Tiger Declawed?

The lead story on the news last night was about the sex life of a golfer. How ridiculous is that? There is so much going on in the world, and the country is bleeding from numerous wounds yet the main stream media kicks off the nightly news with Tiger Woods’ apology for screwing around. What does that say about “serious” journalism? Could you see David Brinkley doing a story about Arnold Palmer’s sex life? I don’t think so...

Actually I have always felt that Tiger was treated unfairly throughout the whole ordeal. Yes he was wrong for cheating on his wife but I felt that the public and media over reacted. It is not like this is the first time that an athlete fooled around. In fact for most athletes having an active sex life is almost a requirement. Think over the years of how many famous basketball, baseball, football and hockey players were known for their randy sex life. Could you imagine anyone telling Joe Namath or Wilt Chamberlain that they need help for their sex addiction? Hell no. Or better yet, what about Mick Jagger or any other rock star who is surrounded by groupies the minute they get off of the stage? It is ludicrous to even image their being labeled as sex addicts and in need of therapy! Instead the men admire them and the women want to be one of their partners.

The same day that Tiger issued his apology there was an article about the sex lives of the Olympic athletes. For the past few Olympics one of the freebies found in the Olympic village for the athletes are free condoms. In 2000 Sydney supplied the village with 70,000 condoms and still had to bring in 20,000 more after they ran out! I love the story about Beijing which not only stocked up on 100,000 condoms for the athletes but the condoms also had the Olympic motto of faster, higher stronger! This year Vancouver is also providing 100,000 condoms for its athletes but sans the motto. As the article by Today show journalist Mike Celizic, from which I found all of this information, further details, those 100,000 condoms works out to be 14 condoms for each of the athletes, coaches, trainers and others housed in the Olympic Village. I bet no one would even think of demanding apologies or requiring sex therapy for these athletes!

Yet I can understand the fascination in Tiger’s Jeckle and Hyde behavior. Unlike others, I never saw him as a family man. Instead, I always thought of Tiger as being aloof, arrogant even, as if his enormous talent put him on a different level than everyone else. And when I watched him play golf and see him hit these spectacular shots, he almost seems inhuman. Then there was this new personal side of a passionate man having adulterous sex and even semi relationships with more than a dozen beautiful women. Wow. It almost sounds like every man’s fantasy – to be a champion athlete and to then have your pick of beautiful women almost, as their reward for a great round of golf. What man wouldn’t want to trade places with Tiger for a day, the old Tiger, that is.

Cheating on his wife was wrong, but only to his wife, it really wasn’t anyone else’s business and I don’t think he deserved this punishment. Some of the people who heard his apology said it was insincere and “too little, too late”. While others said he appeared broken and not the same man he was a year ago. I tend to agree with journalist Carlos Monarrez who said “It was hard to imagine this guy ever pumped a fist, stared down a putt or uttered a curse word in frustration. Those are the images of Woods that have defined him and endeared him to fans. Now, who knows?”

All athletes, be it golfers or Olympic champions need certain qualities of arrogance, defiance, competitiveness that makes him work and struggle to be the best. He has to have this mindset that believes that he is a champion. Call it the Alpha male syndrom or wanting to dominate and lead the pack. And throughout history the reward for these Alpha males who have beaten their foes, be it on a battlefield or a golf course or a ski jump, has always been a beautiful woman. Just as the women are having their own, although less visible, contest for the right to be with a winner.

So I wonder, what will this “therapy” and his sincere (or not), self belittling apology do to Tiger the golfer? Will this declaw him? Will he lose some of his competence? Will he begin to doubt and question himself? And in the long run who has won from this spectacle? Not his sponsors. Definitely not the PGA. Not even his wife. I wonder if she will even like the new Tiger 2.0 version? For if she does take him back, she married an Alpha male champion, not the new hesitant, demeaning, albeit supposedly faithful husband.

Of course there is always the possibility that he really isn’t changing all that much. I am almost waiting for an outburst, the kind he is known for on the golf course. The equivilant of throwing his golf club while cursing a blue streak. Something other than that boring and weak apology. I would have loved it if he had simply told the media and others to go to hell; that he is the greatest golfer ever. That is all that matters and that his personal life is just that, personal. He did try to tell everyone to leave his family alone but he sounded wimpy. He needs to get angry. To pump his fist in the air while psyching himself up to tell them all to go to hell. That would sound truer than his self deprecating apology. Nonetheless, regardless of the outcome, it still doesn’t belong among the top stories of the day.

