News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #75 on: February 20, 2009, 10:19:54 AM »

I read her response on CNN yesterday, I thought it was good and I mostly agree with what she said. I like the way she took AG Holder to task, challenged him.


On schools however there seem to be some differing opinions..

"Sure, many inner-city black children attend lousy schools that do a poor job of teaching them to read and write. But those school districts are often run by black superintendents in cities governed by black elected officials, not some modern-day incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Nor is money the explanation. Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, for example, spend more to educate their largely black and Latino students than the surrounding suburbs do on their largely white student populations. "





Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2009, 10:20:57 AM »
Quote
I do not think that skin color is a big deal to a vast majority of people.  Attitudes, behavior, values, culture are what some people have issues with."-Lou Duran
Lou,
Some folks use the 'issues' of attitude, behavior, values and culture, as cover for discrimination, but while the first three could be used as criteria to judge an individual, culture implies whole races of people. The folks you mentioned are 'guilty' of being prejudiced against a whole segment of the population based on the above sterotypes, especially culture, and when you treat people differently based on your prejudices and stereotypes you are engaging in discrimination.

Try telling the black man who can't get hired, or even interviewed, that: "No,No,No, we aren't denying you a chance because of your color, we're denying you because of your culture, and the stereotypical attitudes, behavior and values associated with it" and see if he thinks that it isn't racial discrimination. He might even think the people who told him that were racists. 


p.s. I admire the work you've done with inner city kids.,
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2009, 10:39:51 AM »
Craig S,

I did read the reply from the teacher.  Nothing new here.  These arguments have been made ad naseum for many years.  I wonder where she stands on vouchers, school choice, and the government monopoly on education.  She wants government to force a square peg into a round hole and goes little beyond the typical we are victims to explain the root causes for the disgraceful conditions Craig E notes above.

I know no one who would willfully refuse to hire a person because of skin color.  It is mainly about performance, how maintanance intensive the candidate is likely to be, and whether the person fits the group dynamics of the workplace.  Funny, in the many years that my wife and I have worked in the corporate world, neither one of us has been told to hire a white guy or exclude a minority.  Both of us have been directed by our superiors to hire a black and a woman.  I suspect that the teacher or Mr. Holder would not have an issue with this very clear act of discrimination.  Of course, there is good discrimination and bad discrimination.

As a real estate owner, I could care less if a tenant is in a "protected class" so long as the rent is paid timely, the property is maintained, and I don't need to spend time beyond the ordinary to achieve these conditions.  I know many property owners and I can't think of a single one that would give up making money to keep a qualified black person out of his property.

Most of us could care less who lives next to us so long as they keep their property up, are relatively quiet and courteous, and are generally good neighbors.  If they are pleasant and sociable, all the better.  I do have serious problems with social engineering of school boundaries to achieve someone's version of an ideal diverse student population.  None of these concerns have to do with skin color.


Jesse,

Great post.  I believe the First Tee program is wonderful and I have contributed a bunch of equipment to the Fort Worth chapter over the years.

This thread has gone beyond Sifford- a man who was terribly wronged and no excuses can be made for the treatment he received- because of the attention that the Obamas have paid to race in America today and now Mr. Holder with his comments.  This is very topical and perhaps the AG will get his wish (though I doubt that he will draw much satisfaction from the results).

You may not recall, but we did touch on the subject matter when we played in the desert and you were having the most schizophrenic round I've ever witnessed (a horrid front, a stellar back).  If memory serves, we were talking about rating the course and you made a reference to being "the token rater".  I don't recall your opinion as to why more blacks didn't seem to be taking up golf, though I've heard from other people that economics might be less of a factor than image and peer pressure in favor of football and basketball.   

You say: "Sports is the one place where a competitor should earn his/her spot. I'm telling you, it won't be all that encouraging to black kids to see a golfer of their own race on Tour if he was given a spot."

In the spirit of the dialogue Mr. Holder yearns, why is sports "the one place"?  Because it is obviously demonstrable who is better and deserving while not as clear in the classroom and the workplace?  I am sure it has nothing to do with blacks having done so disproportionally well in athletics.  It wouldn't be very sporting to put a 40 pound weight jacket on Kobe so Dirk or some white guy might have a chance to stay with him, would it?  Nor would a race handicap seem appropriate to ensure that non-white golfers (or American LPGA members) are better represented on the golf tours with a chance to succeed.

