Latest news with #bounds
Daily Record
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Record
Rory McIlroy scared me at The Open and it was all I could think about for the last three days
Northern Irish youngster Tom McKibbin was joint leader at one point in the morning before dropping to one-over par Terrified Tom McKibbin reckons Rory McIlroy's terrible first-shot shambles in 2019 put the fear into him ahead of The Open. The Northern Irish kid was joint-leader at one point in the morning before dropping to one-over par. However, in front of his home crowd, McKibbin was just delighted to get his opening tee-shot away without calamity. The LIV star had seen countryman McIlroy pull one out of bounds at the start of the 2019 Open and that put dread into him. McKibbin said: 'I think Rory's made that tee shot a lot scarier. That's all I could probably think about for the last three days. "I wouldn't say I was too nervous. I just didn't really want to hit that bad of a shot. I was very happy to get it sort of under way, a little bit nervous and a little bit scared of hitting that shot.' McKibbin was in the group with Padraig Harrington and he also striped it down the first before finishing at four-over par. The two-time Open champion started the tournament off and was given a rapturous ovation. He laughed about the prospect of welling up as he said: 'Usually when I'm watching a movie on an airplane. Does everybody not well up on airplanes? I think airplanes do that to me. Could be a comedy or something like that. It doesn't have to be that serious! 'I wouldn't say I get too emotional, not like that, no. It it felt like they were there for me, giving me a clap, yeah. I expected the nerves. I didn't expect that. So I did have to adjust myself for that. 'It was very special, I've got to say. It's a great honour to do it. As I said. I really hate the idea of being ceremonial, but I was prepared to take that to do it because it was here. I'm glad I did. 'Just my son was here. He was the only one who managed. I had a few other friends with me, things like that, and just one son. One is enough, I suppose. It was just a nice special moment.'
Irish Examiner
4 days ago
- Sport
- Irish Examiner
Tom McKibbin and Nicolai Hojgaard take early lead at the Open
Irish golfer Tom McKibbin and Ryder Cup winner Nicolai Hojgaard led from the front on the first day of The Open on a testing morning for scoring at Royal Portrush. The highlight for the 22-year-old McKibbin, who learned his craft at Rory McIlroy's Holywood Golf Club an hour down the road, was an eagle at the par-five seventh after teeing off in the first group at 6.35am. He had slipped to two over after four but two birdies and the eagle took him to the turn in a two-under 34. Dane Hojgaard, in the same group, birdied the two par fives at the second and seventh to also be two under with him and McKibbin two of only eight players under par of the 39 out on the course. Ryder Cup winner Nicolai Hojgaard held an early share of the lead at The Open (Brian Lawless/PA) Two-time Open champion Padraig Harrington, who had been given the honour of getting the championship underway, birdied the first hole, but otherwise struggled on the greens and was two over at the turn. McKibbin was one of a number of LIV golfers performing well. Six-time major winner and 2013 Open champion Phil Mickelson was providing the early entertainment, holing a bunker shot for par at the short third having left his first attempt in the sand to sit one under after six holes. Lee Westwood, back at the Open for the first time since 2022 after coming through qualifying, birdied his second hole to join the left-hander in an early tie for third. Another of his LIV cohorts Dustin Johnson, the two-time major champion who has slipped to 969 in the world following his move to the Saudi breakaway, was level par through four holes. Canadian Taylor Pendrith was the first to find out of bounds down the left on the intimidating first hole. That was a fate which befell McIlroy six years ago when the tournament returned to the Dunluce Links but the Northern Irishman had to wait for his shot at redemption as he was not due to tee off until 3.10pm. Out with Ryder Cup team-mate Tommy Fleetwood and American rival Justin Thomas, he was facing a greater chance of rain, some of it heavy, with winds gusting up to 20mph.
