GCSAA's forum policies Cancel The title field is required!

1. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   3/6/2012 7:03 AM

   Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: I have been around this industry for a long time. I was digging ditches for prominent superintendents while their pretty daughters watched me work in the hot sun. I admired these superintendents and sometimes got to know their daughters. These men have their names on plaques and trophies, and neither they nor I felt that their daughters' fell under Rush Limbaugh's disgusting definitions. In honor of fathers who love their daughters, of which I have two beauties, I hope the GCSAA has the good sense to take down all of these misogynistic comments.

   
   
   So I have a picture in my head and it's one of those weird dream-like pictures; you know the ones where you randomly jump from one odd dream sequence to another and none of it makes sense.
   So I see: It's a hot steamy southern Florida day. Scott is standing knee deep in muck in an open ditch line. The mud that was swept into this ditch from last nights storm slowly seeps over Scott's knee-high rubber boots. It's a struggle to remove the silt from the culvert but Scott forges ahead while beads of sweat collect in the red bandana on his forehead.
   Standing in a grassy strip between the ditch and parking lot above the dangers of the culvert are three teenage daughters of prominent superintendents. I have no idea how or why they got there; they just appeared. The girls watch in giddy-awe as Scott slings the shovel with masculine precision. All the while 3 three mature distinguished men are seated in leather high-back chairs around a granite table in a office. The rays of the hot sun shine into the office through a large picture window which overlooks the clogged ditch line. The glare of the sun reflects off the etched metal of plaques on the walls and trophies encased in glass in the office . The glare is so intense that the 3 imposing figures seated at the table must wear aviator glasses. One of the distinguinshed men turns to the other two and says, "isn't it kinda creepy that our daughters are standing there watching Scott dig a ditch?"

   
   
   
   
2. McCallum David K

   
   3/6/2012 8:03 AM

   Keith now why did you have to go and let the cat out of the bag about my feelings towards Scott. I thought we were speaking in confidence...........attorney/client, doctor/patient, priest/sinner..............now he will expect flowers and birthday cards etc etc.........another long distance relationship.
   
   And speaking of the term "slut"......why no outrage a year ago when the EXACT SAME TERM was used to describe Laura Ingram..........one's a right wing conservative and the other is liberal attending a $50,000 a year college wanting free birth control..........btw the comment made towards Laura Ingram was made on NBC.....a little wider viewership that those listening to Rush............what is good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander huh Scott. And what exactly does a boss's daughter watching you dig a ditch have to do with the topic...was that a subliminal message I am not getting?

   
   
   
   
3. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   3/6/2012 9:03 AM

   David McCallum said: Keith now why did you have to go and let the cat out of the bag about my feelings towards Scott. I thought we were speaking in confidence...........attorney/client, doctor/patient, priest/sinner..............now he will expect flowers and birthday cards etc etc.........another long distance relationship.
   
   And speaking of the term "slut"......why no outrage a year ago when the EXACT SAME TERM was used to describe Laura Ingram..........one's a right wing conservative and the other is liberal attending a $50,000 a year college wanting free birth control..........btw the comment made towards Laura Ingram was made on NBC.....a little wider viewership that those listening to Rush............what is good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander huh Scott. And what exactly does a boss's daughter watching you dig a ditch have to do with the topic...was that a subliminal message I am not getting?

   
   
   One is never speaking in confidence when it involves adult beverages, you guys should have stuck to the umbrella drinks like me.
   
   David, when and on what show was Laura Ingram called that? I am surprised that there wasn't outrage either, you are right about what is good for one is good for the other. The advertisers on NBC should have done something as well, would like to know more about that.
   
   As for the student, thanks for not complaining like so many on the right about you paying for her birth control, because we're not, well unless you have the same insurance company, then I guess you might be, but part of her testimony was to defend the use for non birth control medical issues such as a gay friend needed. She certainly wasn't needing it for birth control. The other issue as my wife complains about is if men can get ED drugs, why can't women get birth control drugs.
   
