Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 folks may not care about the issues lurking behind this blog headline.  But I do, so I write about the issue…again.

Last Friday, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek announced that she “could” veto a bill – House Bill 4177 – passed by the last Legislature supposedly to fix problems with the state’s long-standing public meetings law.

Except, even as legislators passed the bill, a few who voted for the bill said it would not fix public meetings law issues.  So, they said would come back in 2027 to do a more commendable job.

So, then, why pass a flawed bill?

Kotek asked the same question as she complied with a state law that requires any governor to announce publicly when he or she threatens a veto.

Why do I care about this issue enough to write about it again?

Well, when I served on the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, I and my colleagues on the Commission handled a lot of complaints against local government officials because they were alleged to have violated the law as it was revised in 2023.

The 2023 law was designed to underline the cause of open and transparent government in Oregon by preventing what were called “serial communications.”  That phrase meant that local government officials were barred from starting private conversations with colleagues that could morph into quorums of the public body involved before a public meeting was called.

The clearest example occurred in my hometown, Salem, Oregon, when members of the City Council were reported to have collaborated before a public meeting about action to get rid of the city manager.  All members of the Council, except the mayor, admitted they did talk, but all also said they did not intend for a quorum to exist.  The mayor, who allegedly started the private conversations, never admitted that she did so.

Good idea to ban “serial communications” to support public action?  Yes.

Hard to enforce?  Yes.

Confusion on the part of local government officials?  Yes.

And it was true that some local government officials were, as I put it, “trapped by a quorum that they did not want to exist.”

The city government association in Oregon got so incensed with how the Ethics Commission handled the issue that it said it would no longer work with the Commission on any training platforms.  For one thing, they got mad at me because, at the time, I chaired the Commission.  My term ended last December, so I am now free to comment the issue without representing anyone but myself.

Back to the current situation.

Here is how newspapers described Kotek’s veto announcement:

“Following outcry from professional journalist groups and Oregon news publishers, Kotek is considering vetoing a bill passed last month by the state Legislature that makes changes to the state’s public meetings law.

“Kotek on Thursday did her final signings for all but one bill, House Bill 4177.  In a news release, she said she is considering a veto of the bill, which would be her only veto of laws passed by the Oregon Legislature in the most recent session that adjourned on March 6.

“In a statement, a Kotek spokesperson wrote:  ‘The Governor understands the intent of the legislation; however she is considering a veto because of concerns that parts of the bill may undermine transparency in the conducting of public business.’

“In the short legislative session last February, the bill was backed by city and county government associations and school boards who wanted to provide clarity on a 2023 law that changed Oregon public meetings law, prohibiting public officials from deliberating and deciding measures via text, phone call and other chain conversations.

House Bill 4177 now exempts from the public meetings law such “serial communications” if they are “made for the purpose of gathering information relating to a decision that will be deliberated upon or made by the governing body.”

Proponents said it was needed to clarify that public officials aren’t violating state law when they text an article related to an issue to one another, or share their opinion with a reporter ahead of a vote, who then shares that opinion with other members of the governing body in the course of reporting.

The Oregon Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Oregon News Publishers Association, The Oregonian, and roughly a dozen small publishers, called on Kotek to veto the bill.  During the short session, they warned that the bill fundamentally redefine what constitutes meetings and deliberations in a way that would allow public officials to do work in private with little transparency.

Despite the expressions of concern, state lawmakers passed HB 4177 anyway and vowed to come back in 2027 to make better fixes.

So, expert that I am, I have this real fix for this dilemma:  Allowing local government officials to talk with each other and constituents without violating the “serial communication” prescriptions.

This: 

I would allow elected officials to talk outside of a public meeting – otherwise there is only silence – and then at the ensuing public meeting, if their conversations came to light, ask those officials to attest, perhaps even under oath, that they did not intend for a quorum to result. 

If they so attested, no violation.

So, now, the veto, if it comes to pass, would force the Legislature to do what it might do anyway, which is to fix the law in the name of government transparency.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 often have thought that this headline summarizes the way Donald Trump goes about the business of being president.

As I have watched other top-level officials, usually governors, they always test ideas before they implement them.

Trump? 

No.  He just flies by the seat of his pants.

Consider the war he started in Iran.  There has been no indication he consulted with key members of his staff or his Cabinet.  He did not deal with Congress.

And, as the commander-in-chief, he felt it was not his responsibility to explain to the American people why he was going to attack Iran, even if they would pay a price for the war in the form of inflation, not to mention shortages of oil.

