May 1 has been declared, as in years past, to be "Law Day" by the American Bar Association. The theme this year, as outlined by the ABA, is "Realizing the Dream: Equality for All." The Dream being referenced by the theme this year is a reference to the "I Have a Dream" speech of Dr. Martin Luther King in 1963. Dr. King continually urged equal treatment of all individuals under the law and fought to end discrimination.
Although I take issue with many of the activities of the ABA, reasonable minds can surely agree that people ought to all be treated equally under the law. However, I believe that many individuals in this current day and age confuse equality and inalienable rights with entitlement.
The Declaration of Independence states, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness." So, as Americans, we are all free, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, disability, and sexual orientation, to pursue happiness. This right does not, in my opinion, entitle us to anything beyond that ability.
Warning: The remainder of this post will contain harsh realities that may offend the sensibilities of the bleeding-hearts. Consume at your own risk.
For me, I enjoy spending time with my family and friends, going to restaurants, playing golf, watching TV, traveling, etc. If I had my choice, those activities would consume all of my days. However, many of these activities cost money. I made choices in life and pursued a path that has allowed me to earn a comfortable living and partake in many of the life activities I enjoy. Through hard work, dedication, and commitment, the large majority of people in America can do the same.
That being said, there is not much on this Earth that makes me more angry than the thought of an able bodied welfare recipient sitting on their ass, taking bong rips, and playing video games. It is not necessarily their activity (or inactivity) that is so aggravating, but the ever-increasing attitude in this country that "I am entitled to this." WRONG.
You are entitled to life, not the life of the rich and famous. You are entitled to the liberty to pursue any life path you wish. If your life choice was to smoke meth, you are not entitled to a new iPhone. You are entitled to pursue happiness. If nice things make you happy, you are welcome to gain employment and purchase nice things. Further, you are even entitled to apply for work without fear of discrimination. However, if your qualifications for employment are terrible, you are not entitled to be hired.
This entitlement mentality is only perpetuated by our Federal and State Governments. Do you know that the government will tell you, to the day, when your unemployment benefits will expire? They should just write a letter:
"Dear Down-and-Out,
Your friendly government will take care of you until December 1, 2013. Please do not feel inclined to lift a finger until that time. Oh, I almost forgot, if you are unsuccessful in finding a job by that time, please let us know and we will extend your benefits."
Now, I am sure you are thinking "this guy is tough, there are people out there that legitimately need help." Trust me, I know this. I will tell you, without hesitation, that it is our duty as citizens to help those in need. However, I would much rather make that determination on my own and without government intervention. I have been handling my finances for quite a few years and it seems my budgeting and spending is far superior to that of the government.
Life can chew you up and spit you out. I suppose we could live in a socialist society and let the government dole out our monthly allowances and take care of our needs. But, what would be the reward to those that do persevere in the face of life challenges and succeed in their chosen life path? There would be none, because there would be no incentive to try. I think we, as a society, will suffer if we continue to remove incentives to actually pursuing happiness. Life is not fair. However, it should most certainly be unfair to everyone equally.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Open Letter to Maggie Wilderotter
Dear Ms. Wilderotter,
I would like to share my most recent experience with your company, Frontier Communications. As CEO of Frontier Communications, I am certain you will be interested in the thoughts and concerns of one of your valued customers.
I receive my bills via email and recently received an email from your company. This email simply states that a bill is available and lists the total of this bill. I noticed, in my recent correspondence from your company, that my bill had increased by $6 from the previous month. As this seemed odd, I proceeded to your website to chat with a customer service representative.
The Customer service representative was most helpful. She informed me that all customers received notice of the increase on the previous month's bill. After I logged into my account, clicked on the previous month's bill, and scrolled down to page 4, I noticed the "Important Customer Information." That information was as follows:
"As one of our valued broadband customers, we are very
excited to report that over the last 24 months Frontier
has upgraded our broadband network to deliver greater
Internet speeds and capacity. This investment was made
to provide you with an improved customer experience.
