OT - Frank Rich's Person of the Year Commentary
ia...@notcox.net
commentator. His column yesterday about how the fall of Tiger Woods
symbolizes the kind of decade we have had far better than Ben Bernanke
ever could.
Once he starts listing all the public figures, institutions, and
corporations that have failed us in this bad decade, all you can do is
nod in agreement. We have had such a breakdown in public morality and
accountability.
Anyway, read it yourself - far better than my inartful summary:
Tiger Woods, Person of the Year -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/opinion/20rich.html?_r=2&hp
Ian
Mike Burke
wrote:
Once again, I find it hard to follow your reasoning (or Rich's for
that matter). For starters, he fails to understand that Time's
Person of the Year is not an "award" but simply a recogition that, in
their opinion, the individual concerned influenced the news in the
past year more than any other. On that basis, given the essentially
trivial nature of the Tiger Affair, it's hardly the stuff of serious
comment. It's just a flimsy excuse for Rich to pile onto Tiger Woods
and to do a bit of self-righteous moralising at his expense. Of
course, if the NT Times wants to continue its slide into the broadloid
wasteland, it should publish more such crap.
I take your point that it's typical of the moral bankruptcy of the
past decade or so. But so are many other much more relevant things.
For starters, it's different only in scale (and that only because of
Woods' greater opportunity) than Bill Clinton's serial womanising that
attracted the almost unanimous defence of irrelevance from the
American left - not least NOW, who could find nothing to criticise
about Clinton's blatantly unlawful behaviour. It's a bit precious,
and downright hypocritical, for the left now to criticise Woods who,
whatever else he might be, is a private citizen with no special duty
to comply with and defend any particular moral standard.
So colour me entirely unimpressed with the idea that Tiger Woods
betrayed anyone other than himself and his family.
Mique
Mike Burke
>I admire Frank Rich's columns very much, and think he is one insightful
Further to my previous response, if you want a dispassionate and from
what I can tell from other reading on the subject, a politically
neutral summation on what is probably the most significant breakdown
in public morality and accountability in our lifetime, check this out
here:
Part 1: http://tinyurl.com/yksjc2x
Part 2: http://tinyurl.com/ybsck4u
Now that's a real scandal.
Mique
Wes Struebing
wrote:
<snip>
>
>So colour me entirely unimpressed with the idea that Tiger Woods
>betrayed anyone other than himself and his family.
>
Thank you, Mique. And, ultimately, who the heck cares in the grand
scheme of things?
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
ia...@notcox.net
I have no beef with Tiger Woods. I do think that the rash of failures of
public figures, institutions, and those who should be holding them
accountable is worth noticing.
Ian
Joan in GB-W
"Mike Burke" <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:ake0j5lvoklion253...@4ax.com...
snip
> For starters, it's different only in scale (and that only because of
> Woods' greater opportunity) than Bill Clinton's serial womanising that
> attracted the almost unanimous defence of irrelevance from the
> American left - not least NOW, who could find nothing to criticise
> about Clinton's blatantly unlawful behaviour. >
snip
> Mique
This liberal was very disappointed (make that mad) at Clinton after his
escapades in the Oval Office. I did, in fact, remove a picture I had taken
of him at a rally in Wisconsin from my wall and returned my picture of Bobby
Kennedy to that spot. His actions in the Oval Office (cigar pushed in and
out of her . . .) He received no defense from me. Damn him for his
stupidity. (And Tiger, too.) I hate it when women are objects for powerful
men.
Joan
Lynn Allen
> He received no defense from me. Damn him for his stupidity. (And
> Tiger, too.) I hate it when women are objects for powerful men.
Interesting. My take was that he was an object for her, and he took
what was offered. They both got something they wanted, and there's no
more equal transaction than that.
Of course, he was both married *and* stupid. She was just stupid.
I see people who undertake such stupidity as a variant of humanity to
whom sex is *wayyyyy* more important than it is to me. I see it, but I
don't feel it. Like people who kill for money, or people who lie for
no reason, I recognize they exist, but it's not in my wiring to
completely understand them.
--
--
Lymaree
http://www.skepticaljurorblog.blogspot.com/
Stanley Moore
"Joan in GB-W" <jjk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7peus3...@mid.individual.net...
But the women bear some of the rfault as well. Guys like President Clinton,
Tiger Woods, Kenny CHesney and other celebrities are pursued by all the
women they could want. They have to beat them off with a stick to use an old
expression. Not that it is an excuse for bad behavior but when the
temptation is there sometimes it's hard to resist. The women knew these were
married men. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Stanley Moore
I agree. I would much rather blame the media driven cult of celebrity that
so many have fallen into, It's fine to admire the athletic explotis of guys
like Tiger Woods, Michael Vick and others. But to pursue them into their
private lives is crazy. True, Vick commited crimes and these activities fall
into the public arena but Teger is just an adulterer very like millions of
men (and women) the world over.
