This overview provides a glimpse into what to expect from President Trump’s next four years. The political and economic landscape will undoubtedly be dynamic, with significant implications for various segments of the population. President Trump’s Second Term: What to Expect 2024-2025: Setting the Stage Inauguration and Early Policies: President Trump’s second term begins with a focus on solidifying his base and implementing key policies. His administration is expected to prioritize immigration reform, including the continuation of building the border wall and implementing stricter immigration policies, Trump has also promised to cut taxes further, particularly for corporations and high-income earners. Congressional Dynamics: With Republicans likely holding a majority in both the House and Senate, Trump will have more leeway to push through his legislative agenda. However, he may still face opposition from within his party on certain issues, particularly those that require significant funding or are highly controversial. 2025-2026: Economic Policies and Social Security Tax Cuts and Economic Impact: Trump’s economic policies will likely include extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, reducing corporate tax rates, and eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. While these measures aim to stimulate economic growth, they could also increase the federal deficit and potentially lead to cuts in social programs. Impact on the Lower Middle Class: The lower middle class may face mixed outcomes. On one hand, tax cuts could provide some financial relief. On the other hand, proposed tariffs and a potential national sales tax could increase the cost of goods, disproportionately affecting lower-income households. The burden of a national sales tax is typically regressive, meaning it takes a larger percentage of income from lower-income earners. Social Security Concerns: Trump has pledged not to cut Social Security benefits, but his economic policies could inadvertently strain the program’s funding. Eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits and other revenue-reducing measures could exacerbate the funding crisis, potentially leading to benefit cuts in the future 2026-2027: Legislative Battles and Policy Implementation Healthcare and Education: Trump’s administration may attempt to repeal or replace the Affordable Care Act, focusing on reducing federal involvement in healthcare. Education policies could see a shift towards school choice and voucher programs, aiming to increase competition and improve educational outcomes. Infrastructure and Trade: Infrastructure development will likely be a key focus, with Trump pushing for significant investments in rebuilding America’s roads, bridges, and airports. Trade policies will continue to emphasize tariffs and renegotiating trade deals to favor American interests. 2027-2028: Preparing for the Next Election Political Climate and Midterm Elections: As the 2028 midterm elections approach, Trump’s administration will focus on maintaining Republican control of Congress. This period may see increased political polarization and efforts to rally the base through populist rhetoric and policy initiatives. Long-term Economic Impact: The long-term effects of Trump’s economic policies will become more apparent. While tax cuts and deregulation may boost economic growth, the potential increase in the federal deficit and strain on social programs could pose significant challenges. Defense, NATO, and Terrorism Defense and Military Spending: Trump has consistently advocated for increased military spending and a strong national defense. His administration is expected to continue this trend, focusing on modernizing the military and ensuring the U.S. maintains its global military dominance. NATO and International Relations: Trump’s relationship with NATO has been contentious. He has criticized NATO members for not meeting their defense spending commitments and has suggested that the U.S. might reduce its involvement if other members do not increase their contributions. This stance could lead to tensions within the alliance and impact the U.S.’s role in global security. Terrorism: Trump’s approach to combating terrorism will likely involve a combination of military action and intelligence operations. He has emphasized the need for strong borders and strict immigration policies to prevent terrorists from entering the country. Additionally, Trump has advocated for aggressive measures against terrorist organizations abroad, Immigration Policies Mass Deportations: Trump has promised to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. This plan involves mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, increased workplace raids, and the use of the U.S. military to assist in enforcement. Critics argue that this approach could lead to significant humanitarian and economic challenges. Border Security: Building and expanding the border wall remains a priority for Trump. His administration will likely continue to allocate significant resources to border security, including hiring more border agents and implementing advanced surveillance technologies. Asylum and Visa Policies: Trump’s administration is expected to implement stricter asylum policies and reduce the number of visas issued. These measures aim to curb illegal immigration and ensure that only those who meet stringent criteria are allowed to enter the country. Legacy and Future Prospects: Trump’s second term will shape his legacy and influence the future direction of the Republican Party. His policies and leadership style will continue to be a source of debate and analysis, impacting American politics for years to come.. Post Views: 4