The New York Times contributed solid perspectives on this point in an essay that appeared in the newspaper last weekend.  It was written by two accomplished writers, Jonathan Rauch and Peter Wehner.  [Rauch is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.  Wehner, a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum, regularly writes opinions for the Times.]

Here is how they started their essay:

“It has been clear for a long time that Trump is a person with a disorganized mind and a disordered personality.  What the past few months and especially the past few weeks have brought into focus is how his pathologies have cascaded downward and outward through his administration.

“They have become institutionalized.  The reason the administration so often does not act coherently is that it cannot.  The world faces something new and baffling and frightening in Trump’s second term:  A psychotic state.”

The authors acknowledge that “this does not mean that every individual in government is emotionally or psychologically unstable.  Nor is it a clinical diagnosis of the president.  The issue is that the administration lacks a consistent attachment to reality and the ability to organize its thinking coherently.  Trump’s grandiosity, impulsivity, inconsistency, and outright breaks with reality have become state policy.”

Trump’s second term is different from his first, the writers suggest.  In 2020, he maintained he won the election when he did not and babbled about treating Covid with injections of disinfectant when, of course, that didn’t work.  But, they add, he could not translate his fantasies into reality.

“In the second term, by contrast, institutional psychosis has been on display since Day 1.  It is the Iran war that has most vividly demonstrated the scope of the problem.  In this conflict, the most potent antagonist has been the administration’s own incoherence.

“Trump chose to wage a war without deciding on its aims, mapping out a strategy, planning for contingencies, or even being able to explain itself. The goal was regime change — until it wasn’t.  The demand was unconditional surrender — until it wasn’t.

“Deadlines were issued and then erased.  Threats of total destruction were made and then pulled back.  Iran’s nuclear program was pointed out as a threat in February, despite the fact that Americans were told by Trump that it was ‘obliterated’ last June.

“The president called for an international coalition to open the Strait of Hormuz, then said the United States could go it alone, then said the waterway would somehow ‘open itself.’  [Then he started a blockade.]  He claimed that the United States had already won the war, that the war would end soon and that the war would end when I feel it, feel it in my bones.’  As a headline in The Times put it, the president’s position on Iran ‘can change by the sentence.’”

Normal administrations set up processes that assemble evidence from varied sources, collate viewpoints and priorities across multiple agencies, and ensure rational deliberation before options reach the president.

Not for anything as large or significant as the federal government, I watched policy processes in Oregon over many years – emphasis on the word “process.”

For a governor, I was part of a team that he relied on to assess actions he wanted to take before he took them.  This governor — Vic Atiyeh, the last Republican governor in Oregon – wanted all viewpoints before he decided what actions to take.  Emphasis on “all” viewpoints – those that agreed with him and those that differed.

Then, at the Oregon Executive Department (and, again, I am not comparing this to the Office of the U.S. President), I was part of a team that advised the director who served as the COO of state government.  Before decisions, he wanted options on the budget, personnel, and media and legislative relations, the last from me.

Then, armed with all the information, including pros and cons, he acted.

More from the New York Times authors:

“The policy review process can be tortuous and sometimes mistaken.  It can’t substitute for wise presidential judgment.  But it is vital.  It asks hard questions and assesses competing arguments.  It ensures expert input in specific domains, anticipates how policies may ramify and prepares for contingencies.

“In all those ways, the systematic review of policy amounts to an institutional mind:  A cognitive process that organizes the government’s deliberations to keep them rational and anchored in reality. 

“In Trump’s second term, those functions still exist, but they can be disrupted, circumvented or just plain abandoned at any moment on the say-so of the president and his senior officials.  In that respect, the Trump administration is mindless.

“As the Trump era winds down, the country may re-learn something that never should have been forgotten.  Institutions need to be reformed, not destroyed.  Governing well requires skill and careful attention to detail rather than leaders acting on impulse and ignorance and character and mental stability matter perhaps most of all.”

Think of that last paragraph and then think about Trump.  Your mind will turn to mush as you ponder Trump’s various frailties, ones he doesn’t recognize, even as he goes about proclaiming he is a god.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

In case it needs to be said, the Masters Golf Tournament is my favorite tournament in any year, including this one – 2026.

It used to be that I also liked the Ryder Cup, but the incredibly boorish behavior of American fans last year – most of them from New York – soured me on the tournament.

I don’t intend to focus on the Ryder Cup much anymore.

