My husband loves to golf and loves to watch golf. On Saturdays and Sundays I lose all control over the TV remote when golf is airing.
But I swear that if I hear some spectator at a golf tournament say “It’s in the hole” one more time, I won’t be responsible for my own actions.
“It’s in the hole” has taken the place of yelling “You Da Man!” which seemed to go out of style very quickly. But “It’s in the hole” is much much worse. It seems that someone, on every hole, with every shot, must yell that the ball is going to be in the hole, even if golfer is hitting the ball from the tee on a par five.
And depending on the golfer, the number of people yelling, “It’s in the hole” is directly proportionate to the popularity of the golfer or his standing on the leader board. For example, when Tiger Woods hits the ball, many people will yell “It’s in the hole” but when someone like Ben Curtis is putting and he’s nowhere near the lead in the tournament, he’s lucky if his wife yells “It’s in the hole.”
For the number of times the ball actually goes into the hole after someone yells out that it is in the hole, you’d think that people would come to the conclusion that just saying “It’s in the hole” doesn’t mean it will actually GET in the hole.
I suspect that there are some people out there who are recording the tournament on their DVR and want to come home and hear themselves yelling “It’s in the hole” so they can feel important. I blame the movie Caddyshack.
My wish is that the PGA would make a ruling for any televised PGA sanctioned golf tournament that if anyone yells “It’s in the hole,” that person should be immediately ejected from the golf course, and then as further punishment be forced to watch Kevin Costner in “Tin Cup” 10 times in a row, the latter being the far worse punishment.
And while I was writing this, I heard “It’s in the hole” at least 30 times. These people seriously need to get a life.
Bill Murray Caddyshack “It’s In The Hole!”
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Fox News: Toxic Waste or Free Speech?
I was happy when I heard the news that advertisers were pulling their ads from Fox News’ Glenn Beck show. I am all for free speech, but I am also for people accepting the consequences of it.
Beck had referred to President Obama as a racist, with “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” How Beck arrived at his revelation I have no idea. But based on what I have seen of the public face of Barack Obama, Beck’s conclusion seems skewed in the wrong direction. Based on the public outcry regarding Beck’s comments, including Fox News themselves distancing themselves from Beck’s statements, it seems clear that Glenn Beck crossed the line. According to the New York Times, “That day, Fox News appeared to distance itself quickly from Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama was a racist, telling the TVNewser blog that Mr. Beck had “expressed a personal opinion, which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel."
I actually tune in to Fox News on the weekends every now and then, mostly in the morning on Sunday and on Saturday for their business shows. I watch only to see what the extreme right is saying. My husband used to like the business shows, but we find that we now record them on the DVR and watch them later so we can fast forward through all the political whining which frequently has nothing to do with the business climate. We can now watch about 2 hours of the show in about 20 minutes, and it’s getting to the point we will likely not watch at all. Why? Because Fox has reached the point of overkill on its right winged slant. When I get my news, I also like to get more than a singular opinion. (I actually prefer the news relatively opinion free, as how the broadcast networks handle it.) Remember when Fox used to call themselves “Fair and Balanced?” I haven’t heard that tag line in ages, likely because the media made a joke out of it, as historically Fox has been far from fair and balanced.
While Fox seemed to distance themselves from Glenn Beck, the network’s penchant for extreme commentary supporting the extreme conservative right has created what I see as a “toxic” news environment filled with talking heads who try to yell the loudest and say the most controversial things against moderates and liberals. My opinion is that it doesn’t matter to Fox if their comments are really factual, they just want the shock value so they can attract more eyeballs to their channel. In the case of Glenn Beck, he doesn’t seem to be able to support his accusations, and advertisers are not willing to put their reputations on the line for such unsubstantiated commentary. This may be the only thing that can teach Fox News that free speech does indeed have a price, and that Fox may need to dial down the vitriol if they want to keep making money. People may watch to see what wild comment comes out of one of the mouths of their talking heads, but if advertisers aren’t there to pay for all that overhead, Fox News will be hurting in the wallet and the nasty talking heads may eventually disappear.