I would also blame the modern propensity to idolize athletes and actors and
other entertainers during the good times then pounce with glee when they
prove to have feet of clay like we all do. The excited relish, drooling
fascination over someone;s personal tragedy is disgusting to me. If we as a
culture didn't put these guys on a pedestal we wouldn't be so interested
when they come down from there.
PS, a pet peeve of mine is shown in the artilce where Frank Rich claims the
end of a dreadful decade. We have one more year to go in this decade which
doesn't end until December 31, 2010.
A R Pickett
Agreed. If feminism means anything at all, and if the struggles women of my
generation endured a couple of generations ago count for anything, I see it
as a step backward to regard the women in these situations as victims. They
have the ability to stay out of trouble. (as do the men, it goes without
saying) I don't see any of them, at least in these highly publicized
situations like Woods and Clinton, as being victims. they had no jobs on
the line. they wanted contact and proximity to the limelight. Well, they
got it. That may be harsh, but that's my two cents.
--
A R Pickett aka Woodstock
"It's bad luck to be superstitious"
Paul Phillips, Colorado Rockies catcher
Read my book reviews at:
http://www.booksnbytes.com/reviews/_idx_ws_all_byauth.html
Now blogging!
http://www.journalscape.com/woodstock/
Remove lower case "e" to respond
Jim Gysin
Stanley Moore sent the following on 12/29/2009 2:31 PM:
I just wanted to see all of this again, as I agree with it all
wholeheartedly.
> PS, a pet peeve of mine is shown in the artilce where Frank Rich claims the
> end of a dreadful decade. We have one more year to go in this decade which
> doesn't end until December 31, 2010.
And you were doing so well until now. :)
So... did/do you consider 1970 to have been a part of the '60s? Someone
born on, say April 10, 1970 was born in the '60s? IMO, it makes far
more sense to think of a calendar decade as going from '00 through '09
even as we think of certain other numerical periods of ten as going from
01 to 10.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Chris F.A. Johnson
But there was no year 0. Therefore we either count the first decade
as 9 years, 1-9, and all subsequent decades as 0-9, or, more
logically, the first decade was 1-10 and subsequent ones ...1-..10
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com>
Author: =======================
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jim Gysin
A R Pickett sent the following on 12/30/2009 6:19 AM:
> Stanley wrote in part - > But the women bear some of the fault as well.
>
> Agreed. If feminism means anything at all, and if the struggles women of my
> generation endured a couple of generations ago count for anything, I see it
> as a step backward to regard the women in these situations as victims.
I haven't been following this closely, as I don't idolize anyone enough
to care about their private lives and I get disgusted by those who live
to see others fail or fall. But are there really people out there who
see these women as victims? I could see it if Tiger wasn't famous *and*
famously married, but given the realities, I can come up with no reason
whatsoever to see *any* of these women as victims.
From my limited exposure to the story, the only victim would seem to be
Tiger's wife, and it's appearing more and more as if her abusive
reaction (almost reaching attempted murder/crime of passion status) also
makes *Tiger* a victim of another sort. In fact, it stopped being funny
for me when recent headlines suggested that it was far more than a case
of a bloody lip. If it actually required surgery to fix the damage...
Stanley Moore
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:hhfvd3$vfm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes indeed. 1970 was the last year of the 60s decade. It is the same issue
with centuries. all the years beginning with 19-- were part of the 20th
century as was the year 2000. We are now in the 21st century. Take care
Lynn Allen
>> So... did/do you consider 1970 to have been a part of the '60s? Someone
>> born on, say April 10, 1970 was born in the '60s? IMO, it makes far
>> more sense to think of a calendar decade as going from '00 through '09
>> even as we think of certain other numerical periods of ten as going from
>> 01 to 10.
>
> But there was no year 0. Therefore we either count the first decade
> as 9 years, 1-9, and all subsequent decades as 0-9, or, more
> logically, the first decade was 1-10 and subsequent ones ...1-..10
This has nothing to do with what decade (a named, cohesive entity that
we use to identify an era in our society) a year belongs to. Jim is
right in that sense, if not the techical sense. 1970 belonged to the
70s, not the 1960s, as a social construct.
The technical date/decade/century/millenia thing is fine if you want to
go the "There was no year 0" route. Technically, yes. Naming-wise, nope.
2010 will belong to the Teens, just as 2000 belonged to the Noughties.
(my personal favorite way to refer to the era of 2000-2009) 2000 did
NOT belong to the 90s.
