I have missed something. How is a remark about someone eating fried chicken racist? Fried Chicken is as Southern as apple pie. Did Sergio imply Tiger was a Southerner? Well that would be a real put down as in the media's favorite comment when things are falling apart, "Going South." Someone needs to put an end to such arrant regionalism.
I'd like a piece of the action, too.
I'll take $50 on JDintheSC's proposition. He's got it right. Not if, but when?
The set up at Merion will be treacherous this year, according to the USGA, but as well as Woods is playing right now, he is capable of hitting a wicker basket during play, and taking one home on Sunday.
Your right... he's only won 4 starts in 2013 alone, what a has been!! (<--I wanted to state for the record that this is sarcasm because I suspect you sometimes miss the obvious). Quick question: how many other multiple event winners are there on tour in 2013?
My real question is how can I get in on this bet of winning (at least) one more major because it's not really a matter of if, but when?
FC, well played, sir. Well played.
Chris Haire, if you delete this comment and try to renege on the bet I will run you out of town on a rail! Screen captured!
Let's talk about the real bummer here: you know Sergio's got himself some killer, personal chef that can no doubt whip up some smack-your-momma-good, fried chicken. And yet, for a variety of valid philosophical and cultural reasons, Tiger's gotta tell him to go fly a kite.
I'm not saying that Tiger probably enjoys fried chicken; I'm saying EVERYONE enjoys a good fried chicken. And he's gotta turn it down.
It's funny how that No. 1 ranking can be accomplished without winning a major.
I'll take your bet. I'll wager a day at a day spa with Andre Bauer.
I'd be happy to take that "will never win another major" bet. I have a feeling they said the same about the greatest player of my father's generation.
Also, check a dictionary. "Washed up has-been" applies to people far past their prime who can't compete any more. Tiger, as noted, is still number 1, and will almost certainly remain on he very top tier of professional players for years to come.
Also, unlike politics, movies, and the business world where comebacks are truly possible, athletics is a young man's game. The physical wear and tear has already taken a toll on Tiger. He may have the No. 1 ranking now, but he will never be the dominate player that he once was. It's really only downhill from here.
Actually Drew. I do watch golf. The point is Tiger hasn't won a major since 2008, and odds are, he will never win another one. When it comes to majors these days, Tiger generally has a good round on Thursday and Friday and then blows it on Saturday. By Sunday, he's irrelevant except for being the TMZ sideshow freak that he is.
Washed up has-been?? He's the #1 ranked golfer in the world. You don't follow sports much, do you?
I get what you are saying. I didn't really consider it freedom of speech, as TV stations are all privately owned (aside from PBS). I just disagree with censorship in general, and feel that it should be up to the stations to decide what is allowed to be said on their broadcasts. I don't like the government controlling all aspects of this. Oh damn, I am starting to sound like a libertarian.
Is a 400 word article about Tiger Woods really the best way to quit talking about him?
Not really off-topic, no.
Regulation of content is certainly an aspect of censorship - but it isn't quite worthy of the sort of heavy connotation that censorship demands. Actual suppression of ideas is a far worse notion than the suppression of the word "fuck" or a bare female chest.
Now, sure, there are lots of arguments both ways about why these things are not allowed on television, and if it even matters anymore in an age where at least 90 percent of American households are not watching over-the-air broadcasts anymore (which is how the vast majority of content regulation even got started).
Still, what no one seems to notice here is that those who want to see T'n'A on network TV at 9PM already have lots of other options to experience that, and are probably already watching them. On the other hand, there is still a segment of the population that wants "wholesome, family viewing" or whatever - and if you remove the remainder of the boundaries currently in place you are essentially marginalizing those people into smaller and smaller pockets of society. And they already feel pretty marginalized.
And the problem with marginalizing some segments of society is that it does not actually get them to come out of their shells, it can insulate them and validate them. That's why there are still virulent racists out there, and anti-government survivalists, and whatever else.
Or maybe it isn't. It could just be that I am overthinking this entire concept (which is, amazingly, not hard to believe at all).
So, yea, I think part of this is that I just have a hard time agreeing with people who say, "The Man is censoring and not letting us see boobs and hear 'fuck' and Free Speech and yada yada yada," when the concept of Free Speech doesn't have the first thing to do with any of that. It has merely been co-opted so that the concept of free speech and free expression actually gets watered down a good bit and we wind up a little more accepting of instances when speech and expression actually are threatened.
Holy crap, I've gone off an confused myself here - it made sense a minute ago. Maybe I'll eat some more tuna fish and it will come back to me. Or, maybe I'll just go finish next week's piece. I don't know.
Oh, Sark, you should know by now that the everything after the first five graphs was nothing more than a reason to write the first five.
What would we have lost if Chris has cut out the first five paragraphs of this column?
"Regulation and censorship are two entirely different concepts."
Is censorship not a way to regulate the things that we watch?
Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations
Within censorship lies rules the broadcasters must adhere to. The reason the rules are there is to regulate content broadcasted. Maybe we are just off subject at this point.
Gosh, you guys have got it all wrong.
Let the folks who sent complaints to the FCC, I ...
1. Fondly remember the documentary Roots.
2. Am offended that the FCC allows the Name of God and Jesus to go unbleeped while other cuss words are blocked.
3. Do not want nudity on broadcast radio.
4. Am afraid that our children will take off their clothes at school.
5. Believe that this proposal is bullshit.
Why not try it on cable (non-premium) from 8pm-5am to start with and just get a feel for how it goes? I don't really anticipate the weather Channel having anchors with their tits out or Al Roker dropping the F-Bomb on "Keeping it Real With Al." I mean, has anyone watched Tosh.0? I fail to see how a woman's breasts could be more inappropriate than some of these shows. And I have two small kids and would never let them watch Tosh, Family Guy, South Park, etc.
Regulation and censorship are two entirely different concepts.
Ah yes. Boobs are great. But violence draws audiences, apparently with fewer public complaints. Most action programs feature sadism and random shootings without any psychological hangovers on anybody's part. It isn't even realistic violence: if you tie somebody to a chair and repeatedly hit him/her in the face with your fists, your poor hands would suffer terribly. Well, maybe that offers a little vicarious high to our sadomasochistic brothers/sisters. But tits, though wonderful, are sinful.
BTW, when does the new season of "Following" begin? Well, in the meantime, there's always "Criminal Minds".
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper