Prudence and Charity

 | 

A theme throughout this post is prudence (and the possible lack of it this particular case).

In the recent weeks, I have moved and taken a new position at a university library. I won’t say where, because as you have almost certainly read at least once, there have been cases of faculty and staff at institutes of “higher learning” losing their jobs because of opinions they posted on private blogs.

Furthermore, as I have not yet established Internet access at my apartment, the only place I can post is… at the university. I very much understand the potential risk this involves, especially since I often prefer to write and save my writings in Notepad or Word rather than directly in WordPress.

Even more than the above, however, is the fact that I read the campus newspaper.

When I was a college student myself, I wrote into and for my alma mater’s paper, starting with the occasional commentary and ending with a weekly column. On more than one occasion, what I wrote was a response to someone else’s opinion, giving my thoughts as to why, well, that person might not be thinking as clearly as he should. It had even been hinted to me that I seemed to have a personal grudge against one particular writer. (While the erstwhile editor — and current friend — did and still does joke about it, a professor also mentioned that fact to me while I was there.)

Now, as a staff member and “servant” to the students, it would be imprudent (see?) to write the same type of responses I would have as a student. In fact, it probably is advisable for me to leave the campus newspaper editorial section to the students from now on.

Yet, I am an opinion writer, I do have opinions, and occasionally I run into something that fires me up so much, thoughts run through my head and my fingers seem to desperately need to take to a keyboard to get them out.

Though I still realize that while this is the case, unlike when I write about articles posted on Yahoo! News or even letters to the editor in local newspapers, linking to and quoting anything from the newspaper at the campus I’m on is less than the best idea. So as much as I want you to read the exact column and particular quotes that raised my ire, I know I shouldn’t. Hence, paraphrasing is about as good as I can do for you, which is disappointing, to say the least.

But again, sometimes I simply have to write.

Read the rest of this entry »

  

An opinion on Tiger? Ooh, ooh, me too!

 | 

I kind of loathe to be like everyone else and write something on Tiger Woods, but there are a couple of things that are sticking in my mind.

First, I read the All-Tiger version of The Sports Guy’s reader mailbag and saw a letter that listed lessons from “Cheating 101,” the first two being “Never say your own name on an answering machine” and “Never leave a message on an answering machine that’s longer than four words.” Sure, those make sense.

But something else crossed my mind. Part of the reason Tiger was caught by his (very likely soon-to-be) ex-wife was allegedly because she found one of the mistresses phone numbers on his phone.

This leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. He’s Tiger Woods, and between golf and endorsements, he is filthy effing rich. Why didn’t he have a second — and separate — cell number for his other women?

I’m not condoning what Tiger did. But if you’re going to rob a bank, don’t get caught because you dropped your wallet.

Second, now that it looks like Tiger and Elin will be parting ways, I wonder if Tiger can ever truly be in a loving marriage again, because he has a problem that few other men would have.

If your average man cheats, he can move to another city or town, grow or shave facial hair, buy a different car; in other words, he can fairly easily escape his old image and his old wife or girlfriend.

Who doesn’t know Tiger Woods?

It may have been one thing if there was just one other woman. As far as I know, if that were the case, Tiger and Elin could have made some sort of amends. But multiple mistresses is something else completely.

Sure, Tiger could get married again, because there will be some woman who will marry him, if for no other reasons than money and/or the fact that she would be (the second) Mrs. Tiger Woods. But wouldn’t any other woman who marries Tiger have in the back of her mind that she may just be one of many, even if he did confess in front of The Great Redeemer (no, not him, Oprah)?

Honestly, I do feel sorry for Tiger, because I would be willing to wager he never imagined what has happened to him and his popularity. Then again, he has no one to blame but himself.

  

Infidelity

 | 

Mark Sanford. David Letterman. And now Tiger Woods. 2009 seems to be “The Year of the Cheat”, doesn’t it? Well, no; after all, extramarital affairs are certainly nothing new, it’s just that three of the men caught were a governor, a late-night talk show host and a world-famous athlete, and with today’s media, we all know about it.

In listening to some of the myriad coverage of the Tiger Woods scenario on local sports radio, one of the hosts mentioned his wife asked him a pretty blunt question: “Why can’t men keep it in their pants?” In my mind, I’d say that’s a fair if over-generalized question. It just doesn’t have a simple answer.

Most people with any concept of romance knows what cheating is, but I’m going to define it anyway, at least vaguely: Cheating is when a partner in a romantic relationship has a sexual encounter with another person without the permission of the other. (Whatever you may think of the last qualifier, it is necessary as there are open relationships despite whatever restrictions whatever deity is said to have.)

So why do some men cheat?

I don’t know if the idea of monogamy predates religion or not, but it is certainly perpetuated and expected in part because of it. And as the main religious base of American society is rooted in the Abrahamic traditions, it is worth noting that at the time of the founding of Judaism and Christianity, not only was Earth’s population in Biblical times was a small fraction of what it is today, but a trip of fifty miles — a daily commute for many — would have been rare and unlikely for most alive at those times and very slow by modern standards for those who could make such a journey.

In other words, the number of partners someone alive two thousand (or for that matter, two hundred) years ago one potentially could meet is minuscule compared to today. The more you move, the more likely you are to make find another person you really connect with, whether it is a platonic friend or a romantic partner. That is why whatever I thought of Governor Sanford’s infidelities, I do believe he felt — and probably to some degree still feels — an deep connections with both his Argentine mistress and his wife.

There is also that oft-quoted “fact” that men think of sex every five seconds. If it has any root in reality, it is that a man may not think of sex for stretches at a time, but eventually he will have moments when he gives in into some fantasy in his mind, possibly for a few seconds, perhaps longer. Eventually the frequency and/or duration of the thoughts will cause a man to make a physiological and most likely physical response. What that response might be varies, but most often they are ones that won’t land a man in divorce court (and yes, you can make some very educated — and likely very correct — guesses).

Intelligence doesn’t matter, money doesn’t matter, looks don’t matter, age doesn’t matter — as long as the man’s libido works, the more worked up he is about sex, the worse his brain works until he does something about it. Whether or not what, say, Letterman did was as “creepy” as he described it, he almost certainly didn’t think that at the time; if he did, “creepy” took a back seat to the thought of, well, relief.

There’s one other thing I’d like to bring to your attention: If you look at other species in nature, the idea of a single lifetime partner is not exactly common. That makes quite a bit of sense if you consider that the goal of reproduction is the continuation of the species. The best way of accomplishing that goal is by combining genetic material in as many different ways as possible. And when it comes down to it, humans are animals.

I would argue that monogamy is not a natural or logical state. Think of it this way: To expect someone to not find someone other than their partner attractive only because they are in a relationship is ridiculous. To say that one person couldn’t love two different people deeply is also foolish; many people have multiple close friends.

A man who remains monogamous does so because there is something he values more than the pleasure he would get from having sex outside his relationship. Maybe he treasures his wife’s or girlfriend’s love and knows how much he’d hate to lose it. Perhaps his religious convictions come into play and that he wouldn’t want to incur the displeasure of God. It could be that he simply doesn’t want to see half of his things and future paychecks going her way if he gets caught. Maybe he’s the type of man who remains loyal no matter what, whether it is to a partner, a friend, a sports team or a company. It’s possible he may realize the likelihood of his entire world crashing down on him; I can’t say. But if you think about it that way, the reason many men do keep it in their pants outside their relationships is just about the same as why many women who are committed decide to keep their pants on.

  

Book Review: “Driving Like Crazy” by P.J. O’Rourke

 | 

I have read two of P.J. O’Rourke’s books, Eat the Rich and Parliament of Whores. In reading them, one thing was abundantly clear about his political views: He does not like the left.