No matter what the anal-retentive types say.
Pogonip
>
> But there was no year 0. Therefore we either count the first decade
> as 9 years, 1-9, and all subsequent decades as 0-9, or, more
> logically, the first decade was 1-10 and subsequent ones ...1-..10
>
>
There was no year "1" either. Or 2, 3, 4, etc. until the PTB decided to
make a new calendar and start with a date they picked out of the air as
being the one in which their messiah was believed to have been born.
It's all an artificial construct.
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
David Johnston
<smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>PS, a pet peeve of mine is shown in the artilce where Frank Rich claims the
>end of a dreadful decade. We have one more year to go in this decade which
>doesn't end until December 31, 2010.
How did you determine when "this decade" started? After all, any
group of 10 years is a decade.
Chris F.A. Johnson
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> But there was no year 0. Therefore we either count the first decade
>> as 9 years, 1-9, and all subsequent decades as 0-9, or, more
>> logically, the first decade was 1-10 and subsequent ones ...1-..10
>
> There was no year "1" either.
There was a year that is now called '1'. There is no year called
'0' (except by astronomers).
> Or 2, 3, 4, etc. until the PTB decided to
> make a new calendar and start with a date they picked out of the air as
> being the one in which their messiah was believed to have been born.
> It's all an artificial construct.
--
Stanley Moore
"Pogonip" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:4b3b...@news.bnb-lp.com...
I believe New Years was celebrated on the Feast of the Assumption sometime
in April for many centuries until the Gregorian calendar picked January 1.
Jim Gysin
Chris F.A. Johnson sent the following on 12/30/2009 10:38 AM:
Either we bite the bullet and accept one and only one nine-year period
(we don't even have to call it a decade, frankly) and go with calendar
decades after that, or we have one year out of every ten that sticks out
like a sore thumb forever and ever and ever. I'd rather go the
one-and-done route than have to accept 1960 as part of the '50s, 1970 as
part of the '60s, etc.
Jim Gysin
Stanley Moore sent the following on 12/30/2009 12:25 PM:
Surely you see the inherent silliness of that approach. Furthermore, a
decade is *any* period of ten; it can be 0-9 or 1-10 or even 2-11, for
that matter. There's simply no law that says that a "decade" has to end
with a zero.
> It is the same issue
> with centuries. all the years beginning with 19-- were part of the 20th
> century as was the year 2000. We are now in the 21st century. Take care
That could have been avoided, too. First, we kill all of the pedants. :)
Jim Gysin
Mike Burke sent the following on 12/30/2009 5:23 PM:
You rebel. :)
>> IMO, it makes far
>> more sense to think of a calendar decade as going from '00 through '09
>> even as we think of certain other numerical periods of ten as going from
>> 01 to 10.
>
> Nah. :-)
>
> Mique
> (who really doesn't think we should start this potayto/potahto
> argument again for another 990 years)
Where's the fun in that?
Joan in GB-W
Yep. Well said.
Joan
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>
>Stanley Moore sent the following on 12/29/2009 2:31 PM:
<snip>
>> PS, a pet peeve of mine is shown in the artilce where Frank Rich claims the
>> end of a dreadful decade. We have one more year to go in this decade which
>> doesn't end until December 31, 2010.
>
>And you were doing so well until now. :)
>
>So... did/do you consider 1970 to have been a part of the '60s? Someone
>born on, say April 10, 1970 was born in the '60s? IMO, it makes far
>more sense to think of a calendar decade as going from '00 through '09
>even as we think of certain other numerical periods of ten as going from
>01 to 10.
Indeed, Jim. Think of your birthday when figuring decades (I know,
since millennia don't end this way, why should decades? but...). When
you're one year old, you're actually starting your second year. So,
when the decade year is 0, you're "in your first year"...
Nothing like consistency...
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:35:53 -0800, Lynn Allen
><ly...@NOT-semiotics.com> wrote:
>
>>2010 will belong to the Teens, just as 2000 belonged to the Noughties.
>>(my personal favorite way to refer to the era of 2000-2009) 2000 did
>>NOT belong to the 90s.
>>
>>No matter what the anal-retentive types say.
>
>Bah! Humbug!
>
>Mique
>(Acting Assistant Deputy Vice-(anal retentive)Pedant-In-Residence)
Deal! <grinning hugely - Happy New Year, Mique!>
ia...@notcox.net
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:23:15 -0600, Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> It is the same issue
>>> with centuries. all the years beginning with 19-- were part of the 20th
>>> century as was the year 2000. We are now in the 21st century. Take care
>> That could have been avoided, too. First, we kill all of the pedants. :)
>
>
> Mique
Didn't "Seinfeld" have a whole episode based on this?