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.

So, which one, given that there are three?

The answer?  Of course, Betsy Johnson.

She is running as an independent, facing off against the Democrat, former Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek, and the Republican, former Oregon House Minority Leader Christine Drazan.

Political analysts believe Johnson has a genuine chance to win, rating winning as “possible,” though “not probable.”

Johnson has a gift for turning a phrase that engenders media coverage.

Such was the case this week when she was interviewed by the New York Times.  Here is what the Times wrote:

“Portland’s homelessness crisis is animating Johnson’s campaign.  One of her TV ads shows her driving around the city’s encampments.  ‘No more tent cities,’ she says.  Johnson didn’t mince words:  ‘You can see the deterioration of the beautiful City of Roses, now the city of roaches.’”

Some Portland residents might be offended by Johnson’s comment, but, no doubt, she thought about the risks before speaking. 

Her criticism could resonate with many Portlanders who are tired of homeless encampments, local protests (on all sides), higher crime rates (including murders), and the apparent inability of the city’s leaders to do anything about it.

I grew up in Portland, but, now, given the deterioration of the central city, I try to avoid going back home, except to drive through the city on the way to someplace else – or, perhaps, to visit my two brothers who still there, though not in the strike-torn downtown area.

Here is more of what the Times reporter, Reid J. Epstein, wrote:

“Almost nobody in Oregon seems to be happy.

“In Portland, just 8 per cent of residents think their city is on the right track, according to a May poll from Oregon Public Broadcasting.  East of the Cascade Mountains, nine counties are so fed up with Democrat control of the state that they have voted to leave the state to join Idaho.

“Only Democrats have served as Oregon’s governor since 1987, but the party, weighed down by soaring gas prices, inflation, and President Biden’s unpopularity, is in so much trouble in this year’s mid-term elections that even deep-blue Oregon is suddenly competitive.

“Portland, like many other cities in the U.S., has seen a rise in homelessness and violent crime.  Visiting the city’s downtown in recent years has been an exercise in navigating its sprawling homeless encampments — an issue that polling shows is top of mind for the state’s voters.  And homicides jumped to at least 90 last year, from 36 in 2019.”

So, enter Johnson, along with her ability to utter pithy quotes.

Here is how the Times describes Johnson:

“She is a helicopter pilot whose signature Liz Claiborne eyeglasses are embedded in her campaign logo.  She has raised far more money than both Kotek and Drazan.  Johnson has also earned an array of high-profile endorsements from members of both parties.  Much of her fund-raising has come from Oregon’s corporate moguls, including more than $1 million from the Nike founder Phil Knight.

“Democrats say they believe Johnson will take more votes from the Republican base than from their own.  But they are spending as if she is a real threat, creating a PAC to attack her as an obstacle to environmental progress, and gun control.  (Shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre, Johnson told a group of high school students that she owned a machine gun.  She said it was “a Cold War artifact” and she still had it.)”

As will be the case in many high-level political races around the country, abortion also will be a major issue.

In Oregon, Drazan, the Republican nominee, is anti-abortion and pro-Trump, a change from the moderates Oregon Republicans have nominated for governor in recent years.  Her campaign believes she could win the three-way race with just 40 per cent of the vote — the same percentage Donald Trump took in 2020.

By contrast, Kotek and Johnson favor abortion rights.  Johnson served on the board of the local Planned Parenthood chapter, while Kotek led passage of legislation in 2017 that expanded state-funded abortion access.

So, on to the general election next November. 

Kotek is still the favorite to win.  Oregon Democrats have significant structural advantages — there are just more of them than anyone else.  But it’s not a sure thing, and Democrats are sweating the result for the first time in years.

One of the reasons, perhaps the major one – the Independent Johnson is running and could pull votes from various Oregonians frustrated with the inability of either party to solve major problems facing the state.

Should be one of the most interesting governor’s race in Oregon in many years.

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 is not news to recognize that the abortion debate, after the Supreme Court decision to toss out Roe V. Wade, is roiling the country.

Even to the extent of fomenting violence, including threats to the lives of members of the Court.

I usually avoid commenting on abortion because it is a subject so political that it defies rational give-and-take.  Plus, if I had ever thought of running for office – I never did – the issue of abortion alone would have made me stop.  I prefer to leave the abortion issue between a woman and her physician, with family involved of course.

That’s why, when I was a lobbyist, I (and the firm where I was a partner) never took on a client which had a pro-abortion or anti-abortion position.  As I said, there is no way to deal with the issue on the basis of facts, figures, and policy.

Also, as a male, I never wanted to be involved in a debate over policy which should better be left to women and physicians.

So, rather than writing about the issue myself today, I post below two columns that ran this week in the Washington Post.  In the main, I agree with the basic propositions in both, which is why I post them in this blog, with just a couple comments at the end of each reprint.  Still, despite what appears below, I want to keep the notion, perhaps inaccurate to a degree, that I have never entered the full abortion debate.

FROM COLUMNIST HENRY OLSEN UNDER THE TITLE, “THE HEART OF THE ABORTION DEBATE:  WHAT IS HUMAN LIFE?”

The Supreme Court’s overruling of the abortion-law precedents Roe and Casey is a massive victory for the conservative movement.  It is also the beginning of a long-overdue national debate on the most important question that abortion raises:

What is a human being?

I’ve wanted abortion outlawed all my adult life, so this is a joyous moment. The court has finally removed a shoddily reasoned, ungrounded barrier to the fulfillment of a desire that I share with tens of millions of Americans:  To protect human life from wanton destruction.

