There is an old axiom that the word "golf" is an inappropriate acronym for "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden." The actual etymology of the word "golf" more than likely originated from the medieval Dutch word "kolf," meaning club.
Old Scots dialect transformed the word into "golfe" or "gouf." The Scots have been playing the game since circa 1457, smacking feather-stuffed balls with club-shaped tree branches. The current pronunciation of the word "golf" came about sometime in the mid-16th century.
This information comes from the British Golf Museum. Interestingly the Brits, with their stiff upper lip, did not mention the various four-letter-invective's the Scots used to describe their game in more detail.
Of late, I have been trying to come up with a more apt acronym for the word "golf," at least as it pertains to the extent of my game. Intent on using only respectable words, the best I have come up with to describe the experience might be "Get Over Losing Face" or perhaps, "Game Only Lacks Fairways."
This year the game completely eludes me. I busted my keaster last year to bring my handicap down seven strokes. That is no small feat in just a summer.
So, lofty expectations were anticipated this year. I would hit the ground running and smash the previously embarrassing handicap down to something to boast upon. If it would just come back down to the number fifteen, where it was thirty years ago, I could be at peace with myself again.
In among snakes, javelina's, and cacti, my buddies and I golfed some unreasonably hard courses in Arizona last winter. While the scores weren’t that great, I reasoned at least skills were being honed, plus I didn’t really know the courses very well.
So, the wife drug me back to Politically-Corrupt-Illinois kicking and screaming. I reported to the local golf establishment, when Illinois weather would allow, where I preceded to score a couple of nauseating rounds in the three-digit category – on a course I knew well. These are the types of scores that wear you out physically and mentally. Throw in a backache and you find yourself wanting to hide in a dark corner sucking your thumb. Where did my game go?
"Not to worry," I was told, "it's early yet."
Then I scored a couple more games just over the shameful one-hundred border. (This is my personal barometer, folks – please no angry letters.)
"Hey," my peeps cajoled. "At least those scores are coming down," as they slapped my back, all the while helping themselves generously to the contents of my wallet. Icebergs have descended faster than those scores.
Eventually, I got my score down under three digits...barely. And there it has resided like a visit from your in-laws. Handicap has moved up one measly shot in the process. Big deal! The one shot hasn't stopped my former friends, now acquaintances, from helping separate me from my money.
What is it about that game that is so eluding to us higher handicappers? Why does our ball always find the 10% of the limbs or leaves of a tree, rather than the 90% mythical "air" we keep hearing about? Why do the Golf Gods see fit to make our ball drop directly behind said tree or to bounce wildly down the wrong fairway? Is it really that funny to the powers-that-be to keep leaving putts tantalizingly on the lip, merely peering down into the depths of the hole? We realize it is hilarious to those bums taking our money, but how could that be humorous to deities with so much else to do around the world?
So, recently, while standing near the practice range, a place I normally avoid so as to hide my fits, I was having this very conversation with a wise old Irish golfer by the name of Paddy Fitzpatrick, seeking his sage advice. There were a couple of other duffers nearby listening, so I surmised when Paddy gently pulled me aside, he was going to impart some secret ancient words of wisdom that had not yet been bestowed upon me. Finally, I was going to be let in on the secret.
"Web, me boy," Paddy began in his Irish brogue, "haf ya ever considered it jest might be ye loft?"
I thought carefully before responding, wanting to make sure I heard each magical word correctly. I let my mind absorb those words like a fine wine. Perplexed, I finally confessed to my bewilderment.
"L.O.F.T.!," he repeated a little more forcefully, " It's your Lack of Friggin' Talent!"
"See you next Saturday, Paddy," I replied, walking away, as the old duffers howled.
By now you have probably heard that former Fox & Friends news host, Gretchen Carlson became Chairwoman for the Miss America Pageant. Perhaps you even know that she herself was a former Miss America, winning in 1989 while representing Minnesota.
Ms. Carlson’s first item of business was to axe the swimsuit competition, which everybody heard, as well as the evening gowns, which nobody probably caught. In case you are wondering if I did my research I can authoritatively inform you that Ms. Carlson wore a nice one-piece pink bathing suit…and a very nervous smile.
Ironically, the swimsuit competition may have been the impetus for the pageant back in Atlantic City NJ in 1921. That year, Ms. Margaret Gorman was crowned the “Golden Mermaid” and paid a "handsome" sum of $100 for her efforts.
My initial reaction upon hearing this news was one of dismay. Darn, no more swimsuits, I thought to myself! I don’t really know where that reaction came from, it was just the first thing that popped into my head. It must have been instinctual or perhaps, using today’s lexicon, be part of my toxic masculinity.
But then the other side of my brain kicked in with a couple of tangible thoughts:
Once these thoughts cleared out the incorrigible ramblings bouncing around in my Neanderthal noggin, the matter faded away. Perhaps it is not such a bad idea to eliminate the bathing suit competition. In my humble opinion, which I am allowed to have, the deletion of the evening gowns might be carrying things a little far. Oh well, no sweat off my brow.