We are also updating our broadband pricing plans to
offer multiple tiers of products and services designed to
respond to the differing needs of each and every
customer. As a result of these changes, we are
discontinuing older services and moving our customers to
one of our new service offerings. Please visit
www.frontier.com/FAQ or contact Customer Service at
888-638-5200 to discuss which of our current offers and
promotions will best meet your needs. Alternatively, if
we do not hear from you, effective with next month's bill
you will be moved to our Simply Broadband Max offering
that will continue to provide you with Frontier data
services, at one data service price (you will no longer see
additional charges for a modem fee or a high-speed
surcharge). The monthly cost for your new Simply
Broadband Max offering may result in an increase up to
$6.00. We look forward to continuing to meet all of your
communications needs."
It would strike me that there should have been a little more transparency with this change. Through no fault of my own, I apparently was not paying your company enough money. Now, this is a matter of opinion because I felt that the charge was not only sufficient, it was probably outrageously inflated. Anyway, my rate has apparently now increased and will continue to increase until I am paying you a satisfactory monthly fee. (Again, your opinion, not mine).
I suppose I will live in a perpetual state of uncertainty and just hope and pray that you do not decide that my monthly fee for internet should be one million dollars. I sure would not be able to afford that. I guess the point of my letter is, if you intend to increase my rates, maybe you could just send me an email and let me know? I think you should have my email address, after all you send my bill there every month. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I would like to share my most recent experience with your company, Frontier Communications. As CEO of Frontier Communications, I am certain you will be interested in the thoughts and concerns of one of your valued customers.
I receive my bills via email and recently received an email from your company. This email simply states that a bill is available and lists the total of this bill. I noticed, in my recent correspondence from your company, that my bill had increased by $6 from the previous month. As this seemed odd, I proceeded to your website to chat with a customer service representative.
The Customer service representative was most helpful. She informed me that all customers received notice of the increase on the previous month's bill. After I logged into my account, clicked on the previous month's bill, and scrolled down to page 4, I noticed the "Important Customer Information." That information was as follows:
"As one of our valued broadband customers, we are very
excited to report that over the last 24 months Frontier
has upgraded our broadband network to deliver greater
Internet speeds and capacity. This investment was made
to provide you with an improved customer experience.
We are also updating our broadband pricing plans to
offer multiple tiers of products and services designed to
respond to the differing needs of each and every
customer. As a result of these changes, we are
discontinuing older services and moving our customers to
one of our new service offerings. Please visit
www.frontier.com/FAQ or contact Customer Service at
888-638-5200 to discuss which of our current offers and
promotions will best meet your needs. Alternatively, if
we do not hear from you, effective with next month's bill
you will be moved to our Simply Broadband Max offering
that will continue to provide you with Frontier data
services, at one data service price (you will no longer see
additional charges for a modem fee or a high-speed
surcharge). The monthly cost for your new Simply
Broadband Max offering may result in an increase up to
$6.00. We look forward to continuing to meet all of your
communications needs."
It would strike me that there should have been a little more transparency with this change. Through no fault of my own, I apparently was not paying your company enough money. Now, this is a matter of opinion because I felt that the charge was not only sufficient, it was probably outrageously inflated. Anyway, my rate has apparently now increased and will continue to increase until I am paying you a satisfactory monthly fee. (Again, your opinion, not mine).
I suppose I will live in a perpetual state of uncertainty and just hope and pray that you do not decide that my monthly fee for internet should be one million dollars. I sure would not be able to afford that. I guess the point of my letter is, if you intend to increase my rates, maybe you could just send me an email and let me know? I think you should have my email address, after all you send my bill there every month. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Monday, March 4, 2013
State of Decline
To all who live in the State of Illinois, it comes as no surprise that our lawmakers spend a great deal of time on worthless legislation. It also comes as no surprise that we are a State run by mostly Democratic, mostly corrupt, Chicago politicians. Our fearless Attorney General is, in my opinion, no exception. In January of 2012 I read the following article in the State Journal Register online:
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1069934542/Legal-wrinkle-creates-debate-over-debtors-prisons-in-Illinois
The gist of the article was that Ms. Madigan was fairly clueless about how the system operated and wished to make it easier for debtors to avoid paying their bills. It must be a burden for Democrats to continually worry about how they can make life easier for those that make no effort to better their own situation. But, I digress. In response to this article, I penned the following letter to our brilliant A.G.:
Office of the Attorney General
Attn: Lisa Madigan
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
RE: “Debtor’s Prison”
Dear Ms. Madigan:
I read with interest the January 21, 2012 article in the State Journal Register entitled “Legal wrinkle creates debate over 'debtors' prisons' in Illinois.” I must say, I am somewhat perplexed.
