Propriety and Brit Hume

The circus maximus regarding the affairs of Tiger Woods has entered into an entirely new universe of silliness thanks to the recommendation made by Brit Hume that Woods look to Christianity (apparently instead of Buddhism) if he seeks redemption from, and foregiveness for, his sins.

I'll refrain from exploring the (doubtless fascinating) question of which religion offers serial adulterers the greatest succor.  I'd like to consider instead Hume's comments themselves, the context in which they were made, and the reactions to those comments.

I think it's fair to say that there was nothing in the nature of the TV program in which he was participating which would lead anyone to expect that he, or anyone else involved, would indulge in religious commentary or recomendations when asked about Mr. Woods.  I think it's fair to say that most were surprised by his comments, and that they should have been surprised by them.

His comments were surprising, I suggest, because they were gratuitous, inappropriate and presumptuous.  A reasonable person in his place would neither expect to be asked how Tiger Woods should seek religious redemption, nor think it his place to point out the benefits of Christianity when asked a question regarding the future of any golfer, however skilled and popular.

So, I think it is quite reasonable for people to point out that Hume made himself appear foolish and pompous (granted, he always looks rather pompous) and that his comments were, at the least, a breach of propriety.

It's important to note, though, that in doing so one is not criticizing him for being a Christian, or voicing his (apparently) sincere beliefs.  Instead, one is criticizing him for conducting himself like a sanctimonious idiot on national TV when there was no reason to even consider conducting himself in such a manner.  In short, he was stupid and pretentious.  It was inappropriate for him to make such comments.

There should be nothing more to say than that.

Speculations on the Cause of Stupidity

The plight of the Great Golfer, Tiger Woods, leads me to wonder whether sexual desire is the primary, if not the only, cause of stupidity--at least among males.  One can't avoid the onslaught of "news" regarding what are apparently his many mistresses and affairs.  In the face of this relentless assault, I've decided not to succumb to mere amusement or boredom (which strive for dominance of my attitude when faced with such circumstances), but to ponder its implications for the study of our idiocy.

One notes that this sort of thing happens fairly often to famous or infamous males, that it is normally found out, and found out in most cases because the man involved has been in some sense spectacularly stupid.  I suspect it happens quite often to less than famous men as well, and that stupidity plays its part in their discomforture.

I'm not going to cite examples (and there are many), but submit for your consideration that this urge has at one time or the other turned all men into gibbering, drooling idiots, and likely will continue to do so.  Further, I submit that all men know this, and many are horrified to find that this knowledge counts for nothing at all.  We must be stupid in this case, and then, having been stupid, and knowing the consequences, we are stupid in our efforts to hide or mitigate our stupidity.  There is something truly pathetic, indeed tragic, about this incapacity.

I wonder if women are subject to the same kind of volunteered imbecility. One hears of women being stupid when it comes to sex, of course, but it doesn't seem one hears of them going to the extemes men are capable of, except, perhaps, in the case of that astronaut who made herself ridiculuous.

Now, because the human capacity to be stupid is immense, it makes no sense to postulate a single cause of stupidy.  We are capable of being profoundly stupid for various reasons, and in circumstances where sex is not involved.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that sex causes us to be stupid in particular ways, e.g. clownishly stupid, or too often, cruelly stupid.

Would we be better off without it?  Chemical castration, anyone?