wines.

When we were at Brooks, I noticed a listing of what I call “environmental awards.”  Good. 

Take care of the environment, I advise.  But, based on my experience as a lobbyist in Oregon, I say don’t join the “environmental political movement.”  It very often strays from environmental ethics to over-the-top activism, especially extremist positions that avoid middle ground.  Which might not even be good for the environment.

At the winery, I also noticed that we were sitting just above a vegetable garden, which produces some of the ingredients used in winery foods.  Another solid environmental credential.

The Awards

Brooks has been named #28 of the World’s Best Vineyards 2023!

This prestigious accolade places Brooks among the top vineyards globally and makes it one of only two vineyards in the United States to receive this honor.

The World’s Best Vineyards is an annual listing that highlights the very best winery destinations in the world.  The list is created after the nominations of nearly 500 wine, travel, and wine tourism experts from across the globe, and the panel in each region is made up of sommeliers, wine journalists, travel experts, and lovers of wine who travel frequently.

The Location

So, take a trip to Brooks. 

Find 21101 SE Cherry Blossom Lane in Amity, Oregon.  It takes about a half hour to get there from Salem where I live.  It’s worth the trip!

And, note this summary of Brooks advice which appears throughout the winery, as well as on its website.  Good stuff.

FIRST, BE KIND.
Treat others with dignity and kindness.
Be a good friend.
Travel the world.
Learn lessons from other cultures, and bring them home.
Be good to the land and the harvest it bears.
Have fun and truly live life.
Toast good friends, whether here or passed.
Smile.

Great to join a group with solid winemaking and environmental credentials.

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

The headline on this blog is right, at least if you define politics the way I do.

Politics is the “art of compromise” and it an art almost always lost in politics as we know it these days.

Washington Post writer Phillip Bump made that clear in what appeared in the Post yesterday:

“Running against a cadre of sitting and former elected officials, Donald Trump said things they wouldn’t — mostly the things that were being said in the right-wing media and by pundits on Fox News.  [This occurred during his first run for president as he, now, contemplates a return.]

“The reputation for ‘truth-telling’ his supporters embrace was born of his willingness to elevate false, popular claims, particularly about the left. He wasn’t elected for his policies.  In fact, he broadly rejected the idea that people cared much about policy.

“The only thing that’s changed over the past eight years, really, is that everyone should know the playbook by now.

“We should know that he will 1) flood the zone with things that are burbling on the right-wing fringe, 2) make sweeping promises without much follow-through, and 3) reject any criticism out-of-hand, spinning it into a reason to praise himself.”

There we have it.  Another excellent description of Trump who should be headed to jail, not running for president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quick answer:  No.

Here is the relevant information from the official golf rules:

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

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

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

No longer.

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

Aren’t you glad to have this confirmed?

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there are at least two reasons:

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

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

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

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

The First Rules Issue

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

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

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

She asked:  Did I take the right action?

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

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

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

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

The Second Rules Issue

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

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

The answer:  It was out of bounds.

Golf Rule 18.2 specifies this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This:

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

Say what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this additional example of lurking.

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

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

Okay.  I’ll accept that answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guess what will happen next year?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looked good to me.

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

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

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

• Don’t just penalize one player.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To apply this principle to “my” golf course:

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

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

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

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

But, me?

No.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, never made sense to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there still time?