The article quotes you as stating, “When you fail to show up for a court hearing, that’s when a judge finds you in contempt of court for not showing up and there is a warrant out for your arrest.” You were further quoted as saying, “That gives the lawyers the ability to say (debtors) aren’t being thrown into debtors’ prison, they’re being thrown into prison for contempt of court. To me, that’s disingenuous.”
How is this a disingenuous statement? As in any civil court proceeding, when orders of the Court are not followed, a finding of contempt with a jail sentence is a possibility. Are you insinuating that people who have not fulfilled their financial responsibilities should be exempt from Court Orders?
You make reference in the article to a “pay or show” motion. I have personally never heard of this particular motion in a civil proceeding. However, if a pleading is properly filed and served on a Defendant pursuant to the rules of civil procedure, do you not believe the Defendant should be required to appear in Court on the specified date and time? If a party to a civil suit does not appear after proper notification, should a body attachment warrant not issue?
I am never surprised to see a media outlet misconstrue facts or be uninformed. However, I find your blanket outrage at debt collection to be misguided. It seems that your outrage would be much more properly directed at falsification of affidavits of service and at Judges who set unfairly high bail amounts. Attorneys who follow the rules of civil procedure and play by the rules are not “utilizing taxpayer dollars to collect private debt,” but are zealously pursing civil legal remedies on behalf of their clients.
I further find your outrage to be hypocritical. It would seem that your office spends a large amount of time, money, and manpower pursuing the enforcement of child support payments. Would this not be a debt for which your office utilizes the civil courts in this State to collect? Fortunately for your office, you have many other avenues and punishments at your disposal to collect child support debts. It could be argued that some of these additional punishments for non-payment are even harsher than being arrested for failure to appear.
I sincerely hope you reconsider your statements and positions on this issue and pursue future endeavors in the General Assembly that are actually of benefit to the citizens of the State of Illinois. I anxiously await your response.
Very truly yours,
William B. Bates, Jr.
CC: Representative Rich Brauer
Senator Larry K. Bomke
As I write this blog post, I am still "anxiously" awaiting Ms. Madigan's response. I assume I can take the fact that our esteemed Governor Quinn signed legislation last July that effectuated some of the changes advocated by Ms. Madigan as a pretty good indication of the weight my opinions have. But, a stock response with a stamped signature would have been a nice collector's item.
I realize that a somewhat sarcastic and condescending letter to the A.G. is not likely to win me any popularity contests in that office. However, at some point, it is time for a fundamental shift in the mindset of our leaders, or it is time for new leaders. If we now live in a society where a person cannot be held accountable for their valid debts, I believe we have reached that point.
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1069934542/Legal-wrinkle-creates-debate-over-debtors-prisons-in-Illinois
The gist of the article was that Ms. Madigan was fairly clueless about how the system operated and wished to make it easier for debtors to avoid paying their bills. It must be a burden for Democrats to continually worry about how they can make life easier for those that make no effort to better their own situation. But, I digress. In response to this article, I penned the following letter to our brilliant A.G.:
Office of the Attorney General
Attn: Lisa Madigan
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
RE: “Debtor’s Prison”
Dear Ms. Madigan:
I read with interest the January 21, 2012 article in the State Journal Register entitled “Legal wrinkle creates debate over 'debtors' prisons' in Illinois.” I must say, I am somewhat perplexed.
The article quotes you as stating, “When you fail to show up for a court hearing, that’s when a judge finds you in contempt of court for not showing up and there is a warrant out for your arrest.” You were further quoted as saying, “That gives the lawyers the ability to say (debtors) aren’t being thrown into debtors’ prison, they’re being thrown into prison for contempt of court. To me, that’s disingenuous.”
How is this a disingenuous statement? As in any civil court proceeding, when orders of the Court are not followed, a finding of contempt with a jail sentence is a possibility. Are you insinuating that people who have not fulfilled their financial responsibilities should be exempt from Court Orders?
You make reference in the article to a “pay or show” motion. I have personally never heard of this particular motion in a civil proceeding. However, if a pleading is properly filed and served on a Defendant pursuant to the rules of civil procedure, do you not believe the Defendant should be required to appear in Court on the specified date and time? If a party to a civil suit does not appear after proper notification, should a body attachment warrant not issue?
I am never surprised to see a media outlet misconstrue facts or be uninformed. However, I find your blanket outrage at debt collection to be misguided. It seems that your outrage would be much more properly directed at falsification of affidavits of service and at Judges who set unfairly high bail amounts. Attorneys who follow the rules of civil procedure and play by the rules are not “utilizing taxpayer dollars to collect private debt,” but are zealously pursing civil legal remedies on behalf of their clients.
I further find your outrage to be hypocritical. It would seem that your office spends a large amount of time, money, and manpower pursuing the enforcement of child support payments. Would this not be a debt for which your office utilizes the civil courts in this State to collect? Fortunately for your office, you have many other avenues and punishments at your disposal to collect child support debts. It could be argued that some of these additional punishments for non-payment are even harsher than being arrested for failure to appear.
I sincerely hope you reconsider your statements and positions on this issue and pursue future endeavors in the General Assembly that are actually of benefit to the citizens of the State of Illinois. I anxiously await your response.
Very truly yours,
William B. Bates, Jr.
CC: Representative Rich Brauer
Senator Larry K. Bomke
As I write this blog post, I am still "anxiously" awaiting Ms. Madigan's response. I assume I can take the fact that our esteemed Governor Quinn signed legislation last July that effectuated some of the changes advocated by Ms. Madigan as a pretty good indication of the weight my opinions have. But, a stock response with a stamped signature would have been a nice collector's item.
I realize that a somewhat sarcastic and condescending letter to the A.G. is not likely to win me any popularity contests in that office. However, at some point, it is time for a fundamental shift in the mindset of our leaders, or it is time for new leaders. If we now live in a society where a person cannot be held accountable for their valid debts, I believe we have reached that point.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Fiscal Cliff Averted?
Toward the end of 2012, you could not turn on your television without hearing about the so called "Fiscal Cliff." As with all things, the media beat this dead horse to an everliving pulp. Anyone that works with estate planning issues was curious what Congress would do about the Federal Estate and Gift tax exclusion amounts. Congress certainly kept us guessing right up until the new year.
If Congress would not have taken action, the Federal Estate and Gift tax exclusion amount was set to drop from 5 million (adjusted for inflation) to 1 million in 2013. Additionally, an estate would have paid a 55% tax on its assets over and above that amount. Thankfully, for those individuals with substantial assets, Congress did take action in an attempt to remedy this potentially expensive issue. This article linked below does a good job of summarizing the action Congress took, and I do not see much future in re-creating the wheel.
NOTE: This information is for the Federal Estate and Gift tax issues and makes no reference to the State Estate and Gift tax issues.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/01/02/after-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-estate-and-gift-tax-explained/
If Congress would not have taken action, the Federal Estate and Gift tax exclusion amount was set to drop from 5 million (adjusted for inflation) to 1 million in 2013. Additionally, an estate would have paid a 55% tax on its assets over and above that amount. Thankfully, for those individuals with substantial assets, Congress did take action in an attempt to remedy this potentially expensive issue. This article linked below does a good job of summarizing the action Congress took, and I do not see much future in re-creating the wheel.
NOTE: This information is for the Federal Estate and Gift tax issues and makes no reference to the State Estate and Gift tax issues.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/01/02/after-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-estate-and-gift-tax-explained/
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
My Take on Augusta
Augusta National Golf Club, located in Augusta, Georgia, is home to one of the greatest PGA events of the year, The Masters. Augusta National is a privately owned and operated golf club with notable members such as, Warren Buffet, Pete Coors, and Bill Gates. Membership is by invitation only and, needless to say, I have yet to receive my invitation. (I am sure it just got lost in the mail.)