Classroom and  corporate staff results may not be as easy to discern from the outside, but those involved know very clearly.  It doesn't take long to size up our peers and, when performance falls outside the normal range, it sticks out just like a slam dunk.  Putting people into positions where they can't succeed without the power of the gun (government) does little to alleviate past and present discrimination.  Instead, Affirmative Action creates the bitter people that the Obamas talk about while doing little for the self esteem of many of the aggrieved individuals it is intended to assist.  There is infinitely more satisfaction gained from that that is earned than from something that is taken or given, particularly when it is undeserved and under duress.


Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #78 on: February 20, 2009, 11:26:26 AM »
Lou...I get discriminated during job searches all the time due to my age...can I prove it? No...would you or anyone doing the hiring admit it? No...

Yeah..I don't know anyone that would not hire someone because of their skin color....
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #79 on: February 20, 2009, 11:27:33 AM »
Lou...

By the way you can post at Harris-Lacewell's blog and enter into a discussion on those issue you raise...unless of course you're a "coward"  ;)
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

Jesse Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #80 on: February 20, 2009, 11:35:27 AM »
Mike,

Most of the black folks I know who love golf aren't as geeky as me.
I really can't speak for others, but one thing I do know is that much of golf's history is wrapped up in a bunch of old white men.  It may be assumed that those GCA's designed courses that minorities would never get to play.So, why learn about that?
That again, is just a guess.
Here's an example...My grandfather was a great baseball historian. He had great knowledge of the negro leagues, but not much of MLB until Jackie Robinson was allowed in.
Just my two cents.
I choose to see these courses as places I can enjoy NOW. I understand the history of golf isn't so great toward minorities, but I choose to move forward.

Lou,

I was only talking about black folks my previous post. But I think there's a place for Affirmative Action, based on income, when it comes to education.
Many kids, black, white and latino are going to underperforming schools. I have a good friend who is a Pac-10 football coach. He tells me of kids who have really good grades coming out of high school, but when they take their SAT's they tank, because, the schools aren't that good. Now that kid is going to get the full ride because he's a football player, but he wouldn't get in to school if he was not.
I think if everyone who's done well in Jr. and Sr. high should be given an opportunity at some type of higher education. Once an opportunity of an education is given, that in time should end Affirmative Action.
I also believe civil rights laws should be vigorously enforced.
As for saying to you about being the "token rater". I was not a rater at the time we spoke back in 2006. I was invitied to be a rater in 2007. But I was wondering out loud about how many raters of color were out there.
And my comment to you was no one wants to be a token. I do not believe I am a "token rater." If I am, that's not on me. I've met several other raters and they have treated me very, very well. In fact two of them like me so much, they beat my brains in on the course every time we play. And I love it. Really, all I can do is perform my best all the time. See as many courses as I can while learning more about the history of GCA. Then, I'll let my performance as a rater speak for itself.  Finally, that crazy round, was 49-38 at Stone Eagle. Yes, that was unreal.  
« Last Edit: February 20, 2009, 11:37:06 AM by Jesse Jones »

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #81 on: February 20, 2009, 12:38:44 PM »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #82 on: February 20, 2009, 01:10:25 PM »
Jesse,

I am entirely on board about doing everything that is effective in terms of primary education.  I know that the current model does not work.  There is a strong correlation between parent involvement and academic success.  How the disadvantages of the present state of the black family are overcomed is beyond my level of knowledge and experience.

To the best of my knowledge, income is typically not an issue for the best universities in terms of acceptance.  I know that Stanford rejected my son and took a black female from his school who had a substantially inferior record in terms of GPA, SATs, student government, athletics, and public service.  We didn't ask for financial assistance while she received a substantial amount.  Perhaps she wrote a much superior essay.  We didn't take it as a slight- we heard beforehand that some male Asians with perfect SATs and GPAs weren't getting in either; something to do with the administration's desire to maitain a diversely "balanced" student body.

Perhaps your use of the word "token" in my presence was in relation to gca.com and attendance at various "unofficial" outings.  But I do recall that we were talking about rating, so perhaps you already had some discussions about joining one of the panels.  Yours was a most remarkable round.

