Sometimes, being "had" matters

Is the subject of whether I feel "had" by Tiger Woods even worth a post?

I don't know.

For the life of me, I just don't feel part of a growing chorus of angry "we's" who do feel -- very strongly -- they they have been "had." (Apparently, there is a sense that by betraying his wedding vows as promiscuously as he did, the man betrayed the people who believed that he would never do something like that.)

While I never gave it much thought, I always liked Tiger Woods, simply because he appears to be a pleasant fellow. I don't watch golf, though, so I am in no position to comment on his abilities or skill, and all I know is that he's one of the greatest golfers in history. I never followed his personal life, which interests me about as much as would the personal lives of the nation's top bowlers.

So I really can't claim that I was "had." If I idolized him as a fan, and if I had read and believed that Tiger Woods led an idyllic life as a devoted family man, maybe that I'd feel differently. But even so, how much would having been "had" in this manner really matter?

There's a lot of clucking going on (mostly by MSM types) about how the media didn't do their job, despite longstanding evidence of Tiger's womanizing. And some conservatives are drawing analogies between being had by Tiger Woods and had by Barack Obama.

Except there's a major difference. Tiger Woods is one of the nation's greatest golfers. His sex life may cause his fans to feel betrayed (and it obviously hurt his family), but nothing can change his accomplishments in his sport.

Falsely posing as a happily married family man with media assistance did not get Woods elected as a top-ranked golfer, and cheating on a wife is not cheating at golf. So the question of whether his fans were "had" (whether by him or his media supporters) is at best inconsequential.

I agree with Glenn that there's a more important question.

How long before we hear "we were all had" about Barack Obama?

MORE: I should add that I feel a lot more "had" by Andrew Sullivan than by Tiger Woods, and that is because like Ann Althouse, I always assumed that whether I agreed with him or not, at least he was who he was. So far as I know at least, Tiger Woods is still Tiger Woods.

Seriously, what is the world coming to when Andrew Sullivan is not even Andrew Sullivan?

It really hurts to be had by someone you thought you knew but never knew, because he wasn't even the guy you didn't know but thought you knew.

posted by Eric on 12.19.09 at 11:49 AM


Bravo. I don't feel betrayed by Tiger Woods because (1) I don't feel his home life has anything to do with his skills as the world's top golfer and (2) I wasn't planning on buying any products he was endorsing (Buick, some really over-priced line of watches whose Teutonic name I will not even try to spell), regardless of whether he was the celebrity endorser. What? Suddenly Buick's are lousy cars because Tiger likes all-blonde sex orgies? Hey, Buicks would be lousy even if Tiger were chaste.

Of course, I don't feel "betrayed" by Obama either. Obama has revealed himself to be precisely who I expected him to be. No betrayal there.

Rhodium Heart   ·  December 19, 2009 1:36 PM

Tiger will lose a lot of advertising income, as a consequence of the general public now becoming aware that his image is far from reality. Those in the know have been aware of the gap between Tiger's image and his reality for quite a while -see the links. I will not cry over his loss of advertising income.

He is not the first "larger than life" athlete to be sexually promiscuous. Consider Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson. I admire Babe Ruth for being the greatest baseball player ever, even if he played most of his career for the Evil Empire. Wilt was a great player. I also admire Magic Johnson for his business acumen after he retired, even if he was a Laker. I realized that Magic was a rather bright, self aware person when I read an article on what NBA players would have done had they not played in the NBA. Most said they would have become an MD or a lawyer. Yeah, right. Magic said he would have worked the line at GM, like his father. No fool, that Magic Johnson.

I don't feel betrayed by Tiger. I bought nothing as a consequence of his ad exposure. He remains the best golfer of the last 15 years. I admired the speech he gave during the Inauguration festivities, honoring the military.

Regarding the intrusiveness of the press: this came with the territory of raking in all that advertising income,of keeping his name in front of the public.Tiger figured he could keep playing the double game indefinitely, keep wifey under control and keep raking in all those megabucks in ad income.

Maybe now he will just play golf and earn the description of the best all time.

Anonymous   ·  December 19, 2009 6:03 PM

Sports players, actors, entertainers of any sort. They don't disappoint me because I don't consider them to be of any consequence. Tiger is known for being really good at a game. Whacking a little ball into a hole a couple hundred yards away. Okay. Yes I know it's hard and no, I can't do it. It still has zero importance to the universe.

Entertainers do whatever they do to amuse people and pass the time. Good for them. Beyond that........

I suppose I have something of a visceral aversion to celebrities because many seem to believe that their fame gives them or their opinions weight and importance.

Mike   ·  December 20, 2009 9:03 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits