It's good to be the Tiger

If he would go to sit on Oprah's talkshow and tell her under distress and with
a few tears that he's an sex addict, and that he will seek help from a therapist
and God (of course) and will ask for forgiveness and be at the mercy of Oprah's
audience in the studio and watching, then America will forgive him.
As long as he's in therapy now and believes in God!

I, for one, coud not possibly care less than I do about him,
nor have I any desire to spy on him.

For sure, it 's none of my business.

I don't get it, why is this all about oprah?

If she was mentioned in the early part of the thread I'd have never spent all that time transferring an article no one looked at. Wait, Soozoo did.

If there’s been a consistent narrative to this year and every other in this decade, it’s that most of us, Bernanke included, have been so easily bamboozled. The men who played us for suckers, whether at Citigroup or Fannie Mae, at the White House or Ted Haggard’s megachurch, are the real movers and shakers of this century’s history so far. That’s why the obvious person of the year is Tiger Woods. His sham beatific image, questioned by almost no one until it collapsed, is nothing if not the farcical reductio ad absurdum of the decade’s flimflams, from the cancerous (the subprime mortgage) to the inane (balloon boy).

As of Friday, the Tiger saga had appeared on 20 consecutive New York Post covers. For The Post, his calamity has become as big a story as 9/11. And the paper may well have it right. We’ve rarely questioned our assumption that 9/11, “the day that changed everything,” was the decade’s defining event. But in retrospect it may not have been. A con like Tiger’s may be more typical of our time than a one-off domestic terrorist attack, however devastating.

Tiger Woods: about a boy
SALLY JENKINS
January 2, 2010
.
.
.


Woods himself has invoked ''privacy'' time and again in his carefully crafted statements. But he and his overprotective pals are trying to sell us secrecy as privacy. He has a right to privacy, but what he did was lead a secret life, and that's what the tabloids are preying on so relentlessly. A violation of privacy is merely embarrassing. It's the violation of his secrecy that's destroyed his public persona. Big difference. The reason the story has been so engulfing is because of the sheer size of the gap between Woods' public image and his secret conduct.

Looking back over the last few years, it's easy to see how Woods arrived at this point. He has never dealt straightforwardly with his failings. The first sign of trouble was in a GQ article in 1997 by Charles Pierce, a portrait of a chilly, entitled prince who complained about photo sessions and uttered vulgarities. Instead of confessing to tastelessness and bad judgment, Woods issued one of those calibrated formal statements that deflected responsibility. It wasn't his fault; it was Pierce's fault for quoting him.

The Woods who has emerged in the past few weeks doesn't seem to have matured much since. He seems to have simply graduated from lewd jokes to lewd behaviour. While his public persona grew up, he never did.