Over the years, August has been heavily criticized for some of their membership criteria. Most recently, Augusta was lambasted for their men-only membership policy. The Chairman of the Board in 2002, Hootie Johnson, responded with the following:
"Our membership is single gender just as many other organizations and clubs all across America. These would include Junior Leagues, sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and countless others. And we all have a moral and legal right to organize our clubs the way we wish."
Needless to say, this comment, along with others from Mr. Johnson, did not help to extinguish the controversy. Fanatics, such as Martha Burk, continued to espouse her opinion that Augusta was a "sexist" organization. (I have yet to have the opportunity to ask her opinions on the "sexism" of the Girl Scouts or all female sororities.)
Almost ten years after this widely publicized controversy, yesterday, August 20, 2012, Augusta National invited its first two women to become members of the golf club. Condoleezza Rice and Darla Moore are both successful, powerful women who will now wear the coveted green jacket.
It is my hope that the members of Augusta have made this decision for the right reasons. In a time were political correctness and an everybody-should-feel-good-about-themselves attitude is overtaking our society, it is easy to be cynical. Hopefully, the members made the conscious decision to move in this direction and did not simply cave to the onslaught of pressure to be politically correct.
Personally, I agree with Mr. Johnson's sentiments regarding private organizations. (Obviously, this argument goes out the window if an organization accepts or is funded by public monies.) However, this is not to say that every person should agree or feel comfortable with the make-up of a private organization.
There are plenty of examples of private organizations that are, in my opinion, ridiculous. (Nazi organizations, Ku Klux Klan, Communist organizations, etc.) But, just as these organizations have the freedom to peacefully organize, I have the freedom to decline membership and laugh at the absurdity of their beliefs.
Political correctness has never been my strong suit, and I am sure, as with Mr. Johnson, many people will disagree with my opinions on this issue. So, to those who disagree, feel free to pick up your "participation ribbon" on the way out.
Over the years, August has been heavily criticized for some of their membership criteria. Most recently, Augusta was lambasted for their men-only membership policy. The Chairman of the Board in 2002, Hootie Johnson, responded with the following:
"Our membership is single gender just as many other organizations and clubs all across America. These would include Junior Leagues, sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and countless others. And we all have a moral and legal right to organize our clubs the way we wish."
Needless to say, this comment, along with others from Mr. Johnson, did not help to extinguish the controversy. Fanatics, such as Martha Burk, continued to espouse her opinion that Augusta was a "sexist" organization. (I have yet to have the opportunity to ask her opinions on the "sexism" of the Girl Scouts or all female sororities.)
Almost ten years after this widely publicized controversy, yesterday, August 20, 2012, Augusta National invited its first two women to become members of the golf club. Condoleezza Rice and Darla Moore are both successful, powerful women who will now wear the coveted green jacket.
It is my hope that the members of Augusta have made this decision for the right reasons. In a time were political correctness and an everybody-should-feel-good-about-themselves attitude is overtaking our society, it is easy to be cynical. Hopefully, the members made the conscious decision to move in this direction and did not simply cave to the onslaught of pressure to be politically correct.
Personally, I agree with Mr. Johnson's sentiments regarding private organizations. (Obviously, this argument goes out the window if an organization accepts or is funded by public monies.) However, this is not to say that every person should agree or feel comfortable with the make-up of a private organization.
There are plenty of examples of private organizations that are, in my opinion, ridiculous. (Nazi organizations, Ku Klux Klan, Communist organizations, etc.) But, just as these organizations have the freedom to peacefully organize, I have the freedom to decline membership and laugh at the absurdity of their beliefs.
Political correctness has never been my strong suit, and I am sure, as with Mr. Johnson, many people will disagree with my opinions on this issue. So, to those who disagree, feel free to pick up your "participation ribbon" on the way out.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Corporations are People
I recently had a very horrible experience with a service provider. I will not name any names, as the service provider is an enormous provider with many, many lawyers.
