Golf Handicaps at Risk

WASHINGTON -– Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty on Tuesday defended his idea to slash the concept of rating golfers according to their handicaps by saying that elimination of this standard equalization technique should be the top goal in lieu of “nominal measures of who wins local amateur golf tournaments.”

But while conservatives praised his suggestion to cut handicaps, Pawlenty came under criticism from some in his own party for relying on overly optimistic projections about the potential impact of golf’s attempt to make every golfer in the land equal when standing on the first tee.

The former Minnesota governor's remarks were an explicit defense of trickle-down golf matches, the economic theory decried by liberals but taken by many on the right as self-evident.
“Set aside whether the best golfers benefit or not, the real measure of these proposals is, is it going to generate -– in a transformative, significant way -– more jobs for more people across this country?” Pawlenty said of his plan.

“This isn’t about whether some people are going to get wealthier or not from the frequent betting that takes place at Republican country club enclaves throughout the United States," he said, adding that his proposal would encourage "things that we need to do to make it more likely, not less likely, that the sport of golfing is going to grow, add employees, make some golfers wealthier at the expense of other golfers."

Pawlenty made his remarks during a question and answer session after a major economic speech at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy Studies. In the speech, he continued to stake out the most detailed platform of any 2012 GOP hopeful with an aggressive speech on golf handicap reform, and overhauling the federal government.

Pawlenty endorsed initially slashing individual handicaps by more than half from 35 percent to 15 percent. “To deprive the best golfers the opportunity to win against others who do not possess the ability or talent of the very best every single time is anti-American. The use of the current handicap system is pure socialism at its very worst. It is absurd to suggest that a golfer with a 15 handicap should be able to compete in any way, shape, or form against a better golfer.” Pawlenty’s plan was soundly endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, a self-proclaimed famous golfer and radio talk show host who stated that he would play against any handicapped golfer in the United States for any amount of money to demonstrate the folly of the current system of giving every American the same opportunity at the beginning of a match. . When he was informed that Pawlenty was talking about eliminating golf handicaps, not handicapped golfers, Limbaugh backtracked and withdrew his offer without explanation. He did say, however, that he “thought Pawlenty was talking about a truly handicapped person.”

Pawlenty also endorsed an amendment to the Constitution that would require Congress to eliminate the equitable handicap scoring method. But, it was Pawlenty's position on cutting handicaps at private country clubs that drew the most spirited criticism. “We are not talking equality here. This is unlike the massive rebates we give the oil companies and corporate farming. Let’s face it, some people are terrible golfers. They should not be allowed to use a high handicap to beat a fellow golfer whose parents spent thousands of dollars for golf lessons during his childhood to make him a better person.” The Democratic National Committee sent reporters a blog post by a liberal advocacy site, ThinkProgress, that blasted Pawlenty’s position as comprising “massive giveaways to the rich golfing elite.”

Am I Proud or What?

What follows is a press release from the U.S. Department of State regarding my grandson, Jeff Vredenburg, and his good friend Eddie Helderop.


Current Student and Recent Graduate Receive Fulbright Awards

HOLLAND – Graduating Hope College senior Jeffrey Vredenburg and 2009 graduate Edward Helderop, who have been friends since seventh grade and were classmates at Forest Hills Northern High School in Grand Rapids, have each received highly competitive English teaching assistantships for the coming year through the Fulbright U.S. Student Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of State. Vredenburg will spend September through mid-July 2012 in Ecuador, teaching English as well as working with local conservation and sustainability organizations on community-education projects. Helderop will be in Andorra from September until May or June 2012, teaching English and conducting research regarding the teaching of Catalan in Andorran schools. Several Hope students or recent graduates have received the awards through the years, including four each in 2008 and 2009, and two last year.

Vredenburg is triple-majoring in biology, French and Spanish, and has studied abroad on three continents. After graduating from Forest Hills Northern High School in 2005 and before enrolling at Hope, he spent a year living in Strasbourg, France, while taking high school classes. The summer after his sophomore year at the college, he enrolled in an intensive-language program in Beijing China, after which he spent the fall 2008 semester studying in Shanghai. Between the two programs, he held an internship with the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. In the fall of 2009, he took a semester off to travel South America, visiting Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina. Vredenburg and a friend from Hope, Tyler Depke, who had graduated in the spring of that year, did conservation work, volunteered teaching English and gave community lectures on sustainability, most in Ecuador. “The trip to South America is what sparked my interest in biology/ecology and sustainability, and led me to a biology major. Before that, I was only planning on a minor,” he said. “The trip also gave me a solid platform to apply for a Fulbright, since I had experience in the country teaching English and working in ecology/sustainability.”

The past two semesters, Vredenburg has been conducting research in seed toxicology with Dr. K. Gregory Murray, professor of biology. He has been serving on the college’s sustainability committee, or “Green Team,” composed of students, faculty and staff, and as president of the college’s Environmental Issues Group. His other activities have included serving on the executive board of the college’s chapter of the Mortar Board honor society and as a member of the French and Spanish honor societies, and tutoring French, Spanish, Chinese and biology. He is a four-year varsity letter winner on the men’s tennis team, of which he currently is a captain. His activities have also included mentoring and tutoring through the Children’s After School Achievement (CASA) program and Latin Americans United for Progress (LAUP), and ultimate Frisbee.

He is the son of Dr. Michael and Rebecca Vredenburg of Grand Rapids.

Helderop majored in biology at Hope and minored in Spanish and environmental science. From March of 2010 until March of this year, he taught English in Muju, South Korea, primarily for elementary and middle school students but also for high school students and adults. As a student, he conducted research during two academic years and an intervening summer with Dr. Graham Peaslee, who is a professor of chemistry and chairperson of the department as well as a professor of geology and environmental science. Their project studied the aquatic toxicity of various nano-particle solutions. Helderop’s activities as a student also included the Beta Beta Beta biology honorary society and biology club; the Phelps Scholars Program; ultimate Frisbee; intramurals; and the independent music, swing and outdoor adventures clubs. He also participated in the college’s May Term course in Ecuador.

He is the son of Mary Lou Helderop of Grand Rapids and the late John Helderop.

Fulbright grants are made to U.S. citizens and nationals of other countries for a variety of activities, primarily international graduate study, advanced research, university teaching, and teaching in elementary and secondary schools. Grant recipients include recent college graduates and graduate students, college and university instructors, and professionals in other fields.
The U.S. Student Program is designed for recent college graduates, master’s and doctoral candidates, young professionals and artists, with awards supporting an academic year of study, research or teaching assistantship experience. The program operates in more than 140 countries worldwide.

Who Gets Credit?

My wife and I have been arguing for the past week over the right to claim credit for the accomplishment of a grandchild whose activities have brought credit to the family in a way well beyond my dreams and aspirations. Those of us who are grandparents all know the drill very well; when a grandkid does something good, there is always a parent in the background someplace too willing to take credit for the thousands of hours and sacrifices they’ve made to help the young’uns move along through the roller coaster of life. Big deal! Real grandparents know that the parents in fact have nothing to do with a grandchild’s success and in fact the grandchild himself or herself has very little to do with the accomplishment. Let me explain in detail because the background is important. Just this week one of the most important scientific studies in history has been published documenting without question the role of heredity in success stories. I drink coffee every day. My wife does not drink coffee. To my knowledge none of my three daughters or sons-in-law drink as much coffee as I do. This published study has now established that liking coffee is heredity. I have eight grandchildren. Without knowledge of these recent scientific results, I independently note that two of the oldest of my grandchildlren like coffee. I don't know about Kari, the marathon runner, who may be too busy working two jobs and getting all A's at the University of Michigan to take the time to drink coffee, but I wouldn't be surprised if she liked coffee too. On a bike trip to Europe eight years ago, Jeff, the oldest developed an instant fondness for espresso. I like espresso, Jeff likes espresso. You can see where I am going here. But first, let me nail down the available scientific evidence for you in a way that will irrefutably demonstrate that this story is really all about me.
I also like White Castle hamburgers. Through systematic exposure to these small bite-size culinary treats over the lifetimes of my daughters it has become somewhat of a family tradition to gorge ourselves on White Castles over Thanksgiving weekend each year. This past week, my grandson Dan won a significant championship at the University of Michigan (along with two companions) when they downed thirty White Castles and a gallon of milk in seven minutes. I tell you, it is moments like this in the life of a grandparent that tears stream down my face in pride over knowing the role that I played in this singular accomplishment. Dan, by the way, also likes coffee. I rest my case.

Oh, and did I mention that Jeff won a Fulbright scholarship this week for a year in Ecuador?

Three Steps to Freedom

Three Steps to Freedom
(by Francesca Giacona – Fall 2010)

Three Steps to Freedom
Nothing is different,
But everything has changed;
No more breaking my back in the hot southern sun,
No more buttermilk from a trough.
But the sun keeps risin' each morning,
And the wind keeps on whistlin'
Past my face.
The same wind that chilled me
As a slave,
It chills me now,
Almost a free man.


I peer into that Yankee town,
Not at all like them towns down south.
No slaves being brought in,
Not just white,
But everyone mixin' to a grey.
I wait for night,
And when it is only me and the moon,
My bare, bleeding feet take
One step,
Two steps,
Three steps,
And I become a free man.


Three steps,
And I strap my slavery
To a great, black, bird in the sky,
And don't look back none as it vanishes
Into the night.
Three steps,
And my soul is singing!
My heart is pounding:
Free, free, free.
Three steps and I am free.


Note: Francesca is my granddaughter. As the old saying goes, it doesn't get any better than this.