Category: Ethics
KAMALA HARRIS GUNS AND MISINFORMATION
FIRST LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR. I AM NOT NOW OR EVER HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTIES. THERE IS NO ROOM IN GOVERNING OUR NATION FOR POLITICS. Just two of the many reasons I CAN NOT vote for Kamala Harris. Aside from never getting a direct answer regarding her plans for OUR future. She speaks nonsensically I know preschoolers who are able to communicate better. One of President Biden’s first orders to VP Harris was to oversee the illegal immigrant invasion. We still have seen no action. Except to place Trump ideas in effect, like many other things. {I can only expect the same thing). NO POSITIVE ACTION, for another 4 years if she is elected. We know she is incapable of thinking on her feet, and has to be fed what to say. Just like a puppet. So, do we know who will be pulling her strings if elected? MAYBE some subversive group (?), A quote from the woman; herself regarding GUNS and the Privacy of your home. Yes, Kamala Harris did make a statement about authorities checking how guns are stored in homes. This remark dates back to 2007 when she was the District Attorney in San Francisco. During a news conference about new legislation aimed at enforcing safe storage of guns, she said, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs” To me this is a corner cutter for a means of doing an “UNREASONABLE SEARCH”. A means to enter YOUR HOME and make up any reason they want, to SEIZE YOUR PERSONAL SELF DEFENSE equipment, Not to mention any thing else they might not like. Now let us look at another thing Ms. Harris seems so proud to stand up for..MISINFORMATION Yes, Kamala Harris has addressed the issue of misinformation on several occasions. In her speeches, she has emphasized the dangers of misinformation and the importance of combating it to protect democracy and public health. For example, during her campaign and tenure as Vice President, she has spoken about. Now let us look at another thing Ms. Harris seems so proud to stand up for..MISINFORMATION. the need for accurate information, especially in the context of elections and public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Misinformation can undermine trust in institutions and spread false narratives that can have serious consequences. Harris has advocated for greater efforts to ensure that people have access to reliable and truthful information. We live in a world of misinformation, especially from politics. Example of misinformation,(simplified). Simple sentence: “I don’t like chocolate milk” Simple enough? Of course the politicians AS WELL AS MEDIA,(depending on what they want to push). Let’s omit the word, (one word), “DON”T”. Now it looks like I said, “I like chocolate milk”. Or omit the word CHOCOLATE. Now it appears “I don’t like milk”. If you omit the word milk, Now it appears that “I don’t like chocolate”. To sum up: WHO would make the judgement of what is misinformation? THE GOVERNMENT !!!! Now if this is the type of RULER you want vote for the potential Tzarini. (My word), for a female Tzar. Or maybe Marxist, as she apparently grew up in a household of Marxist. I have NO idea what to expect from Ms Harris. I really expect the END of our Freedoms as we know them. She appears to want to take away at least two or three of our Constitutional Rights. Today 2 or 3 by the end of her term we may be living under Russia’s PUTIN, or Hitler. Now lets look at the Trump side. What can I say? I don’t agree with everything he says. I don’t always agree with things he does. BUT, he does say what he thinks, SO I know what I am getting. I think a lot of things he says is in jest, just to make a point. Mark Twain was very good doing this. Post Views: 25
The Death of Pat Tillman: A Hero’s Tragic and Controversial End
Pat Tillman was a man of immense courage, both on the football field and the battlefield. Known for his selflessness, Tillman walked away from a successful NFL career to serve in the U.S. Army following the attacks on September 11, 2001. His decision shocked the sports world, as he turned down millions to follow a higher calling. Tragically, Tillman’s life was cut short in 2004 while serving in Afghanistan. What followed his death was a series of misreports and accusations of a military cover-up, sparking one of the most controversial military cases in modern U.S. history. Pat Tillman’s Path from NFL Star to Army Ranger Tillman was a rising star in the NFL, playing safety for the Arizona Cardinals. He was known for his relentless work ethic and fierce determination. In 2002, after completing the NFL season, Tillman made a life-altering decision. Deeply affected by the events of 9/11, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, leaving behind his NFL career to serve his country. Tillman joined the elite Army Rangers and served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His decision to enlist in the military at the height of his career earned him admiration from