Posted on 12/25/2009 4:47:14 AM PST by Kaslin
The transgression of a celebrity can be worth a thousand sermons. A lot of the gossip on the Internet and in the tabloids is cheap and irresponsible, but accurate dishing on the failures of the rich and famous usually has a bracing effect on society.
No longer are the prudes limited to the pulpit, the classroom or the dinner table. The young as well as the old find instruction in the consequences of the behavior of Tiger Woods. It's impossible not to feel his pain of a suddenly lonely life, of golfing on the driving range at night, before supping on cold cereal. Nobody appointed Tiger a role model, but he enjoyed fame and glamour as the refreshing antidote to the bad boy athletes high on steroids and ego. He enjoyed his carefully cultivated family-man image.
Santa knows who's been naughty and who's been nice, but even Santa would find it hard to find out who's been a hypocrite. Hypocrisy, as depicted in the Middle Ages, is invisible to all but God. The hypocrite has been depicted as both the archer and the mark. Mastery in sport or work does not necessarily translate into mastery of the self.
With only a touch of irony, columnist Frank Rich observes in The New York Times that Tiger ought be Time's Man of the Year because he's emblematic of America's ability to mythologize heroes (and leaders) while avoiding even a fleeting skepticism of what's beneath the surface of our personal biases. This observation is less about morality than about habits of mind forged on the left and the right by political spin.
"Though the American left and right don't agree on much, they are both now coalescing around the suspicion that Barack Obama's brilliant presidential campaign was as hollow as Tiger's public image -- a marketing scam designed to camouflage either his covert anti-American radicalism (as the right sees it), or spineless timidity (as the left sees it)."
The analogy is inexact because Obama's political contradictions have never gone unnoticed. They were all a matter of public record and have been amply scrutinized by his critics. He was never in hiding from either the left or the right. The right was quick to pick up on his relationship with William Ayers, the unrepentant leader of the radical and violent Weather Underground.
Even though he was not exactly a savory acquaintance for a man with presidential ambitions, Obama never seemed to see anything wrong with the connection. He didn't seem to understand what everyone else saw as unsavory in his having sat in the pew to listen to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's profane and racist rants over two decades.
The left was aware of Obama's timidity in his early campaigning for the White House and was never quite sure that he was one of them. What they knew was he could be a winner.
The contradictions the voters see in Obama now were real, not the work of spinmeisters. They were tied together by the president's narcissistic belief in himself, which he imagined transcended politics. His prolific use of the personal pronoun bears this out. He believes in his own sincerity. For a while, we did, too.
"Every man alone is sincere," wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson. "At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins." Before his entrance into the major leagues, the president was virtually a man alone on a private stage. When his audience grew larger, he still believed he could end the rancor in Washington and inspire a new bipartisanship. But sincerity moved to hypocrisy when that stage got crowded, and he was called on to deliver satisfactory answers to an unmanageable audience. Smooth rhetoric covers a multitude of rough edges until the rhetoric must produce legislation.
During the campaign, John McCain demonstrated a much greater understanding of Washington than his unseasoned opponent did, but experience didn't count for much in 2008. When the economy crashed and McCain suggested calling off a scheduled debate to stay in Washington to study what to do about it, he was mocked for lacking leadership. At the least he showed that he knew what he didn't know. Barack Obama still hasn't learned that.
The polls now show that Americans no longer believe the president's rhetoric over health care. The president's approval ratings continue to tank. Left, right and independent men and women are dismayed. Only he sounds like a true believer in himself, that he's delivering what's good for us.
Describing ObamaCare as genuine reform, he told us "the American people will have the (health care) they deserve ... ." A cynic would say he's right about that.
Notice Sarah Palin thinks enough of America to issue a personal Christmas message, which is obviously genuine and heartfelt. We STILL no very little about Obama’s, other than it must be kept away from the public. I wonder why-?
Good ole Tiger really screwed up his life
Somebody said,” Character is what you do when nobody’s looking”, or words to that effect. Few measure up.
Christians travel to family for Christmas; they don’t go on
vacation.
“...it’s impossible not to feel his pain...” Oh, please, I don’t feel a bit of it. Tiger Woods in the role of Mr. Perfect was a creature of the media. He had skill in knocking a ball into a hole, and that was it. Otherwise, he was a manipulating jerk.
We have in the White House another Mr. Perfect, crafted by the media, who is also being revealed as a manipulating jerk.
On another thread today, another Freeper posted these words:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels
Decades of censorship of the ideas of liberty underlying our Declaration of Independence and Constitution have not appropriately prepared us for recognizing the face of tyranny as it approaches. The Founders of our Republic expected that citizens would be so trained in the foundations of their liberty that they would be able to make the distinction between liberty and tyranny and decide for liberty under a "We, the People's" Constitution.
Future generations will either enjoy freedom or live under the rule of people like those who head our Congress, Senate, and Administration.
Serious question: why was Woods a manipulating jerk?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.