MATT GAETZ:  JUST WHAT NO ONE NEEDS IN CONGRESS

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.

Have you ever thought about the characteristics of a person who should not serve in the U.S. Congress?

Not a thought-line for everyday Americans.

But, for me, a political junkie, I have thought about this question.

And for the answer I look no farther than Matt Gaetz, an egotistical, self-absorbed member of the U.S. House from Florida who doesn’t give a whit about solid, middle-ground public policy.  [By the way, egotist and self-absorbed are synonyms, but so what – together, they provide the proper emphasis.]

There is no way Gaetz should be in any kind of leadership position, either in government or in the private sector.

Still, he persists and is making a name for himself these days by leading the House toward a government shutdown.

The good news today is that no less than Karl Rove, a long-time and reasonable Republican strategist, whether you agree with him or not, now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, agrees with me.  Or, perhaps I agree with him.

Here is what he wrote in a recent column for the Journal:

“A stupid, needless government shutdown looms.  The culprits aren’t Democrats but hard-right House Republicans who say they won’t agree to a bi-partisan continuing resolution to fund the government when the fiscal year ends at mid-night Saturday.

“They mean it.  Twice last week, five Republicans voted with Democrats to stop the House from taking up a Republican-drafted Defense Department appropriations bill.  It was an unprecedented breach of party discipline.

“This ‘Chaos Caucus’s’ leader, Florida’s reckless Representative Matt Gaetz, is practically giddy at the prospect of a shutdown.  Though he voted for the Pentagon funding bill to protect his Armed Services Committee seat, he is heading the opposition to a bi-partisan continuing resolution.

“Failure to enact such a stopgap measure this week would mean a shutdown, which Gaetz predicts in six or eight days will produce ‘maximum momentum on paradigm-changing’ pressure on Democrats to make deep spending cuts.”

Rove, accurately, calls this “blather.”

He says smart Democrats know that, when federal offices are shuttered, services curtailed, and the military goes without pay, voters generally blame Republicans.

Gaetz doesn’t care – about House chaos, what Democrats think, or the country’s economic status.

He cares only about himself, which is what narcissists do.

Rove writes that “the Chaos Caucus is willing to risk the GOP’s narrow majority because they believe that most Americans ‘won’t even miss it if the government is shut down temporarily.’”

Military members who don’t get their paychecks for their service will notice.  So will those who depend on government for sustenance in daily life.

There must be a better way to impose federal spending discipline.  But it would take officials better than Gaetz to do that deed.

More from Rove:

“Gaetz and his band of egotistical performance artists either are certain they’re the exception to history or don’t care.  Gaetz and his fellow travelers forget that conservative progress in Congress requires team effort and that the perfect can’t be the enemy of the good — especially when Democrats control the Senate and White House.”

Perhaps Gaetz is spending more time defending himself from various charges of sexual charades more emblematic of idiots in frat houses than in the U.S. House.  Or, he is courting favor from those on the far right as he hones a likely bid to run for governor in Florida.

Either way, I hope he is out of Congress soon so it will be possible – perhaps not likely, but still possible – to get somebody better than a buffoon such as Gaetz.

POLITICAL TERMS WHICH HAVE LOST THEIR MEANING:  LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE

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.

Many people in this country think of Donald Trump as a “conservative” in terms of his rise to power with the label Republican in his name.

But, to me, Trump is not conservative in the traditional meaning of that term.  Nor is he a traditional Republican.  And, not a liberal.

Frankly, he is nothing but immersed in himself, changing every moment to fit his own description of himself as the top dog.

Tom Nichols, a writer for Atlantic Magazine, made this point for me in a current column.  Here is an excerpt.

“Slightly more than a year ago, I tried to think through what being a conservative means in the current era of American politics. I have not been a Republican for several years, but I still describe myself as a conservative:  I believe in public order as a prerequisite for politics; I respect tradition, and I am reluctant to acquiesce to change too precipitously; I think human nature is fixed rather than malleable; I am suspicious of centralized government power; I distrust mass movements.

“To contrast these with progressivism, I think most folks on the left, for example, would weigh social justice over abstract commitments to order, be more inclined to see traditions as obstacles to progress, and regard mass protests as generally positive forces.”

I agree with Nichols. 

Traditional political conservatives “believe in public order as a prerequisite for politics, respect tradition, are reluctant to acquiesce to change too precipitously, think human nature is fixed rather than malleable, are suspicious of centralized government power, and distrust mass movements.”

And liberals?

I have never been one in the traditional meaning of the term, except when, back in college, I voted for a classic liberal for president, George McGovern.

But the Atlantic writer Nichols captures a solid description of today’s liberal:  “I think most folks on the left, for example, would weigh social justice over abstract commitments to order, be more inclined to see traditions as obstacles to progress, and regard mass protests as generally positive forces.”

Note the last phrase – liberals think positively about mass protests.

I don’t.

For years, in and around the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon, where I worked as government manager and a lobbyist, I saw hundreds of folks engage in protests.  They apparently thought protesting was a means to get their way on various issues.

Participants might have gained media coverage, but not the final result they sought.  That required dealing with both sides – perhaps all sides – of an important public policy issue.

Here are elements of what being conservative means to me, though I also like the term “centrist” far more because the solution to most pressing issues lies somewhere in the middle:

  • Be skeptical of government as the all-the-time, any-time solution to any problem.  Read skepticism, NOY cynicism.
  • Because skepticism can breed cogent analysis of proposed government solutions.
  • Expect government programs to produce results, or, if they don’t, discard those programs.
  • Expect candidates running for office to talk about WHY they want to be elected and WHAT they would propose to do if they got there.
  • Expect candidates to talk about whether or not they would be open to compromise – call it “middle ground” – in selected situations, or whether compromise always would slam their principles.

Not a complete list, but, for me at least, a decent start on being a real conservative, not a pretend one.

Nichols adds:

“In any case, the immediate problem America faces is that it no longer has a center-right party that represents traditional conservatism, or even respects basic constitutional principles such as the rule of law. The pressing question for American democracy, then, is not so much the future of conservatism but the future of the Republican Party.

“The United States, like any other nation, needs political parties that can represent views on the left and the right.  The role of the state, the reach of the law, the allocation of social and economic resources — these are all inevitable areas of disagreement, and every functioning democracy needs parties that can contest these issues within the circumscribed limits of a democratic and rights-respecting constitution.

“Today’s Republican Party rarely exhibits such commitments to the rule of law, constitutionalism, or democracy itself.

“The current GOP is not so much conservative as it is reactionary:  Today’s right-wing voters are a loose movement of various groups, but especially of white men, obsessed with a supposedly better past in which they were not the aggrieved minority they see themselves as today. These reactionary voters are reflexively countercultural:  They reject almost everything in the current social and political order because everything around them is the product of the hated now that has displaced the sacred then.”

Enough.

**********

But a moment for me to applaud good news on the political front and bad news for Trump:

“A New York judge on Tuesday found that Donald Trump and his family business committed fraud by making false and misleading valuations on much of his real-estate empire and ordered the cancellation of legal certificates that have allowed the Trumps to do business in the state.”

Trump and family are guilty, so, voters who may want to choose him in the next presidential election, should ponder their choice.

MY QUESTIONS FOR TRUMP IN THE SECOND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

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.

With the second Republican presidential debate tomorrow night, I had an idea last night and I followed through on it this morning.

When you hear the idea, you may wonder why I thought of it – and here’s the deal, the idea came to me while I was preparing for my colonoscopy exam later today.

Appropriate.

The idea:  To illustrate what I would like to ask if I was a “moderator” for the debate, whatever a “moderator” really is these days, I came up with questions I would pose to Donald Trump.  If he chose to participate in the debate, which, of course, he won’t.