Craig,

Though it might appear otherwise in my participation here, it would be a waste of time to try to change the mind of someone who is probably inextricably vested in an emotional perspective.  Blaming someone else for one's unhappiness is far more satisfying than taking to heart Gib's admonition to "get on with it".  It is also an extremely strong defense mechanism which enables the user to more easily get up in the morning.  That black people with very limited language skills and similar backgrounds of historic oppression can come to this country and do well is explained away with "well, these are the exceptions".  The problem is that there are way, way too many exceptions.

Napoleon Hill's "what the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve" is color blind.  Some folks may encounter more obstacles than others, but that is just life.  I watch my friend Jon Spaulding play golf and know that life is not fair.  So what?  I don't need more dialogue.  I need to get on the range and on the course.  And even if I still fall short, bitching about it is not going to make me better.  I just need to get on with it!  Do you really want to ask for strokes on all aspects of life?     
 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2009, 01:33:20 PM by Lou_Duran »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #83 on: February 20, 2009, 01:26:26 PM »
Bob,
She's an ultra smart person, but she didn't offer any answers to the questions she raised. After spending 4 paragraphs slamming Holder she didn't offer anything but the same statistics we hear over and over again, which are as meaningless a regurgitation of ideology as when it comes from the 'other' side.

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #84 on: February 20, 2009, 01:41:05 PM »
It's funny to learn I was raised wrong, to simply try to treat everyone the same, regardless of race, color, creed, etc., when I should have been engaging everyone in conversations about how race has affected his or her life. I'm relieved I have a better such as Eric Holder who can teach me right and wrong.

Oh, wait, Our Betters teach us there is no right or wrong, that's right, they teach us that they know better than us. Sorry about that, I'll try to be more accurate in the future.

I'm so thankful for Our Betters that I am declaring the date Mr. Holder made his courageous speech to be Our Betters Day, so we can all give thanks that we have Our Betters who know better.

Oh, wait, I'm a cowardly member of the unwashed masses, I can't declare anything, what was I thinking? I'd pray for guidance, but there is no God, only Wise Men In DC.

Whoops, there I go again, being a sexist bastard, obviously I meant Wise Men And Women In DC.

This is all so utterly confusing, but I guess that's life as a member of the chattering classes. It's a good thing we have Our Betters around to set us straight.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #85 on: February 20, 2009, 02:04:26 PM »
Jim Kennedy,

Huh?  What is it exactly that you want her to recite? 

As it has been said with much greater eloquence: those who have faith require no evidence; those who do not will accept none.  This is well beyond an honest disagreement of cause and effect relationships.  Socialism is the secular religion of our time.   No matter how much some protest to the contrary, the federal government cannot be one's mommy and daddy.  Hell, we can't even expect the politicians and career bureaucrats to abide by the very same laws and rules they themselves promulgate!

Pre-Johnson's "Great Society", the black family persisted through much more severe, odious discrimination and stayed relatively intact.  I don't recall the percentage of single parent births, but it was right in line with the socioeconomic mean.  That the arguably well-intentioned ADC programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. and the "if it feels good do it" liberalism caused the family structure to collapse does not require much further study.

Busing, the unionization of the education industry, and the large increases in per pupil real spending at the same time that scores went south hardly require more analysis.  Probably the most fractured school district in the the country, D.C., also has the highest per student spending.  But after throwing many $trillions at the problems of poverty, all this is still the result of white people hating people of color?  Please!   

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #86 on: February 20, 2009, 02:10:20 PM »
Lou...

I'm not sure racism is all about white people hating blacks...though some do.

I think discrimination has been institutionalized, and often happens with little knowledge or fan fare, but those being discriminated against know it happened.

I believe there is data available to show real improvements in all areas during the Johnson Great Society years...those programs were income based and had little to do with race.
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #87 on: February 20, 2009, 02:55:44 PM »
Lou,
Let's see, how about realizing the context in which his speech was given, and then making a thoughtful, or heaven forbid, constructive response. Instead, all she was able to choke out was another run-of-the-mill diatribe, jam-packed with all the buzz words, phrases, and highly suspect 'statistics' that do nothing but sour the (excuse me George) conversation and are just included to bolster an argument, not add something new.

'Please! is right.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2009, 02:57:43 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #88 on: February 20, 2009, 03:04:07 PM »
Jim,

     Holder didn't offer any solutions either, what are yours? 