Then I ran across an article that quoted Ms. Carlson as saying "We will no longer judge our candidates on their outward physical appearance. That means we will no longer have a swimsuit competition."
Huh? Bells went off in my head. A “beauty” contest that does not judge outward physical appearance?
With all due respect to Ms. Carlson, whom I admire, did she forget this is 2018? In this so-called “enlightened” age, we can’t agree what bathrooms people can use, are instructed not to use gender pronouns, and to let our children (with their under-developed brains) decide what sex they consider themselves.
Considering the event to be a competition rather than a pageant, or in essence removing the “beauty” from what has always been a beauty pageant, will surely open the barn door.
It won’t be long until poor Cosmo, born with all the usual male characteristics, will demand he be allowed to compete with the rest of the gals, because well, that’s the way he identifies himself at this particular time. When poor Cosmo doesn’t win, it will be because the judges were biased against his annoying masculinity. And that folks, will be the beginning of the end of the Miss America Pageant as we long knew it.
It seems to me most women, of all ages, go to great lengths to exhibit attractiveness. I often remark to my wife about young couples out for a date, the young lady dressed well and with a nice hair style…or at least combed. Then there is junior escorting her in jeans, sneakers, and a T-shirt for the occasion, all the while cultivating twelve hairs on his chin. Having been a child of the 70’s and begetting three daughters, I have some personal experience with this.
Consider that the business of being beautiful is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Hair, fashion, and make-up commercials bombard us daily in nearly every aspect of life.
So, what is wrong with having a contest to see who might be the most outwardly beautiful? Never seems to be a shortage of contestants vying. There are competitions to see who's the best college football team money can buy. We also have television shows to see who is the most talented, the best singer, chef, or the best dancer. Imagine the uproar if the next contestant on “The Bachelor” looked like me.
But now, poor confused Cosmo is going to blur the lines. That is, unless Ms. Carlson does it first with her edicts. Are we really going to invest our time watching a beauty contest if Cosmo is given bonus points because he has a five-o’clock- shadow and an over-sized Adam’s Apple?
In addition to the double standard, Ms. Carlson might be bringing about the end of the event that arguably launched her career.
During his eight years as president, Obama pardoned or granted clemency to 1,927 people. Quick, without looking it up, name one.
On Wednesday, June 6th, CNN’s editor at large, Chris Cillizza penned a commentary on the Point, a CNN political blog, entitled, “Another day, another clemency -- what Trump's pardons are really saying.” If you care to read the commentary it can be found at:
Since becoming president, Donald Trump has pardoned just a handful of people. Given the media coverage and over-analyzation, one would have thought it had been six thousand people.
Most anyone following the news knows that Trump pardoned AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio, George W. Bush staffer Scooter Libby, the late boxer Jack Johnson, Author Dinesh D’Souza, and recently housewife Alice Johnson. Trump is evidently considering allowing former IL governor Rod Blagojevich out of prison early as well.
Have you come up with an Obama pardon name yet?
Cillizza went into great detail to criticize each of President Trumps meager number of clemency selections. Not surprisingly, he sees conspiracy behind each pardon.
Cillizza is the same guy that once penned an article on a second-by-second analysis of a handshake between French President Emmanuel Macron and President Trump. (Who read that?) It would be a safe bet to say that Cillizza might have what is commonly known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, or TDS.” Cillizza is employed by CNN, so he would have come about his TDS disorder honestly, given the malady has gone viral at CNN headquarters in Atlanta.
Having erroneously pre-ordained Hillary Clinton as the 45th president, the Jeff Zucker-led network has unleashed an unabashed torrent of yellow and slanted news reporting against anything President Trump. They administer a daily biased thumping of the Trump Administration. Disdain drips from the mouths of nearly every CNN employee, as if their bonuses depend on it.
Zucker, if you recall, was the CEO of NBC at the time they became embroiled in the Jay Leno – Conan O’Brien debacle, which eventually caused Leno to leave The Tonight Show. NBC, under Zucker’s watch as CEO, fell from being the number one rated network to the lowest rated of the four networks. The situation got so bad, NBC was occasionally beaten in the ratings by some cable channels.
NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd quoted one top television executive stating, “Zucker is a case study in the most destructive media executive ever to exist...” Based upon those credentials, in 2013, CNN hired Mr. Zucker as their CEO.
To be fair, under Zucker, CNN has increased viewership by 51%, surpassing that “ratings powerhouse” MSNBC to second place behind FOX. A case could be made he merely divided liberal viewership between CNN and MSNBC. It would be my opinion that Zucker has, through yellow journalism tactics, done more to divide the country politically than any one politician could, with the possible exception of Barack Obama. The anti-Trump’ers flock to CNN to see more of what they want to hear, rather than what the facts may be.
