Tag Archives: politics

Tiger Barack

The recent revelation that Tiger Woods is as depraved as all the rest of us and the media’s obsession over it raises the question of why. Not why did Tiger Woods, who is a famous, rich, talented, attractive man with a sin nature, fall into adultery (when every other celebrity, sports figure and politician, it seems, has fallen into the same sin), but why is the media so fixated on it? Was it not so long ago that this same media was saying about another famous person, who lived in that white house in Washington, DC, and who was also caught in adulterous behavior… that everyone does such things and why were we making such a big deal about it?

There was an article Tuesday in The American Thinker by Lisa Schiffren entitled ‘Tiger, Barack, and the Law of Transitivity’ that sheds some light on the latest hysteria:

“We are interested because Tiger Woods, who may legitimately be the best golfer ever, had been turned into an all-purpose icon: a man of personal rectitude, a lovely smile, apparent openness; a family man, with a lovely wife and two adorable babies. And of course, he was our first living embodiment of the collective hope for racial reconciliation. Who knew that the early reports of his betrayed wife Elin swinging at him with a golf club constituted literal icon-smashing?

“We are staring because we’ve been had. Betrayed. We see now that the image was all a fraud. The talent was real. But the things that made the public like Tiger personally — the low-key demeanor, manners, and sweet smile of countless sports-page photos, magazine covers, political analogies, and most important, product endorsements, was an act.”

An act for ten years, according to Rush Limbaugh, who said on his show Tuesday that anyone high up in the golfing world knew these things about Tiger. Also that his personality is less than genteel and that some would even view him as arrogant.

Turns out Tiger is not so different from most people of prominence who have money, talent, attractiveness and the power — and temptations — that go with all that.

Schiffren continues:

“But it wasn’t just Woods’ act. The larger lesson here is about how much artifice — sustained, deliberate deception — goes into the construction of a public persona when there is profit to be made or power to be had.

“Jack Shafer, the Slate media columnist, spells out how this transpired. In the beginning, Shafer notes, Woods was your normal young, single, randy, skirt-chasing, heterosexual athlete. “Then, almost overnight, he became a golf phenom, and … for business reasons — Buick, Nike, Gatorade, Gillette, EA Sports, and Accenture being among them — Woods decided to exfoliate from his public image all things base, carnal, and even personal. The Tiger Woods that was constructed for corporate consumption was spotless and smooth, an edgeless brand easily peddled to sheikhs and shakers.”

And all this accomplished with the collusion of our media which is supposed to be reporting the truth and apparently isn’t much at all. The reporters who wanted access had to promise not to reveal the things they actually uncovered, but to go along with this elaborate and false construction.

When I read Hollywood Interrupted awhile back, the same thing was pointed out with regard to the various stars. Most of the stories you read about the stars, particularly in the more “respectable” publications, are going to be lies. It’s the same thing… if you want access you can only say what the star wants you to say (Rather like Anna’s first interview with that reporter who looks like a cross between Michael J. Fox and Tom Cruise on “V”). That accounts for why the interviewees are always saying that now that they’ve become parents (or gotten married or turned 40) it’s changed their lives. They love being a parent (or married or 40). It is the most fulfilling role they have every played, yada, yada, yada. The first few interviews I believed but when I kept reading the same stuff in all the interviews I began to wonder. And now, having read Hollywood Interrupted I don’t even read the interviews.

But I digress, because to me the other very interesting thing about Schiffren’s column was that she compared Tiger to President Obama. Who was a cipher before running for office, and pretty much still is.

I’ll let Schiffren say it:

“If I were watching the public’s disgust with the newly revealed Tiger Woods from an office in the West Wing, I’d be concerned. Because Barack Obama is about as completely manufactured a political character as this nation has seen. His meteoric rise, without the inconvenience of a public record or accomplishments, and the public’s willing suspension of critical evaluation of his resume allowed his handlers and the media to project whatever they wanted to on his unfurrowed brow.

Ironically, the parallels have nothing to do with race. The Obama campaign did explicitly attempt to borrow from the then-universal Tiger Woods appeal to allay any discomfort voters might have had with a mixed-race politician. They constructed a persona that would make the American electorate comfortable with a barely-known, first-term senator with a left wing voting record, a deliberately obscured personal and professional past, and no traditional qualifications for high office.”