For that, we should be forever grateful to the courageous band of five justices who followed the law and their principles — and perhaps risked their lives, given the recent arrest of a man who allegedly sought to assassinate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — to protect the unborn.

Abortion rights advocates have long tried to look past that unborn person by exalting a woman’s autonomy.  But this is not about creating Margaret Atwood’s Gilead or somehow returning to the days when women had no vote and few property rights.  The women who largely lead the pro-life movement would not countenance enabling their own servitude.

That unborn child is the only reason abortion is, and ought to be, an issue of political discussion.  No rational person today believes that one human being ought to take the life of another because they want to.  Abortion on demand can be morally justified only if the entity whose life is extinguished is not a human being worthy of the legal protection any decent society provides.

This is not an easy question to decide.  Casey’s viability standard was an attempt to establish when a legal right to life is conferred, albeit without directly making that case.  Texas’s fetal heartbeat bill, which bans abortions after a heartbeat is detected, is another.  Others would draw the line in different places, with some saying the legal right to life begins at conception while others would place it well after viability.  No answer is immune from serious and well-intentioned criticism.

Making such difficult determinations, however, is at the heart of what democratic self-government is about.  If the people collectively cannot determine who counts as a person, then their ability to reason about other, less weighty matters surely must be called into question.

This debate will be painful and long.  My friends in the pro-life movement need to understand that we start this debate in the minority position.  Polls regularly show that a majority of Americans support legal abortion on demand during the first trimester.  That position makes sense only if our fellow Americans do not see a 13-week-old fetus, one that possesses a human brain and beating human heart, as a human being deserving of legal protection.  We in the pro-life movement will win only when they come to see that fetus as we do — as a tiny but very real human being.

All our efforts, then, must be placed toward winning that central debate. We cannot allow ourselves to be sidetracked into important but subsidiary discussions over things like importation of abortion pills into a state that bans abortion or whether to criminalize behavior that leads to interstate abortions.  Those matters are significant, but they are secondary to the primary issue.  The question of what defines human life worthy of legal protection is that issue; focusing on it should be our lodestar.

We will need to make many other commitments to win others’ trust.  A woman’s ability to secure and use effective contraception should be non-negotiable.  We must use all means, public and private, to care for pregnant women who need our help navigating the difficult times attending to an unexpected, and perhaps unwanted, pregnancy.

We must never lose sight of the sanctity and dignity that every woman’s life possesses, even as we seek to extend that understanding to the unborn.

The outcome we seek will come slowly, state by state.  Abortion regulation has traditionally been a state matter, and so it should remain.  State-level, democratic change will seem painfully slow to many.  But it is the only constitutionally proper way available, and that is the path we must embark upon.

But I hope and believe we will ultimately prevail.

COMMENT:  I give Olsen credit on two counts:  (1)  First, he shows courage by writing such a column for the Washington Post and his editors get credit for publishing it; and (2) he poses just the right question amidst all the controversy – what is human life and when does it begin?

FROM PSYCHOLOGIST REBECCA SUGAR IN THE WASHINGTON POST UNDER THE HEADLINE, “MY MIND ISN’T MADE UP ABOUT ABORTION; I’LL LISTEN TO REASON FROM BOTH SIDES, BUT IT’S BEEN IN SHORT SUPPLY FOR DECADES.”

I neither cried nor jumped for joy when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.  Abortion has never been among my top-priority issues when voting, and I don’t spend much time thinking about it.  That may be hard to believe, but it’s true for a lot of people.

Now that the justices have said it isn’t their job but ours to decide how to regulate abortion, both pro-choice and pro-life activists are going to have to do better if they want the sympathy and votes of Americans like me.  We can be persuaded with thoughtful, considered debate.  We haven’t gotten much of it.

I bumped into a pro-choice activist at Union Station in Washington shortly after the leak of the draft decision in May.  She held a big sign that read , “I LOVE MY ABORTION.”  I winced reflexively, as I do whenever celebrities proudly boast of their “empowering” terminations.  The inability to draw a line between the defense of a right to abortion and the celebration of its practice poisons the pro-choice message.

A word of advice to those who support abortion rights:  Don’t hire angry-looking women with fake blood on their pants to parade around screaming at the cameras.  And don’t let politicians continue to spin what just happened into a national abortion ban, or a war on women, which it isn’t.  These tactics repel people, rather than draw them in.  We will never hear a word you say.

Then there are pro-life activists like Lila Rose of Live Action, who said in an interview Friday:  “The science is conclusive.  Human life doesn’t begin at birth.  It begins before birth, at the moment of fertilization.”

A word of advice to those who are pro-life and want me to be as well:  Don’t confuse moral and ethical arguments with scientific ones.  We know the difference.  You are in possession of both to some degree, and I would like to hear them.  Both matter, and they inform each other, but they aren’t the same thing.  When you pretend they are, your case weakens.

As someone with no firm conviction on the question of abortion, I see the Supreme Court’s decision as an opportunity.  We now have the chance to unmask the activists on both sides who have been screaming at us from behind the safety of the existence of Roe for decades.  Neither side ever had to make its case, only put on a show.

Those days are over.  We finally get to see if either side has an intellectually honest, thoughtful argument to offer, or if they are what so many other activist groups are:  Home base for those addicted to moral outrage, and for the greedy opportunists making money and political careers off them.

COMMENT:  Note the last paragraph of this commentary.  Enough said.

But there is another important implication of what’s happened.  What will we do as Americans to help the children and mothers (fathers, too) who no longer will have the access to Roe V. Wade?

One of the periodicals I receive on-line answered this question very well:

“So, what’s next for the pro-life states that soon will have banned abortion?  Are they suddenly going to give those new babies and their families the educational, medical, or financial support necessary to lead a healthy life? Arguably, statistics show that pro-life states appear much more interested in restricting a woman’s reproductive choices than in protecting children’s well-being.”

All of us have an obligation to respond with grace and humility to the current status.

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.

Events of the last few days have proved what many of us already knew:  Donald Trump almost achieved what he wanted, the death of American democracy.

More than anything, he wanted to be “THE LEADER,” the one to whom everyone turned as he displayed his own brand of insatiable narcissism.  If voters wanted someone else – Joe Biden – then damn them…literally.

So, Trump said, we’ll just head to the Nation’s Capital, guns in hand, and overturn the result by any and all means.

After all, Trump cannot countenance being a loser.

Most columnists lately have been writing about this sad chapter in U.S. history.  Today, one of the Departments I run – the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering – is open again to provide joint space for excellent commentaries, words better than I can write.

FROM ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, DAVID GRAHAM WROTE UNDER THIS HEADLINE, “THE MOST DAMNING JANUARY 6 TESTIMONY YET”

Cassidy Hutchinson’s account of Donald Trump’s behavior destroys any defense the president once had.

Donald Trump knew the protesters marching on the Capitol on January 6 were armed.  He knew they could do harm to someone.  He wanted to go to the Capitol with them as they marched that afternoon.  And he did nothing to stop them as they attacked.

These are the stark and rattling takeaways from today’s hearing of the House committee investigating former President Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, which centered on first-person accounts from the former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who was deep inside the president’s inner sanctum in the days leading up to the insurrection and that day.

This is the most damning moment to emerge from the hearings so far… Trump’s supporters’ defense of the president’s behavior that day up until now has been that he simply wanted a peaceful demonstration, and didn’t anticipate the violence that broke out when his supporters stormed the Capitol.

Her account establishes that Trump knew the crowd was armed and understood they were there to threaten or harm someone—specifically, his opponents—and that he wanted them to march on the Capitol with those weapons.  Once the rioters had begun to approach the Capitol, Trump refused to lift a finger to stop the violence.  When the top White House lawyer told Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that the president had to act, Meadows replied, according to Hutchinson, “He doesn’t want to do anything.”  

Later, when rioters chanted that Pence should be hanged, Hutchinson recalled, Meadows told the same lawyer, “He thinks Mike deserves it.  He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong.”

COMMENT:  Even hang Mike Pence?  Yes, from Trump.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

Demagogues gonna demagogue.  We know.  But if the Dobbs decision were so palpably wrong, you’d think between them, these great legal minds, would be able to come up with at least one argument against it that amounted to something other than an exercise in emotional blackmail.

The left’s rhetorical fury is itself an unacknowledged nod in the direction of the court’s own reasoning:  That laws on abortion, as morally tortuous a subject as any in modern life, should be decided, not by judges making up the bioethics of trimesters, viability and personhood as they go along, but by the people.  Progressives should now know what conservatives have known for a long time:  That the burden is on them to convince voters to support ethically sound solutions.

The political debate that will now properly unfold need not be as bitter and divisive as some seem intent on making it. For all the hardened verities subscribed to on both sides of the argument, there is a large middle ground on abortion in the U.S.

Polls consistently show that a solid majority of Americans favor legal abortion, but not to an unlimited degree. A recent Gallup poll indicated that while 35 per cent favor an unlimited right to abortion and 13 per cent would ban it completely, half of the electorate wants access to abortion with restrictions.

COMMENT:  Too much to ask, given the fraught politics, but I wish, with the author above, that abortion advocates would come up with at least one argument on the merits or demerits of the specific court decision, rather that just more emotional appeals.

FROM ATLANTIC MAGAZINE WRITER PETER WEHNER UNDER THIS HEADLINE:  “A WITHERING INDICTMENT OF THE ENTIRE GOP”

Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was damning. If anyone was surprised, they shouldn’t have been.

The portrait painted yesterday at the January 6 hearing by Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, wasn’t simply of a criminal president, but of a seditious madman.

Even Republican members of Congress who have long supported Donald Trump told reporters, anonymously, that Hutchinson’s testimony was “worse than they imagined.”  They were “stunned” and “left speechless.”

If they were, they shouldn’t have been.

According to Hutchinson, the president of the United States knew that his supporters attending the January 6 rally near the White House were armed—and he still wanted security removed from the area and the crowd to march to the Capitol.  

“I overheard the president say something to the effect of ‘I don’t f-ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f-ing mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here,’ Hutchinson said.  Not long after that, Trump told the crowd that stormed the Capitol, ‘If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.’

Hutchinson also said that Trump shattered a porcelain plate after learning that then–Attorney General Bill Barr said he’d found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election; on other occasions, Trump flipped tablecloths “to let all the contents at the table go onto the floor and likely break or go everywhere.”  And at the end of the hearing, Representative Liz Cheney raised the prospect of witness tampering, quoting from witnesses who had been the targets of Mafia-style intimidation tactics.

However this plays out, this needs to be said:  For the past half-dozen years, the Republican Party and the American right—with a very few honorable exceptions— stood with Trump, defended him, and attacked his critics.  Some went silent in the face of his indecency and lawlessness; many others gleefully promulgated his lies and conspiracy theories. Together they attempted to annihilate truth on his behalf, in his name, for their party, to seize and to hold power.

