A man entered the bus with both of his front pockets full of golf balls, and sat down next to a beautiful (you guessed it) blonde.
The puzzled blonde kept looking at him and his bulging pockets. Finally, after many such glances from her, he said, “It’s golf balls”.
Nevertheless, the blonde continued to look at him thoughtfully and finally, not being able to contain her curiosity any longer, asked …
“Does it hurt as much as tennis elbow?”
Can Kerry ever make up his mind?
Bush either pissed off the entire Arab world, or he made sweetheart deals with his buddies in the Arab world. I don’t think the two are compatible.
Last week I played golf with a friend who uses a Titleist driver and 3 wood. We got up to the 17th tee and he gave me the 3 wood and said, “Try this.” It had a heavier head than my MacGregor, which I like. I teed it up and hit the ball straight down the fairway, clearing a fairway bunker I occasionally have difficulty getting past using my driver. Of course, I knew it had to be the club!
Actually, I thought about the feel of the club, and concluded the added clubhead weight was the primary advantage. I’m an engineer, so preservation of energy and momentum instantly came to mind. I got home and did a quick search for the Titleist 983 series of clubs just to see what they cost, but also to find out a little about the swing weight. The Driver is about $500, and the 3 wood costs about $225. A little steep. A lot steep. Maybe when I get my handicap down in the single digits, I’ll reconsider.
Well, there was no information on club head weight, so I pulled out the handy Golfsmith club builders catalog. All their driver heads are in the general vicinity of 200 grams. No help.
Last night I pulled out two of my old drivers. One is the first metal driver I ever bought. It was manufactured by Head, better known for their tennis gear. But it has a low profile, and I’ve used it off the fairway many times. I’ve reshafted it three or four times as I experimented with club assembly. The head is a little heavier than my current Liquidmetal driver, but not by much. I may put some lead tape on it to see how that affects my shots.
The second driver is one of my traditional clubs, and one I always enjoy hitting. It is a Harvey Pennick persimmon head on a graphite shaft. Nobody hits persimmon clubs any more. Everyone wants the latest technology. But I generally hit the ball just as well with this driver as I do with any other. It just has a smaller sweet spot, which requires more consistency in my swing.
But when I hit the sweet spot on my persimmon driver, the sensation is magic.
When I started playing golf, I found a set of old clubs at a garage sale. They had metal shafts coated to look like wood. They were rusty and pretty beat up. But I learned to hit the ball with them. I decided I needed some new ones while playing with a new partner one day. He asked if I was going to use my brassie or my niblick on the next shot.
I was a young GI, with very little disposable income. And a new set of clubs, a complete set of irons and woods, cost $100 in the Base Exchange. It took quite some time before I convinced myself I had enough money to get that set, but I finally did. Like every set at the time, the woods were made from laminated maple. They served well, but they just weren’t persimmon, the royalty of golf. A persimmon driver alone could cost more than what I paid for my complete set. That wasn’t happening.
I eventually moved up to a set of Wilson Staff 1200 woods, almost top of the line for laminated maple woods. And I used them for more than a dozen years. I picked up the Head driver in a bow to the advancement in technology. I’ve used it off and on now for about ten years.
As I got interested in rebuilding clubs, I picked up a few persimmon heads to play around with. They have become throw-aways. Nobody wants a wooden wood any more. I liked the feel when I struck the ball well, and I could control the design myself with different shafts, inserts, grips, and modifications to the head itself. I bought a new persimmon head from Golfsmith, attached it to a light Aldila graphite shaft tipped at 45 inches, and put on a Winn grip. It is a nice club.
I pulled it out yesterday and made a few swings in the back yard. It goes back in my bag this weekend. The weight is a little more than others, but I don’t subscribe to the “lighter is better” mentality. I know from coaching baseball (and engineering) that swing speed is what matters, but you should swing the heaviest implement you can at the fastest speed. If the added weight slows your swing, get something lighter. But the added momentum of additional weight moving at the same speed increases ball speed. Distance. Yes, distance suffers if you don’t hit the ball “on the screws” and the smaller clubface is less forgiving. I don’t care. It actually makes me swing better knowing that.
The additional benefit is the feel of hitting a shot well with persimmon. The sound is different, too, although it isn’t the “click” we used to get from a persimmon hitting a wound ball with a balata cover.
There are few things in life better than standing on the teebox as the sun comes up on a beautiful day, the smell of dew on the grass and the feel of a well-struck ball off the face of a persimmon driver. I love this game.
You can get news from the Middle East straight from the horse’s ass…I mean horse’s mouth, right here.
Foreign policy encompasses a lot of territory, political, military, and economic. The essence is that each nation in the world relates to all others in a way that can best benefit the people of that country, or those in power. That is the significant difference in policies.
Diplomacy around the world has always been a bastion for the well-connected, the political elite, of the world. There is a culture of aristocracy which has grown as men and women travel the world visiting with others of similar background. Diplomats, by nature and training, expect to be listened to with reverence. Their goal is to maintain the status-quo, not upsetting anyone’s apple cart. Stability is paramount. Without stability, they would be unable to travel freely enjoying the pleasures and perks of position.
We uncouth Americans don’t understand the ways of the world. Well, except for maybe a few of our more privileged class residing in the Hamptons, Georgetown, or Malibu. We like to think our political leadership and appointed diplomats serve us, not the other way around. We expect our diplomats to use logic and reason in relating to those of other nations. We expect them to act in our best interests.
That’s not how the game is played.