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #89 on: February 20, 2009, 03:20:42 PM »
Bob,
She's an ultra smart person, but she didn't offer any answers to the questions she raised. After spending 4 paragraphs slamming Holder she didn't offer anything but the same statistics we hear over and over again, which are as meaningless a regurgitation of ideology as when it comes from the 'other' side.



Jim,

One has to have read her stuff over a period of time to know that she does have some answers, but not necessarily readily acceptable ones.

When you say she is ultra smart, that is  only half it. I have known her since she was about ten years old. Phillips Exeter, Yale ( ran on the mens cross country team) Cambridge Univ., Stanford Law and plays a mean Bartok concerto.

Bob


Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #90 on: February 20, 2009, 04:49:31 PM »
Bob,
I respect her opinions and I've ag... agr...agre.. agreed (almost as hard to say as shank) with some of them, on occasion.  ;D

But here is why I think she blew it:

Eric Holder was holding up a road sign, it didn't say stop, or turn right or left, it was like a "Road Work Ahead" sign that tells us to be cognizant of where we are because we may have to give some thought to what's going on in front of us.
Even though I didn't agree with much of what Ms. Mac Donald wrote I can see its worth, so why alienate a potential segment of readers to those later ideas by opening with a four paragraph gratuitous attack on the messenger? It serves no purpose, it looks like pandering, it lessens the impact of the remaining piece, and it sets off the article as a personal attack instead of a thoughtful and instructive piece. Of course, maybe the Scot in her was offended by the 'coward' remark, but I cannot believe that anyone as smart as this woman would take that personally. I think that was only her excuse, not her reason, to go after Holder.

Craig,
I'm still working on the degree that would let me comfortably feel that I had enough knowledgeable and experience to make decisions that impact millions of people.
I'll let you know when, and if, that happens.  ;)
« Last Edit: February 20, 2009, 04:53:13 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #91 on: February 20, 2009, 05:10:20 PM »
Even though I didn't agree with much of what Ms. Mac Donald wrote I can see its worth, so why alienate a potential segment of readers to those later ideas by opening with a four paragraph gratuitous attack on the messenger? It serves no purpose, it looks like pandering, it lessens the impact of the remaining piece, and it sets off the article as a personal attack instead of a thoughtful and instructive piece. Of course, maybe the Scot in her was offended by the 'coward' remark, but I cannot believe that anyone as smart as this woman would take that personally. I think that was only her excuse, not her reason, to go after Holder.

Jim, I think you're kidding yourself if you think many of the folks who might be offended by her words were reading them. If there's one thing these political threads prove repeatedly, it's that everyone's talking and very few are listening (and I would include myself in that criticism).
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #92 on: February 20, 2009, 08:41:41 PM »
George,

Not me.  I listen to both sides.  I also have a very good memory of what was said, the context, and the tone.

Mr. Kennedy is like many others on the left.  When his side spews it is thoughtful, reasoned, properly nuanced, calibrated so as to not offend while being instructive.

When the right takes the same approach from its point of view, it is a rant, hate speech, pandering, inelegant, simplicstic, provocative to be offensive as opposed to adding emphasis.

What Mr. Holder says is nothing new.  It is playing the same theme to the same audience, perhaps to expiate something that's eating at him.  These guys are not graceful winners.  But at least unlike Fidel and Che who summarily lined up the opposition to the wall and mowed them down with bullet fire, these guys just lob bricks... for now.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #93 on: February 20, 2009, 11:42:55 PM »
Lou,
I didn't know Libertarians were so emotional.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2009, 11:46:43 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #94 on: February 21, 2009, 12:06:14 AM »
Jim,

and we can rant too.

Seriously, I am fighting a bad case of the negative- "the world is going to hell"- bias.  Things are going fine personally, but in my 35+ years of following business, economics, and politics, I've never been so pessimistic.  I am trying to reason through it but keep coming up with the same thing conclusion: Senator Thompson is absolutely right.

I am not angry, nor disappointed that the Republicans got what they deserved.  Too bad we can't punish the politicians and not the country.  With the incalculable costs of socialized healthcare and the green agenda coming down the pipe shortly, I don't know that the economy can take it.  So, if I get too dour and a bit personal, my apologies.  Today was not a good day in terms of discipline to stay away from this damn site.  Tomorrow will be better.   