These:

  • Describe why you want to be president, especially given how you handled the job the last time around.
  • Describe the role you propose for women in your administration if you win this time around.
  • Follow-Up:  How does that jibe with verified reports of your intent and actions to treat women as nothing more than sexual objects?
  • Another Follow-Up:  Describe the abuse you heaped on Jean Carroll?
  • Describe the traits you value in a world leader.
  • What are your aspirations for U.S relations with China?
  • What are your aspirations for U.S. relations with North Korea?
  • What are your aspirations for U.S. relations with Ukraine?
  • What are your aspirations for U.S. relations with Russia?
  • Do you think immigrants in this country – some would call them refugees escaping from threats and oppression in certain counties – have played any kind of valuable role here?
  • Why does the evidence show that you enticed the mob on January 6 takeover the U.S. Capitol by force?
  • Why did you and your colleagues over-value assets in New York City to obtain more insurance coverage, then under-value those same assets to pay less taxes?
  • What is the total tax bill you have paid over the last 20-30 years?
  • The definition of politics has been called “the art of compromise.”  What is your view of that kind of compromise, which is trying to find middle ground among extremes?

Would Trump answer any of these questions?  No.

He would do what he usually does which is deflect and smear, if nothing else, then the questioner.

The phrase that comes to mind about Trump:  Shuck and jive.

That’s what he always does to shift the issue to his latest falsehood where, ever-the-narcissist, he is always at the center, no matter the truth.

BITS AND PIECES FROM A SPORTS WEEKEND

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 weekend for me dealt with a lot of sports, so…

SOLHEIM CUP STAYS IN EUROPE:  The cut stayed in Europe even though the event ended in a 14-14 tie.

Which prompted several TV commentators to contend there should be a way to break a tie.  Perhaps like is done at the Presidents Cup where many golf fans remember the epic playoff duel between Tiger Woods and Ernie Els, the one that ended in a tie because it got dark.

One idea that came up on TV:  Have the team captains participate in a playoff.  Good idea.  Would have been fun to see who prevailed – Suzanne Pedersen for the Euros or Stacy Lewis for the Americans!

TAYLOR SWIFT UPSTATES EVEN KANSAS CITY CHIEFS:  Here is what a column from ___ in the Wall Street Journal said:

“Taylor Swift is perhaps the only star on earth with the fame to overwhelm an NFL Sunday.  Her appearance happened at the perfect moment, as that other nexus of football and celebrity — Colorado and Coach Prime — is sliding down the charts after a 42-6 thrashing Saturday by the webbed feet of Oregon.”

AND ABOUT THE U OF O AND COLORADO:  As I watched football Sunday, Colorado coach Deion Sanders got a lot of air-time in various commercials.

None of them mentioned the thrashing Sanders’ team took from the Ducks. 

The Buffalos may recover and it would be good for college football if they did.

But, the Ducks?  I suspect they continue to get better, including a run for the Heisman by quarterback Bo Nix, the “bo-dacious” one whose mug is all over huge advertising photos in New York and elsewhere.

PLAYING GOLF IN A SANDBOX:  That’s what I was doing this weekend as the golf course where I play – Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon – continues to recover from what every course has to endure from to time…aerification.

That’s a big word, one hard to spell correctly.  It describes tearing up the course (call it thatching on steroids) to allow grass to grow better.

Regarding the sandbox, better for me to play there than not at all.

AND THE PACKERS:  The team loved by one of my best friends will be just fine after the departure of all-pro quarterback Aaron Rodgers.  In his place, the Packers are playing Jordan Love and he, with help from others, course, brought team back from a 17-point deficit in the fourth quarter to an 18-17 win.

Good for him – and for my Packer friend.

SOLID ADVICE FROM BOSSES, INCLUDING MINE

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.

An article in the Wall Street Journal the other day caught my attention.

It appeared under this headline:  “’The Best Advice a Boss Ever Gave Me:’  We asked five luminaries for the most indelible counsel that has stuck with them over the years — and you might need to hear it, too.”

Good stuff, but not just that.  The story by Journal editors reminded me of occasions in the past when a boss for whom I worked gave me solid advice…advice that stood me in great stead in succeeding years.