No matter; the die is cast when it comes to the Trump presidency and those who made it possible.  The events of January 6 were, in their own twisted way, a fitting denouement for the Trump presidency.  It was so obvious, for so long, that this wouldn’t end well.  Trump was the primary architect of the attack on the citadel of American democracy. But he had a lot of help along the way.

COMMENT:  No one should be surprised about Trump’s conduct. He displayed atrocious behavior as president and he should never be allowed to run again.  Or, he should be in jail for sedition.

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.

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

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of “Just Saying,” and the Department of Words Matter, the latter which just created a few days ago.

Why do I run the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering?

Well, the basic reason is that those I quote often have a better way of making points about politics, golf, and other stuff than I do.  Usually; not always.  Because I can be prescient, too.

For example, when I quote Donald Trump, I know I am smarter than he is.  And, of course, I am not a narcissist as he is.

So, with this department now open, here are more good quotes worth remembering, though I add this disclaimer.

These days, given how abortion is roiling the country, I could include a host of commentary on that subject.  For me, not worth it.  Part of me is glad that abortion, given the Supreme Court’s decision, is a legislative issue.  That is where it belongs, at least mostly.

And, further, a health care issue such as this also belongs in the province of the relationship between a woman and her physician.  Of course, family would be involved, as well.  I’ll leave it there, again mostly.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “Tucked away in the gun law President Biden just signed is a provision increasing funding for preventive outpatient treatment for mental illness. This is an important step toward solving America’s mental-health crisis but only part of what’s needed.  Happily, help may be on the way if Republicans take back Congress in November.

“From homelessness to crime to rising suicide rates, a variety of problems in America today correlate with mental illnesses.  But Democrats, journalists and social activists often focus on other potential causes such as racism, economic inequality, or police misbehavior.  Ask a Democrat about solving homelessness and the standard response is a call for more housing.  But housing alone does little to help people who are in psychological distress.  It sometimes makes matters worse if people are more isolated.

“More outpatient counseling and medication is a much better solution than many that these politicians prescribe.  But for severe mental illness—untreated and acute psychosis—it may not be enough.  Some people need longer-term residential care with trained physicians.”

COMMENT:  This strikes me a good point. Homelessness often is a mental health issue, not something else.  It’s time for politicians of goodwill and solid intent – yes, there are some left – to work on homelessness based on facts and figures, not off-the-cuff perceptions.

THE OREGONIAN NEWSPAPER AS THE LIV GOLF EXHIBITION COMES TO PUMPKIN RIDGE GOLF COURSE:  “LIV Golf has tried to overcome this distasteful reputation with a staggering financial commitment, reportedly pledging to spend $2 billion on the league over the next four years.

“Along the way, it has threatened the foundation and future of professional golf by luring prominent names from the popular PGA Tour. But most in the sport — and beyond — have condemned LIV Golf and its backers, and sports organizers in the U.S have resoundingly distanced themselves from the series.

“This is not an event that we feel aligns with the values of our sports community,” said Jim Etzel, CEO of SportOregon, a non-profit designed to drive local economic growth through sports.”

COMMENT:  My views on LIV have been crystal clear for weeks.  I am unalterably opposed to “sportswashing” as a way to remove a stained reputation, which is what the Saudi’s are doing.

MORE FROM THE OREGONIAN NEWSPAPER:  “’If you love golf and you don’t mind who’s paying the bills, it should be a great event,’ Jerry Willey, a Washington County commissioner and Pumpkin Ridge member, said. “Opinions are mixed.  Some people are really opposed to this.  Others say that it’s a great opportunity for a different perspective on golf and making money.”

COMMENT:  So, this is another side of the story of LIV golf at Pumpkin Ridge.  Some members of the club don’t like it and have left.  Others, like, Willey are fine with it.  And the “it” appears to include expenditures by LIV golf to upgrade Pumpkin Ridge at the behest of the still-relatively new owners, Escalente Corporation.  Plus, some reports say that more new members have joined Pumpkin than have left.

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.

Dan Balz writes for the Washington Post and always comes with trenchant ways to view the current political tapestry in this country.

He did so again yesterday in another great piece.

First, about Balz.

He serves as chief correspondent covering national politics, the presidency and Congress for the Post.  He joined the newspaper in 1978 and has been involved in political coverage as a reporter or editor throughout his career.

Before coming to The Post, he worked at National Journal magazine as a reporter and an editor and at the Philadelphia Inquirer.

It is his work these days that often captures my attention, as it did yesterday.  Balz listed reasons why he thought it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Donald Trump and his ilk to defend their actions in and around the January 6, 2021 insurrection in the Nation’s Capital. 

Here is his list:

• Could they defend Trump’s repeated attempts to use the Justice Department to interfere in the election process, after having been told repeatedly, beginning with then Attorney General William P. Barr, that DOJ had found no evidence of fraud?
• Could they defend the president telling then acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue in a telephone call, “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen”?
• Could they defend the president for asking why the government was not seizing voting machines that his campaign lawyers had targeted with a spurious conspiracy theory involving Venezuela and its onetime leader Hugo Chávez?
• Could they defend his plan to replace then-acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen with an assistant attorney general named Jeffrey Clark, who other DOJ officials said was not competent to run the department and yet who was willingly compliant to do the bidding of the president to prevent the Congress from ratifying Joe Biden’s victory?
• Could they defend Clark’s drafting of a letter to be sent to several swing states saying that the department had “significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election” when in fact there was no evidence to back that up?
• Could they defend the discussion of appointing lawyer Sidney Powell — who with Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was promoting various conspiracy theories for which there was no evidence — as a special counsel to conduct an investigation for which there was no other purpose than to delay and disrupt?
• Could they defend the fact that a lawyer named Kenneth Klukowski, who had joined the Justice Department after the election and was working with Clark, was also working with Trump’s outside attorney John Eastman, an architect of the so-called fake electors strategy?
• Could they defend Trump’s repeated attempts to bully, badger and otherwise try to force state or local officials to overturn the results of recounted and certified elections in their jurisdictions?
• Could they defend him asking Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes” and thus deny Biden by a single vote his legitimate victory in that state?
• Could they defend efforts to persuade Russell Bowers, the Republican speaker of the Arizona House, to organize a formal inquiry into the election without providing evidence of fraud?
• Could they defend what Giuliani said to Bowers, according to the speaker’s testimony, which was, “We’ve got lots of theories. We just don’t have the evidence”?

Of course, the answer to all of the questions is no.  Emphatically.  There is no defense for what Trump and his acolytes did. 

They deserve specific and solid punishment.

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 upstart golf organization, LIV golf, which is based in Saudi Arabia and financed by that country’s government, took a new step this week.

It bought a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal to tout its aims to build golf.

Now, anyone who knows me, knows I am skeptic of the Saudi attempt to use golf “to sportswash” its terrible human rights reputation.

Though I wasn’t alive then, the Saudi action reminds me of what I have heard about Adolph Hitler’s attempt to shift attention from his effort to kill an entire race of people – the Jews – by holding an Olympics in Germany.

It didn’t work for Hitler.  I hope it doesn’t work for the Saudis.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, here is a straight-forward summary of what the full-page ad said:

• “Golf may be steeped in centuries-old tradition.

• “We are not here to leave that behind.  But what if it were time for golf to evolve, to energize the game?

• “To create new opportunities and build new traditions on top of the old.

• “With new competitions, shotgun starts, smaller fields, and unrelenting action.  With teams to roof for.  For colors to wear.  Rivalries to relish in.

• “A game not to be confined to one continent.  But to be played in all corners of the globe.

• “We believe golf is a force for good.  That is why we want to supercharge the game we love.

• “To grow the game.  For those of us who already live for golf and some of us who are just getting started.

• “This is LIV golf.”

I could quarrel with those statements, but in a pluralistic society – ours, not the Saudis — you can say what you want to say without fear of punishment.  Perhaps disagreement; not punishment.

A couple days ago, the PGA Tour, under the threat of the LIV Golf enterprise, with its $600 billion (yes, billion!) war chest, took several actions to change the way it operates.

Here, based on reporting from Golfweek’s on-line magazine, is a summary of the changes.

“CROMWELL, Conn. — The PGA Tour is planning some radical changes in the face of an effort by the Saudi-funded LIV Golf series to poach its top players.  The moves include a significant reduction in the number of members who are fully exempt each season and the addition of a lucrative three-stop series of international events for top performers.  And all of that means more changes to the oft-tweaked FedEx Cup.

“Under the current system governing the FedEx Cup, the top 125 finishers in the season-long points race qualified for the first playoff event, with the top 70 in the standings progressing to the second event and, finally, the top 30 making the elite Tour Championship, where the winner receives $18 million from a $75 million bonus pool.

“Four sources have confirmed to Golfweek the details of some imminent major changes.  Starting at the end of the 2022-2023 season, only the top 70 players in FedEx Cup points will qualify for the first playoff tournament, the FedEx St. Jude Championship.  The top 50 in the standings will move onward to the BMW Championship one week later, with the traditional top 30 players progressing on to the Tour Championship at East Lake.

“In addition, the 50 players who qualify for the BMW Championship will also earn berths in a lucrative three-event series to be held overseas in the fall of 2023.  Those events are expected to be staged in Asia, Europe and the Middle East in consecutive weeks with purses of at least $20 million each.

“In addition to the three new fall events, five existing PGA Tour events will be re-categorized with boosted purses.  Those are the three invitationals — the Genesis Invitational, the Arnold Palmer Invitational, and the Memorial Tournament — along with the WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play, and the Sentry Tournament of Champions, which will again become the season-opening event.

“Only the 70 players who earn a berth in the playoffs will secure their playing privileges for the following season, which will begin in January 2024, when the PGA Tour moves away from the current wrap-around season and returns to one based on the calendar year. The rest jockey in the fall series events.

“Under the new system, players who finish outside the top 70 and fail to qualify for the playoffs will compete in a series of domestic Tour events during the Fall that will determine their status and priority for the following season.  

“The intent of the changes is to bestow greater reward on top performers on the PGA Tour, many of whom have been approached by LIV Golf with guaranteed offers, and reduce the number of members who can retain playing status despite unimpressive results.”

So, there you have it.  Both sides in this debate over the future of professional golf – the contender, LIV Golf, and the current standard-bearer, the PGA Tour – have upped the ante.

No one knows where the competition will end.  Of course, I don’t.  But what I do hope is that golf emerges from this kerfuffle stronger than ever.  For me, no problem in the sense that I am rank amateur golfer.  But I do enjoy watching golf competitions by professionals.

And this footnote, another of my biases:  That’s why, for me, LIV Golf is not competitive golf.  It is a series of exhibitions where golfers will get paid no matter how they play.  Could be fun to watch for some, but not for me.