fans, players, and the American public. He became a symbol of sacrifice and service. However, his journey took a tragic turn on April 22, 2004, when he was killed in a firefight while on patrol in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. Initial Reports and the Tragic Friendly Fire Incident When news of Pat Tillman’s death first broke, it was reported that he had died heroically in a firefight with enemy forces. The U.S. military initially described his death as the result of an ambush by Taliban insurgents. Tillman’s story became a rallying cry for patriotism, and his sacrifice was celebrated nationwide. However, within weeks of his death, disturbing details began to surface that challenged the initial reports. It was revealed that Tillman had not been killed by enemy fire but by “friendly fire”—a devastating revelation that sent shockwaves through his family and the public. The term “friendly fire” refers to a situation in which soldiers are accidentally shot by their own forces, and this was the grim reality of Tillman’s final moments. Tillman had been accidentally shot by fellow U.S. soldiers in the confusion of battle, when his platoon was split during an engagement with enemy forces. In the chaos, Tillman was struck by three bullets to the head, fired from a fellow soldier’s rifle. The soldiers involved were reportedly unaware of their mistake until it was too late. The Cover-Up and Misreporting The controversy surrounding Pat Tillman’s death stems not only from the friendly fire incident itself but also from how the U.S. military handled the situation. For weeks, the military continued to promote the narrative that Tillman had been killed by enemy forces, even as evidence of friendly fire became clear to those on the ground. This led to accusations that the military had deliberately concealed the truth in order to preserve Tillman’s image as a war hero. Tillman’s family was devastated when they learned the truth about how he had died. They became outspoken critics of the military’s handling of his death, accusing the government of using Pat’s death as a propaganda tool to rally public support for the war. The family felt that the initial misreporting of his death was not merely an error but part of a calculated cover-up to hide the uncomfortable reality of friendly fire. The Official Investigation The controversy surrounding Tillman’s death eventually led to multiple investigations by the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, and Congress. The Army conducted a formal inquiry into the incident, which confirmed that Tillman’s death was indeed the result of friendly fire. The report also noted that there had been a failure to report the details of the incident accurately and promptly. However, the investigation into whether there was an intentional cover-up remained contentious. Testimonies from soldiers who were with Tillman during the firefight revealed that the military had been aware early on that Tillman was likely killed by friendly fire. Yet, despite this knowledge, it took weeks for the truth to be disclosed to Tillman’s family and the public. Congressional hearings were held in 2007, during which military officials were questioned about the delayed and misleading reports. Army officials admitted that the initial account of Tillman’s death was wrong but denied any deliberate attempt to cover up the truth. The hearings left many questions unanswered, and the Tillman family continued to believe that there had been an effort to mislead them and the public. Lingering Controversies and Theories Despite the official investigations, controversy still surrounds the handling of Pat Tillman’s death. The central question remains: Was the initial misreporting a result of confusion and poor communication, or was it a deliberate attempt to manipulate the story of Tillman’s death for political purposes? The Role of Leadership: – Some critics argue that military leadership, particularly at higher levels, may have intentionally delayed the truth about Tillman’s death to avoid public relations fallout. At the time of his death, Tillman had become a national symbol, and revealing that he had died by friendly fire might have undermined his legacy and damaged morale among U.S. forces and the American public. Political Motivations: – There is also speculation that Tillman’s death was manipulated to serve as a patriotic rallying point during a period when public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was wavering. Tillman’s death, as initially reported, was seen as a heroic sacrifice, and some believe this narrative was maintained for political purposes. The Question of Accountability: – While investigations confirmed friendly fire as the cause of death, many believe that those responsible for the delay in revealing the truth have not been held accountable. The Tillman family, in particular, has sought greater transparency and justice in the handling of Pat’s case. Conclusion: A Complex and Tragic Story Pat Tillman’s death is a story of both heroism and heartbreak. His… Continue reading The Death of Pat Tillman: A Hero’s Tragic and Controversial End
Lifetime Bans in Baseball: A Closer Look at the Scandals that Shook the Sport