She commented that while it doesn’t matter much if a great golfer turns out to be not as nice nor as moral as everyone made him out to be,

 “it matters a lot if the president is revealed to be an inexperienced, excessively ideological, and weak man who is naive about the world and uncomfortable exercising American power during a time of war. It matters if nothing in his training would have equipped the president to understand what it takes to stimulate job growth. It matters that he is uninterested in the science behind global warming — and wishes to use the issue to amass power and reorder society. It matters that he has no interest in the construction of policy…”

And all this, I think, is merely a fractal of a much greater deception going on in the world. For Satan has deceived the whole world — and that includes Christians. Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the atmosphere.” The cosmic (world) system is portrayed as offering all we could ever want or need to make us happy and fulfilled. We’re constantly being shown the good life, told how to think, what to want, what to do, the message confirmed with pictures of people like Tiger Woods, who seem to have it made.

Has it always been like this, or is it a product of our times? The result of unending news, advertisements and entertainment that all show us a world that doesn’t exist. Why do we keep searching for idols and icons and role models? Is it because we have all at some level rejected the only man who is qualified to be our idol and our role model? I speak of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only true celebrity. All the rest are depraved, with sick heads, deceitful hearts and not one bit of soundness in their flesh, from the top of their heads to the soles of their feet. Even Christians still wrestle with that wretched old nature. Our Lord is the only perfect man, the one who though He was rich for our sakes became poor. For our sakes set aside the exercise of his deity and took upon Himself the form of a man, submitting Himself to the obedience of a death on the cross. What other celebrity has ever done that for anyone?

 You can read the American Thinker article here.

The New Royalty

The other day I was reading an essay by Victor Davis Hanson wherein he addressed the question: Why do our wealthy, liberal elite love a tax-happy, environmentally-expensive Obama? “The Discreet Charm of the Left-wing Plutocracy”, posted 11/9/09 suggests it’s a number of things, more prominently penance and big money.

In the essay, he cites Al Gore, Michael Moore, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and others as the liberal elites, all of whom have a great deal of money and live like it. As Hanson pointed out, the billions Al Gore has made from his the carbon offsets business, designed to give hope to the fearful and to assuage the consciences of the guilty, fear and guilt being the result of his incessant sky is falling, global warming claims, have given him the ability to live a life quite at odds with the lifestyle he urges upon others. While we should be restricted to solar-powered, 1000 square foot homes, ride bicycles and take trains for longer journeys, Gore supports a mansion and a fleet of airplanes to jet him about the country. Michael Moore, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Sean Penn and the Kennedy Dynasty share similar contradictory lifestyles. As I read of their mansions, their limousines, their jets, their jewels and clothing, their nightlife and overall high level of living juxtaposed against a rhetoric that supposedly identifies them with the poor and downtrodden — all the while disdaining “commoners” like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plummer, it occurred to me that these people are America’s version of Old World royalty.

They do whatever they want, and regard it as a given that those who are under their rule should have no say. They only have to pay their taxes, or as in olden times, their tribute and their fealty. The new royalty, who live like kings and lords of old, are justified in doing so because they are so concerned with helping the little people, the unwashed masses they want nothing to do with in the practical. Thus, a king or lord had the right to use his money to build a bunch of expensive gardens, amass an expensive collection fine art produced by the artist his court has sponsored, to go about in gold-gilt carriages with an entourage of similarly outfitted “noblemen” and who of the serfs had any right to criticize. He is the king or the lord. They are serfs. They have no rights; they have only to pay what is due.

This is what our forefathers left England to escape. They came here to be free of confiscatory taxation, taxation without representation, deals cut out of the public eye, in the salons of the wealthy and the so-called noble. Our forefathers came here to build a new nation that was not beholden to royalty, where no man was considered better than another simply because of his birth. Kings were no better, no smarter, no more deserving of respect than commoners. All were equal before the law. So it was no wonder that our first President, George Washington refused to bow to foreign royalty, a tradition continued by all presidents which followed him. Except one.

If you’d like to read Hanson’s essay, it’s here.

Quote Of Note: Con Men and the Gullible

“Con men understand that their job is not to use facts to convince skeptics but to use words to help the gullible to believe what they want to believe.

“No message has been more welcomed by the gullible, in countries around the world, than the promise of something for nothing. 

 ~Thomas Sowell

(From his September 11, 2009  National Review Online article “Charlatan-in-Chief“)

Climate Change Denial

Oh brother!

I was just perusing the Drudge Report  and clicked on a link to an article from Reuters about the pyschological barriers that are preventing the American people from taking action on preventing climate change. “Psychological Barriers Hobble Climate Action,” shouts the headline.

