http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=7875
Are Dixon golf balls up to par?
Most golf balls are made of materials that are not recyclable and contain metals like tungsten and lead that can be dangerous to the environment. Tempe-based Dixon golf balls developed a line of balls specifically designed to be environmentally friendly.
Dixon golf balls are made of a special polymer that is recyclable, however, they did not stop there. The packaging is recyclable and even their building is leed-certified. Dixon has taking the green initiative very seriously, but do their balls perform as well as other competing balls?
Chris Morin tested the Dixon Earth balls for 18 holes. He stated that the balls felt very similar to the normal ball he would use. “I didn’t feel much of a difference between these balls and others, but I guess that is what they were going for,” Morin said.
Morin also stated that he didn’t feel like he lost any distance on his shots and even admitted that the ball seemed to have more distance than his normal ball.
Not everything about the ball passed Morin’s test. He was very disappointed with how the ball felt. “I think the ball felt very hard when hitting it and did not feel like I had as much control with spin as I normally do.”
The balls durability was another issue Morin had. After the 18 holes the balls Morin was using were extremely scuffed up.
“This could be an issue for golfers that do not lose their balls that often. I don’t think anybody would want to play with these balls for more than two rounds of golf. At least Dixon gives a credit for more balls because I would be going through a lot more balls than normal,” Morin said.
“Overall, I think the ball is a good substitute for people who use normal balls. If someone uses more expensive balls like Pro-V1’s I think they would be disappointed,” Morin added.
The truth about negative campaign ads
Everyone has seen the political ads that bash a person’s character or private life in order to gain at the polls, but do they really help?
This year according to an article on Huffington Post spending levels have already eclipsed that of the 2006 elections. This increase in spending has led to more and more negative campaign ads. Roughly 80% of the ads have gone on the attack against their opponents.
One example of this was J D Hayworth and McCain’s race. Hayworth went on the offensive attacking McCain’s immigration reform stance. One ad even stated that McCain would lie to win. McCain came back with negative ads of his own attacking Hayworth and end up winning the campaign.
McCain won a negative campaign, but is that win really helping the American people?
I mean did people vote for McCain because of his view on taxes or even immigration reform or did they vote for him because they did not like what Hayworth did? Should we vote for one person because we heard something bad about another?
This leads to not picking a candidate that is most qualified, but a candidate that is least hated. If we follow this our economy will continue to be in the dumps and immigration will never be reformed in any significant way. Nothing of importance will ever come from these elected officials if we the people base our decisions solely on negative ad campaigns.
The dirty smear campaign against Quayle for posting on TheDirty.com
Ben Quayle, the Republican nominee running for congressional district 3 in Arizona, is not facing harsh questions from the media about immigration or healthcare reform, but questions about his postings on a popular gossip website.
Quayle is running on a conservative platform and the comments he posted on the website are anything but conservative. Does this make him unqualified to run for congress?
I don’t think so.
His comments on the website are just one way for his opponents to attack his character and not what he can do for the state and country. In the big picture what Quayle did is minor compared to John Edward’s affair when his wife had cancer or Clinton’s late night activities with an intern and a cigar.
Quayle was a young man posting a blog about good looking women and the ridiculous people that frequent bars in Scottsdale. He was saying what everyone else was thinking. I think this makes him more qualified for the job.
He is a man of the people.
He is still a very intelligent individual. He is a lawyer and if you’re a Republican, stands for ideals that you would want in a candidate. He is a fourth generation Arizonan, so he knows the problems Arizona faces and can help fix them if he gets elected. He showed his business competence by helping launch a local gossip website and making it into a large national icon.
Does Arizona really want to knock a candidate out of the race because he made some satyric comments in a blog that is designed for entertainment purposes only?