   I guess we are way off the original topic now.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
4. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   3/6/2012 9:03 AM

   I'm surprised the insurance companies are not treating the birth control issue in the same manner they treat all other prescriptions and medical procedures. In-that, the insurance will cover a prescription or procedure that is medically necessary and usual/customary. Therefore, if a women requires birth control for medical reasons then the insurance will cover the costs. However, if the women is using birth control for contraceptive purposes, only, then the insurance will not cover the costs. My wife is a perfect example. She is diabetic and requires insulin to regulate her glucose levels. She can use a syringe to inject the insulin throughout the day, which insurance will cover. Or she can use an insulin pump that also delivers insulin throughout the day, which insurance does not cover. Both options provide the same result except the pump is substantially more expensive. She chose the pump and we had to pick up the $7,000 cost of the pump. There are advantages to the pump but the syringe will accomplish the same thing as the pump at a lower cost. The insurance companies may be treating the birth control in this manner, I'm nor sure. But it seems ridiculous for the government to force an insurance company or institution to pay for something that is not medically necessary or usual/customary.

   
   
   
   
5. Larry Allan

   

   0 posts
   
   3/6/2012 12:03 PM

   I'm not really up on this. Is it the Catholic Church that doesn't want their insured workers having access to contraception or is this across the board that no insurance companies can supply contraceptives to any of their customers?
   
   In the Catholics case, there shouldn't be an issue as Catholics can not use any medical form of contraception anyway.
   
   As for Rush, let him say anything he wants, the free market will decide his fate

   
   
   
   
6. McCallum David K

   
   3/6/2012 1:03 PM

   Red you are correct on your last comment. Some advertisers have left, others may and then again they may not. In my opinion the issue rose as the woman was a student at a Catholic university.........at Nebraska or Harvard it probably would have never been as big a deal.

   
   
   
   
7. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   3/6/2012 2:03 PM

   Red, to answer your question it was related to religious institutions (hospitals and universities mainly) not the churches themselves.
   
   There was a bill introduced in the Senate, (by my senator, but hey I didn't vote for the guy) by Senator Roy Blunt, which was very broad, to where it could have allowed a business not to pay for contraptions if the owner or CEO morally had objections to it. Well it was even broader then the contraception issue from what I understood. (Heck the owner objects some disease, sorry your not covered.)
   
   From what I understand, the current law from the Affordable Care Act (or is patient in there?, I just hate calling it Obamacare), all employers would provide preventive care for their employees free of charge, (contraptions are considered preventive care) what I understand is the Catholic Church did not want to provide it to employees on the grounds that they didn't believe in contraceptives, (even though 98% of catholic women use some form of contraceptives from what I have heard). Now this would have only affected facilities that the church runs, not the centers of worship themselves, (for workers at the churches). The compromise was that the insurance companies will pay for the contraceptives, (of course by raising premiums, even though from what I hear it will keep their cost down, less babies).
   
   Of course I like the battle cry, that the churches shouldn't have to spend their money on contraceptives, yet their money buys contraceptives when the worker takes the money they earn from the Church employment, to purchase the items. So the church's money is being used on contraceptives.
   
   That is how I understand the whole issue, but we know my understanding leans a certain way.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
8. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   3/6/2012 3:03 PM

   Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
   
   Of course I like the battle cry, that the churches shouldn't have to spend their money on contraceptives, yet their money buys contraceptives when the worker takes the money they earn from the Church employment, to purchase the items. So the church's money is being used on contraceptives.
   
   
   
   Mel

   
   
   
   So let me understand Mel. If I give you $100, you deposit the $100 in your bank account, the bank then loans that $100 to a business, the business uses that $100 to pay its employees, the employee then donates the $100 to his/her church, the church pays its staff with that $100, the church staff then buys condoms with the pay check he/she got from the church. So, using your logic, I bought a condom for the church lady.

   
   
   
   
9. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   3/6/2012 4:03 PM

   Clay,
   
   In my opinion, in a round about way, yes you did. But your example takes it to the extremes and if we take every purchase, transaction, payment, etc. we might all be appalled at what happens with our money.
   
   But I just look at the one transaction, between the church and their employee, and maybe from the other side of the issue. As the church, I pay my employee for services rendered. They then take that money to purchase a contraceptive, which I as the church believe is illegal, is it with-in my right as an employer to terminate an employee who violates technically my laws? The question that then raises, the Baptist churches fire employees they catch drinking on their own time? Heck back in the day, what happened if a white employee was dating a black person? The owner doesn't like it and fires the employee? The question then becomes what and when is personal freedom compared to following an organization's "moral" beliefs and laws? That is the main point I was raising, lot of gray in this issue.
   
   I can see the church's point of view on the original issue, (heck I was raised Catholic) but it depends on how you look at it, the church sees it as a moral issue, the administration sees is as a health, make that women's health issue. Looking at it that way from both sides, why can't people find a compromise?
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
10. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/6/2012 4:03 PM

    The current administration does not look at this as a health issue. It looks at it as a vote issue. Forcing any insurance agency or institution to pay for anything that is not deemed medically necessary is a farce. However, if the woman needs the pill for medical purposes then I agree the insurance should cover the pill. But if the woman, or man, is purchasing contraception for the sole purpose of not getting knocked up, then that purchase should be on their own dime.

    
    
    
    
11. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/6/2012 8:03 PM

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said: However, if the woman needs the pill for medical purposes then I agree the insurance should cover the pill. But if the woman, or man, is purchasing contraception for the sole purpose of not getting knocked up, then that purchase should be on their own dime.

    
    
    I don't disagree with you on that point Clay, and honestly in my opinion, contraceptives should not be 100% covered unless we are going to cover all pharmaceuticals. Heck, we have a co-pay on all our prescriptions, when my wife was on the pill, we paid a co-pay, I don't have a problem with that. Even if it is for medical purposes, have a co-pay.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
12. Wallace Jeffrey V

    
    3/6/2012 9:03 PM

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    
    I bought a condom for the church lady.

    
    
    Did she thank you?

    
    
    
    
13. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    3/6/2012 11:03 PM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Clay,
    
    In my opinion, in a round about way, yes you did. But your example takes it to the extremes and if we take every purchase, transaction, payment, etc. we might all be appalled at what happens with our money.
    
    But I just look at the one transaction, between the church and their employee, and maybe from the other side of the issue. As the church, I pay my employee for services rendered. They then take that money to purchase a contraceptive, which I as the church believe is illegal, is it with-in my right as an employer to terminate an employee who violates technically my laws? The question that then raises, the Baptist churches fire employees they catch drinking on their own time? Heck back in the day, what happened if a white employee was dating a black person? The owner doesn't like it and fires the employee? The question then becomes what and when is personal freedom compared to following an organization's "moral" beliefs and laws? That is the main point I was raising, lot of gray in this issue.
    
    I can see the church's point of view on the original issue, (heck I was raised Catholic) but it depends on how you look at it, the church sees it as a moral issue, the administration sees is as a health, make that women's health issue. Looking at it that way from both sides, why can't people find a compromise?
    
    Mel

    
    
    
    
    Mel,
    First on Rush's problem. Rush by definition of the left is an entertainer(not my opinion) when he speaks of politics. When he says something controversial then he is an top tier political figure. Bill Maher ( million dollar donor to super pac for Obama) has said much worse things about Palin and women in general, would post video but sure it wouldnt stay posted. Lettermen said nasty things about Palins daughter. Michelle Maulkin has be verbally bashed. Wanda Sykes wished Limbaugh kidney failure (Obama laughed).. Just like David said double standard since the media in the lefts pocket.
    Second the Catholic Church has a belief system that parishioners should follow. What right does the government have making them go against their beliefs and the things the church stands for. Since when is birth control a health issue?? (reminder Fluke also pushed for gender reassignment surgery) Allot of this now and whats to come from Obamas care is to bankrupt the insurance companies so all that is there is government and that aint gonna be free. Pelosi was right to get it pushed thru, now whats around the next turn.

