Comments on: The Tiger Woods apology

By: suek

suek — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:19:33 +0000

>>Yeah, he did….he kept all of his philandering VERY quiet.>>

We disagree here. You’re right – he kept his philandering _very_ quiet. But he didn’t come out and make any statements about being a moral spiritual person. He just kept quiet. And obviously, nobody asked any questions. Maybe it’s a difference without any significance – but I’m thinking about the TV ministers who presented themselves as models of virtuosity, when they were out having affairs of various sorts. Tiger just did his thing and kept his mouth shut.

In this, it may be just that he lucked out – sort of. If the accusations had been made by his mistresses and the news picked up on them…would he have denied them? If so, then I’d agree with you. But as far as I know, there was never a whisper – so no one ever put him in a position to deny his affairs. And of course, when it came to light, he couldn’t deny them.

Actually – pretty amazing when you think about it. Apparently several of the women were prostitutes or at least “loose” women. You’d have thought _something_ would have been mentioned and the National Enquirer et al would have jumped on it…but it never happened. They seem to have been quick enough to jump on the “pay me to shut up” bandwagon after the news broke – why weren’t they there before it broke?

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:38:21 +0000

Earl says in #12:
> He “pretend(ed) to have…morals/ethics” similar to those that most people hold (if not live up to). Now, I think that was a good thing — I would far rather have public figures engage in hypocrisy about shameful stuff than to flaunt it.

I agree completely. Woods recognized that his behavior was unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans, and hid it. At least he upheld our standards that much, for what it’s worth. As usual, though, he didn’t reform himself until after he got caught. *If* in fact his reformation is genuine.

I was a huge fan, and I’m disappointed to see “feet of clay” on someone I admired so much. There aren’t all that many famous people out there genuinely worthy of admiration in both their public and private lives – Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones still come to mind – so it’s a shame to lose one of the few. Maybe Woods can re-earn my admiration going forward, I don’t know. If he has reformed, he may emerge from all of this a better man and husband – and a more focused and concentrated golfer – but watching him compete in the majors won’t be the same.

By: Earl

Earl — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:49:43 +0000

@Suek: You wrote:
“_He_ didn’t pretend to have any particular morals/ethics that I remember…”

Yeah, he did….he kept all of his philandering VERY quiet. He was a sneak about it, because he knew that his marketability in this country would be damaged if he did it openly.

He “pretend(ed) to have…morals/ethics” similar to those that most people hold (if not live up to). Now, I think that was a good thing — I would far rather have public figures engage in hypocrisy about shameful stuff than to flaunt it. It’s better for society, overall, although it would be even better if celebrities all behaved as (it seems) Paul Newman did. But Tiger was pretending to be something that he wasn’t, and THAT is why all of the HooRah over his sexcapades.

I pray for the man – I truly pray that his “repentance” was genuine, that he can reconstitute his family, and grow up a bit to become a better man. I couldn’t care less about his career, although if he can actually achieve the status of “mensch”, then salvaging and extending the career would be a nice topper to the whole experience.

By: Better Late… « Topical Limerick a Day

Better Late… « Topical Limerick a Day — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:25:04 +0000

[...] You may not find it eschatology, At the end of a life of frivolity, But it is behoovin‘, As Tiger has proven, To wrap up with public apology. [...]

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:48:47 +0000

suek #4:
> His golf had nothing to do with his private life, and his private life was none of anybody’s business. That doesn’t mean I think his philandering was a good thing – just that it’s hypocritical for anyone in our liberal society to condemn him. Homosexuality with multiple partners is just fine..but heterosexual multiple partners isn’t? Open marriages are just fine, but oh my…cheating on his wife??? _UNACCEPTABLE_!!

Whoever said “heterosexual multiple partners” is unacceptable? That kind of serial dating goes on all the time out there in the Friday night and Saturday night bar scene. Single guys date multiple women all the time – though certainly not on the same night! And no one claims it’s wrong, that’s just the dating scene as it is these days – with, of course, sex occurring probably far too soon within each relationship. But dating Pamela on Wednesday night, and Sally on Friday night, is certainly acceptable in America.

So Sam can’t date Alan on Wednesday night and Robert on Friday night? Condemning sex among the single – meaning, outside of marriage – for one group, but not for another, hardly seems fair.

Of course there is the flip side to the issue. For gays, a committed relationship does not have the sanction of the State. Therefore they’d better hold to it themselves. Unfortunately, if the studies have it correct, 50% of such “committed relationships” have their partners engaging in frequent sex encounters with others on a regular basis – the very definition of the behavior described by the “open marriage”. And if 50% cheerfully admit it openly, what does that say about the “cheating statistic” among the other 50% who deny it?

Among marriages for men and women, what do you think the rate of cheating is? The rate of “open marriages” is certainly quite low, because America is still broadly a decent nation, and marriage has traditionally always required monogamy and dedication to each other. So on this flip side of the issue, if 50% of “committed gay relationships” result in open and frequent sex with others, then it’s a compelling argument that even among the far-left, which composes most of what is called “gays” in this country, the concept of marriage, and their desire for a civil right of marriage in any traditional sense, is a complete joke.

Yet another reason I believe that in America, gay marriage is not an option. I might change my mind in the future, but the gay subculture would have to go through a transformation that, in no way, do I see occurring.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:32:57 +0000

“’m just trying to figure out why. ”

They were just as irrational when Bush the Savior turned into Bush the Nazi. People become idiots when they can’t handle their own problems and need to outsource them to Tiger Woods or another strong man.

By: suek

suek — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:16:40 +0000

Heh…

Jess…I use Firefox. When you sign in, it asks you if you want to save your password. You can answer yes, not this time, or never for this site. For blogs, I always answer yes, and then don’t worry about it. To log in, I just hit the login button and Firefox fills in the user name and password for me.
I also have a file – not identified as passwords, but just a Word file with a different file name – in which I keep all the sites, plus user names and passwords in. I order stuff online for our office, and every one of the sites has a password requirement – as do EDD and the Franchise tax board, both of which I have to do online as well. If I didn’t have a file to put the names in, I’d be a cooked goose! And a good thing! I swapped out one hard drive for another and the Foxfire tool utility didn’t transfer the passwords…if I’d had to start from scratch, I’d have gone nuts!

If you have a need for inexpensive business cards, envelopes (with an imprint) or sales receipts (also with an imprint) – I have names!!! (but I won’t give you my password!)

By: jjteam

jjteam — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:57:17 +0000

I agree with Suek on the fraud aspect. But I still think we offer way too much credit – and air time – to silly old celebrities, be they sporty or theatrical or whatever. I’ve been rolling my eyes at Hollywood for better than thirty years, every time some star comes out with one of their gems. I guess it’s a cultural thing too, we do all share the same culture, although it’s getting pretty uncomfortable around the edges.

I agree also with Sadie’s point, that is the people who really matter got the same amount of scrutiny and good the wood put to them for nonsense, would make a lot more sense.

By the way, I am a several year lurker here – I really enjoy everyone’s (mostly) sane POV. I keep losing my password to comment but, for now, I have it again so I hope to participate a little more. I am out of Austin TX. Cheers, jess

By: SADIE

SADIE — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:17:32 +0000

Every cable news network dissected every word, every nuance, what was said, what wasn’t said – a full staging of analysts, doctors, in fact anyone who had a pair of lips to flap offered up their opinion.
Me, all I could think of is why don’t they take the same head on, all out approach with the staged speeches of people who actually have an impact on our lives. Of course, those folks never attempt even a lame apology.

By: suek

suek — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:23:52 +0000

Ya know…

Thinking about this…there has to be some rationale for the response. Remember the “kid in the balloon” thing? and how angry people got – even though the boy never was in any danger? People found out it was a fraud, and they’d been fooled. They _felt_ like fools. And _that_ – being made to feel like fools who’d been taken advantage of – is what made them angry. Nobody likes to feel like a fool.

Tiger has sort of been adopted…the public has watched him grow up and taken him in as one of their own. _He_ didn’t pretend to have any particular morals/ethics that I remember, but a part of “adopting” him meant that the public _assumed_ that he shared the same standards that they – the public – had. It’s a bit like finding out that one of your beloved children has violated the standards you’ve raised them with.

I don’t know that that’s the answer – but the response just seems so irrational to me… I’m just trying to figure out why. It does go to show that the majority of the population is more conservative than most give them credit for, I think.