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 decided to open another department, the Department of Words Matter.

Doing so will allow me to continue writing about one of my favorite subjects, words.  Until now, I had just done so willy-nilly, without a department to house all my well-written, well-designed prose. 

With this new opening, I will be able to group all “words matter” commentary in one place.  And, remember, I run all my departments with a free-hand to manage as I see fit.

The other departments are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, and the Department of “Just Saying.”

So, today, I open the new department with this – a few quotes from a column written by Benjamin Dreyer, Random House’s executive managing editor and copy chief and the author of “Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style.”

His column appeared under this headline:  Liz Cheney, Donald Trump and the January 6 scandal’s “Potent Quotables.”  Here is how he started his piece:

Error! Filename not specified.The House select committee’s January 6 hearings are generating quotes and sound bites almost faster than the internet can memeify them. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) was first out of the gate, in the initial televised hearing, with “Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

“I do not join the chorus asserting that Representative Liz Cheney’s admirably steadfast presence on the committee — and disinclination to join her fellow Republicans, insofar as the attack on the Capitol is concerned, in sticking their fingers in their ears while chanting la-la-la-la-la-la — warrant her immediate ascension to the White House as our next president.  But she undeniably has a way with an ultimatum.

“Grammar and punctuation aficionados who can recall the difference between a restrictive clause and a non-restrictive clause will, moreover, take particular note of the absence of a comma in Cheney’s comment as it was presented in the committee’s own transcript:  Not the blanketly non-restrictive “my Republican colleagues, who are defending the indefensible,” which would imply that all her fellow party members are pro-insurrection (or at least pro impromptu Capitol visits that include smearing excrement on walls and baying ‘Hang Mike Pence’), but simply the restrictive ‘my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible.’

“That points a merciful finger at only a select few.  Well, a lot more than a few, but not all.”

Political scandals, Dreyer adds, have a way of generating what the “Jeopardy” people might well dub “Potent Quotables.”

For example, media coverage last week of the Watergate break-in’s 50th anniversary dusted off President Richard M. Nixon’s notorious, “Well, I’m not a crook.”

“Republicans and Democrats practice bi-partisanship when it comes to scandal quotables:  It was President Bill Clinton, in the depths of a sex scandal, who contributed the monumentally evasive, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

Dreyer goes on to note other lines that he says “will become permanently evocative” of the January 6 scandal, read “insurrection,” my word – and more about that later.

• There was professional son-in-law Jared Kushner’s comment concerning White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s threat to resign — “I kind of took it up to just be whining, to be honest with you.”
• And testimony from J. Michael Luttig, an adviser to Vice President Mike Pence and former federal judge, that “Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.”
• Or consider Trump adviser/schemer John Eastman’s plaintive email request of presidential what-not Rudy Giuliani:  “I’ve decided / that I should be / on the pardon list / if that is still / in the works.”
• Then there were Trump’s own immortal words on the evening of January 5, 2021, addressed to his vice president:  “I don’t want to be your friend anymore if you don’t do this.”
• But let’s get back to one key word and the key question that dominates the January 6 hearings:  The meaning of the word “insurrection.” Noted constitutional scholar and lexicographer Tucker Carlson – just to confirm, that’s tongue-in-cheek — informed us the night after the first committee hearing (not that Fox News aired it) that “an insurrection is when people with guns try to overthrow the government. Not a single person in the crowd on January 6 was found to be carrying a firearm.  Not one.”
• I add this from Rudolph Giulani as he represented Trump:  “We’ve got lots of theories.  We just don’t have the evidence.”
• Or, this from former attorney general, William P. Barr.  He had one word for the swirling fact-less theories of fraud embraced by Trump in the election’s aftermath:  “Bullshit.”

So, back to my word and Carlson’s word:  Insurrection.  Carlson was way off, which is not surprising, given his penchant for enunciating idiocy, not to mention being one himself.

What insurrection means is this:  “An act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.”

That’s what happened on January 6 and, if Donald Trump and his acolytes have their way again, it will happen again.

So, as the director of the Department of Words Matter, I decree this:  Insurrection is absolutely the right word in the case of what happened at Trump’s bidding on January 6.

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.

Guess what?

The Wall Street Journal, busy with stories on prospects for inflation, general economic ups and downs, and the war in Ukraine, found time a few days ago to publish a major section on golf.

Yes, golf.

Why?

Well, the coverage presented a diversion from a variety of tough events, which normally occupy our time and attention.  For me, I am golf lover, so I appreciated the coverage.

Here are a couple excerpts, with my comments in each case.

• Timothy Carroll, a Wall Street Journal reporter, led the coverage with a great piece under this headline:  Why I Love Golf—and What It Has Meant for My Life; Confessions of a golf fanatic after five decades of playing.

Good stuff.

Here is how Carroll started his lead story:

“I remember when I started playing golf.  And why.

“Tennis was the family sport.  There were eight of us kids—my two older brothers, five younger sisters, and me.  The older of the brothers played No. 1 on his college tennis team.  Our mother, now 92, would play into her 80s, still diving for balls.  We bought cans of tennis balls by the dozens. Everyone was expected to play.

“As a middle child, I had to find a way to stand out from my tennis-obsessed mother and siblings.  I also needed a game I could play by myself, since my older brothers never wanted to play anything I suggested.  So, just as my age odometer ticked over into double digits, I sought my own path.  I took up golf.

“I’m now 63 years old, and for the past five-plus decades, golf has been more than just an entertaining diversion, although it has been that, too.  It is why I started dating my wife of 32 years, and where I’ve gone to seek refuge from the stresses of daily life.  It has been a way to bond with my children and laugh with my friends.  It has satisfied my craving to be challenged, and comforted me during treatments for cancer.  It has been my big talk and my small talk.”

COMMENT:  I could make similar, though not identical, comments.  Golf has been, for me, an escape from the rigors of everyday life.  And, my wife, has allowed, even encouraged, this kind of respite.

She has spent more time in and around golf courses than she would care to remember – with me; with our son who became an excellent golfer, sufficient to win a college golf scholarship; and with our daughter who also played in high school.

Now, with three grandchildren, we play golf with them, too.

Golf also has prompted the formation of friendships that, yes, involve golf, but also go way beyond the sport.  Friends for life.

• Another story in the Wall Street Journal series appeared under this headline:  Most of What Makes a Golf Course Work Is Below the Surface:  The pristine surface that people see is a small part of the story.  None of it would be playable if it wasn’t for what’s going on underneath.

In this story, the writer, Bradley S. Klein, started his piece this way:

“Even for golfers who have played their own home course a thousand times, a familiarity with tee shots, approaches, putting and avoiding hazards is only a small piece of what they really confront.  Most of what it takes to make a golf course work is out of sight, buried below that pristine surface.

“A golf course these days comprises a dense network of infrastructure that makes it possible for the surface palette of material to function well—or not.  What shows up to the golfer as a playing field of tightly mowed turf-grass greens, fairways and tees surrounded by taller grass and sand-filled bunkers is just the surface manifestation of the underlying soil, root-zone mix, water chemistry, fertility, irrigation pipe, wire, and drainage channels.

“That smooth, seemingly flawless carpet of turf grass, cut to one-eighth or even one-tenth of an inch of its life for greens and under a half-inch for fairways?  If the soil, root structure, drainage, fertility, and chemistry weren’t perfectly tuned down below, the surface will be bumpy, the golf experience frustrating—and the course superintendent will get an earful from players.

COMMENT:  No doubt, two of my favorite golf course superintendents – Bill Swancutt, who held that position for 38 years at the course where I play, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon; and Steve Beyer, who now holds the position after Swancutt retired, would convey the same.

Eighty-five percent of golf course costs are the stuff underground that nobody sees, yet without all that infrastructure, golf would not work.  What’s beneath matters…deeply.

So, the Wall Street Journal series is worth reading.  Remember, I love golf so, yes, I am biased.  But, still a good read.

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.

All my friends know I am a multi-sport athlete.

At least I am in my mind.

My favorite sport is golf – and, yes, it is a sport!

But I also:

• Play bocce ball.  True confessions — my wife, Nancy, is better than I am.

• Used to play basketball, but, then I got too old, though my jump shot was a lot like Steph Curry’s.

But my new sport?

It’s “birding.”  And, yes, that is a sport, too, according to my on-line sources, which say just that – it is a sport.

All this to report that I went on a bird walk yesterday morning with a group of folks, a few from Illahe Golf and Country Club where I play golf, and a few connected with Audubon International, which recently recognized Illahe as an excellent facility for its attention to habit for birds and other species.

We traveled around a few of the holes at Illahe while the course was closed to golf.

By the way, I learned yesterday that Audubon International is one of more than 500 Audubon Societies in the United States, but is not affiliated with the National Audubon Society.  Who knows why?

Otherwise, other highlights from my venture into “birding” yesterday:

• Those on the walk, especially those connected with International Audubon, also were very “connected” to birds of all kinds, both those they saw and those they heard.  In either way, they named every one.

• There were exclamations everywhere as walkers saw birds and wanted everyone in the group to do the same.

• When we saw what I was told was a sap sucker, one woman said, “sap sucker down!”  That meant, simply, that the bird had gone from one branch to a lower one and woman wanted everyone to follow the route.

• One walker in the group was assigned to note every bird sighting on his phone – and guess what he does with every entry on his phone?  He sends it along to Cornell University, which, of all things, maintains a site to list ALL bird sightings.  Must be interesting, not to mention time consuming, to read!

My friends at Google report this:  The Cornell Lab of Ornithology is a world leader in the study, appreciation, and conservation of birds.  And that’s why it maintains the site for reports of bird sightings.  Yes, ALL bird sightings.

• Near the 14^th tee at Illahe, I was ready to see an eagle’s next because I had been told there was one there by leaders of our walk, Paul and Roxey Evans, both golfers and birders.  But, when we arrived at the spot, they were able to tell me where to look for the nest – otherwise I would not have found it — but it turned out to be a hawk’s next, not an eagle’s next.  Didn’t matter much to me.

• One thing we didn’t see:  An osprey who hung out last year on a snag over the Columbia River near the 11^th green at Illahe.  He was not there as has been the case all spring so far.  When he was there last year, it appeared he was looking for fish in the river because that’s all osprey’s eat (see how much I know about “birding”).  Unfortunately, I never was around to see him when he dove into the river for a meal.

So, based on the foregoing, you can call me “an apprentice birder.”  But, even as a learner, that qualifies birding as a new sport for me, a multi-sport athlete.

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.

Despite what some of my friends say, I am not naïve.

I know that nothing I say will change the uncertain direction of pro golf.  I know that nothing I say will offset huge donations of money from the Saudis, despite the source of it — blood money.  I know that nothing I say will be effective in prodding the two major golf tours – the PGA Tour and the DP Tour overseas – to make long-overdue changes in the way they do business.