    
    
    
    
14. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    3/7/2012 6:03 AM

    Question for Catholics, or anyone who knows the answer:
    
    Are Viagara, erectile dysfunction meds/procedures, and, in general, surgical procedures to enhance the male sex organ covered by the church's health insurance policies?
    
    If they are, isn't that a bit of a double standard as it relates to the morality question? I know Bob Dole isn't trying to procreate anymore, but he sure as heck wants his mojo. Should the church pay for this, seemingly, lurid choice by men? Seems odd.

    
    
    
    
15. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/7/2012 7:03 AM

    Jeffrey Wallace, CGCS said:

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    
    I bought a condom for the church lady.

    
    
    Did she thank you?

    
    
    She blushed, put her hand to her cheek, looked around to see if anyone was looking and said, "oh dear!" in a squeaky voice.

    
    
    
    
16. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    3/7/2012 7:03 AM

    Steven Kurta said: Question for Catholics, or anyone who knows the answer:
    
    Are Viagara, erectile dysfunction meds/procedures, and, in general, surgical procedures to enhance the male sex organ covered by the church's health insurance policies?
    
    If they are, isn't that a bit of a double standard as it relates to the morality question? I know Bob Dole isn't trying to procreate anymore, but he sure as heck wants his mojo. Should the church pay for this, seemingly, lurid choice by men? Seems odd.

    
    
    My guess is yes. In the eyes of the Catholic church one promotes life the other prevents life. Once again that would be their prerogative to cover or not to cover.

    
    
    
    
17. Ronald Conard

    

    4 posts
    
    3/7/2012 8:03 AM

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    So I have a picture in my head and it's one of those weird dream-like pictures; you know the ones where you randomly jump from one odd dream sequence to another and none of it makes sense.
    So I see: It's a hot steamy southern Florida day. Scott is standing knee deep in muck in an open ditch line. The mud that was swept into this ditch from last nights storm slowly seeps over Scott's knee-high rubber boots. It's a struggle to remove the silt from the culvert but Scott forges ahead while beads of sweat collect in the red bandana on his forehead.
    Standing in a grassy strip between the ditch and parking lot above the dangers of the culvert are three teenage daughters of prominent superintendents. I have no idea how or why they got there; they just appeared. The girls watch in giddy-awe as Scott slings the shovel with masculine precision. All the while 3 three mature distinguished men are seated in leather high-back chairs around a granite table in a office. The rays of the hot sun shine into the office through a large picture window which overlooks the clogged ditch line. The glare of the sun reflects off the etched metal of plaques on the walls and trophies encased in glass in the office . The glare is so intense that the 3 imposing figures seated at the table must wear aviator glasses. One of the distinguinshed men turns to the other two and says, "isn't it kinda creepy that our daughters are standing there watching Scott dig a ditch?"

    
    
    Funny stuff I really didn't need to visualize. Freud would of had a hay-day with your dream especially the part about Scott knee deep in a muddy trench.

    
    
    
    
18. Ronald Conard

    

    4 posts
    
    3/7/2012 8:03 AM

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:

    Jeffrey Wallace, CGCS said:

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    
    I bought a condom for the church lady.

    
    
    Did she thank you?

    
    
    She blushed, put her hand to her cheek, looked around to see if anyone was looking and said, "oh dear!" in a squeaky voice.

    
    
    
    So you're saying it was a Magnum then?

    
    
    
    
19. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/7/2012 8:03 AM

    Ronald Conard, CGCS said:

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:

    Jeffrey Wallace, CGCS said:

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    
    I bought a condom for the church lady.

