I'm easily annoyed, a character flaw that I've been working on for years. In my defense, just because I'm annoyed doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Which brings me to the coverage of Tiger Woods.
Health care reform, straightening out the mess that is the financial services industry, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, growing poverty - all were pushed to the ground like the front row of customers in a black Friday Wal-Mart stampede as the media rushed to speculate on the number of holes Tiger played through as he betrayed his family.
And there were plenty of admitted recepients of Wood's iron talking to anyone who would listen, because what parent wouldn't be proud to click on the Today show, sit back with a hot cup of tea, and listen to their daughter describe what motivated them to become Tiger's sex caddy.
Cheating on your wife with a bevy of buxom bimbos is a pretty douchey thing to do. Catching Tiger's love-ick and then talking about it incessantly, ostensibly because it's the best shot you have of ever having your fifteen minutes of fame, only completes the circle of shame.
The world is filled with the vile, as has always been the case, but I fear that the number of moral miscreants is becoming staggeringly dwarfed by those seeking to profit from the suffering they cause. And it pisses me off.
The media will complain that they are just filling a public need, that if they don't give a ravenous audience the alms of adultery that they seek, the carnivorous horde will simply descend like a cloud of locusts on an outlet that does, so what's the big deal?
Here's the big deal, as reported in the Huffington Post - on December 2, the day that Woods apologized for transgressions, the number 1 searched term on Google was, in fact, transgressions.
The number 5 search was transgression definition.