IN MEMORY OF PETE ROSE (April 14, 1941-September 30, 2024) NOTE: The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is an independent, nonprofit educational institution. That being said it seems the MLB bans of any player is not binding!!! So why have players like Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson not been enshrined in the hall of fame. There records speak for their for them. (Anyone from the Baseball Hall of Fame care to respond). Now to our story. Though not an actual mystery, this article goes into detail about lifetime bans in Baseball and gives you a greater look into these bans and their outcomes. Baseball holds a special place in American culture, and with that comes a strong commitment to fair play and sportsmanship. When these values are compromised, Major League Baseball (MLB) does not hesitate to impose its harshest penalty—a lifetime ban. This punishment has been used sparingly throughout the history of the game but always for actions that threaten its integrity. Let’s take a deeper look into the most infamous lifetime bans in baseball history, the events leading to them, and their lasting impact. Pete Rose: The Gambling Scandal that Rocked Baseball Pete Rose, known as “Charlie Hustle,” is one of the most controversial figures in baseball. Over a 24-year career, he set the record for most hits (4,256), earning accolades and a reputation as one of the greatest players in history. However, Rose’s fall from grace came in 1989 when it was revealed that he had bet on baseball games, including those involving the Cincinnati Reds, a team he both played for and managed. (It is said he only bet FOR his team to win). An investigation led by MLB Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti concluded that Rose had placed bets on numerous baseball games from 1985 to 1987, including his own team’s games, though no evidence suggested he bet against the Reds. In a deal to avoid further legal action, Rose accepted a lifetime ban from baseball on August 24, 1989, without admitting to or denying the allegations. Rose’s ban barred him from managing, coaching, or holding any official role within MLB, and he became ineligible for induction into the Hall of Fame. Over the years, Rose has made several appeals for reinstatement, expressing remorse for his actions and eventually admitting in 2004 that he had bet on baseball. Despite his pleas, MLB has held firm, citing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the game. The impact of Rose’s ban continues to be debated. Many fans believe his on-field accomplishments should be enough to warrant Hall of Fame induction, while others argue that his gambling offenses tarnish his legacy irreparably. The Rose case serves as a stark reminder of baseball’s strict no-tolerance policy toward gambling. The Black Sox Scandal: A World Series Tainted by Greed In 1919, baseball was rocked by one of its greatest scandals when eight members of the Chicago White Sox were accused of conspiring with gamblers to throw the World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. The players involved, including legendary outfielder **Shoeless Joe Jackson**, accepted bribes from gamblers in exchange for underperforming in key moments of the series. The scandal came to light after rumors of the fix spread throughout the season, leading to an investigation. The eight players, known as the “Black Sox,” were indicted by a grand jury in 1920, though they were acquitted of criminal charges. However, MLB’s newly appointed Commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, was determined to restore the public’s faith in the game and permanently banned all eight players from baseball, regardless of the court’s decision. Shoeless Joe Jackson’s involvement remains a subject of controversy. Despite his incredible .375 batting average during the series and his claims of innocence, Jackson was still banned for life. Many believe Jackson was not fully complicit in the plot and was manipulated by his teammates and the gamblers. Still, Landis’ decision to ban him solidified Jackson’s exclusion from baseball history, including the Hall of Fame. The Black Sox Scandal is often seen as a turning point for MLB. It led to the establishment of the Commissioner’s Office, created to protect the integrity of the game. The scandal also fueled a more stringent approach to gambling and a zero-tolerance policy toward any behavior that could compromise the fairness of competition. Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs): A Modern-Day Scourge The following bans I agree with 100%, and should be MLB Lifetime, because they were out and out CHEATING. While the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) became a major issue in baseball in the 1990s and 2000s, MLB’s policies regarding drug violations were initially less stringent. However, after repeated scandals involving high-profile players, the league adopted a tough stance that includes the possibility of lifetime bans for multiple offenses. The MLB’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program mandates increasing punishments for players caught using PEDs. A first offense results in an 80-game suspension, a second offense leads to a 162-game suspension (a full season), and a third offense results in a lifetime ban. Although no player has yet been banned after three offenses, the threat of permanent exclusion serves as a strong deterrent. Some of the most famous players involved in PED scandals include Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds. Rodriguez was suspended for the entire 2014 season due to his involvement in the Biogenesis scandal, but he narrowly avoided a lifetime ban. Bonds, though never banned, faced legal challenges and public scrutiny due to allegations of steroid use during his career. The legacy of PED use in baseball has left a cloud over an entire generation of players, some of whom would have been Hall of Fame candidates if not for their association with drugs. MLB’s aggressive anti-drug policies reflect its commitment to maintaining a level playing field, and while lifetime bans for PEDs are rare, the policy underscores the seriousness with which the league treats drug violations. Assault and Misconduct: Off-the-Field Actions with On-the-Field Consequences While gambling and PEDs are more common reasons… Continue reading Lifetime Bans in Baseball: A Closer Look at the Scandals that Shook the Sport
Electoral College: Protector of Small Populous States RIGHT TO VOTE
It has been brought to my attention, some states are taking steps to eliminate the ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE”. Apparently the people trying to eliminate the Electoral College, either missed that day in school, or was asleep when the subject was being taught. You see the Electoral College was put in the constitution to protect smaller states from being RULED by the whims of the larger populated states. It is a safe stop; which is more necessary now than at the time of its placement in the constitution. Before you begin reading the main body of this post, I ask you to keep in mind these numbers. (Although the Electoral College isn’t perfect please consider these numbers). Then tell me who completely controls the “POPULAR VOTE”. California: 38,889,700 people. Texas: 30,978,754 people. Florida: 22,975,931 people. New York 19,467,232 people. Pennsylvania 12,951275 people. I am using numbers available for April, 2024. The total population of just these 5 states, (according to my calculator), 335,893,238 that is almost 336 MILLION PEOPLE. Now as for the other 45 states (again according to my calculator), 206,982,776 almost 207 MILLION PEOPLE. My point being with 5 states having 129 MILLION MORE PEOPLE THAN THE remaining 45 states. These 5 states have more than enough people to elect whoever they want not necessarily who is best for the entire country. This conundrum (to ME). Do I want a president I do not want or even have a say in? The Electoral College is a mechanism established by the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1. It was intended as a compromise between those who advocated for the election of the president through a vote in Congress and those who believed it should be decided by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors in total, which represent the 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and three additional electors from the District of Columbia. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes. This system is not based on equal representation of individuals, but rather on equal representation of states. Now let’s consider your hypothetical scenario where just five most populated states control a presidential election. These states are California (55 Electoral Votes), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), and Pennsylvania (20) as per the 2020 allocations. This adds up to just 171 electoral votes – still far short from the required majority of 270. Therefore, even though these states might have large populations, they alone cannot decide an election through popular vote due to our current electoral college system. However, if we were to shift to a direct democracy model or use only popular vote to determine elections, theoretically these states with high populations could indeed dominate national elections. This could lead to political imbalance and neglecting interests of less populous areas which often have unique socio-economic and environmental issues that require specific policy attention. If this were the case, citizens from less-populated states might feel that their votes don’t carry enough weight or their voice is not heard adequately in deciding national leadership. This could lead to certain degree of voter disillusionment or lower voter turnout among them because they may see their role as insignificant next to larger populace areas. This concern forms one of key arguments behind maintaining our Electoral College – it ensures all parts of country can have recognizable say in choosing our national leader irrespective of their population size. Furthermore, the electoral college system forces presidential candidates to seek support from a wider geographic base, instead of just focusing on densely populated urban areas. It maintains the balance of influence among states and encourages candidates to understand and respond to diverse needs of different states. So despite criticisms, many argue that maintaining the electoral college is an important tool in preserving our federal system and ensuring that all parts of the country have an equitable say in national elections. In conclusion: What am i missing? After all I am sure these lawmakers have a much better education than I do. OR, are they ??? What is their motive for taking away the voters rights, as IT IS possible that the votes cast by these 45 states are just a matter of going through the motions, allowing the residents to feel their votes count. Thank you. Artie Fischal P.S. Please feel free to leave me comments those who agree and those who don’t agree. Maybe I’ll learn something. Post Views: 134