As for the Masters, I watched most of the tournament over the weekend and, via text, phone or e-mail, kept in touch with my daughter, Lissy, as we liked re-living our experience of attending the event in 2015.  It was a great father-daughter experience, one I’ll never forget as it lives on in my mind, as well as in photos.

So, my thoughts on the Masters this year:

Rory McIlroy:  I loved the way McIlroy fought through adversity in his fourth round.  If he hit a bad shot, he rallied with a good one, thus illustrating an important golf precept:  What’s the most important shot in golf?  The next one.

McIlroy’s par saves on holes #16 and #17 were memorable.  So was his bogey on hole #18 to preserve his second straight win at Augusta National.

Justin Rose:  I have a soft spot in my heart for this Englander who had a chance to win this year at age 45, after three previous second place finishes.  It is still possible for his time to come.

Scottie Scheffler:  Don’t ever count out Scheffler.  As Tiger Woods might say, Scheffler did not have his A-game this time around, but he rallied to finish second, only one shot behind McIlroy.

Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson:  They weren’t at the Masters this year and, frankly, I did not miss them at all.

Sergio Garcia:  Garcia damaged the second tee box Sunday morning during the final round of the Masters.  He angrily took two swipes at the tee box turn, prompting Masters volunteers to need to show up and fix the damage. 

Then, walked to a cooler right of the tee box and swung his driver at it, snapping the head off his club.

The incident is the latest in a career of bad behavior issues for Garcia, who once was disqualified at the 2019 Saudi International for “serious misconduct” after purposefully damaging several greens the day after having a meltdown in a bunker.  Three years later, Garcia signed with the Saudi-backed LIV circuit, only weeks after throwing a temper tantum at a rules official at a PGA event.

My view is that, given his pent-up temper tantrums, Garcia should be banned from the Masters forever.  The tournament is too important to allow him to continue playing, even as he damages the course to express his anger.

Enough.  So on to the Masters in 2027.  I’ll be watching.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

To the question in this blog headline, conservative media outlet The Oregon Catalyst answers “yes.”

But, it strikes me as being far too early to predict a tough race for a Democrat governor in Oregon.  After all, there has not been a Republican here for more than 40 years.  Plus, whatever signs could exist now might evaporate by next November.

Still, Oregon Catalyst says Kotek is slipping, then cites seven reasons why it believe she may be in trouble.  Are they actual “reasons,” or just “hopes?”  Who knows?

Here is what the Catalyst wrote:

“Being that the Oregon governor’s race is so critical, we will not lose any opportunity to spot problems with the incumbent.

1.  Lax fundraising.  Kotek raised less money this year than two potential opponents subject to the primary election, Senator Christine Drazan and Chris Dudley.  The $900,000 Kotek has raised in 2026 is still healthy, but not what could be expected for an incumbent in a blue state fighting to keep her job.

2.  Low approval.   The latest YouGov poll of the nation’s 50 governors has placed her among the bottom six for approval.

3.  Mini-speeches:  Kotek’s speech before an audience of 30,000 marchers in Portland was only a little more than three minutes long.   This shows she is lacking energy and ambition and is just going through the motions.

4.  Staff turnover.  Three of Kotek’s top aides announced this spring they will be leaving all at once.

5.  Low endorsement enthusiasm.  Both the largest teachers’ union and the Working Families Party have declined to endorse her.

6.  Rare public appearance.  Kotek was not very present during the Legislature’s Short Session and has not done many public events on the recent campaign trail.  Kotek boasted that she did 100 meetings during her two-week trip to Asia, but since she returned her media schedule has appeared to be small.

7.  Not much involvement in 2026 Legislative short session.  Kotek was often absent. 

Well, Oregon Catalyst may want more than it will receive when the election rolls around next year.

If I was a political analyst for the governor, the toughest issue would be the lack of endorsement from normally Democrat organizations, such as the Oregon Education Association (OEA).  But the lack may be only temporary because I suspect the OEA will come back around to the governor.  As an association, it has nowhere else to go.

Kotek’s opponent in the general election won’t be decided until the primary when Drazan and Dudley go up against each other.  In past gubernatorial elections, both ran relatively well.  Drazan lost to Kotek last time around and Dudley came close to John Kitzhaber a few years ago.

Either Republican could run well in Oregon, though would have to find a way to capture votes in urban Oregon, not just rural Oregon.

The bottom line? 

Months is an eternity in politics, so it is too early to predict the character of the general election, as well as who might win.  But, if I was betting – and I am not – my money would be on Kotek next November, though she will face various challenges, including in at least one major area – her support for a gas tax increase the public does not favor.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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’s one of my favorite weeks during a year – the week the Masters’ Golf Tournament is on television for all to see.

So, today, I could write about two things:  The tournament itself or food available to purchase at Augusta National.  I choose the latter.

I had the chance to go to the Masters’ in 2015, with my daughter, Lissy, and it was a great experience, one we might have again if she is successful in bidding on the Masters’ lottery.  But, if she is not successful, one time at the Masters is enough for me, especially with Lissy.

As for the food, I can mostly pass, but it is worth nothing that the price of food on-site has not gone up for years.

The New York Times wrote a story this week, focusing on Master’s food, both on-site and as folks around the country try to replicate what they get when they attend.

I used the headline on the story for this blog and it was followed-up by this subhead:

The flavors of the Masters, from $1.50 pimento-cheeses to private-chef creations

Here is how the story started:

“At golf’s crown jewel, the menu rarely changes.  The prices never do.

“The Masters is usually described in visuals and sounds — the vivid azaleas and lush green fairways, the thwack of a tee shot and the swell of a Sunday roar.  But the food is an essential part of the tournament’s story, from the affordable on-course concessions, to the private chefs who flock to town, to perhaps the sporting world’s most exclusive dinner party.

“Fifty-one weeks a year, Augusta is not a culinary destination.  There are more than a dozen Waffle Houses scattered in and around town, and the food scene leans toward the practical, not aspirational.

“Then the Masters arrives and a parallel food economy springs to life, as corporate clients, high-end renters, and players’ entourages roll into town. Private chefs descend from across the South and beyond, booked months in advance to cook in rental-home kitchens for players, celebrities and wealthy patrons.”

The story underlines this key point again:  “…inside the gates, the menu barely changes and the prices, famously, do not.

“A cold beer runs $6, and a sweet tea is $2.  The Georgia peach ice cream sandwich is $3 and the white chocolate Georgia pecan cookie is $2.  You can still buy an egg salad or pimento cheese sandwich for $1.50, both coming in the same familiar green plastic packaging.  They’ve cost that much since 2002.”

For me, you can take my pimento sandwich and give it to someone else, for free.  I don’t much like them, though having one during Masters week is a ritual for many, either in Augusta or at home.  I’ll take the peach ice cream sandwich or the pecan cookie.

And, this from last year’s tournament champion, Rory McIlroy, as he made the decision the menu for the annual champions’ dinner.

This year, GoldWeek reported that he kept things broad, the courses stretching from tuna carpaccio to wagyu and seared salmon, finishing with sticky toffee pudding.

“’People keep asking me why I didn’t go more Irish,’ he joked this week. “’And I said, because I want to enjoy the dinner as well.’

“Then there are the drinks.  Augusta National is said to have one of the world’s finest wine cellars.  McIlroy went with vintages that collectors chase — 2015 Salon champagne, 2022 Domaine Leflaive Bâtard-Montrachet, 1990 Château Lafite Rothschild — wines that can easily run $1,000 a bottle.”

To state the obvious, this is an event most of us will never attend in person, but it is always interesting to see how the past champions arrange the special dinner for all past champions.

Speaking of that, as I write this, McIlroy may be on the way to defending his title.  At the halfway point, he is six strokes up on the field, the largest halfway lead in history.

But, as they always say about the Masters, the title lurks on the back nine on Sunday.  I’ll be watching.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 heralds a piece of good news for those of us who live in and around Salem, Oregon.

Salem Health and Oregon Center have reached agreement to settle a suit filed by the Center contending that “the health care giant (Salem Health) was monopolizing heart care in the city.”

For this good news, I am not the first to report it.  Credit goes to Salem Reporter and its reporter, Hailey Cook.  It’s another example of this on-line journalism outfit reporting facts that matter to readers.

Here is how Cook started her story:

“Salem Health has privately settled a lawsuit with a local cardiology clinic that claimed the health care giant was monopolizing heart care in the city.

“The Oregon Heart Center, the largest independent cardiac care center in the mid-Willamette Valley, filed its $15 million lawsuit against Salem Health in September 2024.  It claimed Salem Health violated anti-trust law by pressuring patients to switch providers, limiting referrals to the clinic, and restricting patients’ access to information about independent providers.”

So, why does this matter to me?

Well, I have been a patient of both Salem Health and the Heart Center.  Both have performed very well for me whenever I, as an old person, have needed service.  In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that both contributed to a process that saved my life.