    
    
    Did she thank you?

    
    
    She blushed, put her hand to her cheek, looked around to see if anyone was looking and said, "oh dear!" in a squeaky voice.

    
    
    
    So you're saying it was a Magnum then?

    
    
    I mustache you a question. Are you referring to Magnum PI?

    
    
    
    
20. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/7/2012 8:03 AM

    Jon
    
    I don't disagree with most of your comments about Rush and the other "entertainers", but most of those other entertainers aren't taken as seriously as some people who thinks Rush spouts the truth, same as Savage, Bill'O , Hannity, and you can say Matthews, Maddow, and Schultz, (who by the way was the person that called Laura the same thing. He was suspended immediately and he apologized, I don't know what advertisers did about it, but I agree with you guys let the markets decide). These people are political talk show hosts and supposedly are speaking truths about our government and many people believe what they say without doing research. That is the difference between Rush and the comedians you mention. Neither should engage in hate speak and when they do I turn them off.
    
    The second question, if 98% of half the parishioners are not following their church's laws, then is the issue really about the church? They aren't following the beliefs of the church so why shouldn't those parishioners not receive the same coverage as everyone else will get?
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
21. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/7/2012 9:03 AM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Jon
    
    I don't disagree with most of your comments about Rush and the other "entertainers", but most of those other entertainers aren't taken as seriously as some people who thinks Rush spouts the truth, same as Savage, Bill'O , Hannity, and you can say Matthews, Maddow, and Schultz, (who by the way was the person that called Laura the same thing. He was suspended immediately and he apologized, I don't know what advertisers did about it, but I agree with you guys let the markets decide). These people are political talk show hosts and supposedly are speaking truths about our government and many people believe what they say without doing research. That is the difference between Rush and the comedians you mention. Neither should engage in hate speak and when they do I turn them off.
    
    The second question, if 98% of half the parishioners are not following their church's laws, then is the issue really about the church? They aren't following the beliefs of the church so why shouldn't those parishioners not receive the same coverage as everyone else will get?
    
    Mel

    
    
    Come come now. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the "C"-word and then donated a million bucks to the Obama campaign. A lot of people take Maher's word as gospel. If Obama were serious about the rhetoric he would return the million bucks. Lets face it, both sides choose their talking points based on their agenda.
    
    As for your 98% question, the parishioners are not the ones making the church rules, the church is making the rules. The parishioners may not be following the rules to the letter of the law but I challenge you to find any parishioner in any faith that follows the rules to the letter of the law.

    
    
    
    
22. Wallace Jeffrey V

    
    3/7/2012 10:03 AM

    "Ronald Conard, CGCS", Clay Putnam, CGCS,
    
    Funny stuff I really didn't need to visualize. Freud would of had a hay-day with your dream especially the part about Scott knee deep in a muddy trench."
    
    
    Ya think? And Clay, you missed your calling. You should be writing trashy romance novels. And on Ron's advice, I'd work a Freud reference into your first one. It "would" be your first one, right?

    
    
    
    
23. Larry Allan

    

    0 posts
    
    3/7/2012 10:03 AM

    The funniest thing to me is that I think this was, more than anything, a ploy by Obama during the Republican nomination thing, to get the republicans in stupid arguments about things, that in the big picture, don't matter in the least

    
    
    
    
24. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    3/7/2012 11:03 AM

    Larry Allan said: The funniest thing to me is that I think this was, more than anything, a ploy by Obama during the Republican nomination thing, to get the republicans in stupid arguments about things, that in the big picture, don't matter in the least

    
    
    You're absolutely right, Red. But, to me, the funniest thing is that they've fallen for it.