If Elected I Will: Promises Made by Politicians
Election time is here ! We can tell by the sprouting of signs in lawns, billboards, newspapers, TV and Radio ads. (which is, it seems at least one or two out three ads). They fall into three different catagories. One is telling you how bad a person their opponent is. The second is telling you what a terrific person the one who’s being told what a louse he is by his opponent. The Third is PROMISES, that are in truth what the politician thinks the people he represents want to hear. So, today let’s take a short look at how valid, or likely those freely strewn promises have of actually happening. It is really more complicated than what we see here; but this will give you somewhat of an idea how most of the things promised Won’t happen. I would much rather hear, “These are the things I WANT to do”. Rather than, “This what I WILL do, if elected”. Doesn’t that sound more truthful? So here we go. When politicians run for office, they often make a variety of promises to the electorate. These campaign promises are designed to align with their constituents’ values and concerns, and are intended to illustrate the candidates’ goals if they are elected. However, it is true that these promises sometimes extend beyond what the politicians themselves can personally deliver. Let’s look at some of the reasons why this is the case. 1. Separation of Powers: In many democratic societies, powers are divided among different branches of government. For example, in the United States, power is split between executive, legislative, and judicial branches. If a candidate running for an executive office (like President or Governor) makes a promise that requires legislation to be passed or changed, they will need cooperation from the legislative branch where lawmakers may not share their views or objectives. 2. Opposition: Politicians often face opposition from other elected officials who either have different views or might not want them to succeed for political reasons. This opposition can come from within their own party (intra-party) or from other parties (inter-party). This opposition might block or delay legislation needed to fulfill certain promises. 3. External Constraints: Sometimes events outside a politician’s control can hinder their ability to fulfill promises made during campaigns. The economy could enter a recession; there could be natural disasters; international events could demand time and resources–all these factors can divert attention and resources away from certain campaign promises. 4. Public Opinion: Public opinion can shift over time due to external factors or changes in societal attitudes which may make it difficult for politicians to keep certain campaign promises without risking public approval. 5. Constraints by Law and Constitution: Many countries have constitutions that place restrictions on what government bodies can do within their jurisdiction which may limit a politician’s ability to fulfill some election promises. Despite these constraints, it’s important for citizens in any democracy to hold elected officials accountable for their campaign pledges within these realistic limits. If a politician consistently fails to meet their promises without good reason, voters can express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box in the next election. An educated electorate is a key pillar of any healthy democracy, and understanding the real constraints politicians face can help voters make informed decisions about which candidates truly have their best interests at heart. Post Views: 129
My Week Playing as an Amateur in the Masters Tournament of 2024
HI ! My name is Mike. I want to thank Wayne for permitting me to tell my story. It is a story about my once in a lifetime experience. First a little background of my self. Unlike some of my friends who lived in the city, I was raised on a farm. Where work came first. While they began to play golf early in their life; heck for some of them the golf course was their baby sitter. Their parents paid for a family membership at the local club. While the parents worked the kids played golf all day. I was in my twenties when I first picked up a golf club. I was a carpet and tile installer, (then we were called floor covering mechanics), one would spend a year or so as an “intern”, which meant I helped carry the carpet, linoleum, or tile into the house for the journeyman installer. As time passed I was given more responsibility. I learned how to sew a seam in the carpet that was invisible, how to cut a seam in linoleum that was very hard to see, and how to install tile on both floors and walls. One day after work my boss asked me if I played golf. I told him I had played some miniature golf. He said, “No, no, real golf”, heavily stressing real. I said, “Never, why would anyone want to hit a little white ball, carry a heavy bag of clubs, about 200 yards, hit it again, and repeat the process for a couple of hours. He handed me a used Byron Nelson 6 iron and took me to the field behind the shop. He hit a couple of balls and seemed to marvel at its flight. He told me the 