Hence, given that a former American automotive giant has recently become little more than a subsidiary of the federal government – and thus the American taxpayer – thanks to a Democrat President and Congress, a P.J. O’Rourke book entitled Driving Like Crazy (and furthermore subtitled Thirty Years of Vehicular Hell-bending Celebrating America the Way It’s Supposed to Be – With an Oil Well in Every Backyard, a Cadillac Escalade in Every Carport and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Mowing Our Lawn) promised to be interesting, to say the least.

There are indeed plenty of shots at both the Obama Administration and Congress. However, given the span of Driving Like Crazy, there are many more digs at figures like Carter, Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) and Al Gore as well as at liberals (the “Fun Suckers”) and liberalism in general.

I should admit I might be out of O’Rourke’s target audience in a couple of ways.

First, I am about half as old as he is currently, which is approximately the age O’Rourke was when he wrote his National Lampoon satire, the thoughts and author of which he takes to task in a sequel. It isn’t just his “neophyte self” he picks on; young people as a whole take a few verbal jabs throughout the book, though nothing like his political foes.

The other is partial function of my age, though much more relevant to reading the book. While I definitely like cars and appreciate a well-designed automobile, I am in no way a “car nut.” To prove my point: O’Rourke races a 1939 Chevrolet in the California Mille, which is a race I had never heard of prior to reading his book. Furthermore, the only thing I know about a ‘39 Chevy is that since it was manufactured between the two World Wars, it likely was made with about the same amount of metal as a Sherman tank.

Neither of those facts, however, stopped me from enjoying Driving Like Crazy.

O’Rourke believes that cars attract good people. A byproduct of this is that in the hands of O’Rourke, those people, among others, become interesting subjects. He contrasts the phoniness (as he saw it) of Los Angeles with the founder of Rent-A-Wreck, a man who supposedly would not deal with anyone, employee or customer, who didn’t seem like fun. A trip through Pakistan and India during the extreme heat of summer becomes an experience worth having because of journalist colleagues with great senses of humor, equally great driving skills and a vehicle that apparently can sell itself.

There are a couple of moments where a reader may weigh the book’s level of harmless middle-age male sport versus that of unnecessary mischief. O’Rourke and a companion took a poor, unassuming French journalist through some of the parts of America that would not appear in your typical travel guide. There is also a series of waitresses – they’d be servers now, but at the time of the story, they’re still waitresses – who had to put up with the antics of four overly cranky motorcycle riders. Some may call both “hijinks.” A few, especially those who also have been employed in a restaurant, may consider the latter quite cruel. Each account is honest, if nothing else.

Fortunately, there are many more examples of honest fun. You will almost certainly have a sense of participating in the races O’Rourke depicts even if you’ve never been to their locales. It may not have been fun for O’Rourke and his fellow journalists to deal with the preposterously meticulous Indian customs agents, but at least you’ll get a good laugh out of it. And although I can’t say for sure, I can’t imagine that there aren’t many parents who will read O’Rourke and his wife’s experience in choosing a family vehicle and not arrive at the same conclusion about the minivan: perfectly sensible, absolutely practical, and there’s no way they would drive it.

There is also much to learn from O’Rourke. For example, breaking down in a classic automobile can turn seemingly hostile locals at a bar in the middle of nowhere into friendly strangers willing to help. It may not result, however, in the mechanical problem actually being solved. (Another lesson: If a trip down to Mexico for some off-roading with your wife or girlfriend sounds like a good idea to you, you might want to consider a change in plans.)

Driving Like Crazy undoubtedly is aimed at O’Rourke’s contemporaries: conservatives and libertarians nearing or at retirement age who share his political bent and passion for cars. However, if you consider a car more than a simple object of transportation, you will most likely enjoy Driving Like Crazy, no matter how old you are. I’m not sure if I’d suggest the book for a liberal – that is, unless you are giving it to one as a gift. Something tells me O’Rourke would very much approve of that.