The Tiger in the Woods.

The image of a phenomenal shot by Tiger Woods, followed by the claim
of consulting firm Accenture - "High Performance, Delivered", won't
leave us for some time. Because it is high performance and Tiger
Woods has almost always delivered it. But now, Accenture is pulling
out of all endorsements of the golfing legend, because he "no longer
represents" the image they want to portray.

Question is - did they hire him for being a phenomenal golfer who can
personify high performance, of did they use him to make Accenture look
like a saintly company? I tend to think his golfing abilities were of
paramount importance and I have no reason to believe he is any less of
a golfer now after these scandals have broken out about his
extramarital affairs. In other words, his "high performance" could
very easily remain unaffected, but for some reason, his image as a
squeaky clean "person" is more important to a company that wanted to
associate with him when the going was good, and has readily dumped him
for reasons having nothing to do with their business with him. That
sounds like pure betrayal to me.

How come we don't care about squeaky clean people who can't perform
like Tiger Woods? There are never any prizes for being morally in the
best league, are there? So, what's the big deal when a high performer
in one area doesn't hold the same standards elsewhere? This is by no
means an endorsement of Tiger Woods' behaviour, but why is it that we
find it hard to accept the disruption of this image of sainthood that
we the world conferred upon him? Why're we so deeply invested in our
own stupidity, in an assumption that worked for such a long time for
everyone? Because we hate being told we are wrong. Much like the
flat earthers must have felt centuries ago.

The media is as much of an infidel when it comes to scandals. Not one
media outlet that has so far ooohed and aahed every Tiger Woods
achievement has thrown out the other perspective - "So what if Tiger
Woods had affairs outside of his marriage? He continues to be a
golfing legend we can continue to celebrate. We hope he comes out of
his problems and his self imposed exile and starts thrilling us on the
golf course again".

I'll tell you why this won't happen. The biggest
consumers of popular American media are white people, and they are all
feeling bad that a white woman, namely Mrs. Woods, has been "wronged".
How can they lose the entire population of white women from their
viewership by taking this perspective? Especially when Tiger Woods is
kind of black. The "See, we told you they're all bad" perspective,
even while unspoken, is the easiest nonsense to sell.

So, instead of being faithful to the phenomenal athlete for his
abilities and the number of times he has helped sell television time,
the media has shamelessly now jumped on the scandal bandwagaon to make
a mockery of him and get more of what they have got from him up until
now - popular viewership! That is what this pimping business is all
about. It doesn't matter who gets fucked as long as we can promise
more mindless sex.

There is nothing worse than an "average" mindset. The people who are
all outraged by Tiger Woods aren't by any means the people who will
ever belong in his high performance bracket. Tiger has simply
demonstrated that yes, one can have it all - a secure marriage, a lot
of money and goodwill, and affairs on the side! A lot of men would
love to have all of this, but would hate the consequences in case it
turned out like this. The big difference is, Tiger went for it. The
rest of us didn't.

None of us ever heard any of those damsels he had affairs with
complain until this scandal "broke out" did we? Now, why are they all
coming out of the woodwork? Because now, they can make money out of
the scandal! The frenzy is on, and the media is here to fuel their
fire. One of those paragons of virtue even said she feels really
sorry for Mrs. Woods. Oh, yes, we totally believe you my dear Mother
Teresa. I bet you never knew who you were being divinely uplifted by.
This nonsense is endless. I wonder how in her poetic conscience it
never occured to her that she could pick up the phone and called Mrs.
Woods to apologize to her quietly. Indiscretions are as common as
discretions. Get that, people.

Tiger Woods never claimed not to be anything he is being found out to
be. All of us slapped that clean image on him, because we wanted him
to be that way for our own limited minds to have something like that
to look up to, because we stupidly believe that being "good" brings us
all the good things in life! Sure, it can make us feel good, but
Tiger Woods wouldn't have a billion dollars if he hit the golf ball
into the ditch and went to church every Sunday.

Other people's fidelity, their sexuality, their choices should all be
strictly in their personal domain. None of us have any moral
authority to judge what other people do in their personal lives. We
have public figures for one reason only - to take the risks we would
like to take, without us having to bear the consequences. We're
willing to make them rich and famous to put up with this incredible
demand from us, but we forget to allow them one thing - flaws.

It is clear what a high performer can achieve. Tiger had it all. He
still has it all, and can have most of it all. That's what the world
cannot stand. That's what the media can never sell to the masses.
Tiger's highest performance is being able to keep a straight face to
his wife after having all these affairs. Kudos, Tiger! Now, the
reason she couldn't find out what kind of a man she was marrying was
because she is clearly not a high performer - she couldn't see beyond
the image. In other words, she is stupid like most of the fools
lapping up all the media sleaze.

