Friday, February 19, 2010

Rolling My Eyes at Tiger Woods' Apology

So, Tiger Woods has made a public apology for committing adultery. Pardon me while I allow my eyes toi roll back into my head.

Woods owes no one any apologies for his private behavior except for his wife. His lack of adherence to his marriage vows is an entirely private and personal matter, not a professional one. He is a professional golfer and I can't imagine that upholding monogamy was part of his job description.

And he did not break the law; he merely violated a societal sacred cow. Indeed, I don't see real criminals, such as the Enron bunch, making public apologies to their stockholders and the general public, so why should Woods apologize to all and sundry for his infidelity. It's not as if he is married to the whole world.

And Woods mentioned getting "treatment", presumably for "sexual addiction". Give me a f'in break! Non-monogamy is not a mental disorder and I firmly believe that the notion of "sexual addiction" is a very flimsy category, based more on social mores, than science. We must remember that homosexuality was likewise considered to be a mental disorder until as recently as 1973.

"Sex addiction is one of those pop psychology diagnoses that has scant scientific support," Scott Lilienfeld, Associate Professor of Psychology at Emory UniversityLiveScience. and co-author of "50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology," told

Dr. Marty Klein, a Licensed Marriage & Family Counselor and Sex Therapist, believes that the notion of "sex addiction" is "a set of moral beliefs disguised as science" that assumes sex is dangerous. The examples he gave are: that sex should be within the context of a committed and monogamous heterosexual relationship, that masturbation should be confined to once a day, and that having sex to escape problems is unhealthy.

He pointed out that sex addiction has also been used as a political justification for censorship, eliminating sex education and birth control clinics and opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Tiger Woods' problem is his lack of honesty and failing to do as he promised to his wife, not his sexual behavior, per se. But in either instance, it's a private matter between the two of them and not any business of the public.


Thursday, February 11, 2010

Petty Distractions

Recently, people have been making fun of Sarah Palin for writing crib notes on her palm. I even heard of someone referring to what she did as a "Redneck Teleprompter". I have to roll my eyes at this, thinking it a ridiculous thing to criticize someone about.

Don't get me wrong; I am most assuredly no fan of Sarah Palin and would never consider voting for this woman.

But fair is fair, even for Sarah Palin. Who among us hasn't written down a phone number, directions, or something else on our hands one time or another? What's it to anyone else if she wanted to do this to help her remember?

There's no need to stoop so low to criticize her about such petty things, as there are many more glaring faults that we should be calling attention to in these years before the 2012 Republican nominations for president. To concentrate on such insignificant matters distracts us from what really matters and only ends up making us look petty.


Monday, February 8, 2010

Boortz on Ad Hominems

Thought I know it's not good for my blood pressure, I continue to listen to right-wing talk show host Neal Boortz, as part of my campaign of monitoring what the other side thinks.

Recently, he talked about a tasteless comment made by Keith Olbermann about Michelle Malkin, who called her a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." While I heartily dislike Malkin, I agree with Boortz that this was an uncalled-for ad hominem.

That being said, however, it's no worse than the ad hominems spewed every day by many of his right-wing colleagues.

I have no problems with Boortz pointing out this inappropriate comment. That's his opinion and he has every right to express it.

But what he said to a caller about this incident nearly made me choke, with both laughter and disbelief. He asserted to the caller that liberals (and liberals only) resort to ad hominems because they have no reasoned arguments to make and because liberals supposedly argue out of irrational emotion and not logic.

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me?

Does he think his listeners are stupid and/or have no memories or is he that self-deluded about his own behavior and that of his right wing cohorts?

This assertion is coming from a man who has referred to Hillary Clinton as as "evil" woman who "hates marriage and children" and "makes a mockery out of the institution of marriage". (Boortz has been divorced himself). His personal nickname for her is "the Hildebeast".

He once opined that former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) "looked like a ghetto slut". Referring to her hairstyle, he said, "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory," like "Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence," and like "a shih tzu."

In reference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he said, "When these Katrina so-called refugees were scattered about the country, it was just a glorified episode of putting out the garbage" and "I love talking to you about these Katrina refugees. I mean, so many of them have turned out to be complete bums, just debris." Boortz also described New Orleans as "a city of parasites, a city of people who could not and had no desire to fend for themselves."

He commonly refers to all fat people as "lardasses". He recently asserted that single mothers are "the biggest danger to America today" and refers to welfare mothers as "brood mares." I've heard him refer to southerners who have thick, country accents as "blithering idiots" and he's called those who work only 40 hours a week and/or live in a mobile home as "losers"

I could go on, but I think you get the picture..

Does any of this sound like rational, helpful debate to you? I didn't think so.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Mark Sanford: A Promise Not Made

Yesterday,Jenny Sanford's tell-all memoir was published. Sanford is the soon-to-be former wife of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who was recently outed as having gone AWOL from his post to visit his Argentinian mistress.

In the book she revealed that Mark Sanford did not vow to be faithful to her at their wedding. ABC reported:

Sanford recalls how she made the "leap of faith" to marry husband Gov. Mark Sanford even though the groom refused to promise to be faithful, insisting that the clause be removed from their wedding vows.

"It bothered me to some extent, but ... we were very young, we were in love ... I questioned it, but I got past it ... along with other doubts that I had."

This means that Sanford made it quite clear right up front that he either could not or would not be sexually exclusive with her, giving her the chance to back out of the wedding. Instead, she went ahead and married him, anyway.

It seems to me that she has little to complain about, considering he made his intentions quite clear years ago. It's not his fault that she didn't take him at his word. He would not promise to be faithful to her, so I don't see why she's so surprised now.

As a South Carolina resident, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not the man was monogamous. Rather, I'm more concerned that he went AWOL from his job for a week, leaving the country without letting anyone know where he was going, and not leaving anyone to "mind the store", so to speak.