As a quick synopsis of the experience, this is the fourth time I have had to contact this company in the last few months. They have mis-billed me several times, the service was not working, they forgot to bill me for several months and then billed me for all those months without warning, etc. Needless to say, my patience was thin.
For anyone that has ever called a company such as this, you know that you will wait on hold for hours to only accomplish one of the following outcomes:
1. You are disconnected
2. You finally get to speak to a real human, but they unfortunately only speak Swahili
3. You hang up in frustration because you have burned your entire day and have to do something productive or your phone just died
If you are anything like me, you will eventually connect with a real person. Very infrequently are people at these types of companies very friendly. Let's face it, if you got paid minimum wage to talk to people like me about terrible experiences, you would not be very friendly either.
My conversation with this particular "customer service representative" went downhill rather quickly. I cannot (and probably would not) give a play-by-play of this conversation, as I quickly went into a blind rage. This person's day did not get off to a great start.
However, before I decided to abruptly terminate the conversation, I informed this provider that I would most certainly terminate my agreement with them if I ever was forced to grace them with another phone call.
Some may see this as abrasive, my wife included. I also feel somewhat bad for these individuals that have to take the brunt of frustrations that are very much outside of their control. But, it is the company places these people in this position, not me.
This entire encounter made me realize that, politics aside, Corporations are in fact "people." There are all types of people we deal with every day. Some of these people, much like my service provider, are jerks. Nobody really wants to deal with them, but they have something we need and we are forced to deal with them. Some Corporations are just there. Some are very friendly, and always pleasant to deal with.
There are many Corporations I have dealt with that are jerks. For the most part, I do not deal with them. Further, I take every opportunity to tell people I know to steer clear of them. Conversely, if a Corporation is a good person, I am glad to deal with them and recommend them to my friends and family.
So, I say this to any Corporation, don't be a jerk.
As a quick synopsis of the experience, this is the fourth time I have had to contact this company in the last few months. They have mis-billed me several times, the service was not working, they forgot to bill me for several months and then billed me for all those months without warning, etc. Needless to say, my patience was thin.
For anyone that has ever called a company such as this, you know that you will wait on hold for hours to only accomplish one of the following outcomes:
1. You are disconnected
2. You finally get to speak to a real human, but they unfortunately only speak Swahili
3. You hang up in frustration because you have burned your entire day and have to do something productive or your phone just died
If you are anything like me, you will eventually connect with a real person. Very infrequently are people at these types of companies very friendly. Let's face it, if you got paid minimum wage to talk to people like me about terrible experiences, you would not be very friendly either.
My conversation with this particular "customer service representative" went downhill rather quickly. I cannot (and probably would not) give a play-by-play of this conversation, as I quickly went into a blind rage. This person's day did not get off to a great start.
However, before I decided to abruptly terminate the conversation, I informed this provider that I would most certainly terminate my agreement with them if I ever was forced to grace them with another phone call.
Some may see this as abrasive, my wife included. I also feel somewhat bad for these individuals that have to take the brunt of frustrations that are very much outside of their control. But, it is the company places these people in this position, not me.
This entire encounter made me realize that, politics aside, Corporations are in fact "people." There are all types of people we deal with every day. Some of these people, much like my service provider, are jerks. Nobody really wants to deal with them, but they have something we need and we are forced to deal with them. Some Corporations are just there. Some are very friendly, and always pleasant to deal with.
There are many Corporations I have dealt with that are jerks. For the most part, I do not deal with them. Further, I take every opportunity to tell people I know to steer clear of them. Conversely, if a Corporation is a good person, I am glad to deal with them and recommend them to my friends and family.
So, I say this to any Corporation, don't be a jerk.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Turning Pro
I recently read a book entitled Turning Pro by Steven Pressfield, which was recommended by a blogger that I follow. It was a fairly short book, but a decent read. My fellow blogger states, "Turning Pro argues that the essential difference between an
amateur and a pro is not just the right approach, but the right habits,
done for the right reasons."
This past weekend, anyone who is a fan of golf watched the United States Open. If you did watch the Open, it would have been hard to avoid the story of Beau Hossler. This braces clad, 17 year old amateur headed into Sunday only three strokes back from the leaders of the tournament. At one point in the weekend, the young fellow was actually leading the Open at two strokes under par.