The advice — actually two pieces of advice:

  • One of the easiest things to do, my boss said, is to be cynical about legislative processes in Oregon.  Don’t be.
  • Another easy thing to do, he said at a different time, is to be careful to thank those who have helped you along the way.  Do it.

Both pieces of advice came from the director of Oregon Executive Department, Fred Miller, when I served with as one of his three deputies.  His first piece of advice was on target because one of my tasks was to direct the department’s relationship the Legislature.

I also kept the advice top of mind when I transitioned to a role as a private sector lobbyist.

Watching the Legislature up close and personal could have given way to cynicism.  But that would have not been helpful, so using the advice of my one-time boss, I tried to keep an even keel.

The second piece of advice came from Fred because he was good at thanking people for good work they had done with and for him.  Easy, in the crush of business, to forget that simple task.

So, to mimic his approach, I have tried, at least once every day, to thank someone for the good things they have done for me.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal article started:

“Truly good advice from your boss — the kind that turns a manager into a mentor — is rare enough that when it comes, it stays with you (sometimes as a post-it note permanently attached to your monitor). 

“As part of a special deep dive into ways to improve one’s work life, we turned to luminaries in the fields of design, fashion, food, technology and travel and asked them for the best counsel a supervisor ever gave them. The wisdom that stood out amid all the platitudes and buzzwords.

So, I add all the advice the Journal imparted:

José Andrés:  As a teenager, I worked for the legendary Ferran Adrià at El Bulli — one of the most creative people ever.  One day I was frying artichokes and he had an idea to add gelatin to the hot oil.  We thought he was crazy!  And he was:  It exploded everywhere.  But from that idea, he created some incredible dishes.  He wasn’t afraid to fail, which inspired me to always take risks.”

Bear Grylls:  “When I first joined the military, a sergeant major told me:  ‘If you’re less than five minutes early, you’re late.’  I’ve never forgotten those words and have always tried to make it a mantra when filming or working. I really notice it too in others, on expeditions for example.  It speaks to diligence and dedication.”

[I add that another piece of advice – no, it was action — from my mentor listed above, Fred Miller was that he always started meetings on time.  If someone was late, it was his or her problem.]

Joa Studholme:  “When I was developing the color-consultancy service for Farrow & Ball in 1994, Tom Helme, who owned Farrow & Ball, asked what I was trying to do.  And he said, ‘Right. What you need to do is pluck the color that the customer wants out of their heads and onto the wall.’  It means you have to put the customer first, and that’s sort of become the backbone of how I work.  It’s not about me.”

Victor Glemaud:  “The best advice came from Patrick Robinson, the creative director of his namesake brand and my first-ever boss.  ‘When you know yourself, everyone will see you,’ he told me around 2000.  

Adam Savage:  “Back when I was a young model maker, my boss and I were bidding on a prop build for an indecisive client.  After six rounds of communication, we still didn’t know enough to make our bid.  My boss told me to tell the client we got another gig and couldn’t take the job. ‘When the client is difficult before you’ve even agreed to work with them, they’re going to be a nightmare,’ he said.  I’ve found that holds true.” [And this closing note:  I had the same experience in my lobbying business.  When a potential client was tough to work with during an interview process, go the other way.  The best example was when a potential client said he wanted us “to open our rolodex” to help him succeed.  Stupid request.  We always did more than that.  So we headed out the door without

A FEW OF THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD GOLF RULES

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.

Are there any more complicated rules in sport than those that apply to golf?

The answer is “no.”

One justification is that the rules apply to a host of outside venues where the game is played, not just to an arena or a stadium.

Still, those who write golf rules ought to strive for more for clarity and precision of language.  I say this after having gone through several seminars on the rules of golf.

In addition to better writing, I offer another important change:  Focus on the 20 golf rules that a rules official – or a player, for that matter – is most likely to face on the course. 

Instead, the most likely rules are buried in an avalanche of information on ALL golf rules, thus making going through a rules class an endurance test.  The test you take after a seminar is even more complicated, with many questions designed to be confusing rather than designed to gauge your basic knowledge.

In this context, a recent edition of Golf Digest focused on 10 of the most misunderstood rules of golf.  Here is a quick summary, first with an introductory paragraph:

“Much was made in 2019 of the USGA and R&A introducing a ‘modernized’ version of the Rules of Golf.  And kicking off 2023, they did more of the same with some additional rules updates.  It was an acknowledgement from golf’s governing bodies that earlier editions of the Rules often required more than merely common sense for those who were striving to be faithful followers. Try an upper-level college degree in linguistics.”

• • •

Your ball doesn’t have to be touching an immovable obstruction to get relief
(Rule 16.1)

Where and how to take proper relief anywhere on the course can be confusing, but one area in particular rule that trips up causal players is immovable obstructions.  We’re talking about sprinkler heads, drains, cart paths or any other man-made object that cannot be moved without “unreasonable effort” or causing damage to the course.

Part of the reason for this is that golfers have a misperception that a ball must be touching the obstruction to receive relief.  In fact, you can take relief if the obstruction merely interferes with the area of your swing or your stance.

One more thing:  You can take relief from immovable obstructions anywhere on the course except if your ball is in a penalty area or when your ball is in a lie that is clearly unreasonable to be played (such as if it’s nestled in a bush).

• • •

You can touch the sand in a bunker … sometimes
(Rule 12.2)

When the USGA and R&A approved the 2019 modernized rules, they made several fundamental changes that helped everyday golfers.  Arguably the biggest was regarding bunkers, where the rules were relaxed so players weren’t wasting time nervously tiptoeing in the sand trying to avoid anything that might constitute a penalty.  Golfers can now touch the sand in a variety of instances without worry, so long as they’re not purposely attempting to test the sand while they’re doing it.

Among the things now permitted:

  • Placing a club or other equipment in the sand (if you’re between clubs and you drop one you’re not using, it’s fine if it’s in the bunker).
  • Hitting the sand in anger or frustration (it’s not a great look, but doesn’t come with a penalty).
  • Leaning on a club in a bunker (as when you might be waiting for another player to hit a shot).
  • Digging your feet into the sand when preparing to hit a shot.
  • Removing loose impediments like pebbles, leaves and pinecones (provided you don’t cause the ball to move in doing so).

Conversely, here’s what you still are not allowed to do:

  • Grounding your club at address in the sand prior to the stroke.
  • Touching the sand during a practice swing or with your backswing.
  • Deliberately touching the sand to test its condition or learn information to help you in making your next stroke.

[A personal perception here is that allowing “hitting the sand in frustration or anger” is stupid.  That deserves a penalty.]

• • •

You can ground your club in a penalty area
(Rule 17.1)

Similar to bunkers, the USGA and R&A made substantial changes to what golfers can do in penalty areas in 2019.  The biggest?  There are no longer special rules that apply to you when playing from a penalty area.  So now you’re allowed to ground your club and take practice swings like you would elsewhere on the course.  You can also remove loose impediments so long as you don’t move your ball, improve your lie, or improve the conditions affecting your stroke.

• • •

You can accidentally hit your ball on the green with no penalty …
(Rule 9.4)

The green is yet another place where the rules have gotten friendlier.  Say you accidentally cause your ball to move on the putting green, even with a practice swing.  You can replace the ball with no penalty.  Same if you cause your ball marker to move.

There’s also no penalty if your ball moves because of natural forces (such as wind or water).  However, where you play your ball from after it moves varies.  If you had already marked your ball on the green, replaced it, and now a gust of wind comes up, you should return the ball to where it was when you marked it.  You “own” that spot.

• • •

… And on the tee box
(Rule 6.2)

Zach Johnson has won two major championships, but he’s also known for an infamous tee shot at the 2019 Masters.  He took a practice swing, hit the ball, and, while it went off the tee, it never left the tee box.  He was allowed to re-tee without penalty.

Unless a player was intending strike the ball, it’s not considered a stroke if he or she caused their ball to be knocked off the tee.  There is no penalty, plus under Rule 6.2b(5), the player can retee the ball and go on … embarrassed but still lying 0.

