Tuesday January 19, 2010 was not exactly the "shot heard round the world," more like the "vote heard round the world." That was the day a special election was held in Massachusetts to fill the vacancy created in the US Senate by the death of Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy. Kennedy held the seat for 47 years. Before the election on the 19th, the last Republican elected to the US Senate from Massachusetts was Edward Brooke, ironically Brooke was the first African-American elected to the US Senate.
The election of Scott Brown to the US Senate breaks the "Super Majority" held and created by Senate Democrats, Independent Joe Lieberman and Socialist Bernie Sanders. The White House was quick to pronounce that Brown’s election was not a referendum on the President or his policies. The White House instead chose to blame Democratic candidate Martha Coakley for running a poor campaign. The White House conveniently forgot that Coakley won the office of Attorney General (also a statewide election) with 73% of the vote a little over two years ago.
I vigorously disagree with the White House point of view and although I don’t often agree with Virginia’s Senator Jim Webb, I believe his statement shortly after Brown’s victory is appropriate. Senator Webb said, "In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."
Recent polls have shown that the President’s health care reform efforts are backed by only 36% of the country and opposition has been well over 50% since August of 2009. During the campaign then Senator Obama promised government transparency and bipartisanship. Speaker Pelosi too promised transparency. In spite of these promises and commitments reconciliation talks between the House and Senate have been held in secret and Republicans have been virtually locked out of the process. Legislation has been written and passed without being read.
"What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" That was Michigan Representative John Conyers in an interview discussing the health care bill July 27, 2009. By the way, Representative Conyers is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a lawyer.
Throughout the summer of 2009 the President and Congressional Democrats ignored the will of the electorate. Thousands called, emailed and wrote letters of protest against Obama style health care reform. Thousands more attended and demonstrated at town hall meetings. Rather than listen, the Democrats cancelled many of the remaining meetings set in their districts. The protests culminated on September 12, 2009 when more than 1.2 million Americans gathered on the Washington Mall to let their views be known. Their protests and views were ignored.
Only time will tell if the election of Scott Brown was a wake-up for the President and Congressional Democrats. If not, then maybe Tuesday January 19, 2010 will, like April 19, 1775 become another red letter day in American history.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Call Northside 777
Recently I watched "Call Northside 777". In the film Jimmy Stewart portrays a newspaper reporter who’s assigned to follow up on an ad in the personals section of his newspaper. The mother of a convicted cop killer is offering a reward for information that proves her son is not guilty. Initially Stewart patronizes the old woman and is very cynical. Talking to her is a chore. Only after his assignment editor forces him to interview the convicted killer in prison does he slowly begin to change his mind about the whole situation. Stewart goes after each lead with energy and tenacity in spite of roadblocks at every turn. In the end, Stewart and the paper prove the man’s innocence and he’s released.
The film is based on a true story. Both in the film and in real life the paper put its reputation on the line by championing an unpopular position. They sought out and fought for the truth. The paper used its lawyers, influence and political capital to right a wrong. I think at one time most newspapers and other news organizations were interested in the truth. Reporters investigated tips, followed up on leads and reported the news. The truth mattered. The truth wasn’t subordinate to the popularity of the position. Editors were principled and fought for values.
Sadly it seems far too many members of the press today are satisfied to merely sit by the fax machine or wait for the latest press release to show up in the inbox of their email account. They’ve become echo chambers of each other; they’re repeaters, not reporters.
In far too many cases, objectivity is a casualty in the war of what passes for journalism in early 21st century America. Statements from reporters such as Chris Mathews of MSNBC when he said, "I felt this thrill going up my leg" while covering one of the presidential debates in 2008 and Newsweek’s Managing Editor Evan Thomas deifying President Obama when he said, "in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together." are too common.
And now we have a reporter advocating voter fraud. During his radio show last week MSNBC’s Ed Schultz commenting on the special election in Massachusetts to fill the late Senator Kennedy’s seat stated, "I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."
