Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

May 17, 2004

Variety

Filed under: Golf — Bunker @ 2:56 pm

Offhand, I can’t think of any game that has been “invented” which gained any popular appeal. One example of an invented game is Flickerball. I love it, but it isn’t played anywhere except as a tool for teaching teamwork. It is a combination of football, basketball, and hockey, and knowledge of the rules is everything.

People who participate in sports are athletes. I’ve been involved in discussions about whether NASCAR drivers and golfers are athletes. Even some baseball players deny being athletes themselves. Yet an athlete, by definition, is someone who can meld the mental processes into some form of muscle control better than the rest of us–hand/eye coordination, as they say. NASCAR drivers have endurance (always considered an athletic trait) and the ability to use their muscles to control a car moving in close proximity to others at 200+ mph. Golfers, likewise, have phenomenal muscle control in much the same way as world-class swimmers and divers. They pretty much use every muscle in their body in graceful coordination.

Sorry…off on a tangent!

Games are an evolutionary creation. Any game with a ball began as someone threw an object, or tried to hit something thrown to them. Golf, like field hockey, began with people hitting a small obect on the ground with a stick. Games picked up rules as they became means of competition. Golfers began trying to hit stones into rabbit holes, then developed into a contest to see who could put their stone into a hole more quickly, or with fewer strikes.

There are other individual sports in which a participant actually plays against himself or some standard. All bowlers want to score 300. But golf is unique. The conditions of play change every day, and often with every stroke. Bowlers may have to deal with hard or soft lanes, but the air conditioning generally can be counted on to work. And it usually doesn’t rain on the lanes.

Even a course someone plays every day offers a different test each time. The tee boxes are moved around, and the holes are cut at different spots on the greens. The wind changes direction and intensity. The fairways and greens may need cutting, or might be soft or hard depending on weather conditions. Or any combination of these variables. Of course, the less skill a golfer has the more likely each round will be different. If I hit a 260 yard drive down the left side of this fairway today, I may hit a 220 yard drive down the right side tomorrow. Is it in the rough, on the fairway, in a bunker, or even the water? Pretty good variance there without even considering the other factors. And a 30 yard pitch from one side of a green can be far different from a 30 yard pitch from the opposite direction.

Yes, endurance does come into play in golf, too. Typically, a golf course is about 6700 yards long, tees to greens, measured down the middle of the fairway. That’s a little under four miles. Not really a long walk, but it is augmented by many more yards from one hole to the next, and plenty of walking around greens and looking for lost balls. Certainly no marathon, but the legs are important for the swing, and when they get tired the swing suffers.

Most of all, golf is a game of the mind. The competition is one between the golfer and his mind, with the course and weather being both distraction and obstacle. I think that is why it appeals to me. I can’t get mad because a lineman missed his block, or the outfielder was out of position. I can’t even allow myself to get mad at me, because that also negatively affects my play. What Yogi Berra said about baseball is true in golf: “You can’t think and hit at the same time.” The swing must be trained to perform automatically. When I’m hitting the ball poorly, I often make things worse by trying to think as I swing. Mind control is everything.

Golf is my game. After many years of football, baseball, basketball, racquetball, flickerball, and softball, I’m devoted to a game without the word “ball” in its name. What my body now refuses to do is react quickly, and that’s what those other sports require. Golf doesn’t ask me to react, except mentally. And that’s an even greater challenge.

Fred on Everything

Filed under: General Rants — Bunker @ 11:53 am

What a great point of view this is.

For practical purposes it is not possible to express opinions, or to cover stories, that offend a sizable group on the floor of the newsroom. If your editor is female, or the guy at the next desk black, or gay, you find it very hard to write anything that these groups won?t like. After all, you have to come to work every day. More diversity in the newsroom means less diversity in the news.

Thus, in his view, the newspapers are losing readership.

Fred on Everything has an interesting tone, and the items in his store are…different. A reviewer of one of his books calls him a modern Mark Twain. I may have to pick up Nekkid in Austin.

Godwin’s Law

Filed under: General Rants — Bunker @ 10:29 am

Godwin’s Law evolved from discussions on usenet sites:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

For all you blog readers out there, sounds pretty familiar, doesn’t it? In a long list of comments, someone eventually will compare their antagonist to Hitler or the Nazis. In particular, if you read comments on many left-of-center sites, you’ll see this law at work.

Mike Godwin explains how this Law came to be discerned, and how it is invoked. For all of you who like to use the analogy, you basically end the discussion as the loser. If you insist on using it, I would recommend you at least first read William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. No, your history books don’t explain Nazism well enough.

Mike also offers an antidote:

The best way to fight such memes is to craft counter-memes designed to put them in perspective. The time may have come for us to commit ourselves to memetic engineering – crafting good memes to drive out the bad ones.

If only I were smart enough to do that.

Darwin Awards

Filed under: Golf — Bunker @ 9:41 am

This is a topic of interest to most people, although it sometimes becomes too painful to read. This is one of those painful moments.

Based on a bet by the other members of his threesome, Everett Sanchez tried to wash his own “balls” in a ball washer at the local golf course. Proving once again that beer and testosterone are a bad mix, Sanchez managed to straddle the ball washer and dangle his scrotum in the machine. Much to his dismay, one of his buddies upped the ante by spinning the crank on the machine with Sanchez’s scrotum in place, thus wedging them solidly in the mechanism. Sanchez, who immediately passed his threshold of pain, collapsed and tumbled from his perch. Unfortunately for Sanchez, the height of the ball washer was more than a foot higher off the ground than his testicles are in a normal stance, and the scrotum was the weakest link. Sanchez’s scrotum was ripped open during the fall, and one testicle was plucked from him forever and remained in the ball washer, while the other testicle was compressed and flattened as it was pulled between the housing of the washer, and the rotating machinery inside. To add insult to injury, Sanchez broke a new $300.00 driver that he had just purchased from the pro shop, and was using to balance himself. Sanchez was rushed to the hospital for surgery, and the remaining three-some were asked to leave the course.

This wouldn’t normally count, because the idiot didn’t die. But because he cannot reproduce as a result of his qualifying act of stupidity, we have allowed it.

There must have been some serious adult beverages involved.

Don’t you just hate it when you break a brand-new club?!

May 16, 2004

UNSCAM Update

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 4:04 pm

Two Senators (with 14 co-sponsors) have introduced legislation which requires cooperation from the UN in Congressional investigations of the Oil-for-Food Program.

S. 2389 states, right up front, that its purpose is

To require the withholding of United States contributions to the United Nations until the President certifies that the United Nations is cooperating in the investigation of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program.

HR4284 mirrors this bill in the House, and has 35 co-sponsors.

The US pays 25% of the UN budget each year. The only way any investigation will ever make progress is to threaten the organization in this way. Unfortunately, the individuals involved probably don’t care whether we pay our dues or not.

Come to think of it, when was the last time Kofi stuck his nose out into the open?

The guys at Friends of Saddam have all the updates.

May 15, 2004

Debate

Filed under: General Rants — Bunker @ 1:19 pm

In the last few days I’ve been involved or an interested spectator in several contentious discussions on line and in person. I use the word “discussion” because I believe it is the only way any of us learn from someone else.

One I will use as an example is a comment someone made on my site, and I followed their link to see what they had to say. It turns out the site is dedicated to slamming America in general, and Bush in particular. I left an additional comment there, and offered to discuss differing points of view.

Debate is a word often used as a synonym for discussion. The two are very different. Debate is a formal competition where two parties are absolutely convinced of their stance on a particular issue, and view it as their mission to enlighten the non-believers. I am guilty of this, myself. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t bother to maintain this blog.

Discussion is a meeting of minds to share information, often contradictory, in hopes that both parties will walk away with more knowledge than they arrived with. “Conversion” isn’t a necessity, but understanding is. And I don’t mean that with a condescending smirk. Both parties must enter a discussion with the intent to learn, and not merely offer competing ideas.

Anyway, my attempt at the other site garnered only questions posed as fact, bald statistics, and changes of subject. No answers of value, nor answerable questions were offered. I gave up. It was obvious the other party was not interested in hearing anything which might contradict opinions already formed. I have my opinions as well, and believe them just as strongly, but also realize I’m not omniprecient. Often, I’m quite stupid.

Perhaps that’s why I don’t like debate–it might highlight to the world just how stupid I am!

But the issue highlights how we often read and write things. A thought in my mind might take a completely different form in print. And what I read is filtered through what I know and believe. When questioned, I often go back and re-read what someone else wrote, or what I wrote that someone questioned. Believe it or not, in almost every instance I was correct in my initial assessment. Maybe I’m not all that stupid after all. But because I write and don’t edit (except to try and not embarrass myself with bad spelling) I am constantly on watch regarding other people’s reading of what I write. If they think I said something other than what I intended, I give them the benefit of the doubt initially. If it continues, as in my example, I simply stop. It’s going nowhere.

So, If I write “Thank you for playing” after one of your comments, you know that I’ve given up trying to learn anything from the discussion.

So far, I’ve only done that twice.

UPDATE: Thrice.

May 14, 2004

Iraq Occupation

Filed under: Society-Culture — Bunker @ 2:11 pm

Why does anyone take this man seriously?

Occupying armies have responsibilities, not rights. Their primary responsibility is to withdraw as quickly and expeditiously as possible, in a manner determined by the occupied population.

I can’t think of anything to say which would point out the absolute absurdity of that statement better than the statement itself.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress