December 19, 2009
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
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood