The Saturday Morning Roundup

Permit me a few random observations on current issues that have been on my mind, and on the mind of many others.

We can't escape from the incessant Tiger coverage, it seems that every day a new revelation emerges, now that the list of bimbos seems to be exhausted, there are reports that offer a tenuous link between the world's greatest current golfer and most recognizable athlete with the one thing that can truly bring him down in the eyes of sports fans, that being performance enhancing drugs. The suggestion that Tiger used HGH to bulk up and gain an unfair competitive advantage in the gentleman's game of golf is disturbing, albeit given the current climate in the sports culture not altogether surprising if it does turn out to be true.

Tiger may well have lost much of his marketing and cross-over appeal, no doubt many women and more casual golf fans will no longer find themselves rooting for Woods when he inevitably comes back to the game and just as sure is making a charge in his trademark red polo on Sunday afternoon. But die-hard sports fans, most of whom are male, will I believe still enjoy seeing Tiger coming down the backstretch with the focus and determination that we have come to know and love. I know that I will be enjoying the scene when it happens, and most likely will be rooting for him. I don't defend his actions in any way, neither do I have sympathy if his image suffers irreparable harm, he made his bed and he can lie in it, apparently with any of the multitude of hoochie-mama's who lack the pride that would otherwise cause them to reject the advances of a married man with kids. But as for Tiger the golfer, I don't see how anything has changed, and I suspect that if I feel this way, most of my male counterparts in the the world of sports fandom will agree.

I've been following the climate talks in Copenhagen with some interest, and now that the conference has concluded it appears that the main effect on the climate was the damage done by all of the participants who flew thousands of miles to attend. There has been a non-binding agreement by some of the major powers, including America, India, and China, to do something. The developing countries are pissed off because they got left out of the final decision and feel that they will be hurt the most by effects that are exacerbated most by the actions of the major powers.

I'm on the fence as far as climate change is concerned, I believe that the effects are very real, and that there is much physical and even more circumstantial evidence to suggest that humanity is the main culprit, as opposed to long term geological cycles. The increase in carbon in the atmosphere since the advent of industrialization is too marked to be simply coincidence in my opinion. Yet while I don't support the chicken little assertions of many, I also reject the notion that we should bury our heads in the sand and wish this away as some great radical conspiracy as others would suggest.

The costs of inaction are potentially great, but so are the costs of action, and the question is what to do, and how much to spend doing so. While I don't have all the answers, I do think that a key is to finally get serious about reducing our dependence on oil as our primary energy fuel source. Wind and solar offer viable alternatives that if given the proper investment on both public and private levels, can accomplish three things. We can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment by lessening the amount of fossil fuels we burn. We can eventually reduce the financial costs of transportation, thus freeing up money to be spent boosting our economy. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly in the short to medium term, is that we can bring what Thomas Friedman refers to as the petrol-dictatorships, most of which are hostile towards our interests, to their knees. Without revenues from oil, the oppressive and damaging policies of the Saudi, Iranian, Venezuelan, Russian, and Nigerian governments to name a few can no longer be funded. This alone ought to be a rallying cry that unites both environmentally concerned liberals, fiscal conservatives, and hawkish neo-conservatives.

Last on my mind is the health care debate, another vexing matter with no easy solutions. I don't know if we are better off passing a flawed bill and hoping that it can be improved in time, or if it would be better to junk everything and start from scratch. I have even heard an interesting suggestion that health care is only possible with a republican president and a moderate congress. This has some merit, but as I'm in no mood to see a republican president again anytime soon, nor do I hold much hope of a moderate congress, I suggest that we have to deal with the reality of the political situation that we have. It is probably best to have some form of legislation passed now, not big enough that it can cause any serious damage, but enough to at least start the long, gradual process of reform to the system, which is simply unsustainable in the long run. I don't trust the government to run the health care system, but neither do I trust private for profit insurers. Surely there is some grand bargain that can be struck, but until we reach that point, it is better to make smaller changes that can be built upon once we have a chance to see what works, what doesn't, and what all of the costs and unintended consequences of such reforms are.