ISSUE: WHO DECIDES MAJOR GOLF CHAMPIONSHIP T.V. SCHEDULE ?
I love golf a lot, but I can’t help after the U.S. Open this past weekend to ask: why do they think that showing the players that have ZERO CHANCE of winning is a good idea?
I mean, if we’re already playing on a diabolical course, with a par 71, why the heck are we covering players who would have to shoot, well, 51(Note: never accomplished to date in golf history) to compete with the leader who’s still asleep in his rented, golden bungalow at –7?
Seriously, I just turned it off and did a bunch of yard work until the guys with any chance teed off like 6 hours later! At least there was no “chores guilt” with my decision.
I’m trying, as usual, to keep open-minded on this subject. But I just can’t wrap my head (cover) around the concept of asking me to sink into my couch for all morning plus all day coverage involving players who have looks on their faces much like MINE on the back 9 during our “weekend hack-a-thons.”😕 😕
TIMEOUT ….
>>> Swing thought💭💭 when behind by 20 strokes >>> When is this whole thing going to be OVER so I can get back to the clubhouse and drop a cold one (or six) in my belly?! 🥤🥤🥤🥤🥤🥤
Luckily for the network(s), they had an interesting finish. Hang in there “Rors,” and congrats to those who actually COMPETED in the darn thing! Let’s keep trying to improve … ALL OF US!
It doesn’t matter if you make one at a par 3 course, a full-length municipal course, a private course, or a tournament course, there is a certain type of celebration that only one type of shot generates. That, of course, is the HOLE IN ONE celebration.
Everyone in the vicinity turns into sort of an antique: they freeze, gawk, point, and then applaud the golfer who brings them this once in a blue moon moment. From some old timer during a skins round on a retirement course to Tiger Woods during a professional tourney, witnesses in general go completely bonkers for this privilege.
Not to brag, but I was fortunate enough to make not one but TWO holes in one in an 18-month span. Unfortunately for my playing partner, he had to witness both. And he’s a much better golfer than I’ll ever be.
My philosophy: try to hit every pin I see (sucker-pin or not!). His strategy: shoot within a 10-foot circle of each pin. So, though he rarely (if ever) posted an 11 on his par-3 holes (like I have), he also didn’t give himself too many chances at an “Ace.” No risk, no reward I’ve seen somewhere.
While watching the final round of the Players Championship today, make a note of the percentage of fans hanging out on the island hole, number 17. If asked, I’m sure most of them would admit they are diabolical weekend hacks who are just waiting to see a millionaire pro hit a bunch of balls into “the drink”/ a.k.a. “lake” surrounding it.
Others will admit they are looking to witness only the 23rd or so (don’t quote me, it’s close enough) ace in a professional round at TPC Sawgrass since its inception. Few, it any, will drop their tee ball into the “Sunday hole location” in the back right swath of the green. But, if it does somehow, you will witness absolute BEDLAM. So, do what we all do: grab a snack, a cool beverage, an anticipate “the ace.”
It is, from one hack to many others reading this, THE MOST amazing moment in golf. Of course, that’s IF you have the guts to go for it!
This month: All the hub-bub concerning the Super Bowl halftime show
Everyone seems to be all in some type of tiff about the show. This year it’s Rihanna. Last year, it was concerning “honoring crime and criminals” with the Dr. Dre/ Snoop/ tribute to Compton. Some years back, it was Beyonce and all the stuff about militancy.
Let me tell you something. Look, Prince is no longer with us, Bruno Mars can’t do it every year, and we live in an era where no one is even considered if deemed a “has been.” I’ll go out on a limb and say, “just ENTERTAIN ME!” As long as the set is entertaining and everyone gets home safely, do we really give a sh*t?! Answer: we should not. Or, should we?
A “Blast from the Past” Edition (so much fun, we’ll re-publish it!)
Flubbing our words and phrases?
nother vs. another (“That’s a whole nother world”)
Uh, NO it is not. But it IS a whole incorrect sentence. I’ve sat in professional meetings, witnessed intelligent people on television and interacting on large city streets misuse this term over and over. How about “a whole OTHER” perhaps? It’s easy to remember because all you have to do to not be wrong is simply drop one tiny letter, the “a”
uncharted vs. unchartered (“We’re in uncharted territory”)
Here lies another constant. It is used with such frequency that even we may, at times, become confused as to which is the correct choice. When navigating areas (or waters) that are unfamiliar are we “in uncharted waters” or are we in “unchartered waters?”
I always believed, being part of the general “charter” community, that the correct usage would be unchartered; meaning “not ever having sailed through these waters.” However, if we think of “uncharted” waters, we could reflect on our childhood where gold, treasures & stuff existed – and envision other option of “attempting to navigate a map without any defined charts.” Who knows…?
pacificly vs. specifically (“I was pacificly talking about the last time I saw him”)
We probably first heard this one around the holiday dinner table spouted from the mouth of our Aunt Ida. ‘Pacificly’ is NOT a word. Just noticing all of the red underlining will tell you that spellcheck specifically disagrees with you. However, “pacifically” IS an actual word, but is still incorrect if used in this situation. It may refer to a large body of the earth’s ocean separating numerous islands that we would love to charter (or chart).
relevant vs. relative (“It’s all relevant!!”)
No, it is NOT. My understanding is of ‘relevant’ is that which is pertinent to or important to something else. ‘Relative’ is more of an “it depends” or “relates to.” See? It’s easy to remember…
supposably vs. supposedly (“She was supposably the one…”)
Supposably is just horrible all the way around. (Again, see all of the red in spellcheck if you don’t trust me) It sounds like you took the wrong advice of your Uncle Vito from that fantasy sports commercial. However, it is a never-ending misuse of a pretty cool word…supposedly. “Supposable” is supposedly a word, whereas “supposably” is a sign of, well, incorrect grammar.
misconfuse vs. misconstrue (“He misconfused what I said to him”)
This was one I heard about a decade or more ago on one of those live court television programs where an actual hitman in a criminal case testified using (or misusing) one big word after another. It was so amazing that I couldn’t turn the television off and was late to the office as a result. However, it continues to be a source of humor that my spouse and I still occasionally giggle about to this day.
One final note
Back in high school (a few years back), I recall a hilarious moment in English class when our teacher informed us that one of her students required a tongue-lashing for incorrectly using a transition. In a nutshell, the student stated his idea in one sentence but then attempted to transition it with a new sentence beginning with “Another words” instead of “In other words.” Though I felt bad that the teacher publicly shamed him (she’d probably be fired for it in today’s class), I must admit that I laughed at it as much (and as loudly) as anyone.
A ‘word to the wise’ (Oops, I mean “words” to the wise)
Topic: PLAY BALL!! (just don’t spit or argue…and get Covid tested often!!)
BASEBALL AND SPITTING: AN AMERICAN TRADITION
I guess it’s a valiant effort to think we can “field” a troupe of MLB players and count on them to refrain from spitting before, during, and after a game. However, do you think it’s perhaps a bit far-fetched we can achieve such a lofty goal?
I mean, these guys (I do know a little bit about them) have been “takin’ a dip,” “puttin’ in a chaw,” and otherwise hockin’ loogies since practically tee ball. In fact, I could tell you some stories about guys who filled up 2-liter soda bottles with the “after-sauce” of Apple Jack, Skoal, Copenhagen, or … well, take your pick, big boy.
BASEBALL AND ARGUING: ALSO AN AMERICAN TRADITION
The point is that a good argument can be made that spitting is just as (if not more) linked to baseball than both apple pie and hot dogs are to the American culture. Baseball players spit … period. Even the ones who don’t chew tobacco. It’s part of the game folks.
To add insult to injury, players will also be commanded to “not argue” with the field umpires and be available for plenty of Covid testing. Baseball and testing?! C’mon, man! Did you see what happened during the (steroid era) 90s and early 2000s? Again, testing and baseball haven’t mixed too well in the past. Let’s just leave that argument for a different day.
Okay, so even if we can clear the above hurdles, we must also understand that, in lieu of screaming and adoring fans, the stands will be filled with … cardboard cutouts of fans. Yes, I said it, cardboard! If ever there was a reason to spit on something, this may be it.
In this technological age, couldn’t we have come up with something more life like? How about holograms that are programmed to behave like regular fans? Or how about cartoons of fans who drink gallons of beer, scream obscenities at the top of their lungs, and hurl batteries (and other unmentionables) onto the field – without provocation? Sounds kind of fun, huh?
Or, how about this? How about making the holograms, well, (fake) spit! That way, the players will feel more at home for the opener … wait a second, did the rules committee just tell baseballers that they can’t adjust their, uh, “pant legs” either? What is this world coming to?!!
Coates offers to us a deep understanding of what it is like to be living as an American through the eyes of a much different viewpoint than many are accustomed to hearing – that of the African-American male . It is an eye-opening discourse on the “flip” side of the American dream and its historical remembrances – as well as many other accounts of the events that took place in this country over the past 400+ years. It really offers a brand new angle for the American public in how we might finally want to address both the answers (and new questions going forward) concerning our legacy.
Actually, I was shocked at how much of the book was apolitical. I thought going in it would be much more concentrated on White House events, but, much to my relief, there were many more life experiences in the overall mix. My expectations were for 80% politics and 20% personal. In fact, it was more like 90% personal! It is much less a book about living in America’s equivalent of a “Royal Palace,” and much more about one woman’s “journey in its totality.” It is about identity, thestruggle, self-doubtsandthe dream. It is about perseverance. It is also about letting go when you need to let go. But, most of all, it is about family, good friends and, most importantly, always standing firmly alongside the ones you love the most – warts and all!!
What I liked about
this book
I’ve read hundreds (if not thousands) of books in my lifetime. However, rarely have I run across an autobiography that is this honest and forthright. Seriously, one would think that autobiographies are meant to be the most candid, but, for the most part, most fall dreadfully short of this goal. I know it sounds cliché, but Michelle Obama really knows how to “put the reader in her shoes.” She understands how to make the reader feel the way she felt in a specific moment, tohurt in her personal moments of real pain, and to feel joy when she was uplifted in one of her finer moments. She is a real person, a “one-of-a-kind” – and that is a rare find! (And I’m a poet and didn’t know it!)
The author lays some eye-opening stats on us in the Prologue. It does as much to shed light on the financial anxiety most Americans are and have been feeling for quite some time – that contribute to much of the division and fear mongering that has become an American staple for others to ‘swoop in on’ and take full advantage of.
Giridharadas references a study that discovered:
“…middle and lower class Americans (born from 1984 on) now have merely a35% chance of achieving a comparable lifestyle to their parents (down drastically from previous generations). He goes on to mention that the top tenth of earners income has doubled since 1980, the top 1% has tripled – and, if you’re in the top .001%, you earned 7x.” (paraphrased fromPrologue, pg. 4)
The author tells us it is time to examine how income disparity numbers like this arose, and to take an honest look at how the crushing impact it has on the majority of us.
The author also suggests that the general population would be foolish to (think and hope) that it can sit back and allow the super wealthy and super influential to save us all from this situation. The reasons, as so carefully laid out in this book, are that many of the same individuals (and companies) who orchestrate, participate, fund, and preside on speaker panels are, in fact, the ones responsible for creating many of the global issues they claim to be solving.
This book is a very eye-opening exposé on what the author terms to be “a charade” that the rich and famous carefully play on the rest of us. It shows repeated demonstrations as to how and why some very important social problems are to be addressed (as outlined by the super-rich), but fail to ever be resolved. The author informs us that this all appears to be more by design than by circumstance. It is a harrowing thought– but one he insists is real and that we need to examine.
by Bill Clinton & James Patterson, pub. 2018, pp. 513
What I learned from this book
I learned that there are still some horrifying events that can and may occur in our country at any moment in time. We tend to consume ourselves with ourselves (selfies, smartphones, reality television, etc.). What we may not do enough of is pay attention to some of the things that threaten to take all of the fun away from us – permanently. One example of this type of catastrophe (spoiler alert #1) is the one examined in the book – the purposeful contamination of a virus meant to cause a complete and total shutdown of all of the things we take for granted but need each day: clean running water supply, electricity from the grid, internet access – as well as too many other conveniences to mention.
In other words, we may find value in gluing ourselves to every personal experience, but none of it will mean anything without continued access to the things we actually need in order to exist each day. This novel could be looked at as a wake-up call for many of us in America.
Most of us think we’re wide awake, but, in fact, we are mostly “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to the prospects of a true, wide-scale crisis. I suppose it remains to be seen how serious we can ever get about this or any other type of wake-up call.