• • •

You can’t always hit a provisional ball
(Rule 18.3)

Hitting a provisional ball is allowed under the rules in the interest of saving time when you believe your original ball might be out-of-bounds or lost OUTSIDE a penalty area.  You must, however, announce that you’re playing a provisional ball, or the next shot you hit will be considered in play as if you took a stroke-and-distance penalty.

There is, however, a time when you’re not allowed to hit a provisional ball: When you believe a ball is lost INSIDE a penalty area.  

One more thing about hitting a provisional:  If you hit one off the tee and it lands in the middle of the fairway and you’re pretty sure your original ball will be in a precarious spot if it’s somehow found, you can elect not to search for the original ball.  Though you cannot declare your ball lost, if you play your provisional ball from a place nearer the hole than the estimated spot of your original ball, your provisional becomes your ball in play.  This is important to note because, if the original ball is found before you’ve played the provisional, either by you or somebody else, and is in bounds, you must now play that original.  And if the lie is unplayable, you can’t just use your provisional ball.  You must take relief for an unplayable lie, which might mean you still have to go back to the tee and hit another shot.

• • •

Your ball is not considered embedded if somebody stepped on it
(Rule 16.3)

How to determine if you have an embedded ball and what relief you’re entitled to became a hot-button issue a couple years ago when golf pro Patrick Reed encountered the situation during the third round of the 2021 Farmers Insurance Open at Torrey Pines.  While many who followed his actions at home questioned Reed’s tactics, by the letter of the rule book, he proceeded correctly.

Under Rule 16.4, a player can mark and lift a ball to see if it lies in a condition where relief is allowed.  If you proceed under this rule and it’s determined that the ball isn’t embedded, you replace the ball on its original spot and play from there.

• • •

You’re only out-of-bounds (OB) if your entire ball is OB
(Rule 18.2)

While tricky at times because OB boundaries aren’t always continuous on golf courses, the standard for determining if a ball is out of bounds is straight forward:  The entire ball needs to be out of bounds for the ball to be considered OB.  So, if there’s a painted line and half the ball is on the painted line and half is on the course, the ball is in play.  If there are stakes where you might use string from stake-to-stake but you don’t have string and you’re eyeballing it, if a part of the ball is on the course, you’re in play. If the entire ball is touching the painted line, none touching the course, then it’s OB.

One other note: If your ball is in bounds, you are allowed to stand out-of-bounds to play the shot.

• • •

You must correct hitting a wrong ball, even though it will cost you
(Rule 6.3c)

You hit your drive into the rough off the tee, walk to where you think your ball is and hit your second shot short of the green.  You chip your ball up on the green with your third but, when you mark, it you realize it’s not your ball.  Now what?

In match play, the hole is over because the penalty for playing a wrong ball is loss of hole.  In stroke play, the proper way to proceed is to correct your mistake.  That means you need to go back and play your original ball. If you find the ball, add two strokes as the penalty for playing the wrong ball, but don’t count any of the strokes you hit with the wrong ball.  You’re hitting 4 and you play on.

• • •

Red penalty areas give you three relief options, yellow gives you two
(Rule 17.1)

There is one notable difference between the options a player has when taking relief after hitting a ball into a red penalty area versus yellow.  Red stakes allow players to also take lateral relief (up to two club-lengths no nearer the hole) from where the ball entered the penalty area in addition to returning to the spot from the previous shot and back-on-the-line relief where you can drop anywhere on an imaginary line drawn from the hole through the spot where the ball last crossed into the penalty area.

The last two are the lone options if the penalty area is yellow. All options require a player take a one-stroke penalty, but the player does also have the option to play the ball as it lies.

A FASCINATING PLACE – BROOKS WINERY

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.

DONALD TRUMP DOESN’T CARE ABOUT POLITICS; HE CARES ABOUT SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT

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.

LAUGHING OUT LOUD AT U.S. HOUSE IMPEACHMENT OF BIDEN

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.

UNFORTUNATEY, MITT ROMNEY CALLS IT QUITS

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!