But first, here’s a photo to get you in the mood to take action: Monument Valley. Looks pretty dry and hot doesn’t it? I think it was only in the upper 90’s when we drove through. Unlike Tucson which was 107 when we left…

Monument Valley 2

Yes, I’ve digressed a bit, but in so doing I’ve simulated the delay as I waited for the page to come up…

I started reading. Right off the article merely hinted as to what the barriers were (“insecurity, mistrust and denial”) before rushing to say that policy makers, scientists and marketers will need to look at these barriers in order to figure out how to circumvent them and persuade people to become more “urgent” about this matter. For some reason, even though scientists have warned people that unless they do something the sky is going to fall — Or burn up. Or evaporate. Or something — people remain relatively indifferent and non urgent. This is a travesty!

And then four paragraphs in it says this:

“Numerous psychological barriers are to blame, the task force found, including: uncertainty over climate change, mistrust of the messages about risk from scientists or government officials, denial that climate change is occurring or that it is related to human activity.”

So, uncertainty that climate change is real is a psychological barrier???

Doubt that the scientists’ and government’s warnings are legitimate is a psychological barrier? Disbelief that climate change is related to human activity? A psychological barrier?

Those aren’t psychological barriers but legitimate disagreements as to what the facts in the case are and what a reasonable conclusion based on those facts might be.

Are facts no longer relevant? Is truth no longer the issue? Is it all about marketing and presentation and “psychological barriers” to being persuaded?

Hmm. Why, yes, in some quarters I believe it is. And, oh look! They didn’t report the conclusion that climate change is not something humans can change as “doubt” but as “denial.”  As if the facts were already set in stone, it’s a wrap, all the evidence is in and supports anthropoecentric global warning and people are just deliberately turning a blind eye.

When that’s not it at all. The evidence does nothing of the kind. More and more scientists from climate related fields are challenging AlGore’s theory with actual facts and evidence, and critiquing the faulty collection methods of some of the data he uses to support it.

For example, the temperatures gathered by weather stations in various locations — eg, Russia — that were irregularly manned and so the temps from one month (September) were just written in for the next month (October) which would not surprisingly raise the average for the year.

Even aside from this, the temperature fluctuations over the past decades don’t track at all with a rise in carbon dioxide (produced by plants, animals, humans, even the ground; to say nothing of volcanoes) but it does track very closely with sunspot activity, as I think I’ve blogged on before. There isn’t a whole lot we’re gonna do about altering sunspot activity.

So the people are starting to hear the other side of the story, the one with the facts. They’re starting to hear that a whole passel of scientists aren’t buying into the party line about man-caused global warming and naturally are beginning to doubt the whole thing, yet here they’re reported as being in “denial.”


How about another picture from Monument Valley? This time coming in from the north:

MV North web

Read the article: Psychological Barriers Hobble Climate Action

Independence Day

Driving home from the Y today, I was listening to Chris Baker, in for Glenn Beck on the radio, saying that he wasn’t in the mood for celebrating Independence Day because to him we are already sliding down the slippery slope to subjugation, tyranny and dependence.  I see it, too and it saddens me, so I thought I’d post a collection of things this year that seem significant.

First is a quote from Colonel R. B. Thieme, Jr, in his book,  Follow the Colors:

“The American War for Independence, erroneously known as the Revolutionary War, was not a revolution but a fight against tyranny based on the principles of the rights of the individual to protect his life, liberty and property…”

This is from the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And the following are selected Amendments from the Bill of Rights (emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10. I think in our day every one of these is being bent and challenged, if not outright broken. But it’s good to be reminded of the freedom our Constitution has guaranteed us for the last 230 years or so.

Given the hooplah about Michael Jackson’s death, the hold of the cult of celebrity has on our culture, particularly our young people, (I noted that a poll on top celebrity in the world named Barak Obama as #1, the first time a US President has ever held that position), given the sorry state of our nation’s public schooling, where not only discipline, self-control and the principle of self-induced misery (or suffering the consequences of one’s own bad decisions) have gone out with logic, reason, and the actual facts of history… was it that good of an idea to lower the vote to 18???

Maybe it wouldn’t matter. I kind of think it wouldn’t. The ailment our great nation suffers is not the result of people being too young, but people being too self-absorbed, too obsessed with their comforts, pleasures, games and personal goals to understand the actual issues or even wish to.