In a post-round interview, Hossler stated that he had gone into the weekend with the goal of being the low amateur. With a four stroke lead over the next closest amateur, this looked all but inevitable. However, Mr. Hossler decided to announce to the world that he had changed his goal and believed he was in a position to win the U.S. Open. I imagine if Mr. Pressfield was one of the millions viewing this tournament, he probably shook his head at this proclamation.
Johnny Miller, former PGA Tour Pro and Righteous D-Bag, commented that Hossler should have kept his bold statement to himself. (Miller could stand to keep all of his statements to himself.) I hate to agree with Miller, so I won't. In contrast, I would argue that Hossler simply should not have changed his original goal. When his goal was to be low amateur, there was a lot less pressure on him and he played great. When that goal changed, Hossler steeped a huge amount of pressure on himself.
A "pro" would never have changed his approach after having such great success the previous three days. If Hossler would have continued to focus on being low amateur, it is possible he could have played well enough to win the Open. Winning would not only have been a great bonus, but he would have accomplished his original goal.
Not only did Hossler fail to win the U.S. Open, he posted a 75 on Sunday and fell out of the top amateur spot. It would have been a great story, and shooting plus eight in the most punishing golf tournament of the year is certainly no small accomplishment. But, fans of the game, like myself, can only wonder "what if?"
What if Hossler would have won the U.S. Open? Would he have declared himself as a PGA Tour Pro and taken the almost 1.5 millon dollar purse? (I most certainly would have and would tell anyone do the same.) Would Hossler have gone back to his High School to complete his senior year? The golf world will never know.
"Turning pro" in golf can be as easy as declaring yourself to be a Pro and accepting cash winnings. However, "turning pro" as defined by Pressfield is much more involved. Even if he is not ready to "turn pro" in golf or as defined by Mr. Pressfield, I think it is fair to say the PGA has not seen the last of Beau Hossler.
This past weekend, anyone who is a fan of golf watched the United States Open. If you did watch the Open, it would have been hard to avoid the story of Beau Hossler. This braces clad, 17 year old amateur headed into Sunday only three strokes back from the leaders of the tournament. At one point in the weekend, the young fellow was actually leading the Open at two strokes under par.
In a post-round interview, Hossler stated that he had gone into the weekend with the goal of being the low amateur. With a four stroke lead over the next closest amateur, this looked all but inevitable. However, Mr. Hossler decided to announce to the world that he had changed his goal and believed he was in a position to win the U.S. Open. I imagine if Mr. Pressfield was one of the millions viewing this tournament, he probably shook his head at this proclamation.
Johnny Miller, former PGA Tour Pro and Righteous D-Bag, commented that Hossler should have kept his bold statement to himself. (Miller could stand to keep all of his statements to himself.) I hate to agree with Miller, so I won't. In contrast, I would argue that Hossler simply should not have changed his original goal. When his goal was to be low amateur, there was a lot less pressure on him and he played great. When that goal changed, Hossler steeped a huge amount of pressure on himself.
A "pro" would never have changed his approach after having such great success the previous three days. If Hossler would have continued to focus on being low amateur, it is possible he could have played well enough to win the Open. Winning would not only have been a great bonus, but he would have accomplished his original goal.
Not only did Hossler fail to win the U.S. Open, he posted a 75 on Sunday and fell out of the top amateur spot. It would have been a great story, and shooting plus eight in the most punishing golf tournament of the year is certainly no small accomplishment. But, fans of the game, like myself, can only wonder "what if?"
What if Hossler would have won the U.S. Open? Would he have declared himself as a PGA Tour Pro and taken the almost 1.5 millon dollar purse? (I most certainly would have and would tell anyone do the same.) Would Hossler have gone back to his High School to complete his senior year? The golf world will never know.
"Turning pro" in golf can be as easy as declaring yourself to be a Pro and accepting cash winnings. However, "turning pro" as defined by Pressfield is much more involved. Even if he is not ready to "turn pro" in golf or as defined by Mr. Pressfield, I think it is fair to say the PGA has not seen the last of Beau Hossler.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)