Witness these recent headlines in various CNN diatribes:
“Trump to NFL players: Patriotism is my way or the highway.” He did not say this although his stance on kneeling is well known and is in accord with a majority of the nation.
“Donald Trump's G7 temper tantrum.” This is fair and balanced? Are there any adults working at CNN?
“Trump withdraws from Iran nuclear deal, isolating him further from world.” This particular headline is going to look even sillier if new reports on Obama allowing Iran to sidestep sanctions using American currency come true.
“Michelle Wolf was the big winner of the WHCD, not Trump.” This requires no further comment.
“Trump's idea to pardon Muhammad Ali is weird and beside the point.” In this particular piece, they called Trump “pardon happy.” To date, Trump has pardoned five people. At that rate he is on track to surpass 27 pardons in eight years as president.
In May of 2017, the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy reported that 93% of what CNN publishes was anti-Trump, as compared to only 41% for Obama in the same time frame. With that kind of slant, how is anyone watching going to get an honest reporting of facts?
As Ryan Fournier, chairman of Students for Trump tweeted in December of 2017, and which would seem absolutely appropriate to the folks over at CNN:
“Absolutely amazes me how American citizens want the President of the United States to fail. You morons live here too!”
Well, I would imagine after this commentary I might have to get used to some spit in my Grande Cold Foam Cascara that I pay nearly a fin for at the local Starbucks. In my defense, I have no beef with the area Starbucks, but you must have known I couldn’t leave Starbucks’ recent “unconscious bias training” alone.
Perhaps there is nothing wrong with a little extra diversity training crammed down your throat if the boss is paying for it. However, wondering minds would like to know:
Where does one separate their diversity training from common sense or instincts? I’m asking for a friend.
Did Starbucks pay overtime to those that were applicable?
If you aren’t Caucasian, did you have to watch it?
If Starbucks feels the need to throw away twelve million bucks for closing eight-thousand US stores for four hours to teach typically ultra-tolerant youngsters about diversity, I guess it’s their business. That money might have been better spent for our vets though – just sayin’.
But then the chairman of Starbucks, elitist billionaire Howard Schultz, had to blame the need for the training of his employees on President Trump. Speaking to CNN on May 29th, he made the remark that “the president has made racism acceptable.” Huh?
Never one to be short on word usage or get his mug in front of a camera, Schultz continued. "If the White House and the president would view through the lens of humanity the policies that I think are so important to the future of the country, whether it's immigration, whether it's trade, all of these things have such rhetoric to it and the political class is not helping, we're sitting today as an example with almost $21 trillion of debt." Huh?
Evidently, in “Schultz-speak” none of this was an issue when Mr. Obama was president.
For some insight, note that the liberal Mr. Schultz endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and contributed heavily to Barack Obama’s two terms as president.
Just last year he informed us about his decision to hire refugees…immediately after President Trump declared a halt on immigration until they had been properly vetted. I wrote about it in my blog and follow-up letter to Starbucks back in February 2017:
“Mr. Schultz likes to use his company and considerable wealth to promote liberal agenda’s. The latest… is his announcement to hire 10,000 refugees over five years, on the heels of President Trumps declaration of halting refugees from seven countries until we are able to properly vet them. “
“If Mr. Schultz had those job openings, which includes insurance benefits, why did he not offer them to our vets, homeless, or the teen age population, particularly in the black communities where high employment runs rampant?”
“It is the job of the president of the United States to protect the American people as he sees fit. It is Mr. Schultz’s responsibility to sell coffee and make sure my Grande latte with almond milk tastes just like the last one.”
The supposed need for “unconscious bias training,” came about due to a fracas that started when two African-American men were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks when a female-American- white-American-Jewish-American manager hailed the constabulary. Seems the men hadn’t bought anything and used the restroom while waiting for a friend to arrive. Absurdly, the two men were led out in handcuffs rather than just shown the door. The result was the obligatory court case by the two gents costing Starbucks $200,002.00, surely to be followed by another lawsuit from the fired female-American manager.
An additional knee-jerk reaction by Starbucks was to announce that everyone, regardless if they buy something, is welcome to come in and use their facilities. No word on whether that policy applies to Howard's mansion. Bet that new policy is going to go over really well this winter in the northern cities.
I can say that, without a doubt, sans emergency, using my God-given common sense, had two people of any color, race, nationality, or planet came into my store to hang out without purchasing anything, I too would have shown them the door. (Well, unless it was Heather Locklear, but that is an issue only to my wife.) Most successful people don’t open businesses just for others to hang out. If they do, they’re not in business long.
Imagine though the hysterics of a patron with a bag of sliders and onion rings from White Castle, and a large Dunkin Donuts latte, settling in for an afternoon of frivolity at their local Starbucks, just to use the internet.