Ryder Cup: United States Banking On Tom Watson’s Leadership At Gleneagles

The United States’ Obscene Wealth Inequality


Watson is one of golf’s living legends with eight major championship victories, including five Open Championships. The 64-year-old previously skippered his country to victory at The Belfry in the 1993 Ryder Cup and has been brought back for a second stint in charge at Gleneagles next year as the United States look to turn around their recent poor form at the biennial event. Tom Watson has one year until the start of his captaincy of the American Ryder Cup side with dreams of ending the losing streak. The Americans have won just two of the last nine Ryder Cups and suffered a final-day meltdown at Medinah in 2012 when they managed to lose despite leading 10-6 going into the singles. Bishop, who was involved in the appointment, cited Watson’s ability to handle the media and his rapport with the Scottish public – he won four of his Opens north of the border – as positives for the United States. He told Sky Sports: “When we were going through the interview process I talked to players that played for Tom on the ’93 team at The Belfry. “They talked about the leadership role that he took as a captain. He had the players’ backs the entire week, there were a few things that came up that could have been distractions to the players, Tom took care of that. “I think he’ll divert a lot of media attention to himself, away from our team. “And the other things is: he’s revered in Scotland. We’re going to be the opponents and the Europeans will have the home-crowd advantage but there’s a dynamic there that that will be a little bit favourable for our team.” Europe defend the Ryder Cup at Gleneagles from September 26-28 next year.

The next Citizens United could affect campaign spending in the states

But critics of the aggregate contribution limit say individual limits such as the $2,600 cap on donations to a federal candidate or candidate committee per election already provide that protection. Were not challenging and the plaintiff in McCutcheon is not challenging any of the individual contribution limits, says Rick Esenberg, a Marquette University Law School professor and president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which filed a brief opposing the limit. Why, they ask, is it OK to donate $2,600 to 47 campaigns, but not 48? The case was brought by the Republican National Committee and Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman and conservative activist. At the federal level only a small group 646 individuals bumped up against that aggregate limit during the 2012 election cycle, according to The Center for Responsive Politics Open Secrets blog . But spending limits in a handful of states are lower, meaning that if they fall money could come flowing in. While McCutcheon only affects the federal limit, experts are watching it closely and many on both sides believe the state limits either wont survive or would become very vulnerable if the federal cap is nullified. If the federal limit falls, I think the states are likely to fall, too, says Lawrence Norton, co-chairman of the political law practice at Venable and a former general counsel of the FEC. If the Supreme Court rules against the limits, it will likely do so in a way that affects those state caps, he says. In a February blog post, Norton identified roughly 10 states with state-level spending limits. The Center for Competitive Politics, which filed a brief on behalf of McCutcheon puts the number of states with limits even higher at 13. Still, they argue, the majority of states have no cap and are doing fine. And, besides, Citizens United opened the floodgates for unlimited independent corporate political spending, so removing the aggregate limit for individuals acts as a counterbalance, they and others argue. But fans of the limit couldnt disagree more.

Next site of Solheim Cup in United States is chosen

(David Cannon / Getty Images / September 23, 2013) By Diane Pucin September 23, 2013, 12:10 p.m. When the Solheim Cup, a team competitionthat pitswomen golfers from the United States against Europe, returns to the United States in 2017, it will be at the Des Moines Golf and Country Club, which hosted the 1999 U.S. Senior Open Championship. The U.S. lost the Cup to Europe last month in Colorado. The top-ranked U.S. golfer, Stacy Lewis, said, “Playing in the Solheim Cup is one of the greatest experiences that you can have as a golfer. The atmosphere and excitement thats created by the fans is unlike any other event in golf and I cant wait to see the amazing display put on by the great fans in Des Moines. The 2015 Solheim Cup will take place at Golf Course St. Leon-Rot in Germany. The European Team enters the competition holding the Cup and will need 14 points to retain it, with the U.S. Team needing 14 points to regain the coveted Waterford Crystal prize. The U.S.

By contrast to the dire poverty of those who generate WalMarts wealth, if we put aside Forbes official list of the super rich and do some of our own math, it immediately becomes evident that Number One (Bill Gates) and Number Two (Warren Buffet) are rather puny compared to Walmarts owners. Specifically: Christy, James, Alice, and S. Robson Walton hardly stand out in the Forbes gallery of the super rich at the relatively modest rankings of Number Six through Number Nine, respectively, but their net worth adds up to an obscene $136 billion: that is, $6 billion more than the fortunes of Gates and Buffet combined. Charity for profit As for the nominal Number One: his fortune seems to defy all physical laws, having grown from $9.35 billion in 1994, when he became a philanthropist , to $72 billion today. Unlike Gates, Number Two only recently jumped on the bandwagon of tropical-disease eradication. His fortune has merely stayed the same despite his various donations; but being the worlds most successful investor, profits will surely flow to Buffet from his pledge to give away his fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. True, it is difficult not to make money when one is a billionaire, given the power and access that money buys. But is this all that has grown the Gates fortune at such a phenomenal rate? How could one fail to make a profit from bogus philanthropy projects to eradicate tropical diseases when one is able to support the development of vaccines, invest in the companies that manufacture them, pressure governments throughout the world into adopting them into their vaccination programs, and control all publicity about them? After all, one of the most valuable things money buys is the control of language and information. Land of inequality The US House of Representatives has declared that it will only give food assistance to those who work for more than 20 hours per week. In effect, this will formally institutionalize poverty for US workers. Along with the plan to cut food stamps, there will be coercive requirements for drug tests. Thus people who are poor will be infantilized and dehumanized. Unlike the poor of the past, who were treated with dignity and could dream of a better future for their children, todays poor will have no hope at all.