Bush upset the apple cart. And Kerry wants to set it right. That is what this election is about. For all the rhetoric we’ll hear over the next six months, that is the long and short of it. This weekend, Kerry accused Bush of having a “stunningly ineffective” foreign policy and worst of all, he said that the war on terrorism wasn’t primarily a military struggle. (from NealzNuze)
What he wants, along with most of the diplomatic world, is a return to discussion. He wants the UN to have the lead role in Iraq, which means rule by diplomat.
The diplomatic dictionary defines “effective foreign policy” as that which leads to continual dicussion, and an occasional resolution. In those terms, I agree with Kerry’s assessment. Bush has not followed the lead of those career diplomats who believe you should never make anyone mad. Even if they do everything they can to make you mad. An “effective foreign policy” is one which best benefits the political elite of the world. It is one which enriches people like Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, Yassir Arafat, and Saddam Hussein. The elite continue to live well, be highly spoken of, and travel on someone else’s dime.
Kerry is also correct that the war on terrorism isn’t primarily a military struggle. Bush has never claimed it was. But it’s a charge he cannot counter overtly. But military action must be a part of the battle. Otherwise, economic and political efforts are ineffective. Sarah wrote about The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance today, and this very issue. Kerry still cannot say what he would do differently. The UN has no troops, and their bureaucrats pulled out of Iraq faster than the Spaniards.
My fear is that Bush will change course and attempt to appease these losers of the world. Appeasing the UN is no different from appeasing terrorists. They are cut from the same cloth. Any negotiation is seen as weakness. And anything we do will still not be enough to save the US from condemnation in the UN. If we give in, they will simply pat us on the head and say, “That’s okay. We all make mistakes when we are children. Sit back there on the bench and let us adults make things all nice again.”
I received a letter from Congressman Tom Tancredo this week in response to one I sent him after President Bush made comments about wanting some kind of guest worker program instituted. I trust Tom more than anyone else in Congress on this issue. I’ve scanned the letter and made it available here if you care to read it.
I also wanted to share Francis Porretto’s essay on illegal immigration.
I concur with both in many ways, and wanted to add my own thoughts to theirs.
I didn’t realize that we allowed almost a million legal immigrants into the US each year. I have to wonder who they are, as I’ve know of several well-educated foreigners who have not been able to get into the US, and spend months and years navigating the bureaucratic maze. Yet we have thousands trying desperately to get here by whatever means possible.
Living in south Texas, I hear about many illegals most of the country is never aware of. It is really heart-wrenching. The dangers these folks are willing to risk, and hardships they endure to get here illuminate the economic and social squalor that is Mexico. We are the relief valve for the economic elite in that country. Without the allure of the border, the entire social structure of Mexico would collapse. And so would the political structure.
Americans don’t see it. Most Americans who visit Mexico see Cancun and Cozumel. They don’t see the slums and deprivation of people living on nothing.
Our Curmudgeon sees three conditions which any immigrant must agree to before being allowed into the US:
? Do you speak English?
? Is there an American firm that will guarantee your employment for a minimum of two years, unforeseeable developments notwithstanding?
? Are you willing to waive all right to government-provided social services for a period of two years?
I see nothing wrong with any of these, and the first two are requirements in many other countries (language is a basic requirement in most countries). I had friends trying to emmigrate to Australia, and that country requires an income minimum for a job you will fill, as well as a sponsor.
I would amend this list, and some of our laws, to ever better define requirements.
? Unless at least one parent is an American citizen, no child born in the US gets automatic citizenship. This is an issue here in Texas. Women in Mexico about to give birth have an ambulance carry them across the border to an American hospital so their child will be a citizen. Our border guards are admonished to allow ambulances across because medical treatment here is far superior to that in Mexico.
? Every immigrant must immediately apply for citizenship, and continue to progress in attaining naturalization. This must be completed within six years. No dual citizenship allowed.
? No visas for more than six years. Student visas are good for only four years, and are not renewable.
? The border with Mexico must be patrolled by military forces. The problem has gone far beyond campesinos looking for work. We need to secure our southern border in the same way Mexico secures theirs. If only they would be as diligent on their northern border.
It won’t be an easy task. Politicians don’t do things that are difficult. And “anti-discrimination” forces are extremely vocal. Tancredo is cut from different cloth. He cites a quote from the US Commission on Immigration Reform, which was chaired by Barbara Jordon:
?As a nation with a long history of immigration and commitment to the rule of law, this country must set limits on who can enter and then credibly enforce our immigration law.”
“The Commission decries hostility and discrimination against immigrants as antithetical to the traditions and interests of the country. At the same time, we disagree with those who would label efforts to control immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. Rather, it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.?
This isn’t a race issue, although many try to imply it is. It is a sovereignty issue. I don’t want the UN running our country, and I don’t want open borders. If we were to open them wide, the rest of world would empty quickly.
Both men have, what I think, are excellent ideas. Tom is in a position to do something about the problem. But he needs support. He thanked me for writing, and responded even though I am not one of his constituents. He needs others in Congress to join him. My representative is one who welcomes illegal immigration, so I can’t be of help. Perhaps some of you can.
Want to know what it’s like to manage a house, work a job, and care for kids while the husband is away fighting a war? Shannon explains.
There are lots of women (and men) coping like this, beyond the fact their spouse is in a combat zone where people want to kill them. I read lots of prayer promises for those in Afghanistan and Iraq, so take the time to say one for people like Shannon, Sarah, and Tim.
Or maybe just mow their yard.
Powered by WordPress