6 iron was the easiest one to hit. He told me take the club and showed me how to hold it. He dropped a ball and told me to try it. I missed the ball about ten or twelve times. (More instructions). Finally I made contact and I was amazed as the ball took flight. Before that session was finished I was hooked. My Uncle who was an avid golfer gave me an old set of clubs and a handfull of used balls. I found myself behind the bosses shop sometimes before and after work, just hitting balls with the various clubs. Then came the day my boss took me to the city golf course and he began to give me putting lessons and he never seemed to tire of telling me how to stroke the ball, read the greens, and relax. One day my Uncle told me his employer, was having a scramble, family members were invited to play. My Uncle was a pretty good golfer and so were the other two golfers. I agreed to play. It was kind of a downer. We never used a single one of my shots. UNTIl the 18th hole. It was a par 5. We were on the green in 3, but we had a about a 30 foot putt. “Go ahead”, my uncle said,” show us the line” Can you imagine the surprise on all their faces, and mine when the ball somehow found its way into the cup. I made a keeper on the last hole. (the only one we used). We made our way to the clubhouse and sucked down a soda, while waiting tor the results, which didn’t take long as we were the last team to finish. Soon the announcement was made that our team had won by one stroke. My team mates were patting me on the back saying “It was that long putt you made that won it for us”. I knew better; if it hadn’t been for their play all day we wouldn’t have been in the position to win. As it turned out we each got club bucks to spend at the pro shop. Because I didn’t have golf shoes I spent some of it on a pair of white wing-tip golf shoes, and the rest I purchased a driver and 3 wood. This was before the metal clubs came out so they were wooden woods. I still use them. I have used that same set of clubs, the Byron Nelson 6 iron included all my life. From then on I was totally hooked. I moved on from my job at the floor covering shop, and soon made a friend who loved to play golf, (actually he played to get out of doing his honey-do list at home). We played nine holes about every day, maybe 36 holes on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. Actually we seemed to spend more time in the woods surrounding the course as well as on the course and when it wasn’t busy around the water hazards hunting golf balls. (When he moved to a different house he had about eight or nine 55 gallon drums of balls. In fact he actually paid for his club membership by giving the club a drum of balls, each year. We joined a league where we were way outclassed. I finally established a handicap in this league of 14. Occasionally I would win a sleeve of balls for long drive, or closest to the pin, and sometimes for low score with handicap. My friend and I would enter local tournaments, we didn’t win any but sometimes we would finish in the top ten. But we always had fun. Our group from work every Wednesday would have a choose up we had enough for about 4-5 foursomes. We played if you got a bogey you got 1 point, par was 2 points, birdie was 3 points, and the rare eagle was 4 points. High score won a share of the money we chipped in. Low gross got the rest. Although we played as foursome it was an individual thing, every man for himself. Then as my children… Continue reading My Week Playing as an Amateur in the Masters Tournament of 2024
COULD THE CRASH OF THE DALI INTO THE FRANCIS SCOTT KEY BE COINCIDENTAL
[adrotate group=”1″] I am no expert on what I am about to bring up. Merely a possibility, The Singapore flagged ship which crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. The Pilot claims to have lost control of the ship. Could this be the case? Very much so. Is it possible some terrorist group remotely took over control. I don’t know. It just seems odd the bridge is the Francis Scott Key Bridge, (Francis Scott Key the writer of the poem, “The Defence of Fort McHenry”. Now known as the United States of America’s National Anthem, “THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER” Written while watching the bombardment of the fort by British Navy in Outer Baltimore Port in the PATAPSCO RIVER. (Same River) HERE is some things I found researching the possibility of a remote control take over. The Dali, a Singapore-flagged container vessel, collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. Here are the key points: Incident Details: The Dali collided with the bridge, causing it to collapse into the Patapsco River. Video evidence captured the ship’s approach and subsequent loss of control. Police radio traffic reported steering failure just before the collision. Remote Control Possibility: While the incident does not directly involve remote control, the concept of remotely operated vessels exists. Large robotic ships equipped with cameras, radars, and GPS can be operated from land-based control centers. Investigations will determine the precise cause, but there is no evidence of intentional remote guidance. Advancements in Maritime Technology: Autonomous and remotely operated ships are transforming the industry. The Dali incident highlights the need for safety protocols and further research in vessel control systems. NOTE: I HAVE NO REAL PROOF. THIS IS MERELY CONJECTURE !! An American Veteran exercising my first amendment right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH ! Post Views: 100
St. PATRICK: The EMERALD APOSTLE: A POEM
[adrotate group=”1″] Born not on Irish soil, but across the sea, In Britain’s realm, his story began Patrick, a lad of noble birth, Destined for more than mere mortal span. Captured by raiders, torn from kin, He found solace in Ireland’s wild embrace. Six years a shepherd, heart heavy with longing. He turned to faith that desolate place. In dreams, a voice whispered divine and clear, “Escape, young Patrick, flee this verdant shore” He journeyed, barefoot across rugged terrain. Guided by angels to freedoms door. Yet another vision awaited him there. Angel’s plea: “Return ,O Patrick, dear friend. Bring light to this land, where druids roam and weave Christianity into its ancient blend./ In green meadows, Patrick walked and taught, His words like dewdrops on shamrocks’ leaves Three hearts in one—the Holy Trinity— He revealed through clover, a truth that weaves. On March seventeenth, the world dons green, In honor of this saint, both humble and grand. Church bells chime, and Irish families gather, To celebrate faith, heritage, and the land. Lenten prohibitions yield to joyous feasting, Cabbage and bacon grace every plate. And in the pubs, where laughter dances, Green beer flows, a merry twist of fate. Dr. Thomas Hayes Curtin, an Irish soul, In New York City, a century ago, Decided to paint the ale with shamrock hues, A festive libation, a radiant glow. Not with magic, but a drop of wash blue, A touch of poison, yet the crowd rejoiced. Green beer was born, a St. Patrick’s tradition, A toast to the saint, a jubilant voice. So raise your glass, dear revelers all, To Patrick, the shepherd turned apostle. His footsteps echo through time’s emerald halls, Guiding us toward love, hope, and the celestial. In every verdant sip, we taste his tale, A blend of faith, courage, and mirth. St. Patrick, forever woven into Ireland’s fabric, A beacon of light across the emerald earth. May the shamrocks twirl, the bagpipes play, And green beer flow on this hallowed day. Sláinte, St. Patrick, your legacy lives, In every heart that dances where the clover thrives. [adrotate group=”1″] Post Views: 112
THE FUTURE of SOLDIER FIELD: RENOVATE or RELOCATE?
[adrotate group=”1″] 🏈The Chicago Bears’ association with Soldier Field is one steeped in history and tradition. As one of the NFL’s oldest franchises, the Bears’ decision to either remain at Soldier Field or move to a new stadium is fraught with both sentiment and strategy. Here, we explore the pros and cons of each option. Pros of Staying at Soldier Field Historical Significance: Soldier Field has been home to the Bears since 1971 and is a monument to American football history. It stands as a testament to the team’s storied past and offers fans a sense of continuity and heritage. Location: Nestled within the city’s metropolitan area, Soldier Field is easily accessible for city dwellers and offers stunning views of the Chicago skyline, enhancing the game-day experience. The stadium generates significant economic activity for local businesses, including hotels, restaurants, and vendors, especially on game days. Cons of Staying at Soldier Field Outdated Facilities: Despite renovations, Soldier Field struggles to meet modern standards for amenities and technology compared to newer stadiums. Limited Capacity: With a seating capacity of just over 61,000, it is one of the smallest stadiums in the NFL, limiting ticket sales and revenue potential. Restrictions on Expansion: Soldier Field is a historical landmark, which imposes restrictions on any significant structural changes or expansions. Pros of Relocating State-of-the-Art Stadium: A new stadium would offer modern amenities, increased comfort for fans, and advanced technology for an enhanced viewing experience. Increased Revenue: A larger stadium would allow for more ticket sales, luxury boxes, and events, significantly boosting the team’s revenue. Opportunity for Growth: A new location could provide space for additional facilities, such as training complexes and administrative offices, fostering growth and development. Cons of Relocating Loss of Tradition: Moving away from Soldier Field would sever ties with a rich history that has become a part of the team’s identity. Financial Burden: Building a new stadium is a massive financial undertaking, with costs often running into the billions, which may not be recouped quickly. Community Impact: Relocation could negatively impact the businesses and workers who rely on the stadium’s presence in the city. In conclusion, the decision to either revitalize Soldier Field or build a new home for the Bears is complex. It involves weighing the benefits of modernization and potential revenue against the intangible value of tradition and history. The Bears’ choice will ultimately reflect their vision for the team’s future and its legacy. This post is a high-level overview of the considerations involved in the decision-making process for the Chicago Bears’ potential move from Soldier Field. For a more detailed analysis, further research and input from stakeholders, including fans, city officials, and the team itself, would be beneficial.🏈 [adrotate group=”1″] Post Views: 121