Oh yes, she is a victim of marital infidelity, but she has always been
a victim of her own inability to tell what kind of a man Tiger Woods
really was. She still has a life much better than 99% of the women in
the world. How many women in the world would give an arm to be in her
place with the kind of wealth she has enjoyed without having to work
for a cent of it! Oh, tell me now, that she is shattered, and that
wealth doesn't mean much to someone who has to undergo the kind of
pain she is undergoing now, and I'll bet she doesn't ask for anything
less than a hundred million dollars in her divorce settlement.

If Tiger is the predator on the prowl and feels good about that, then
the mistake he has made is not having affairs, it is getting married!
He should divorce this woman he is married to, stop meowing like a stupid felis domestica and completely embrace being the Tiger in the Woods. It would make the world a much more interesting place, and leave a lot of people wondering why they lead such dishonest lives! Now that would be high performance, delivered.

BSK.

California Burns, America watches.

Here we go again!

The state of California refuses to lift the ban on gay marriage. Sure
enough, this is a burning issue now, and the evangelists, the
homophobic fools, and a lot of straight couples, many with families of
their own, somehow imagine gay people do not deserve the same civil
rights they enjoy.

Some even talk about what is good for children, and how a child must
have two parents, namely, a man and a woman. Oh, lord! Now, it must
be really illegal to be a single parent, right? How about those kids
who have NO parent? Clearly, concern over a child being raised with
optimum care is not to be scoffed at, but to bring up that point in
order to deny someone a constitutional right is downright low and must
be worthy of our worst condemnation - if not for conniving timing,
then for outright stupidity.

We hear the argument that marriage was originally meant by God to be
between a man and a woman. Duh, where did God come into this
discussion, and where is the rascal when people break their bloody
marriage vows? Let's leave the poor chap out of this, shall we?
There! Now it is between human beings. Actually, this should always
have between human beings, but who can ignore the power of those who
lean on God to enforce their own agenda on the world?

A country that claims to be a secular county that supposedly respects
all religions cannot constantly or predominantly refer to the Bible
and its implications. It should at the very least, refer to texts of
all religions represented amongst its people. This is clearly not
being done, and this is just one example of Americans running with
cattle momentum. Whoever makes the most noise is getting heard the
most, and forget about the rest? Shame on you.

Religion should really be left out of this debate. God did not invent
marriage. If he had an opinion on it, that was invented too, since
all of us do not subscribe to the same God, even if we occasionally
agreed on ONE God! But then, let's move out of the irrational, and
let's examine what we agreed to argue about - the Constitution,
rights, being gay, and marriage.

First of all, it is none of my business who wants to marry whom. Not
because I am heterosexual but because I should have no power or any
part of deciding another person's life or choices, sexual, moral or
social. And it is damn well is none of YOUR business either. What is
criminal about two people of the same gender getting married? And how
does two gay people getting married affect other marriages?

Now, let's spare a thought to the institution of marriage. It has
caused more misery than any other man made institution, so there is
something positive about warning people against it, but then anti gay
rights activists do not have such lofty goals, do they? They want to
"DENY" that right to other people. Isn't it obvious that to save the
institution of marriage, we should have more people getting married
than those guilty of sneaking out of it? So, unless there is a ban on
divorce, there is no justifiable reason for anyone to ask for gay
people to be denied the right to get married in order to protect this
lousy institution. So, this nonsense about saving the institution of
marriage can be summarily rejected, with outright and complete
prejudice, I might add.

All the time, we hear how it would be damaging on children to be
taught that marriage can be between any two consenting adults. Well,
fat load of good it has done to be taught that marriage can only be
between a man and a woman - just look at the percentage of divorces!
If we care that much about how many things children need to be taught
right, let's start with the truth - there is no scientific basis for
theories of creation, and no scientific rational proof of the
existence of God.

Let's give children the choice to decide if they want to have God or
not in their minds. Let's not abuse them by taking them to church and
enforcing upon them a voodoo like spell, all the while mentioning God
like he is the boss of Santa Claus. If children were to be taught
that sort of "truth", they should hear that their parents are working
for the devil each time they fight, and are definitely carrying out
Satan's orders when they file for divorce. Test tube babies were
certainly not in fashion at the time Christ walked the earth, were
they? So, do those kids have a whole new set of rules to abide by?
Should they worship scientists as Gods? So now, out with the
distraction of trying to tell our children the truth!

About being gay - there is nothing here to believe or think about this
one. It is a natural thing, and even if it is artificial, it is
somebody else's choice and hence, should be respected. (Clearly the
people who do not think so were not taught very much about respect
when they were children). There is absolutely no scientific evidence
that being gay is a choice, and is indeed a very natural biological
orientation. The people who call this "unnatural" are just really
badly informed and should summarily disqualify themselves from this
debate.

The campaign to deny gay people the right to marry is multipronged and
very distracting. Why do they talk about enforcing inequality when it
is clearly unconstitutional? What part of the Constitution do they
not understand when it guarantees non-discriminatory application of
the law to all the country's citizens? Why are the emotional aspects
of this issue allowed to gain ground over the clarity of the legal
ones?

