- The belly putter battle isn’t over for the PGA Tour
after all. Despite a growing push to ban the putters, which allow players to
anchor the top of the club against their stomach to add stability, PGA
Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem threw a wrench in the plans of the putter’s
opponents on Sunday by saying y the tour opposed the ban because there was not
enough evidence to suggest players had an advantage by using a long putter. “We
hold the USGA in highest regard as a key part of the game of golf,"
Finchem said. "We don't attempt to denigrate that position in any way
whatsoever. It's just on this issue, we think if they were to move forward they
would be making a mistake.” Both the U.S. Golf Association and the Royal &
Ancient Golf Club announced Nov. 28 a proposed rule that would prohibit players
from anchoring the club to their body and it was widely assumed that the PGA
Tour would follow suit. Three of the tour’s last five major champions used a
belly putter and the USGA and R&A are nearing the end of a 90-day comment
period before deciding whether to adopt the rule, which would not take effect
until 2016. Finchem has met with players and USGA executive director Mike Davis
presented the rule to a player meeting in San Diego last month. In a letter to the
USGA and R&A on Friday, Finchem laid out the tour’s position. "I think
the essential thread that went through the thinking of the players ... was that
in the absence of data or any basis to conclude that there is a competitive advantage
to be gained by using anchoring, and given the amount of time that anchoring has been in the game, that
there is no overriding reason to go down that road," Finchem said. He and other tour officials clearly do not
subscribe to the theory that the anchored stroke takes too much skill out of the
game as opposed to a free-swinging stroke. Citing a lack of empirical data on
the issue, the commissioner said he attempts to look at the issue “from the standpoint of is it good, bad or
indifferent for the game as a whole.” Interesting……….
- If there are two groups in this world that no one can
stand, they are veterans and service dogs, in that order. People who have put
their lives on the line to protect and defend the United States and the dogs
who help them cope with their mental and physical issues once they return from
the battlefront are extremely irritating and it’s good that the Rebar sports
bar on San Antonio’s North Side understands this. The bar was the scene of an
ugly confrontation between three veterans rolling with their service dogs and
bar employees who decided their other patrons had put up with just about enough
of the annoyance, prompting them to take action. As the three veterans told the
story, they were looking to have a good time at the bar and they were hassled
because of their pooches. Carrie Ann Partch, who uses a service dog for post-traumatic stress
disorder, used her cell phone to record the incident where she and her two
veteran friends were pushed and pepper-sprayed. "We were there a couple of
hours," Partch said. "Then, all of a sudden, it started picking up
and the manager told us we had to leave.” The veterans claim they were asked to
leave because of their service dogs, but Rebar general manager Chris Rivera
said there was no issue with the service dogs until the veterans started
walking the little dogs inside the crowded bar. That pesky legal hurdle known
as the Americans with Disabilities Act mandates that service dogs are allowed
inside and according to Partch, that’s where she and her friends told Rivera they
wanted to stay. Both sides agree the dispute became physical, but the veterans
say it was a bar bouncer who started the physicality and Rivera argued it was
the other way around. "I tried to go back inside and get my things," Partch
said. "He grabbed me. He pushed me. He grabbed a drink out of my hand and
threw it across the patio." At that point, her friend and fellow veteran Lance
Ziebell, who also uses a services dog for PTSD, was allegedly pepper-sprayed in
the face. In what had to be a fun time for the local police department, both
parties called about the incident and in the end, no charges were filed……….
- Might Cuba’s throne (metaphorical, of course) soon
belong to someone outside the Castro family? Current dictator/Presidente Raul
Castro says that is a distinct possibility, even though his older brother and
the man still pulling the strings behind the scenes, Fidel, may have him offed
or excommunicated for saying so. Raul Castro on Friday unexpectedly raised the possibility of
leaving his post, saying that he is old and has a right to retire. Even without
affixing a date or timeline for such a move, the statement caused a fair amount
of buzz as he was sworn in to a new five-year term on Sunday. "I am going
to be 82 years old," Castro said at a joint appearance with visiting
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. "I have the right to retire, don't
you think?" When more questions about his revelation came from the
assembled media, Castro bristled and chastised reporters. "Why are you so
incredulous? It will be an interesting speech. Pay attention.” The remarks came
at a mausoleum dedicated to soldiers from the former Soviet Union who have died
around the world and should not have come as a total shock because the man who
made them has also spoken before of his desire to implement a two-term limit
for all Cuban government positions, including the presidency. Along with veiled
remarks about the limited time he has left to overhaul the island's weak
Marxist economy, it might even be possible to surmise that this could be
Castro’s last term in office. Oddly enough, many Havana residents had no
knowledge of Castro's comments because they had not been reported on Cuban
television. By the time his new term ends in 2018, Castro will be 86 and no one
is quite sure who would emerge as the country’s next leader. "The time we
have left is short, the task is enormous," he told lawmakers back in 2010.
Whenever he exits stage left, it will end more than a half century of unbroken
rule by the two brothers, who came to power in 1959 leading a revolution
against U.S.-backed strongman Fulgencio Batista……..
- If anyone in the world thinks they may have misplaced
their ancient continent, feel free to report to the global lost-and-found desk
and describe it in order to reclaim it. A team led by Professor Trond Torsvik from the University
of Oslo, Norway has located fragments
of an ancient continent buried beneath the floor of the Indian Ocean and cited
the find as evidence for a landmass that would have existed between 2,000
and 85 million years ago. The strip of land, known to scientists as Mauritia, allegedly
fragmented and vanished beneath the waves as the modern world started to take
shape. This is part of the theory that until about 750 million years ago, the
Earth's landmass was gathered into a vast single continent called Rodinia. On
this unified map, India was once located next to Madagascar even though the two
are now thousands of miles apart. Torsvik’s team believes it has found a sliver
of continent - known as a microcontinent - that was once tucked between the two
and they made their find while studying grains of sand from the beaches of
Mauritius. The grains were dated back to a volcanic eruption that happened
about nine million years ago, but the minerals inside of them were linked to a
previous era. "We found zircons that we extracted from the beach sands,
and these are something you typically find in a continental crust. They are
very old in age," Torsvik said. He claimed the zircons dated to between
1,970 and 600 million years ago, leading his team to conclude that they were
remnants of ancient land that had been dragged up to the surface of the island
during a volcanic eruption. Based on this find, Torsvik theorized that pieces
of Mauritia could be found about six miles beneath Mauritius and under a swathe
of the Indian Ocean……….
- Heck freaking yes. Because it was a virtual guarantee that
there would be a fifth installment of the “Bourne” franchise no matter how
detached from the rest of the films and inadequate a Matt Damon-less fourth
film was, hearing that there is a chance Jason Bourne will be back for the
fifth chapter is about as good as it gets. Universal Pictures chairman Adam Fogelson confirmed that there will be
another movie in the iconic action franchise even though “The Bourne Legacy”
failed to match the critical or commercial success of any of its three
predecessors. The entire movie felt adrift, detached from the mythology of the
series and very much like all of its attempts to connect to the real Bourne
legacy were forced attempts to build a bridge so fans would buy in. It was also
a thin, rushed movie without a lot of substance to it, but Fogelson wants
everyone to know that Universal does not consider the effort a flop and
he’s breaking out his B.S. shovel to pile it high and deep in defense of the
movie. "The point of the last movie was to create a universe, a world and
characters that give us a lot of freedom and flexibility in how we go forward,”
Fogelson explained. “Yeah, the movie didn't perform the way the last one did.
It also didn't cost what the last one did. It performed more along the lines of
how the first one did.” In spite of that downgrade in success and quality, the
chairman said there will be another “Bourne” movie and pointed to comments by
Damon about his willingness to return as a hopeful sign. As always, that return
is predicated upon the participation of director Paul Greengrass, who helmed the second and third “Bourne”
movies. Turn that maybe into a definite yes and Universal just might have
itself a “Bourne” flick worth watching for the first time since 2007…….
No comments:
Post a Comment