Many newspapers and television network news programs are losing circulation and ratings. They’re explaining their losses by blaming the Internet. The answer to their ratings and circulation problem can be found in a quote from the late CBS news reporter and journalist Edward R. Murrow when he said, "To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful."
What a concept, truth and objectivity in the news.
The film is based on a true story. Both in the film and in real life the paper put its reputation on the line by championing an unpopular position. They sought out and fought for the truth. The paper used its lawyers, influence and political capital to right a wrong. I think at one time most newspapers and other news organizations were interested in the truth. Reporters investigated tips, followed up on leads and reported the news. The truth mattered. The truth wasn’t subordinate to the popularity of the position. Editors were principled and fought for values.
Sadly it seems far too many members of the press today are satisfied to merely sit by the fax machine or wait for the latest press release to show up in the inbox of their email account. They’ve become echo chambers of each other; they’re repeaters, not reporters.
In far too many cases, objectivity is a casualty in the war of what passes for journalism in early 21st century America. Statements from reporters such as Chris Mathews of MSNBC when he said, "I felt this thrill going up my leg" while covering one of the presidential debates in 2008 and Newsweek’s Managing Editor Evan Thomas deifying President Obama when he said, "in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together." are too common.
And now we have a reporter advocating voter fraud. During his radio show last week MSNBC’s Ed Schultz commenting on the special election in Massachusetts to fill the late Senator Kennedy’s seat stated, "I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."
Many newspapers and television network news programs are losing circulation and ratings. They’re explaining their losses by blaming the Internet. The answer to their ratings and circulation problem can be found in a quote from the late CBS news reporter and journalist Edward R. Murrow when he said, "To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful."
What a concept, truth and objectivity in the news.
General Observations
Nearly two weeks after the "Panty Bomber" attempted to blow Northwest flight 253 with 279 passengers and 11 crew members on board out of the sky, the US State Department announced that they’d cancelled his visa. How quick would they have acted if he'd been successful?
When the "Stimulus" bill was barreling through Congress, the President told us that without it, the unemployment rate would climb above 8%. We were also told that it had to be done now or the sky would fall. Well, the Democrats passed the stimulus and to this point in time only 30 percent of the money has been spent and the unemployment is definitely above 8%. If it was so important, why have we only spent 30% of the funds? I guess the unemployment rate in all those non-existent congressional districts and phantom zip codes (fourteen in Virginia alone) is less than 8% now.
Former Democratic Presidential Nominee and current Massachusetts’ Senator John Kerry’s office recently announced he was, "getting a hip replacement." I thought that’s what Obama was supposed to be.
If the Federal Government can’t quickly and efficiently distribute H1N1 Vaccine, what makes anyone think they can run the entire healthcare delivery system?
If you didn’t get the John Kerry hip replacement joke, look at the word "hip" as an adjective instead of a noun.
Maybe there’s some honesty in the ACLU after all, the director of the ACLU is now referring to the Illinois prison the Obama Administration wants to purchase for Guantanamo detainees as "Gitmo North".
When the "Stimulus" bill was barreling through Congress, the President told us that without it, the unemployment rate would climb above 8%. We were also told that it had to be done now or the sky would fall. Well, the Democrats passed the stimulus and to this point in time only 30 percent of the money has been spent and the unemployment is definitely above 8%. If it was so important, why have we only spent 30% of the funds? I guess the unemployment rate in all those non-existent congressional districts and phantom zip codes (fourteen in Virginia alone) is less than 8% now.
Former Democratic Presidential Nominee and current Massachusetts’ Senator John Kerry’s office recently announced he was, "getting a hip replacement." I thought that’s what Obama was supposed to be.
If the Federal Government can’t quickly and efficiently distribute H1N1 Vaccine, what makes anyone think they can run the entire healthcare delivery system?
If you didn’t get the John Kerry hip replacement joke, look at the word "hip" as an adjective instead of a noun.
Maybe there’s some honesty in the ACLU after all, the director of the ACLU is now referring to the Illinois prison the Obama Administration wants to purchase for Guantanamo detainees as "Gitmo North".
The Panty Bomber or Fruit of Kaboom!
The attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day and the Obama administrations initial response to that incident proves among other things that the President is either incapable or unwilling to recognize terrorism as the national security threat that it is.
Early on in his administration (March 23, 2009) the president ordered the phrase "war on terror" be eliminated. It was replaced with the softer, gentler phrase, "man caused disaster"
The president needs a twelve-step program for terrorism. One of the first steps in any good twelve-step program is to recognize you’ve got a problem. (If you’ve never gone through a twelve-step program and if you’re a member of the locally predominant religious faith, then think the "five Rs of repentance" or however many Rs of repentance there are.) Either way you’ve got to recognize you have a problem.
The Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack. All signs point to the fact that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. The administration insisted for several days that it was a case of one lone soldier going berserk and turning on those around him. The administration has dug in their heals about their theory of the attack by refusing to award Purple Hearts to the soldiers wounded at Fort Hood.
Isn’t it ironic that the same Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who recruited the Northwest Airlines Panty Bomber (the bomb was smuggled on board in the guy’s underwear) and arranged for his training in Yemen was "suspected" Fort Hood terrorist Major Nadal Hasan’s Imam in Washington DC.
And speaking of terrorist training, what total nincompoop in the Bush Administration recommended the release of two Guantanamo detainees for art therapy in Saudi Arabia. If you haven’t heard, the Panty Bomber was trained by two former residents of Guantanamo, released in 2007 and sent to Saudi Arabia for art therapy and rehabilitation.
The administration’s initial solution to the type of threat posed by the Panty Bomber was to keep you and me in our seats for the last hour of every flight, not allow us to use the restroom or have anything in our laps. That bit of stupidity was done away with almost immediately. Their next step was to order 150 of the full body scanners that would expose, well, expose everything.
An article in the UK Independent, quoting sources in Britain’s Home Office states that the full body scanners would not have detected the Panty Bomber’s explosives.
The 911 Commission stated that, ‘al qaeda was at war with us before we were at war with them.’ The Obama Administartion, when they do address terrorism, is treating terror as a criminal matter, not the war that it is and all of us will be the losers for it.
Early on in his administration (March 23, 2009) the president ordered the phrase "war on terror" be eliminated. It was replaced with the softer, gentler phrase, "man caused disaster"
The president needs a twelve-step program for terrorism. One of the first steps in any good twelve-step program is to recognize you’ve got a problem. (If you’ve never gone through a twelve-step program and if you’re a member of the locally predominant religious faith, then think the "five Rs of repentance" or however many Rs of repentance there are.) Either way you’ve got to recognize you have a problem.
The Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack. All signs point to the fact that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. The administration insisted for several days that it was a case of one lone soldier going berserk and turning on those around him. The administration has dug in their heals about their theory of the attack by refusing to award Purple Hearts to the soldiers wounded at Fort Hood.
Isn’t it ironic that the same Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who recruited the Northwest Airlines Panty Bomber (the bomb was smuggled on board in the guy’s underwear) and arranged for his training in Yemen was "suspected" Fort Hood terrorist Major Nadal Hasan’s Imam in Washington DC.
And speaking of terrorist training, what total nincompoop in the Bush Administration recommended the release of two Guantanamo detainees for art therapy in Saudi Arabia. If you haven’t heard, the Panty Bomber was trained by two former residents of Guantanamo, released in 2007 and sent to Saudi Arabia for art therapy and rehabilitation.
The administration’s initial solution to the type of threat posed by the Panty Bomber was to keep you and me in our seats for the last hour of every flight, not allow us to use the restroom or have anything in our laps. That bit of stupidity was done away with almost immediately. Their next step was to order 150 of the full body scanners that would expose, well, expose everything.
An article in the UK Independent, quoting sources in Britain’s Home Office states that the full body scanners would not have detected the Panty Bomber’s explosives.
