Mickelson's Achievement

Phil Mickelson's impressive victory in the 2010 Masters deserves to appreciated on its merits without resorting to the moronic and intellectually lazy moralizing by some in sports media who seek to frame the performance as the struggle between good and evil: good, Mickelson the solid family man whose victory comes in a year where his wife and mother-in-law are battling cancer; and evil, the philandering Tiger Woods whose pursuit of Jack Nicklaus's majors record was rivaled only the bevy of whores that he bedded. As the Woods scandal so vividly illustrates, the general public does not really know these people and should be wary of conflating athletic achievement with character.

Weird Tiger Commercial

Don't know what to make of this Nike commercial that features an emotionless Tiger Woods staring at the camera and the voice of his late father Earl except to say that it's strange and bizarre. Nike, having invested heavily in Woods and one of the few sponsors to stay with him, would be expected to do what it could to salvage his image. But I am not sure this is the way to go.

Tiger's Interview

This is the text of Tiger Woods' interview with ESPN. And what is clear is that the control freak is resolute as ever in claiming that his transgressions are strictly a matter between he and his wife. It is curious that, despite being in therapy, he has never uttered the words "sexual addiction."

Tiger Returns

Tiger Woods announced that he will return to competitive golf in April in Augusta, Georgia at the Masters. This should not surprise anyone. Perhaps the one thing that surpasses his apparent obsession for bedding assorted 'hos and bimbos is the pursuit of Jack Nicklaus's hallowed record of 18 victories in majors. Augusta is not only a course where Woods has a history of success but more importantly it provides a controlled environment that will shield him from paparazzi and the tabloid and celebrity press. A perfect situation for a control freak trying to resurrect his tarnished image.

The Apology

The whole thing was a bit surreal. It was a rambling 14-minute scripted monologue running over with mea culpas for cheating on his wife and thus revealing to the world the fraudulent nature of a carefully crafted image of moral rectitude and solid family man. Woods appeared stiff, robotic, and obviously uncomfortable speaking to a pre-selected audience of friends, relatives, and supporters and a worldwide TV audience estimated to be in the millions. In what should be a matter between Woods and his wife, the cynic in me cannot help but think that this orchestrated event was in the main an attempt to refurbish the Tiger Woods brand, which has taken a tremendous battering in the last three months.

Tiger Speaks, Sort Of

Today Tiger Woods broke his silence, announcing that he will hold a press conference, which in reality is little more than an orchestrated event, on Friday presumably to address the sex scandal that has rendered one of the world's most famous public figures persona non grata since last November. If Woods believes he can quash or control the frenzied discussion surrounding his personal life in a controlled environment, he is in for a rude awakening. Nothing short of coming completely clean about the sordid details of his serialized marital infidelities will satiate the media and a public that feeds on this sort of thing.

Tiger Overkill

The New York Times columnist Frank Rich has dubbed Tiger Woods most deserving of the honor of person of the year. I don't buy Rich's conclusion because Tiger, after all is said and done, simply isn't that consequential figure. That said, I do agree with Rich's reasoning:

What makes the golfing superstar’s tale compelling, after all, is not that he’s another celebrity in trouble or another fallen athletic “role model” in a decade lousy with them. His scandal has nothing to tell us about race, and nothing new to say about hypocrisy. The conflict between Tiger’s picture-perfect family life and his marathon womanizing is the oldest of morality tales.

What’s striking instead is the exceptional, Enron-sized gap between this golfer’s public image as a paragon of businesslike discipline and focus and the maniacally reckless life we now know he led. What’s equally striking, if not shocking, is that the American establishment and news media — all of it, not just golf writers or celebrity tabloids — fell for the Woods myth as hard as any fan and actively helped sustain and enhance it.

People wanted to believe what they wanted to believe. Tiger’s off-the-links elusiveness was no more questioned than Enron’s impenetrable balance sheets, with their “special-purpose entities” named after “Star Wars” characters. Fortune magazine named Enron as America’s “most innovative company” six years in a row. In the January issue of Golf Digest, still on the stands, some of the best and most hardheaded writers in America offer “tips Obama can take from Tiger,” who is typically characterized as so without human frailties that he “never does anything that would make him look ridiculous.”

Tiger, Tiger

As Tiger Woods struggles with damage control in the wake of revelations about marital infidelities, several thoughts come to mind. We never really know the public figures we eagerly anoint as heroes and therefore should not be surprised when they come up short. Contrary to received opinion, athletic prowess should not be confused with character and values. And finally, in a rational society Woods' behavior would be regarded strictly as a private matter between he and his wife.

Tiger Woods, Jim Brown and Social Activism

Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon defends Tiger Woods from criticism leveled by former NFL football great Jim Brown that Woods has not done enough in addressing societal ills:

Tiger Woods may not want to be defended on this issue; he certainly didn't ask to be defended. But he's going to be, in this space anyway, because Jim Brown's recent comments to HBO that Tiger's social contributions are inadequate are way off base, even inaccurate. Just because Brown perhaps isn't aware of the depth and range of Tiger's contributions, or that they differ from his own social agenda doesn't mean Tiger is lacking a social conscience -- because he isn't.

Don't get me wrong, I've admired Brown's activism my entire adult life. One of the unforgettable experiences of my life came during the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, when Brown, through his determination, concern and sheer force of personality, persuaded gang members from the rival Crips and Bloods to call a truce to the violence and talk out their differences at Brown's Hollywood home.

But the battles must be fought on different grounds; surely Jim Brown knows this. Tiger has committed millions of dollars, some of the money raised and some of it donated out of his own pocket, to enriching the lives of kids who couldn't possibly find the help elsewhere.

I agree with Wilbon's assessment. Although I admire and respect Brown for his social activism, I believe his criticism of Woods is unfair because it fails to take into account that activism can take various forms. Woods, through his foundation, is making valuable contributions to the community and should be applauded for his efforts.