Charles Krauthammer wrote another terrific article that everyone should read. In it he discusses how Obama and other liberals refuse to believe what the Scott Brown election tells us - that the people don't want the Democrat's health care bill or just about any of their proposed legislation. The people do want change, just not the Obama type of change. And yet in the State of the Union address Obama vows that he will get his health care bill regardless of the fact that the majority don't want it. I love how Krauthammer explains why Obama and the liberals are acting this way:

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Don't you just love that? The sad part is that he is probably correct in his conclusion of how liberals think. And the rest of Krauthammer's article is just as perceptive and fascinating. So, I recommend that you take a few moments to read his whole article The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010 in the Washington Post at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403623.html?sub=AR

Enjoy!

Bio Brief - Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was recently in the news for his snide attack on Palin by writing notes on his hand. I have never liked the man and this little episode didn’t help. Maybe it is his smirks or his attempts at sarcasm or perhaps just his general demeanor. Whatever it was I can’t help getting the feeling that this was the kid in high school who was given constant wedgies, and now in a position of power, he is getting back at the popular kids. I could be way off base, but who knows? Who is Robert Gibbs? What is his background and how did he end up as President Obama’s Press Secretary? So it is time again for one of my Bio Briefs.

Robert Gibbs was born in 1971 in Auburn Alabama, and as Wikipedia goes on to report, both of his parents worked in the Auburn University’s library system. Most bios on Gibbs state that rather than hire a babysitter; his mother would take him with her to League of Women Voters meetings and that his family discussed politics and these meetings during dinner. Librarian parents and League of Women Voters meetings? Oh yeah, I bet I was right about his getting those wedgies in middle school. Maybe, as Wikipedia surmised, this helped hone Gibbs’ interest in politics but I doubt if it helped his reputation in school. Playing the saxophone and being on the debate team probably didn’t help his popularity either. On the other hand he was also the goal keeper on his school’s soccer team, although this was a solo position, apart from the rest of the team.

This was all the information about his earlier life that I could find. The 5 or 6 bios I read provided only these few facts, I still don’t even know if he is on only child or if he has siblings! In fact one bio mentioned four famous people who graduated in his high school class, making it seem as if Gibbs was famous or at least more interesting because of his association with these famous people rather than because of himself. And they might be right.

According to Wikipedia, from 1990-1992 Robert Gibbs continued as a goal keeper but now at North Carolina State University where he graduated cum laude with a degree in political science. That’s it. That one line contains the entire upper educational history for this man. No mention of any other honors, awards, clubs, anything other than that he was on the soccer team for two years. I can’t even find any mention of the year in which he graduated!

Moving on to his early career, while in school, in 1991 Gibbs interned for Alabama Congressman Glenn Browder, eventually becoming his executive assistant in Washington DC. In 1996 Gibbs moved back to Alabama to work on Browders Senatorial campaign, which was unsuccessful. In 1997, 1998 and 1999 Gibbs worked on a different campaign during each of these three years. Then during the 2000 elections, Gibbs worked on Senator Debbie Stabenow’s senate run. According to WhoRunsGov. Com, Stabinow’s unexpected win brought Gibbs to the attention of Jim Jordan, the then executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Gibbs was then hired to help with the 2002 elections.

In 2003 Jordan was now working on the Kerry campaign and hired Gibbs to be Kerry’s press secretary. But in November 2003 Gibbs quit in protest after Kerry fired Gibb’s mentor Jim Jordon. Yet Gibbs continued to support Kerry’s run for the presidency. In fact, when Gibbs became the spokesman for a liberal advocacy group they launched a vindictive ad using pictures of Osama Bin Laden to attack Howard Dean’s foreign policy experience. This started Gibbs’ reputation as a man who would do whatever it takes to elect his man and maintain his employer’s reputation. Kerry eventually apologized to both Jordan and Gibbs but instead of returning to work for him, Gibbs joined the Obama team.

Robert Gibbs joined team Obama in mid April 2004 and eventually became Obama’s Senate Communications Director. Obama then choose Gibbs as his Senior Strategist for Communications and Message during Obama’s successful run for the 2008 presidency. In 2009 Robert Gibbs then became President Obama’s Press Secretary. As for his personal life, he is married to Mary, a VA attorney and they have one son.

That’s it. Very basic data that wouldn’t be fit even for a resume. Most of his bios don’t even tell you if he worked on winning or losing campaigns from 1997 to 2000! And about the only personal traits we can discern from this bio is that he seems to be a loner, not one who joins groups as he rarely joined any groups or clubs nor do we read of any religious affiliation. Yet he is extremely loyal to whomever he works for, almost to a fault, as he has a reputation of doing whatever it takes to help his man. So in spite of his soft southern accent Gibbs has been called ruthless, aggressive, pugnacious, manipulative and bad cop to Obama’s good cop.

There was one other factor which most bio’s mentioned – Gibbs’ relationship with Obama. Apparently the two men are very close friends. According to the NY Times, Gibbs is more than just a Press Secretary; he is also involved in strategy, politics and messages. I’ve read that he is called “Barack Whisperer” due to his closeness to the President and I’ve also read that he is called “The Enforcer” because of his rapid fire response to any derogatory remarks from the opposition. In addition to the counter attack strategy he has also been credited with the low number of leaks due to his tough management style.

So who is the man? Although his is the face we see each day we truly don’t know much about the man. What is he whispering to our president? What are his beliefs? What makes him tick? Maybe not knowing is what makes him the perfect Press Secretary. He is a blank page on which Obama writes his story and gives his messages.


PS – While proofing my material I discovered that Gibbs does have a brother based on a sentence discussing his mother in whorunsgov.com – “…she brought her two sons with her..” That is the only clue that there is a sibling although he might even be deceased by now. Who knows?

What's the Truth now, Al Gore?

As Washington DC is facing over 40 inches of snow in what will be its snowiest winter in recorded history, it seems like a good time to revisit global warming. The Drudge Report recently had a link to an article whose title caught my eye. This OpEd was written by columnist Margaret Wente of Canada’s The Globe and Mail which I have quoted or paraphrased extensively in the following. (The Bush quote and sarcasm, however, are all mine.) Oh yes, the name of the article? The Great Global Warming Collapse.

We all know about Climategate, the revelation about the emails on destroying, ignoring or manipulating data in order to support the global warming cause. Then there was the verdict that the tropical rain forests would be wiped out due to global warming. It turns out that the source of that claim, according to the Sunday Times of London, was an article by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a left wing environmental activist group. This wasn’t the first or last time that global warming claims are based on data from activists with little to no scientific proof.

In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the primary advocate and source on climate change, cautioned that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035. A spokesperson for the WWF warned of dire results if a deal isn’t struck in Copenhagen to save the Himalayan glaciers. It turns out, however, that the glacier report, along with many other global climate “studies”, was completely fraudulent. Yet again, UN IPCC based their findings not on any impartial scientific analysis but on articles written by World Wildlife Fund activists. No, really? What a surprise….

The head of the IPCC learned of this shortly before the Copenhagen summit but ignored it. There might be a reason why Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC head, dismissed any reports contradicting these claims. You see, he is also part of the Energy and Resource Unit division in New Delhi, which just happens to be the division that received millions in grants based on the premise of those melting glaciers in the Himalayan’s. Cosy arrangement, yes?

Eventually Pachauri retracted the claim regarding the Himalayan glacial meltdown, but he indicated that the error was an anomaly. He defended the IPCC saying that the attacks are political. But, as Wente wrote, the tide is definitely turning against Pachauri and global warming itself. Even Britain’s Greenpeace has called for Pachauri’s resignation and India is establishing its own group as they “cannot rely” on the IPCC. Ouch.

As the whole global warming foundation begins to crumble I can’t help but remember Al Gore’s famous statement: “The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative.”

Yet no one remembers this quote by then candidate Bush during a 2000 Presidential debate against Gore where Bush said: “Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.”

Although Bush defeated Gore in the election, Gore continued to win the debate on global warming. True to his word, over the past decade Gore and his global warming activists continued to silence any scientific debate which countered their stance on climate change. And anyone who questioned his views was labelled an obstructionist, a bad scientist and worse – a conservative right wing nut and some lost their grants and even their jobs by speaking against man made global warmth.

Now, however, in the face of all the damaging news that is beginning to surface, many climate scientists sense a sinking ship and are bailing out according to Wente. Some scientists and environmentalists are starting to admit that the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. One such scientist, Andrew Weaver, goes so far as to actually say that the climate body has crossed into the line of advocacy. No, really?

Wente concludes by saying that none of this is to say that global warming isn't real. But the strategy pursued by activists and the scientists desperate to prove global warming has turned out to be fatally flawed. By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. The first casualty was Copenhagen where amidst the growing scandals it was apparent even before the first meeting that Copenhagen was never going to produce any agreements. It was a dead end and yet another wasted trip by Obama.

“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” wrote Walter Russell Mead, a Kissinger senior fellow on the Council of Foreign Affairs and professor at Yale. “It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.” Or as Mr. Mead succinctly puts it in his blog on The American Interest: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” Yes!

(And I can't help but add that it may have taken ten years, but once again Bush has been proven right. Although this is probably too inconvenient of a truth for Al Gore to ever admit.)

Hasn't Got A Prayer

How hypocritical of the President to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast after not only shunning the National Day of Prayer last May but also never once stepping inside a church since his election! I still might have given him the benefit of the doubt if he had spoken a short prayer, as past Presidents have done. But no, this is President Obama, who with teleprompter in place gives, not a prayer, but a lecture.

I thought it telling that he began his lecture by stating that all Americans “of all faiths and no faith… share a recognition, one as old as time, that a willingness to believe, an openness to grace, a commitment to prayer can bring sustenance to our lives." Excuse me? How could someone of no faith have a commitment to prayer? And why are they even being mentioned at this National Prayer Breakfast? Let the unfaithful have their own day of unprayers, oh wait, they do, it’s called Earth Day.

After this past year in office, no one should be surprised that President Obama took a bi-partisan prayer meeting and used it as a platform to give yet another diatribe. During his speech, Obama seemed to be scolding his listeners as he once again came across as the superior, condescending professor who is frustrated that his “students” continue to dare to disagree with him. It was telling that the President and his group in DC concluded a few weeks ago that the problem with the health care bill wasn’t the bill itself but rather that they didn’t communicate the benefits of it to the public in spite of all the press conferences, townhall meetings and speeches on health care. Running underneath these conclusions is the darker belief that the American people are just too stupid to understand the bill or to appreciate why it is good for them. This would explain why Speaker of the House Pelosi arrogantly stated that she will do whatever is necessary to pass the health care bill because she knows what is best for us.

During his National Prayer Breakfast lecture Obama continuously scolded the listeners and asked for “a return to civility”. This reminded me of Rodney King’s plea of “can we all get along” but in Obama’s case it really means that the bad conservatives need to get along with the wonderful democrats who are doing God’s work, such as the health care plan. And it was hard to miss Obama’s meaning when he “urged leaders to be empowered by faith, to step outside their comfort zone to bridge divisions and unite around their common goals.” What common goal? Or perhaps I should ask whose common goals? He further talks about the “erosion of civility” which “poisons the well of public opinion” and “makes politics an all or nothing sport” and that our crisis, such as health care become “contests for power”. Duh. Politics is a contest for power and the only time someone complains about it is when they find themselves on the losing end!

Barack Obama also took a slight detour in his lecture and provided some interesting insight into the man we call our President. During his civility lesson 101 he stated ".. surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith or for that matter my citizenship.” Oh my. The birthers are a small fringe group and yet liberals seem to love to talk about them; although not sure if mentioning them during a lecture on civility and on everybody getting along is really appropriate. As for questioning Obama’s faith, well, of course we will, in fact he has made it easy for us. As I stated earlier, he skipped the National Day of Prayer last year and has yet to attend church since his Sundays with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So President Obama has given us cause to question his faith. Granted, I might be accused of being a similar hypocrite as I am a Christian who also hasn’t set foot in a church in years. Then again, I am not the President of the USA, who appears to turn his “faith” on and off as the situation requires.

Within all this talk of civility was another plea – to not question his motives. “Challenging each other’s ideas can renew our democracy but when we challenge each other’s motives it becomes harder to see what we hold in common.” Does he truly not get it? Americans thrive on challenging not just ideas and policies but the motives behind them. There has never been anything wrong in asking a politician “why is he doing something”. You can’t truly understand a person unless you understand his or her motive.

I wonder, though, if having his motives questioned has been a new and uncomfortable position for the president. He is no longer surrounded by people of similar motives nor is he the darling of the media any more. People actually are daring to question him. How uncivil! Instead of blindly agreeing, they are questioning his motives, his faith, and wondering if his goals are our goals.

Obama's decline in public opinion is due to the public beginning to realize that Obama’s actions are not matching up to his words. And you don’t resolve this by talking even more. Obama may give a great speech but we’ve stopped listening to what he says and are watching what he does instead. So yes we are starting to question him, no matter how uncivil it might seem.