The 911 Commission stated that, ‘al qaeda was at war with us before we were at war with them.’ The Obama Administartion, when they do address terrorism, is treating terror as a criminal matter, not the war that it is and all of us will be the losers for it.
An Economics Lesson for The President...
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
This quote has been attributed to sources as wide and varied as Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Fred Zamberletti former trainer and current Minnesota Vikings team historian and former New Orleans Saints’ Nose Tackle Tony Elliot.
The quote, "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" has just as many attributions; Winston Churchill, Santa Ana and Aristotle to name a few.
The Obama administration’s economic policies have not worked in the past and from all appearances are not working now. So why does President Obama believe his stimulus plan and economic policies will revive the U.S. economy?
As early as January 27, 2009, more than two hundred economists argued against the administration and congress’ massive stimulus plan. As time and the debate went on, that number only grew. Apparently economists study history.
Keynesian economics; the practice of putting more dollars into the hands of consumers, should in theory work. When the dollars come from tax cuts, conservative Keynesian economic theory does work. President Kennedy first proposed tax cuts in 1962. Shortly after his death, his proposals were enacted into law and the economy grew. The economy grew after the Reagan tax cuts in the ‘80s and after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts as well.
Keynesian economics don’t work when they take the form of economic stimulus plans such as President Obama’s, President Hoover’s, Franklin Roosevelt’s and the Japanese government’s multiple stimulus efforts in the 90s.
The Obama stimulus plan is compounded by the fact that the President is monetizing much of the debt. Monetizing the debt is when money is printed rather than borrowed to cover the debt. President Obama, in just 38 DAYS, grew the national debt by over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, an amount that exceeded the EIGHT YEAR total of President George W. Bush’s administration.
The fledgling "recovery" is an illusion. What little growth that has occurred is almost exclusively growth of government. Recent reported growth in income is also almost exclusively an increase in Federal government wages. Earlier this month The Commerce Department reported an uptick in consumer spending. If you read the entire report you’ll learn that the uptick is entirely a product of increased gasoline prices. And finally, the "Real Unemployment Rate", also known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 is over 17.5%. Real economic growth; sustainable economic growth will only come from the private sector. The President’s policies are not and will not revive the U.S. economy.
The Chinese government both in public and private is lecturing and warning the Obama administration about our government spending and unsustainable national debt. They have a 3,500 year written history. It would seem they not only read their own history, but the history of the West as well. In May of 2009 China held 44% of foreign held U.S. Government debt. If China were to stop buying U.S. Treasuries, the result would be hyper-inflation and interest rates not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter. (The prime interest rate when Jimmy Carter left office in January of 1981 was 20.5%, today it is 3.25%) Maybe we should pay attention.
Currently the Democratic leadership in the Congress is cobbling together a second stimulus package. Apparently Congress neither reads history nor learns from past experiences.
So why does President Obama think his stimulus plan and economic policies will work?
Is the President ignorant of history or so arrogant that he thinks it doesn’t apply to him?
This quote has been attributed to sources as wide and varied as Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Fred Zamberletti former trainer and current Minnesota Vikings team historian and former New Orleans Saints’ Nose Tackle Tony Elliot.
The quote, "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" has just as many attributions; Winston Churchill, Santa Ana and Aristotle to name a few.
The Obama administration’s economic policies have not worked in the past and from all appearances are not working now. So why does President Obama believe his stimulus plan and economic policies will revive the U.S. economy?
As early as January 27, 2009, more than two hundred economists argued against the administration and congress’ massive stimulus plan. As time and the debate went on, that number only grew. Apparently economists study history.
Keynesian economics; the practice of putting more dollars into the hands of consumers, should in theory work. When the dollars come from tax cuts, conservative Keynesian economic theory does work. President Kennedy first proposed tax cuts in 1962. Shortly after his death, his proposals were enacted into law and the economy grew. The economy grew after the Reagan tax cuts in the ‘80s and after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts as well.
Keynesian economics don’t work when they take the form of economic stimulus plans such as President Obama’s, President Hoover’s, Franklin Roosevelt’s and the Japanese government’s multiple stimulus efforts in the 90s.
The Obama stimulus plan is compounded by the fact that the President is monetizing much of the debt. Monetizing the debt is when money is printed rather than borrowed to cover the debt. President Obama, in just 38 DAYS, grew the national debt by over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, an amount that exceeded the EIGHT YEAR total of President George W. Bush’s administration.
The fledgling "recovery" is an illusion. What little growth that has occurred is almost exclusively growth of government. Recent reported growth in income is also almost exclusively an increase in Federal government wages. Earlier this month The Commerce Department reported an uptick in consumer spending. If you read the entire report you’ll learn that the uptick is entirely a product of increased gasoline prices. And finally, the "Real Unemployment Rate", also known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 is over 17.5%. Real economic growth; sustainable economic growth will only come from the private sector. The President’s policies are not and will not revive the U.S. economy.
The Chinese government both in public and private is lecturing and warning the Obama administration about our government spending and unsustainable national debt. They have a 3,500 year written history. It would seem they not only read their own history, but the history of the West as well. In May of 2009 China held 44% of foreign held U.S. Government debt. If China were to stop buying U.S. Treasuries, the result would be hyper-inflation and interest rates not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter. (The prime interest rate when Jimmy Carter left office in January of 1981 was 20.5%, today it is 3.25%) Maybe we should pay attention.
Currently the Democratic leadership in the Congress is cobbling together a second stimulus package. Apparently Congress neither reads history nor learns from past experiences.
So why does President Obama think his stimulus plan and economic policies will work?
Is the President ignorant of history or so arrogant that he thinks it doesn’t apply to him?
UPD, Bad Idea or Just Poorly Implemented?
I have been an advocate of a valley wide unified police department for a long time. I was introduced to the concept in either the late ‘70s or early ‘80s. The economies of scale and smaller administrative bureaucracies of a Unified Police Department appealed to me. Candidate Winder, now Sheriff Winder made the Unified Police Department (UPD) one of the main components of his election campaign.
So last week when it was announced that a NEW fee would be needed to fund UPD, I was forced to rethink my position. When I learned that if the fee wasn’t imposed 100 deputies would be laid off; I was REALLY forced to rethink my position. I’d like to pose some questions for you to consider.
According to a Salt Lake County press release the UPD will save money. So if the county is saving money, will property taxes be reduced to compensate for the new fee?
No, property taxes will not be reduced. Funds for police and fire primarily come from sales tax revenues and sales tax revenues have dropped during the recent economic downturn. The new fee will be imposed on both businesses and homes. Some of the monthly fees for businesses are rather hefty. Businesses are not only taxed based on the type of business, but they’re taxed based on the number of employees too. Some businesses will either fire people or simply not fill positions when employees retire or quit. Oh, by the way, your church will be taxed too. So, the new fee will damage an already weak economy.
Funds for the deputies who patrol and serve in the UPD participating cities and towns were already budgeted. Where are the additional funds generated by the NEW fees being spent?
If the fee is not imposed and the Sheriff actually fires 100 deputies, the cities and towns affected by the layoffs won’t just sit idly by, they’ll use funds already budgeted for law enforcement and hire officers to police their communities. Logically, you’d hire the previously trained and experienced county deputies.
If the funds generated by the fees are for startup, then either bond and retire the bonds with the anticipated savings or make it clear that the fees are temporary and build in a hard and fast sunset clause.
If the funds generated by the fees are to hire more deputies or purchase new equipment, then don’t. Wait until the savings generated by UPD have been realized to increase the force and buy new equipment.
If the new fee is required to fund the UPD, then it would seem the entire concept and projected savings of a Unified Police Department are flawed. Either the wrong people put it together or it’s the wrong time to implement the idea.
If the fee is to fund the UPD, then it would seem that the UPD is just a way to free up other tax funds for other county priorities and was simply a ruse to raise taxes. In other words, tax funds that would have gone to the Sheriff’s office were spent elsewhere and a fee was created to fund the UPD. A new tax extorted by playing on people’s fears. If you don’t pay the fee 100 deputies will be laid off.