Still, I presume to comment.

Why? 

Well, the major reason is that, as a dedicated golfer, I hope for a solid future for the game I love despite the current tension.  Another reason is that it feels good to get certain perceptions off my chest.  Those are enough reasons.

So, here are a collection of comments from golf writers, with my comments:

FROM RICK REILLY, FORMER SPORTS ILLUSTRATED WRITER AND ESPN CONTRIBUTOR, AS WELL AS AUTHOR OF “SO HELP ME GOLF:  WHY WE LOVE THE GAME:”  “I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but pro golf is a triple bogey right now. It’s teetering on the edge of a disaster.

“LIV Golf, Saudi Arabia’s effort to sportswash its murderous human rights record by buying off pro golfers with stupid money (Phil Mickelson: Reportedly $200 million), is working.

“These LIV golfers know the Saudis butchered Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi.  They know the Saudis jail dissenters, criminalize homosexuality, and oppress women.  And in response, the players have sent a message loud and clear:  We don’t care. We want bigger jets.

“It’s hilarious to hear Mickelson and the others try to justify working for blood money.  Well, sure, he knows the Saudis are ‘scary mother——s,’ as he told his biographer, Alan Shipnuck.  But he also says:  ‘I’ve also seen the good that the game of golf has done through history.’

“Right.  Nothing relieves the downtrodden people of a despotic nation like a well-struck 6-iron.  Remember when Kim Jong Il shot 34 one day and the North Korean people suddenly weren’t starving?  Yeah, neither do I.”

COMMENT:  Critics could say Reilly engages in overstatement, including the words he chooses to use, but he is right.  Various pro golfers have signed up with the Saudis and don’t care about the source of the money.  Plus, they are not playing real competitive golf now; they are playing for guaranteed money, no matter how they play.

So, forgive me – I have no intention of watching any of the LIV “exhibitions.”

FROM PAUL KRUGMAN IN THE NEW YORK TIMES:  “Even if you don’t play or follow golf — which I don’t — you’re probably aware of the controversy now engulfing the game.

“A number of the world’s top-ranked pro players, notably Phil Mickelson, made extremely lucrative deals to play in a new tour, the LIV Golf International Series, sponsored by Saudi Arabia.  The PGA Tour, which has traditionally dominated the sport, responded by suspending 17 of these players.

“The Saudis are obviously engaged in reputation-laundering — greenswashing? — in an attempt to make people forget about the atrocities their regime has perpetrated.  It’s less clear what motivated the PGA.  Did it consider the LIV series flawed, not a proper golf tour?  Was it attempting to squash competition?  Or was the problem with the LIV series’ sponsors?

COMMENT:  Good questions, including for the PGA Tour which has not come across as lily-white in the current kerfuffle.  See below for a contention that it needs to consider changing.

FROM EAMON LYNCH IN GOLFWEEK:  “Not everything remains unclear in the escalating war between the PGA Tour and its Saudi-funded rival, LIV Golf.  

“We know, for example, that moral arguments are meaningless to the amoral, that calls for loyalty are futile if directed to the disloyal, that appeals to a greater good are worthless to the selfish, and that emotional pleas are ineffective to the indifferent, even from families of those killed on September 11th.

“We know too that professional golfers view the current landscape in purely commercial terms:  What’s the maximum they can be paid for the minimum amount of work?

“The baggage that comes with any benefactor — which in this case includes the bonesaw dismembering of a critic, mass executions, systematic mistreatment of women and gays, and war crimes in Yemen — are mere moveable obstructions for those who have signed with LIV Golf and those who will do so.”

COMMENT:  Lynch has it right.

AND MORE FROM LYNCH:  “The PGA Tour and DP World Tour still have not presented a vision of a shared future based on the much-ballyhooed ‘strategic alliance.’  The failure to articulate adequately the potential of that future to members hints at an over-reliance on lawyers who are fearful of collusion claims and antitrust litigation.

“The resulting void has been exploited by the Saudis and makes both tours appear to be playing defense for the same, stale system and offering nothing new to players or fans.  Given free rein, those lawyers will one day proudly boast of how no one overran their majestic, deserted castle.

“The PGA Tour, in particular, has long needed a radical overhaul.  Its corporate culture lacks entrepreneurial spirit, values familiarity over innovation, and had never faced a credible threat to its dominance, business model or player loyalty.  

“Which might explain why, when finally confronted with such a threat, its response has been ponderous, achingly slow, and poor in laying out the alternative to golf being owned by the Saudis.

“It cannot rely on public revulsion at Saudi sportswashing to assist them, because that clearly isn’t working.”

COMMENT:  Faced with the obvious LIV threat, Lynch is right again.  The PGA Tour has no choice but to do a better job of presenting the alternative to LIV – real, genuine competitive golf worthy of affection from the masses, including me.

Consider just this one example.  Last week, in the first LIV event, Charl Schwartzel took home the first prize – a handout of $4 million – and everybody who played got a lot of money, including the golfer who finished last and did not break 75 in any of the three rounds of the LIV exhibition.

The contrast:  Yesterday, the golf was riveting in the final round of The U.S. Open at The Country Club in Brookline, Massachusetts.  Englishman Matt Fitzpatrick prevailed over all the others, including by a stroke over Americans Will Zalatoris and Scottie Scheffler.

Great competitive golf.  Fun to watch.  I wish for more of the same.