My conclusion is that Fox News is toxic waste disguised as free speech. And like most toxic waste, it will eventually need to be buried far far underground where it can't hurt anyone. Fox is more than welcome to continue to allow their talking heads to have a free reign with their mouths, and I hope advertising continue to speak right back to them by pulling their adversities dollars.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Beck had referred to President Obama as a racist, with “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” How Beck arrived at his revelation I have no idea. But based on what I have seen of the public face of Barack Obama, Beck’s conclusion seems skewed in the wrong direction. Based on the public outcry regarding Beck’s comments, including Fox News themselves distancing themselves from Beck’s statements, it seems clear that Glenn Beck crossed the line. According to the New York Times, “That day, Fox News appeared to distance itself quickly from Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama was a racist, telling the TVNewser blog that Mr. Beck had “expressed a personal opinion, which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel."
I actually tune in to Fox News on the weekends every now and then, mostly in the morning on Sunday and on Saturday for their business shows. I watch only to see what the extreme right is saying. My husband used to like the business shows, but we find that we now record them on the DVR and watch them later so we can fast forward through all the political whining which frequently has nothing to do with the business climate. We can now watch about 2 hours of the show in about 20 minutes, and it’s getting to the point we will likely not watch at all. Why? Because Fox has reached the point of overkill on its right winged slant. When I get my news, I also like to get more than a singular opinion. (I actually prefer the news relatively opinion free, as how the broadcast networks handle it.) Remember when Fox used to call themselves “Fair and Balanced?” I haven’t heard that tag line in ages, likely because the media made a joke out of it, as historically Fox has been far from fair and balanced.
While Fox seemed to distance themselves from Glenn Beck, the network’s penchant for extreme commentary supporting the extreme conservative right has created what I see as a “toxic” news environment filled with talking heads who try to yell the loudest and say the most controversial things against moderates and liberals. My opinion is that it doesn’t matter to Fox if their comments are really factual, they just want the shock value so they can attract more eyeballs to their channel. In the case of Glenn Beck, he doesn’t seem to be able to support his accusations, and advertisers are not willing to put their reputations on the line for such unsubstantiated commentary. This may be the only thing that can teach Fox News that free speech does indeed have a price, and that Fox may need to dial down the vitriol if they want to keep making money. People may watch to see what wild comment comes out of one of the mouths of their talking heads, but if advertisers aren’t there to pay for all that overhead, Fox News will be hurting in the wallet and the nasty talking heads may eventually disappear.
My conclusion is that Fox News is toxic waste disguised as free speech. And like most toxic waste, it will eventually need to be buried far far underground where it can't hurt anyone. Fox is more than welcome to continue to allow their talking heads to have a free reign with their mouths, and I hope advertising continue to speak right back to them by pulling their adversities dollars.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Twitter: Pointless Babble? I Say No.

A recent study by Pear Analytics says that 40% of the tweets are “pointless babble.” I ask – is this really a problem? I thought the whole point of Twitter was quick and brief communication, not about high quality content. While I don’t tell people what I am doing every minute of the day, I have to say that I enjoy some of the “pointless babble” that goes on out there, some of which actually put an interesting spin on the mundane. Sometimes I will just look at some of my followers and whom they follow, and delve into their tweets just to get a snapshot of what is going on in the world. Some of it is silly, but a lot that may appear to be pointless babble really may make sense if you look at the person’s tweets over a period of time.
The full breakdown of categories measured by Pear Analytics are as follows, in case you are interested:
Total News 3.69%
Total Spam 3.75%
Total Self Promotion 5.85%
Total Pointless Babble 40.55%
Total Conversational 37.55
Total Pass Along Value 8.70
My only complaint about Twitter is that they certainly seem to have capacity issues, downtime issues, and security issues. But content issues – I have no problem at all with pointless babble. It's a lot like how my own mind works!
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
We Need Health Care Reform – Not Angry Mobs

This country is in dire need of health care reform. There are many poor American citizens that can barely afford to feed their families and pay for a roof over their heads, much less get medical care. Too many people are denied medical coverage because of pre-existing conditions. And for those people who are employed and/or who are paying for their medical insurance, the costs have been rocketing upward each year, with no real improvements in the type of coverage they are receiving.
The Obama health care plan is not about socializing medicine, as the angry mobs want people to believe. It is not about making euthanasia easier for the elderly, or denying the elderly care, as the angry mobs want you to believe. It is not about taking away your choice for coverage and for doctors as the angry mobs want you to believe.
This is about providing a health care option for those people that don’t already have coverage. It’s about helping to reduce medical costs and encouraging people to live healthier lives to prevent their illnesses. It’s about getting rid of loopholes that, for example, allow insurance companies to deny covering any illness that is considered “pre-existing.” It's about encouraging competition between insurance companies to help lower costs.
The government doesn’t want to take over the entire health care system. Yet these angry mobs are intent on trying to make people believe that the government wants to control whether people get health care, what kind of care they get, or even if people live or die. These mobs are trying to prey on peoples’ fears. Don’t buy into it.
I am not saying the plan is perfect, and I do have concerns about funding. But I would rather do my homework and research the issues, and ask my questions or voice my concerns rationally. My opinion is that rational questions often get rational answers. The angry mob mentality gets one nowhere.
Information about the Obama/Biden Health Care Plan can be found here.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Obama Was Born In America. Period.
I think “birthers” – the people who believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States of America - are, frankly, a little nutty. Obama’s birth certificate has been produced and it has been verified over and over that President Obama was born in Hawaii, after it became our 50th state. There are two videos below that both show this information, plus more, confirming the information on Obama’s US birth. Yet, there are some people who, for whatever reason, refuse to believe it. My opinion is that these non-believers, these “conspiracy theorists,” are suffering from a case of severe brain damage, maybe with the side symptoms of racism and irrational fear.
Decide for yourself. Take a look at Jon Stewart’s commentary on the matter, which, while humorous, is right on target. I have also included the recent NBC Nightly News story, where Brian Williams takes a serious look at this issue, hopefully answering the question once and for all.
Will the “birthers” go away? Probably not, because brain damage often can’t be reversed.
Jon Stewart “The Born Identity”
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Decide for yourself. Take a look at Jon Stewart’s commentary on the matter, which, while humorous, is right on target. I have also included the recent NBC Nightly News story, where Brian Williams takes a serious look at this issue, hopefully answering the question once and for all.
Will the “birthers” go away? Probably not, because brain damage often can’t be reversed.
Jon Stewart “The Born Identity”
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
The Born Identity | ||||
http://www.thedailyshow.com/ | ||||
|
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Recipe for Stupidly: Gates + Cambridge Police + Obama
President Barack Obama took immediate heat for his comment during a press conference that the Cambridge Massachusetts police "acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home” when they arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. for disorderly conduct after he forced open a door at his own home.
The question here is – was anyone really stupid? The answer is YES, everyone was.
The Cambridge Police, legitimately responding to a call from a concerned citizen about a burglary in process, did the right thing by checking things out. But, they met their match when they came upon Gates, who is highly educated about many things, including the law. Sergeant Crowley admits that he asked Gates to step out of the house, and this may have been Crowley's mistake. Any halfway intelligent person knows that once you step out of your home, the police can arrest you. I suspect that Gates knew that was exactly what Crowley was going to do. Since Gates knew he was in his own home, I don’t blame him for not wanting to cooperate on that issue.
However, the reports from the police go on to indicate that Gates was uncooperative from the get go. It is possible that Gates’ behavior only made the police more suspicious that Gates was a burglar.
Adding fuel to the fire was President Obama’s response during a press conference; a truthful, non-politician response that used one “stupid” word.
A side issue here is the concerned neighbor who called in the burglary, who apparently doesn’t even know what her neighbor looks like.