The UPD is a good idea, but it’s either the wrong time or it’s being implemented by the wrong people.
Shame on Sheriff Jim Winder, Mayor Corroon and the County Council.
So last week when it was announced that a NEW fee would be needed to fund UPD, I was forced to rethink my position. When I learned that if the fee wasn’t imposed 100 deputies would be laid off; I was REALLY forced to rethink my position. I’d like to pose some questions for you to consider.
According to a Salt Lake County press release the UPD will save money. So if the county is saving money, will property taxes be reduced to compensate for the new fee?
No, property taxes will not be reduced. Funds for police and fire primarily come from sales tax revenues and sales tax revenues have dropped during the recent economic downturn. The new fee will be imposed on both businesses and homes. Some of the monthly fees for businesses are rather hefty. Businesses are not only taxed based on the type of business, but they’re taxed based on the number of employees too. Some businesses will either fire people or simply not fill positions when employees retire or quit. Oh, by the way, your church will be taxed too. So, the new fee will damage an already weak economy.
Funds for the deputies who patrol and serve in the UPD participating cities and towns were already budgeted. Where are the additional funds generated by the NEW fees being spent?
If the fee is not imposed and the Sheriff actually fires 100 deputies, the cities and towns affected by the layoffs won’t just sit idly by, they’ll use funds already budgeted for law enforcement and hire officers to police their communities. Logically, you’d hire the previously trained and experienced county deputies.
If the funds generated by the fees are for startup, then either bond and retire the bonds with the anticipated savings or make it clear that the fees are temporary and build in a hard and fast sunset clause.
If the funds generated by the fees are to hire more deputies or purchase new equipment, then don’t. Wait until the savings generated by UPD have been realized to increase the force and buy new equipment.
If the new fee is required to fund the UPD, then it would seem the entire concept and projected savings of a Unified Police Department are flawed. Either the wrong people put it together or it’s the wrong time to implement the idea.
If the fee is to fund the UPD, then it would seem that the UPD is just a way to free up other tax funds for other county priorities and was simply a ruse to raise taxes. In other words, tax funds that would have gone to the Sheriff’s office were spent elsewhere and a fee was created to fund the UPD. A new tax extorted by playing on people’s fears. If you don’t pay the fee 100 deputies will be laid off.
The UPD is a good idea, but it’s either the wrong time or it’s being implemented by the wrong people.
Shame on Sheriff Jim Winder, Mayor Corroon and the County Council.
A Day That Will Live In Infamy...
June 12, 1974 a day that will live in infamy. (Well at least in Utah Democrat Party politics.) I know I’m showing my age, but this all has a point. On that day first term U.S. Congressman Allen Howe solicited a Salt Lake City PD decoy prostitute and gave the November 1974 election to a Republican to be named later.
Approximately two years later the powerful Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; Wilbur Mills was re-elected AFTER being caught drunk with a stripper, ER, pardon me, exotic dancer.
Florida Republican congressman Mark Foley resigned after sending dirty text messages to an underage congressional page. THIRTY YEARS earlier, Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds had an affair with a page, was finally censured ten years later and was still re-elected for another seven terms AFTER the censure.
Were you angry about any of the above incidents?
When the Allen Howe and Wilbur Mills incidents took place, I remember commenting to a friend of mine, that both of them should have just put someone on their staff. I was a rather cynical teen. That said, I was, and still am angry at the media and Democrats over the different standards applied to Foley versus Studds. Representative Studds was given a standing ovation after his censure, Representative Foley was practically run out of town on a rail.
How many of them were you aware of or are they all just minor footnotes in history?
Today, if your angry about powerful men and their sexual adventures, who are you angrier with; Tiger Woods, Republican Governor Terry Sanford of South Carolina or Democrat Senator Max Baucus of Montana?
Even though Governor Sanford and Senator Baucus used taxpayer funds for their sexual peccadilloes, I’d wager you’re angrier with Tiger. I know I am and I think I know why you may be angrier with Tiger.
We’ve all been betrayed. You can choose to believe the rumors about the media, PGA (Professional Golf Association) officials and Tiger’s sponsors knowing about Tiger’s vices for years. You can also believe they’ve all been complicit in a massive cover up of the real Tiger Woods. But, even if you don’t believe those rumors, Tiger’s image is still something that was carefully crafted beginning with his first appearance on the "Tonight Show with Johnny Carson" so many years ago.
We’re angry because we’ve been duped. We WANTED to believe in this well-spoken, well-mannered man who is an incredible golfer. I think we wanted to believe in this guy with such a stunningingly beautiful wife and the gazillions of dollars we all threw at him when he sold us Nike shirts, Buicks and Gatorade. We may even have lived vicariously in his accomplishments as he shattered the glass ceiling of the racial barriers of golf and became arguably the greatest golfer of all time.
Tiger Woods is still a great golfer. But the public’s admiration and respect was built on a false image. So really, who should we be angrier with, the man who created the false image or those who kept the real Tiger hidden from the public?
Why choose just one, you can be angry with the whole kit and kaboodle.
I wonder how many more Tiger like false images are out there being protected by the media and/or politicians.
UPDATE
Shortly after last weeks edition went to press Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s lawyer announced they will use a justification defense in his trial. Seems this guy was justified in taking down the World Trade Center and
Approximately two years later the powerful Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; Wilbur Mills was re-elected AFTER being caught drunk with a stripper, ER, pardon me, exotic dancer.
Florida Republican congressman Mark Foley resigned after sending dirty text messages to an underage congressional page. THIRTY YEARS earlier, Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds had an affair with a page, was finally censured ten years later and was still re-elected for another seven terms AFTER the censure.
Were you angry about any of the above incidents?
When the Allen Howe and Wilbur Mills incidents took place, I remember commenting to a friend of mine, that both of them should have just put someone on their staff. I was a rather cynical teen. That said, I was, and still am angry at the media and Democrats over the different standards applied to Foley versus Studds. Representative Studds was given a standing ovation after his censure, Representative Foley was practically run out of town on a rail.
How many of them were you aware of or are they all just minor footnotes in history?
Today, if your angry about powerful men and their sexual adventures, who are you angrier with; Tiger Woods, Republican Governor Terry Sanford of South Carolina or Democrat Senator Max Baucus of Montana?
Even though Governor Sanford and Senator Baucus used taxpayer funds for their sexual peccadilloes, I’d wager you’re angrier with Tiger. I know I am and I think I know why you may be angrier with Tiger.
We’ve all been betrayed. You can choose to believe the rumors about the media, PGA (Professional Golf Association) officials and Tiger’s sponsors knowing about Tiger’s vices for years. You can also believe they’ve all been complicit in a massive cover up of the real Tiger Woods. But, even if you don’t believe those rumors, Tiger’s image is still something that was carefully crafted beginning with his first appearance on the "Tonight Show with Johnny Carson" so many years ago.
We’re angry because we’ve been duped. We WANTED to believe in this well-spoken, well-mannered man who is an incredible golfer. I think we wanted to believe in this guy with such a stunningingly beautiful wife and the gazillions of dollars we all threw at him when he sold us Nike shirts, Buicks and Gatorade. We may even have lived vicariously in his accomplishments as he shattered the glass ceiling of the racial barriers of golf and became arguably the greatest golfer of all time.
Tiger Woods is still a great golfer. But the public’s admiration and respect was built on a false image. So really, who should we be angrier with, the man who created the false image or those who kept the real Tiger hidden from the public?
Why choose just one, you can be angry with the whole kit and kaboodle.
I wonder how many more Tiger like false images are out there being protected by the media and/or politicians.
UPDATE
Shortly after last weeks edition went to press Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s lawyer announced they will use a justification defense in his trial. Seems this guy was justified in taking down the World Trade Center and
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