So, I am glad that the suit has gone away and that both providers can continue getting about the business of providing solid health care in the mid-Willamette Valley.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 of us who live part of our lives in the California desert were concerned that the American Express Golf Tournament would be shelved by the powers-that-be on PGA Golf Tour management.

But, no.

The good news is the AMEX – as it is called – will be coming back next year.

Good news rests here for several reasons:

• The AMEX represents solid economic development for the region.
• The number 1 golfer in the world, Scottie Scheffler, will be able to return to the desert to defend the title he won earlier this year.
• And, for me?  I will be able to attend the tournament again, which is held on one of the courses in three-course rotation only a couple blocks from our home in La Quinta, California.

Credit should go to Larry Bohannan, from the Palm Springs Desert Sun, for reporting that the AMEX is alive and well.

Here are excerpts from what he wrote:

• After months of uncertainty over the PGA Tour’s slimmed-down 2027 schedule and which tournaments will and won’t survive, there is now one certainty:  The American Express will be played for the 68th consecutive year in the Coachella Valley.
• The American Express is the first tour event to have its dates officially announced for 2027.  As one of the early season events, the American Express needs to start working with golf courses, sponsors, hotels, and other tournament vendors to put the tournament together just 10 months from now.
• The American Express started in 1960 and was hosted for decades by entertainer and desert icon Bob Hope.  But the event’s future had been in doubt after PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp began talking in 2025 about a smaller tour, shrinking to perhaps 25 events from the more than 40 played in 2025.  The AMEX could have been shelved.
• In 2026, American Express sponsored a $9.2 million event with a field of 156 pros and 156 amateurs playing on three courses in La Quinta —  the Pete Dye Stadium Course and the Nicklaus Tournament Course at PGA West, and La Quinta Country Club.

Now, as for the notion of economic development, what is the measure of success?

Official reports suggest that the golf tournament generates somewhere between $20 million to $24 million in positive annual economic impact for the California desert.  The event attracts 65,000 to 70,000 spectators annually, driving tourism, boosting hotel occupancy, and benefiting local restaurants and businesses. 

And, of course, while not part of the above summary, I, too, spend money at the AMEX, which is money well-spent as I often walk over to La Quinta Country Club.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 guess I could have said that the blog is designed to open the Department of Pet Peeves, one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

Because, of course, I am a management guru.

That said, I retained the alternative blog headline above rather than just opening the Department of Pet Peeves. 

In retirement, one of my favorite pursuits is to continue writing, so it is important to point out my idiosyncrasies.  Writing is something I did in all my professional jobs, so it is relatively easy to continue.

Usually, I write just for myself because I get a lot of satisfaction in the process of putting words on paper, albeit on my laptop, which is always close by.

If few others read what I write, no matter.  I am not trying to influence them, though with friends, I do enjoy talking about subjects like golf, politics, and religion as I write about those subjects.

As I have noted before, I like words better than numbers, charts, graphs, or even photos.

So it was that a story in the New York Times captured my attention as it appeared under this headline:  “The art of the verb.”

Here is one key paragraph:

“…I’m fascinated by the tremendous power of verbs — language’s little fireballs — to shape how we understand the world.  Verbs rule communication.  Many linguists go so far as to see sentences as extensions of verbs with other accouterments.”

I agree.

Without perfect achievement, I always have thought about trying to use “active verbs.”  Sometimes it doesn’t work, but, if you try, you’ll find they often make writing better – “language’s little fireballs.”

So this is one of my pet peeves — when writers don’t take time to use active verbs.

On to other of my idiosyncrasies – or pet peeves:

• Don’t use the phrase “centering around.”  It is not possible.  You can “center on,” not “center around.”

• Don’t mispronounce etc. – it is not “ec-cetera.”  It is “et-cetera.”

• Try to avoid using too many abbreviations.  Why?  Just my choice.  For example, this means that I spell out the titles Senator and Representative, not Sen. and Rep.  It also means I spell out the title Governor, not Gov.  Same with months of the year.

• Special capital letter rule:  It’s easy for many people to use too many capital letters in what they write.  But let me cite an example where I think a capital letter is appropriate and inappropriate:  The word “Administration” when it applies to the federal government as in, for example, the Bush Administration.  That was and is appropriate.  However, when it comes to Donald Trump, I decline to apply a capital letter to the Trump administration because there is no way Trump administers anything as he flies by the seat of his pants.

• Spell out %:  I always spell out the symbol %, as in 10 per cent, not 10%.  Why?  Just a personal preference, much like abbreviations.

• Try to avoid words that end in the letters “ize.”  Such as the word prioritize.  Say this instead – “decide what is most important.”  Or, another example.  One of my former business partners often used the word “catalyze.”  I have no idea what it meant.

• Don’t use nouns as verbs.  A couple examples.  The word “helm” often is used these as in “he helmed the ship.”  No.  The ship has a helm.  It is a noun.  Or, the word, “golf.”  As in “he golfed his ball.”  No, he hit his ball.  Golf is a noun.

• In sentences you write, make sure the noun agrees with the pronoun.  When a sentence like “the committee” did “their” work appears, it is called a pronoun agreement error.  That’s because a singular word – “committee” – is used with a plural pronoun – “their.”  Don’t do it.  It may sound okay, but it is wrong.  The pronoun should be “its,” as in the “committee did its work.”

• The words “between” and “among.”  They need to be used correctly.  Yesterday, a Wall Street Journal headline writer said this:  “Why U.S. Allies Are Caught Between War, Trade and Trump.”  Impossible.  You cannot be caught between three things.  The word should have been “among.”

Now, if anyone reads this, aren’t you glad you know that all this matters to me.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 prompted me to write about this subject and to share my wisdom on “gimmes.”

If you want to stop reading now, I fully understand.

But I’ll continue writing.

Here is how Mr. Google defines the word “gimme” in golf.

“A ‘gimme’ putt in golf is an informal agreement to concede a very short putt (usually within 1–2 feet or “inside the leather”) during casual play, allowing the player to pick up his or her ball and count it as holed without taking the stroke.

“It is meant to speed up pace of play but is not allowed in official stroke play tournaments.”

More detail:

• Distance:  Generally considered “inside the leather,” referring to the distance from the putter head to the bottom of the grip (roughly 18–36 inches), although 1–2 feet is safer.
• When to take:  Typically used for bogies or worse in friendly matches to keep pace.
• When to avoid:  Never take gimmes in competitive stroke play, tournaments, or for eagle/birdie putts.
• Match Play:  In match play, a gimme is officially called a “conceded putt” and can be given by an opponent at any time.
• Etiquette:  If you have to ask if it’s a gimme, you should probably putt it.

Beyond this detail, gimme putts can be controversial.

Back a few years ago, where I play golf in my home, Salem, Oregon, gimme putts were sometimes “taken” from about six feet from the hole in the “senior game” on Tuesdays and Thursdays.  Those are not gimmes and note the word “taken” – they are a “takee.”

It got so bad that, at one point, those in charge of the senior game suggested putting marks on all putters to designate the term “within the leather.”  It didn’t come to that, but came close.

Further, in so-called casual or gentlemen’s games, gimmes should not be taken when money rides on the outcome.

When money is not at stake because you are playing “for the love of the game” with friends, no one should care about gimmes.  I don’t.  Plus, if a player already is three or four strokes over par on a hole, gimmes speed up play.

Again, back home at the course I play in Salem, I have heard that women who play never give gimmes.  They require all balls to be played into the hole. 

Which, of course, is within official golf rules.  Kudos to these ladies.

Enough for now on gimmes which, of course, in world affairs, is a hugely important issue.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

To repeat one of my pet phrases, I like words better than numbers, charts, graphs or, even, photos.

That’s just the way I am built and, as the introduction to my blog notes, I dealt with words in all my professional positions.  Now, I do so, as well, in retirement.

So it was that I came across two great paragraphs by two acknowledged  excellent writers whose work appears in the New York Times, as well as elsewhere – Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman.

Without further ado, here is what they wrote:

Maureen Dowd:  “Sucking up to Donald Trump, self-crowned sun king, is a Sisyphean task. Trying to keep up with his whims, his revenge plots, his insatiable need for slobbering praise, his disdain for the law, will always be a losing battle.”

She wrote these words as she commented on the firing of two officials seeking accolades from Trump – Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.

Thomas Friedman:  “In short, we are watching what happens when you put into the Oval Office an impulsive, unstable man who ran for president largely to get revenge on his political foes. Then he surrounded himself with a cabinet chosen for its handsome looks and its willingness to put loyalty to Trump over loyalty to the Constitution.  Add to that Republican majorities in the House and Senate willing to write him blank checks, and it all eventually leads to sloppy, undisciplined decision-making, including starting a huge war in the Middle East with no plan for the morning after.”

Friedman wrote these words as he worried that Trump has no way out of a war he created on a whim.