The greater debates about the separation of church and state, about
the true meaning of the word "marriage" and things of that nature can
wait. What is at stake here is a much more serious issue - one of a
court upholding a verdict that clearly allows violation of the
Constitution. If the Constitution is a fluid document, can it really
be amended to violate one of the fundamental principles it has always
stood for? And is that what the State of California is endorsing?

For all the good that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has done, he is
certainly not helping us get closer to the resolution to this issue by
saying, politically correctly, that he respects the decision of the
court, but also respects the rights of individuals. It is appreciable
that he does not want his personal opinion to influence the opinion of
the State, but what part of "HUMAN RIGHTS" doesn't he understand?

If America takes joy in "liberating" Afghan women and letting them
play soccer and parading them on Oprah, it needs to look deep within
its soul and ask how liberated its own people really are. Americans
need to understand something very fundamentally here - all that you
don't like is not wrong. We don't even need to go into the other side
of the coin - all that you like is not right. This institution called
marriage is not a club to which entry can be granted or denied. It is
a right for people to exercise however they want, whether it is in a
church, temple, hall, or even while dropping from a plane.

If one fundamental right is rightfully denied to even one person under
the Constitution, the document is hardly worth the paper it is written
on. This is no different from lynching someone without trial, and
very much like the whole country agreeing to send someone to the gas
chamber, just because they don't like his face. It is not YOUR bloody
face, fools.

This is hardly the time to be pussyfooting around the core of the
problem. The core of the problem is being drowned by the noise being
generated by people upon whom this issue has no bearing at all - non
gay, non lesbian, non bisexual and non transgender people. Whether
they decide to marry or not, people of the same gender have to have
the right to make the choice. It is simply not for anybody else to
choose, and it certainly is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter
of rights. It is a matter of correcting the collective wrong the
State of California has committed.

Dogma, beliefs (especially religious ones), convictions, and opinion
have no place and no part to play in what is essentially a matter of
understanding the big picture of a nation's standpoint. Does the USA
want to stand for bigotry, hypocrisy, and discrimination or does it
actually want to stand for the higher ideals upon which the future of
humanity can be envisioned? That is the question, no less.

What is at risk here is the USA's image as a progressive, liberal,
respectful, non-intrusive culture. There are a lot of people in the
USA that are not progressive, not liberal, not respectful of other
people's rights, and definitely uncaring about other people who are
not like them. But these people, even if they were to be in the
majority, are not the engines to drive America's policy. The
Constitution is a set of ideals to hold and cherish in common. It
cannot contain arbitrary clauses that can deny what the USA constantly
fights for in several contexts.

The Gay rights movement has come to the fore at a time in the history
of the USA when there are many questions that need to be answered from
more than one perspective. This is a test of the USA's evolution in
spirit, in the individual and in the collective. If found wanting,
there is no guarantee that the USA will hold its place on the moral
scale. In fact, it is almost guaranteed to be pushed back several
notches if it comes up inadequate in understanding something as
fundamental as this.

This is the time for the USA to act upon this opportunity to reaffirm
its often touted commitments to all the great causes like liberty and
freedom. This is the time for America to shed its stone age
inhibitions and come out in the clear, unambiguous and strong, and to
have the courage to silence its own ill informed rotten apples.

Are you fit for marriage?

I know a lot of people who are not happy in their marriages, and definitely more boring people after they got married than before.

I know a lot who are divorced and bitter, or even worse, sad. It doesn't matter whether the marriages are arranged or the partners chosen by each other - both sides of the aisle present candidates richly unfit for marriage. Clearly, there aren't that many formulae that work these days for a happy marriage, but I've noticed it is a certain "type" of people that indeed find marital bliss. You're not going to change the type of person you are, so you can delve into this simple set of questions to figure out if you are fit just for the wedding (which all your noble "qualifications" are good at determining), or indeed for the marriage that follows.

10. Are you getting married for any reason other than because it seems like the "right" thing to do?

9. Is your mate the person you would love to hang out with, no matter what life presents?

8. Do you have infinite patience and love for children, even at their irritating worst?

7. Do you have a sense of humour that peaks when life is hardest?

6. Do you know how to let your partner learn from his/her mistakes without saying "I told you so"?

5. Do you know to communicate how strongly you feel about something without getting emotional?

4. Is it important for you to really enjoy good sex?

3. Do you have a reserve tank of energy for emergencies that come up daily?

2. Are you a fun person that others would want to have around?

1. Are you crazy about your life, your friends, their lives, your family, their families, little ones, a packed schedule and the sheer madness of normal life and yet able to get away from it when you need a moment of quiet?

If you answered NO to any of the above, you might very well be fit for the wedding, but still unfit for marriage. My advice to you - don't get married. It's that simple. If you do, and life sucks, please stop complaining to others. Your marriage is what followed after your wedding, not mine!

On a positive note, don't buy into this crap that every marriage has its ups and downs. It is usually the smart ones that have most of the ups and the dumb ones that have most of the downs!