In my opinion, everyone in the situation acted without completely engaging their brains. If the police account is correct, Gates should have kept his cool, but Sergeant Crowley should not have found it suspicious that Gates refused to step outside. You do not have to step out of your house when the police ask you to, period. Crowley should know this and this should have raised a flag that he was not dealing with just some stupid burglar. If Gates' account is correct, then the police overreacted and they should have backed off when Gates showed he did live in the house. President Obama was asked a question about the matter, admitted he knew Gates personally, and Obama responded as anyone with a personal connection and personal experience with encountering police would respond. He gave an honest, unedited answer, unlike most politicians. His choice of the word “stupidly” was probably not the right one, but it was directionally correct. This is one of those cases when the forthright president should zip his lips and give a noncommittal answer until he gets all the facts.
I have the utmost respect for the police department, but also understand that they are human beings too and sometimes they make errors in judgment. Maybe in this case, if rumored radio transmissions from this event are made public, their judgment may be vindicated. But, based on what I have read about this situation and from the extensive TV coverage, it seems to me that in this case, the police didn’t like the fact that Gates challenged them. Imagine if the police, who are armed. approached YOUR home, asked YOU to step outside, and didn’t like the fact that you refused (which is your right to do so) – how would you feel? This, in my opinion, may be the bigger issue here over the claims of racial bias. The police should be respected, but citizens also have rights. The police should be held to a higher standard because they are supposed to know and follow the law. In this case, it seems to me that when police are armed and they approach someone who is in their own home, that the police exercise extreme caution and make sure they follow the law to the letter. They should also develop thicker skin and not get suspicious when a citizen knows the law and choses to follow it. People should continue to repect the badge, but make sure they know their own rights. Knowledge is power.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
The question here is – was anyone really stupid? The answer is YES, everyone was.
The Cambridge Police, legitimately responding to a call from a concerned citizen about a burglary in process, did the right thing by checking things out. But, they met their match when they came upon Gates, who is highly educated about many things, including the law. Sergeant Crowley admits that he asked Gates to step out of the house, and this may have been Crowley's mistake. Any halfway intelligent person knows that once you step out of your home, the police can arrest you. I suspect that Gates knew that was exactly what Crowley was going to do. Since Gates knew he was in his own home, I don’t blame him for not wanting to cooperate on that issue.
However, the reports from the police go on to indicate that Gates was uncooperative from the get go. It is possible that Gates’ behavior only made the police more suspicious that Gates was a burglar.
Adding fuel to the fire was President Obama’s response during a press conference; a truthful, non-politician response that used one “stupid” word.
A side issue here is the concerned neighbor who called in the burglary, who apparently doesn’t even know what her neighbor looks like.
In my opinion, everyone in the situation acted without completely engaging their brains. If the police account is correct, Gates should have kept his cool, but Sergeant Crowley should not have found it suspicious that Gates refused to step outside. You do not have to step out of your house when the police ask you to, period. Crowley should know this and this should have raised a flag that he was not dealing with just some stupid burglar. If Gates' account is correct, then the police overreacted and they should have backed off when Gates showed he did live in the house. President Obama was asked a question about the matter, admitted he knew Gates personally, and Obama responded as anyone with a personal connection and personal experience with encountering police would respond. He gave an honest, unedited answer, unlike most politicians. His choice of the word “stupidly” was probably not the right one, but it was directionally correct. This is one of those cases when the forthright president should zip his lips and give a noncommittal answer until he gets all the facts.
I have the utmost respect for the police department, but also understand that they are human beings too and sometimes they make errors in judgment. Maybe in this case, if rumored radio transmissions from this event are made public, their judgment may be vindicated. But, based on what I have read about this situation and from the extensive TV coverage, it seems to me that in this case, the police didn’t like the fact that Gates challenged them. Imagine if the police, who are armed. approached YOUR home, asked YOU to step outside, and didn’t like the fact that you refused (which is your right to do so) – how would you feel? This, in my opinion, may be the bigger issue here over the claims of racial bias. The police should be respected, but citizens also have rights. The police should be held to a higher standard because they are supposed to know and follow the law. In this case, it seems to me that when police are armed and they approach someone who is in their own home, that the police exercise extreme caution and make sure they follow the law to the letter. They should also develop thicker skin and not get suspicious when a citizen knows the law and choses to follow it. People should continue to repect the badge, but make sure they know their own rights. Knowledge is power.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Remembering “One Giant Leap for Mankind”
Today is the 40th anniversary of man’s first landing and taking steps on the Moon. Maybe because I have seen it replayed on television so many times the event seems like it only happened yesterday. But it truly does seem like just yesterday that I was a 14 year old kid, sitting glued to a black and white television with my parents and my sisters and brother watching the event. I can close my eyes and see us all in the living room, and remember the feelings of excitement that I had when Neil Armstrong took his first “small” step. The last time the family had spent so much time together glued to a television event was when President Kennedy had been assassinated. The moon landing was a completely different event from the Kennedy coverage, as the moon landing was not a time to mourn, but a time to celebrate the achievements of the American people, especially those who were involved in the program.
There are some people out there who say the moon landing was faked. Personally, I don’t understand how anyone could not believe it was real. When I search for information on the moon landing hoax, I can also find many web sites that disprove and discredit all the conspiracy claims. Yet, some still refuse to believe in the facts. I would like to ask the consipiracy believers that if landing on the moon was so easy to fake, why didn’t the Russians or anybody else do it first?
Landing on the moon fell out of favor and the program was later discontinued, likely due to the high cost and the low rate of return on the investment, and frankly, lack of interest. I guess once you’ve been to the moon and take your share of moon rocks and moon dust, there really isn’t anything compelling to bring a person back. I am sure that someday, if/when unmanned missions can show that the moon itself has value to those of us on earth, people will find a reason to go back. There are talks of manned missions to Mars, and despite the fact that I am all for space exploration, I think until we are able to reliably land something on Mars more than one or two times (there have been many failures to date), then we should continue to send unmanned probes to do reconnaissance.
Some people say the whole moon landing was a waste as we got nothing from it. Far from it, I say. It likely helped in the rapid leaps we made in technology over the years. But more than that, it made people feel that almost anything is possible, and shows that human beings can accomplish just about anything to which they put their minds.
When I look at all the leaps mankind has made in these last 40 years, it may not have been possible without Neil Armstrong’s one small step. And while I watched coverage of the even on various shows over the weekend, and also today on Wechoosethemoon.org I can still feel the excitement as if it was 40 years ago. It still makes me feel young.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
There are some people out there who say the moon landing was faked. Personally, I don’t understand how anyone could not believe it was real. When I search for information on the moon landing hoax, I can also find many web sites that disprove and discredit all the conspiracy claims. Yet, some still refuse to believe in the facts. I would like to ask the consipiracy believers that if landing on the moon was so easy to fake, why didn’t the Russians or anybody else do it first?
Landing on the moon fell out of favor and the program was later discontinued, likely due to the high cost and the low rate of return on the investment, and frankly, lack of interest. I guess once you’ve been to the moon and take your share of moon rocks and moon dust, there really isn’t anything compelling to bring a person back. I am sure that someday, if/when unmanned missions can show that the moon itself has value to those of us on earth, people will find a reason to go back. There are talks of manned missions to Mars, and despite the fact that I am all for space exploration, I think until we are able to reliably land something on Mars more than one or two times (there have been many failures to date), then we should continue to send unmanned probes to do reconnaissance.
Some people say the whole moon landing was a waste as we got nothing from it. Far from it, I say. It likely helped in the rapid leaps we made in technology over the years. But more than that, it made people feel that almost anything is possible, and shows that human beings can accomplish just about anything to which they put their minds.
When I look at all the leaps mankind has made in these last 40 years, it may not have been possible without Neil Armstrong’s one small step. And while I watched coverage of the even on various shows over the weekend, and also today on Wechoosethemoon.org I can still feel the excitement as if it was 40 years ago. It still makes me feel young.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)