The Herald Scotland
4 days ago
- Sport
- The Herald Scotland
Northern Ireland's Tom McKibbin and Nicolai Hojgaard take early lead at the Open
He had slipped to two over after four but two birdies and the eagle took him to the turn in a two-under 34. Dane Hojgaard, in the same group, birdied the two par fives at the second and seventh to also be two under with him and McKibbin two of only eight players under par of the 39 out on the course. Ryder Cup winner Nicolai Hojgaard held an early share of the lead at The Open (Brian Lawless/PA) Two-time Open champion Padraig Harrington, who had been given the honour of getting the championship underway, birdied the first hole, but otherwise struggled on the greens and was two over at the turn. McKibbin was one of a number of LIV golfers performing well. Six-time major winner and 2013 Open champion Phil Mickelson was providing the early entertainment, holing a bunker shot for par at the short third having left his first attempt in the sand to sit one under after six holes. Lee Westwood, back at the Open for the first time since 2022 after coming through qualifying, birdied his second hole to join the left-hander in an early tie for third. A short game holes out from the sand. — The Open (@TheOpen) July 17, 2025 Another of his LIV cohorts Dustin Johnson, the two-time major champion who has slipped to 969 in the world following his move to the Saudi breakaway, was level par through four holes. Canadian Taylor Pendrith was the first to find out of bounds down the left on the intimidating first hole. That was a fate which befell McIlroy six years ago when the tournament returned to the Dunluce Links but the Northern Irishman had to wait for his shot at redemption as he was not due to tee off until 3.10pm. Out with Ryder Cup team-mate Tommy Fleetwood and American rival Justin Thomas, he was facing a greater chance of rain, some of it heavy, with winds gusting up to 20mph.
The Spinoff
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Have we lost the art of the argument?
It's a whole-of-politics problem – but is more vexing for the left, because it is progressives who seek change most profoundly. Duncan Greive attempts to persuade you all. There's a clear and present danger in contemporary politics – which is conducted on global platforms and accessible from anywhere – to find yourself drawn to and deeply invested in races which occur thousands of miles away and can only obliquely impact your life. For many of us it's US politics, a subject so transfixing that a former National leader has a podcast devoted to it, and one in which the recent result of a single city's Democratic primary – not even the actual mayoral race – felt more gripping than our own political drama. Zohran Mamdani's victory in the New York Democratic primary felt important, a shifting of the bounds of acceptable policy. It has transfixed people all over the world, with its promise of a new style of leftist populism that is manifestly very popular, particularly when set against the tainted establishment approach of Andrew Cuomo. Simon Wilson at the NZ Herald wrote observantly about the lessons Mamdani's victory might contain for Labour here. But in the context of the US, New York is Wellington Central – the most liberal 3% of a much more ideologically diverse country. I found another US politician more persuasive, one with a powerful theory about change and how to achieve it. Sarah McBride is a first-term congressional representative from Delaware, and notable as the first openly trans person to serve in that institution. On a recent podcast appearance she tabled an argument she summarised as 'we've lost the art of persuasion' – we meaning the Democrats. It presents an explanation for why the progressive left has had trouble convincing people of its positions in recent years. Essentially, McBride's theory is that the left has stopped trying – whether they're aware of that or not. How to change a mind It boils down to the way complex issues are increasingly framed in absolutist versus nuanced terms, and the way that seems to be having the opposite effect of what you presume is intended. Instead of bringing moderates over to a side, the absolutist style chases them away; effectively saying that unless you buy the whole of an argument, you're unwelcome. I'm talking less about our political leaders than their partisans – who might target a slower-moving or more uncertain middle, versus the near-hopeless task of persuading the persuaded. This can be framed in terms of compulsion ('you must believe this') versus persuasion ('let me make my case'). As with so much of our current culture, it was trending a particular way, then supercharged during Covid. It exists in many issues which have high salience to a group along with relevance to wider society – climate change, education reform, crime and policing, trans rights. It often starts with an entrenched and emotive position – say, that trans women should be allowed to compete in elite sports – which polling suggests (we have too little done here, but can extrapolate from international results) gets less popular the more it is discussed. McBride spoke directly to this, noting that in the last few years, during which trans issues have been more present in the public conversation than ever before, 'by every objective metric, support for trans rights is worse now than it was six or seven years ago.' She took care to make clear that is partly the result of a deliberate campaign from opponents. But she also believes that the style of argument – passionate but frequently dismissive of even good faith questions – has not helped achieve its stated aims. That the making of the case (from trans people, but more often their allies) has often hurt more than helped. 'I think some of the cultural mores and norms that started to develop around inclusion of trans people were probably premature for a lot of people,' she said. 'We became absolutist – not just on trans rights but across the progressive movement – and we forgot that in a democracy we have to grapple with where the public authentically is and actually engage with it. 'We decided that we now have to say and fight for and push for every single perfect policy and cultural norm right now, regardless of whether the public is ready. And I think it misunderstands the role that politicians and, frankly, social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion, of walking people to a place,' she said. Compromising, in other words. She was talking about trans issues in America, but you could substitute the fight and the location for dozens of others the world over. The rights and wrongs of a particular issue have become less material than the crucial question: is the approach, that style of argument, working? That seems to be the most important element, but one which is not considered nearly so crucial as the moral integrity of the position. It's often about where you spend your energy; in progressive circles it can appear to be scrutinising your supposed allies for ideological purity, then issuing infractions or ostracising those found wanting. It leads to a more ideologically aligned tent, sure, but one smaller than it was before. And because these arguments play out in public, mostly on social platforms, they have the effect of making any quiet observer with private questions or doubts feel like they too are unwelcome. This is an all-of-politics problem, but it is strikingly more prevalent on the left. For example, the level of disagreement between Act and NZ First, our two minor parties of the right, is vast, whereas Te Pāti Māori and The Greens can feel like one movement, such is the level of agreement. NZ First and Act seem to almost enjoy disagreeing disagreeably, whereas even relatively minor differences between leftist parties and supporters can feel anguished to the point of being unresolvable. What might a different technique look like? Instead of policing your own side, the alternative is trying to persuade an open but cautious middle. To do the latter requires a very different approach and perhaps a more strategic theory of change. One which necessarily involves taking a position some distance from where you might seek to ultimately end up. We live in a democracy, and even if you, like Te Pāti Māori's Rawiri Waititi, believe it represents the 'tyranny of the majority', that is unlikely to change. As McBride says, movements which progress incrementally and in lockstep with public opinion – ahead of but not out of reach – are more likely to be durable, and far less likely to see a harsh over-correction in response. Civil rights in the 60s and gay rights more recently were games of inches, she says, with legislation and public support walked forward, with an eye on perfection but not a demand that we achieve it immediately. What's hard is that so many of these issues are highly charged, feel urgent, and really do impact people unequally. The planet is heating now. If you consider the police a racist institution, why would you reform it piecemeal and not wholesale? How many generations must wait for a true honouring of Te Tiriti? Trans rights really are backsliding in many places. To give up on that perfect solution can feel like a form of betrayal. But only if understood in those terms. If it's instead framed as a negotiation with a longer time horizon, one which might take years but will more likely endure, then it might be more palatable. To many passionate activists, such compromise might be unacceptable. Also, sometimes fury seems the only appropriate response to reality, and you're less concerned with the outcome than a gut howl. But the question needs to be asked: have the 10 years or so in which this has been the dominant style of argument felt like progress to you? The dangers of the coalition Adjacent to the style of argument is the notion of a coalition. As well as the coalition governments of MMP, all parties are coalitions to some extent – National is famously a mix of farmers and businesspeople. But on the progressive left there is also a kind of moral coalition. How that manifests is a sense that to be a true ally you must believe in a very specific view on a broad basket of issues. That can feel like it goes for everything from charter schools to climate change obligations to LGBTQ rights to tax reform. Each is of consuming interest to various people; yet if you hold a contrary (or even unsure) view on any topic – especially if you're crazy enough to air it – you're at risk of being tossed from the group. To be clear, there is a proportion of the online right which is gleefully encouraging this dynamic, beckoning with open arms to anyone who might feel unwelcome on the left despite agreeing with the majority of its stances. They're beyond activists' control, however – unlike the current progressive approach to persuasion. In his conversation with McBride, podcast host Ezra Klein argued that the absolutist approach to argument has come from 'the movement of politics to these very unusually designed platforms of speech, where what you do really is not talk to people you disagree with but talk about people you disagree with to people you do agree with.' Platforms like Facebook, X and Instagram incentivise the production of content which stakes out increasingly extreme positions, because a more moderate (and often popular to general audiences, according to polling) stance is unlikely to provoke the engagement that expands the reach of any given post. It leads to a paradox, whereby extremely online coalitional activists of both sides draw their parties to ever more fringe positions. The reason it seems to be more damaging to the left's intentions is that even quiet observers of these hard lines can be made to feel rejected. Those on the right are harangued and insulted, but there is less intimation from their peers that they are no longer welcome – just that they're an idiot. There might be good reasons for a high threshold to acceptance: solidarity among different causes is a fundamental tenet of many reforming organisations, from unions to NGOs. But it does have a troublesome interaction with democracy, in that demanding agreement with every joined up position inevitably means losing some small but meaningful support. It's hard to win an election that way, particularly on a national rather than citywide scale. It's a more vexing problem for the left, because it is progressives who seek change most profoundly. The conservative part of the right is about the status quo, seeking to defend an existing position, or return to an imagined vision of the past. The left seeks progress – to change the future. In this way, persuasion matters more, which is why it's strange that it is often practised less, and exists within a framework which allows for little dissent. Is there a better way? There is a deep disdain for moderates or incrementalism today across all sides – big centrist parties have either been hauled to the fringes or seen more radical parties make big gains, if not usurp them entirely. It's easier to describe another approach than perform it, and would require a major change in the philosophy and style of our current politics, and it's made far harder by social platforms which are so resistant to that approach. Yet it's worth at least considering. Activists of many stripes might believe that their goals are sufficiently important as to justify staking out positions well away from public opinion, and sometimes seem indifferent to the fact their actions seem to make their causes less popular. Think of Extinction Rebellion protestors gluing themselves to motorways or splashing paint on artworks, even as the politics of climate change regress, in near lockstep with the more disruptive demonstrations. It's deeply unfashionable (I look forward to the comments lol), but maybe the best way to achieve small yet lasting gains is step back from expectation of perfect policy – at least for now. Holding out for them feels crucial, but if the way you're going about it makes the position less popular, maybe it's worth arguing for something more achievable, to take that first step. In the hope it might actually change a mind, and get you incrementally closer to what you really want, rather than ever further away.
India.com
03-07-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Missiles, deadly Bayraktar Drones, loitering munition: How Turkey is helping Pakistan with dangerous weapons, India can...
Erdogan and Shehbaz Sharif- File image Why is Turkey helping Pakistan with Missiles, deadly Bayraktar Drones, loitering munition: In a significant development for India and its external security, Turkey has reportedly increased its supply of weapons and drones to Pakistan by leaps and bounds after Operation Sindoor. For those unversed, India conducted Operation Sindoor against terror locations of Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in May this year. Here are all the details regarding the dangerous weapons Pakistan is getting from Turkey. Latest media reports have indicated that Turkey is providing Pakistan with dangerous weapons like KARGI Loitering Munition, Bayraktar TB2 Drone and YIHA UAVs. Turkey's move to help Pakistan is seen as a strategic alignment aimed at counterbalancing India's growing defense capabilities. As per geopolitical experts, the enhanced Turkey-Pakistan military partnership could pose new security challenges for India, particularly along the western border. The development is also being closely monitored for its potential impact on regional power dynamics and India's strategic interests. As per a report by ABP Live, Turkey, under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has given Pakistan KARGI drones (Loitering Munition), which have a range of 500 nautical miles. What should India do? With respect to India's perspective, India should be wary of the Turkey-Pakistan alliance and expose it on the international stages. Pakistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan setup anti-India nexus The growing nexus between Islamabad-Ankara-Baku is expected to deepen and broaden further during the visit of Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to Azerbaijan after concluding his ongoing visit to Iran. Readers should note that Pakistan had targeted Indian civilian, military and religious sites by using Turkey's indigenously-developed armed drone system Asisguard Songar drones that were neutralised by India's strong air defences. Analysts reckon that Pakistan, cornered and left with just a handful of 'all-weather friends', is working hard to build an anti-India stand while Turkey under Erdogan tries to position itself as a Muslim world leader. (With inputs from agencies)