Jon Spaulding

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #95 on: February 21, 2009, 12:52:03 AM »
And.....in the meantime, Vincent Johnson shot 70-74 to finish out of the money by three. Pretty good playing, all things considered. Same score as the kid from Japan. Unfortunately he got hit with a 2-shot penalty described as such:

"After opening with two birdies, he was preparing to chip for par from right of the fifth green when the ball moved ever so slightly as he placed his wedge behind it. Johnson wasn't sure it moved, so he checked with his playing partner, Bryce Molder, who did not think it did. Television showed otherwise, and when rules official Steve Rintoul caught up with Johnson on the seventh tee, he had to deliver the bad news. It was a two-shot penalty -- one for the ball moving, another for not replacing it. "It was too hasty of a move instead of waiting for a rules official," Johnson said, adding that he had a good time and learned his lesson."
You'd make a fine little helper. What's your name?

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #96 on: February 21, 2009, 01:24:27 AM »
Lou...

I find it absolutely hilarious that you and others on this board spend so much time demonizing Obama....and liberals....I love how you always seem to find a place in a sentence for "socialist" and "Che" or "Fidel".....

You will forgive me if I have no pity for the greed heads and the conservatives that are finally getting what they deserve for 30 years of driving this country off the cliff...a bad economy..a stupid war...a false sense of security based on fear (please remove your shoes!), a total breakdown in the regulatory system put in place to protect consumers...a Congress that would rather make political points than solve problems....yeah....it feels good to have the shoe on the other foot!
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #97 on: February 21, 2009, 02:06:54 PM »
And.....in the meantime, Vincent Johnson shot 70-74 to finish out of the money by three. Pretty good playing, all things considered. Same score as the kid from Japan. Unfortunately he got hit with a 2-shot penalty described as such:

"After opening with two birdies, he was preparing to chip for par from right of the fifth green when the ball moved ever so slightly as he placed his wedge behind it. Johnson wasn't sure it moved, so he checked with his playing partner, Bryce Molder, who did not think it did. Television showed otherwise, and when rules official Steve Rintoul caught up with Johnson on the seventh tee, he had to deliver the bad news. It was a two-shot penalty -- one for the ball moving, another for not replacing it. "It was too hasty of a move instead of waiting for a rules official," Johnson said, adding that he had a good time and learned his lesson."


There are times that the rules of golf are absolutely Draconian.  A one shot penalty would seem to be more than sufficient.  Does it really matter that it wasn't put in its original spot?  Should that result in another shot penalty?  I fail to see the logic in a 2 shot penalty for this transgression. 

I was impressed by Vincent Johnson during interviews.  Too bad he was the Sifford exemption or he would have not been on television.  Penalties as the result of television also seem unfair as the entire field is not scrutinized equitably.

Sam Maryland

Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #98 on: February 21, 2009, 02:42:00 PM »
I caddied for a business partner of Arnold Palmer at the World Series Invitational in the mid-80's (can't remember if it was '84 or '85 and unable to locate any tournament records on google or elsewhere). The pro-am was 2 days, pro's scores counted. 

The first day our pro shot 80, didn't cut the group a single shot, was miserable to be around, and I honestly can't remember him engaging any of the am's in any conversation at all.

The second day our pro shot 80, didn't cut the group a single shot, was a complete pleasure to be around, and was constantly helping the am's out.

Oddly, those were the two highest scores any pro shot all week and we got 'em both. But we had some "25 handicap" D-player that nobody knew and he lit it up and everyone else played well and in the end our team was right there at the top of the pro-am heap.

Our pro the second day was John Brodie.

The first day pro was Charlie Sifford.

Just relaying a story, make of it what you will...

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sifford Exemption
« Reply #99 on: February 21, 2009, 04:43:03 PM »
"I find it absolutely hilarious that you and others on this board spend so much time demonizing Obama....and liberals....I love how you always seem to find a place in a sentence for "socialist" and "Che" or "Fidel"....."  Craig Sweet


As opposed to the time you spend blaming republicans/conservatives for everything that has gone wrong for the last 30 years?   ::)  I hope it helps you sleep at night.

Here are 25 people to blame just in case...

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1878509,00.html

At least they spread the blame around a little more liberally. :)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2009, 05:04:24 PM by Craig Edgmand »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back