Response from the Right Wing

One of the responses I received about yesterday's blog was as interesting as it was amusing. It was from the same guy who told me two years ago that his mother would have hated me although she had never met me, never heard one word about what I stood for, what my opinions were, what I do, etc., You get the idea. As a result I do not know whether she hated me for my bad jokes (my family suggests that they get pretty irksome from time to time), the fact that I volunteer a substantial portion of my time in assisting others who need help (her son is a corporate lawyer who billed his services on a time basis, e.g.. a two minute phone call is billed for 15 minutes of his time and I cannot imagine him giving away any of his time to anybody for any purpose), or for what I believe. I suspect two things; first, I suspect that the son of this woman is the one who in fact, transposes his own feelings about me to his mother (he knows even less about me than his mother did, and she knew nothing) and second, he can't handle what he thinks he believes about what I believe. With this as background I share what his response was to yesterday's blog: "If you wrote this and believe it, you should call a neurologist and make an appointment for an exam." In response, this is what I believe.
1). More than one million Americans have died from gunshot wounds since 1968,
2). Eleven teenagers a day are killed in these United States from gunshots.
3). The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington and is THE ONLY ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA which does not have to disclose how much it spends or who it spends it on for its lobbying activities.
4). I did write the blog yesterday, Duhh.
5). I do believe what I wrote yesterday. It is my opinion. In a free society I am entitled to an opinion. I respect and encourage others who have different opinions to interact and discuss those opinions with me. That interaction is also what a free society is about. There is nothing wrong with sharp ideological argument, as long as partisans do not seek to demonize their opponents and make their cases without ridicule and threats. I did receive several intelligent and well thought-out responses to my blog from conservative friends.
6). I don't ever suggest that because someone disagrees with me, that they are suffering from a mental illness and that they should see a doctor because of the opinions they hold.
7). The fact is that the perpetrator of the carnage in Arizona was able to walk into a sporting goods store and purchase the murder weapon together with a loader allowing 33 bullets to be fired in a short time without the need for reloading. He was able to do this after exhibiting a pattern of strange conduct for several months that resulted in his expulsion from school, i.e., an obvious pattern of young adult-onset schizophrenia.
8). This type of loader was illegal until President Bush allowed the law to lapse in 2004 after specifically making a campaign promise that he would extend the law to protect the citizens of America. It has been widely reported that Bush caved in to the demands of the NRA to let the law lapse.

The Third Rail of Violence

The third rail in this tragic incident of the violent massacre of innocent people in Tucson, Arizona is one that is carefully avoided by politicians and the media alike. Thanks to the antics of the NRA and an extreme right Supreme Court, weapons of destruction are as available to the lunatic fringe of our society as candy bars are to children. The clout of the National Rifle Association has grown beyond the pale. There are few lobbies in Washington as powerful or protective of their interests. Any gun laws are seen as violations of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which cites the need for a well-regulated militia, stocked with arms.

The power of the N.R.A. is pervasive, both in national and state politics. When Democrats were trying to pass a campaign-finance disclosure measure last year, they had to write a special exemption for the gun lobby in order to secure majority support in the House. Liberal Democrats like Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio and the current victim, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords openly boasted of their support for gun ownership. Even if these politics could be countered, the courts, especially the Supreme Court, are raising new, and probably insurmountable, obstacles to substantive gun control. Last year, the court threw out a Chicago gun-control ordinance, the year before a Washington, D.C. law, both of which had the intent of reducing the daily slaughter of Americans by guns.

It is one thing to protect the rights of sensible, gun loving, responsible citizens, but it is sheer insanity to have created the present climate that allows unstable and obviously demented persons access to such weapons. The current tragedy is one of but a series of such events (e.g.,Columbine, Virginia Tech.) that are fostered by this climate, not to mention the daily killing of our citizens by guns which have become so common place that they rate hardly a mention in the news of the day. While the idiotic and hate-filled rhetoric of the Palins of our society are no doubt contributory to such incidents, the soil in which such activities ferment has been cultivated by a lavish devotion to the questionable language of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Until and unless the current tragedy brings these considerations back into the equation, nothing will change. One does not need to be a flaming liberal to suggest that reasonable limits on the rights of crazy people to obtain access to weapons are logical and appropriate. If I were a politician making such a statement, it is most certain that weapon worshippers would show up at my next public appearance openly brandishing their weapons.

Details please

Questions: What president raised taxes seven times while in office? What President claimed as a campaign promise to “read my lips, no more taxes” then promptly raised taxes after being elected? What president engaged this country in two wars and the largest drug giveaway to seniors in history by borrowing in excess of a trillion dollars from China? The answers to these questions are Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. So much for history serving as a guide to present conduct. Now that the current cabal of Republicans have spent nearly two years acting in unison to reject everything the Democrats tried to accomplish, including turning down proposals and bills previously supported and/or written by various individual Republicans themselves, they are finally going into action this week, in an effort that I will characterize as Gingrich-lite, a feeble attempt to claim a national agenda intended to sweep the Democrats out of office in early November. The platform without telling us how is to lower taxes and eliminate the deficit. Read my lips, no more taxes. A little short on details, however the “Pledge to America,” outlining their policy agenda promises to protect defense spending, social security and Medicare for senior citizens.. Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”

Sounds to me like the ultimate Republican goals are for America to replicate the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.