    
    
    
    
25. McCallum David K

    
    3/7/2012 12:03 PM

    First Mel, jounalist should report the news................not make it or give their opinion on whateve they are reporting on. It should be the listerner, the reader, the viewer to decide his or her opinion> I care nothing about Chris Matthews opinion ...............as Joe Friday put so well........."just the facts, mam" Rush and those on the left like Maher are not journalist......strictly talk show host's with an opinion. You tune it to agree or disagree. No claims of turth made by either side.
    
    Not sure where you obtained the number of 98% of Catholics do not obide by church doctrine from. Might be a tad high even in this day and age.

    
    
    
    
26. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/7/2012 2:03 PM

    Clay,
    
    Bill Maher, was wrong in using that word, and so was Rush. Interesting comment I heard on CNN this morning was funny neither of these guys have kids or specifically daughters and if they did would they say those words. Maher's money was donated to the SuperPac, and I heard today the SuperPac has given the money back. The president I thought I saw a clip, (could be wrong) did say there was no need for that rhetoric. When Gov. Romney was asked about Rush's comments, he said "those are words I wouldn't have used or chose" or something like that, (I apologize if I might have gotten that wrong), instead of just saying that Rush's comments were out of line and inappropriate.
    
    As far as the 98% number, I have seen it I believe on various news outlets, but do remember I listen to MSNBC a lot. I haven't googled it or anything, but that is the number I have seen, along with the number of women who use contraceptives to be at 99%.
    
    David, I agree that news people should report just facts, but we are the ones that need to hold them accountable and demand those facts. You are right about the talking heads, but the problems are people that believe them spinning half truths and outrageous bear soap. They do claim it as true. The sad thing is you can hear the "Talking Points" out on the campaign trail, the same talking points heard on the talking head shows, and on Fox News and MSNBC. So that entertainment does influence people wrongly. Just my opinion.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
27. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/7/2012 7:03 PM

    Jeffrey Wallace, CGCS said: "Ronald Conard, CGCS", Clay Putnam, CGCS,
    
    Funny stuff I really didn't need to visualize. Freud would of had a hay-day with your dream especially the part about Scott knee deep in a muddy trench."
    
    
    Ya think? And Clay, you missed your calling. You should be writing trashy romance novels. And on Ron's advice, I'd work a Freud reference into your first one. It "would" be your first one, right?

    
    
    No novels on the shelf yet but I've been considering a tour to sign forum posts.

    
    
    
    
28. Wallace Jeffrey V

    
    3/7/2012 11:03 PM

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said: No novels on the shelf yet but I've been considering a tour to sign forum posts.

    
    
    I'll book you on Oprah. My standard fee is 90% of all royalties, but for you.....89%.

    
    
    
    
29. Clay Putnam

    

    33 posts
    
    3/9/2012 12:03 AM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Clay,
    
    Bill Maher, was wrong in using that word, and so was Rush. Interesting comment I heard on CNN this morning was funny neither of these guys have kids or specifically daughters and if they did would they say those words. Maher's money was donated to the SuperPac, and I heard today the SuperPac has given the money back. The president I thought I saw a clip, (could be wrong) did say there was no need for that rhetoric. When Gov. Romney was asked about Rush's comments, he said "those are words I wouldn't have used or chose" or something like that, (I apologize if I might have gotten that wrong), instead of just saying that Rush's comments were out of line and inappropriate.
    
    
    
    Mel

    
    
    No Mel, as far as I know, the super pac did not return the money and no, Obama has never, that I am aware of, denounced any of Maher's crude comments about women. If you have a source to suggest otherwise, please post. This would appear as if $1,000,000 is the price of not defending decency; at least until public outrage sheds light on one's morals of convenience.

    
    
    
    
30. McCallum David K

    
    3/9/2012 6:03 AM

    I have not heard a re-nunciation of the comments or the money by the President as well . He very well may have but certainly not mainstreamed if he has. And while on the subject of comments both directly and indirectly I don;t recall any pity or screaming for heads to roll when the press had a field day with the Bush girls. Different president, different daughters.........let that happen to the currrent residents of the White House and it would be treated differently for sure.