A few weeks ago, Robert
Wright, the head of the NBC television network, engaged in the kind of
furtive, sleazy practice that might turn up on hidden camera on one of his own network’s TV shows. During two
private meetings, he tried to bully New
York City Council members into voting against a bill which endorses a federal
order that General Electric, NBC’s parent company, spend a half billion dollars
to clean up the Hudson River. Of course, Mr. Wright probably never actually
said, “If you don’t vote against this bill, NBC’s local news broadcasts will
give you the cold shoulder for the next five years,” but he didn’t have to: His
very presence in the offices of elected officials was indication enough that
this was no ordinary house call. As Council member Gifford Miller told The New York Times , “[I]t is not often
the chief executive officer of a major network comes to see you.”
Mr. Wright, who also just happens to be G.E.’s vice
chairman, and NBC both claim there was no conflict of interest in his visit.
Who are they kidding? The irony is, the City Council’s eventual decision will
have zero effect: The Environmental Protection Agency has already demanded that
G.E. dredge the river. But the NBC boss apparently sees nothing wrong with
staining his network’s name in an attempt to win a toothless City Council
thumbs-up for G.E.
This is but the latest chapter in G.E.’s pathetic attempt to
escape responsibility for its past dumping of tons of carcinogenic
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) into one of
the state’s most majestic natural attractions. Three panels of independent
scientists have confirmed the health risks of eating fish from the river, and
the E.P.A. has even found some cancer risk for those who merely wade in the
river. It is appalling that a company which made almost $11 billion in profits
last year still refuses to be a decent corporate citizen.
Mr. Wright and G.E. chairman Jack Welch should spend their
time-of which Mr. Wright apparently has plenty-making sure the Hudson gets
cleaned up as soon as possible. Trying to use his power at NBC to strong-arm
the City Council suggests that Mr. Wright
has been watching too many episodes of The
Sopra nos -and that show is
on HBO.
Roar of the Tiger
In the spectacular setting of the Augusta National in
Georgia, where the dusty odor of history
mixes with the scent of magnolias, tiger woods became immortal at age
25. His victory at the 2001 Masters championship was one for the ages. He is now the reigning champion in all four of
professional golf’s major championships. It is a feat without precedent.
As the victor in last year’s U.S. and British Opens and
P.G.A. Championship, Mr. Woods came to Augusta this year seeking a version of
golf’s fabled Grand Slam, for a victory at the Masters would give him four
major victories in a row. Technically, the
Grand Slam question was moot, for the keepers of golf mythology insist
that one must win all four majors in the same year. Bobby Jones did it in 1930,
when he won the U.S. Amateur and Open, and the British Amateur and Open. But
nobody has won the professional Grand Slam. And, technically, Tiger Woods
hasn’t won it yet, either.
Nevertheless, Mr. Woods’ achievement is extraordinary. How
appropriate it was that Mr. Woods should make history on a golf course that
reveres its former champions. The course and tournament are legacies of Mr.
Jones, the greatest golfer of his day. A plaque commemorates Arnold Palmer, who
won four Masters titles in the late 50’s and early 60’s; Gene Sarazan, who
double-eagled No. 15 in 1935, has a footbridge named for him.
Mr. Woods, by the time he is through, very likely will
overshadow those revered giants. What made his most recent Masters triumph so
memorable was the competitive drama between
himself and two worthy challengers, David Duval and Phil Mickelson. It
is interesting to note that in golf, the winner’s margin of victory is often less than 1 percent. The world’s
best, such as Mr. Woods, are separated from the pack by the tiniest of
margins.
No one can question Tiger Woods’ standing as the world’s
greatest golfer. The question is, where does he go from here?
The Hidden Side of
Sex
Sex has always been complicated-a source of great joy,
anxiety, obsession and repression-and new research is revealing that one reason
for all the drama may be that our true
sexual orientation has very little to do with how we actually live our
lives. While we may consider ourselves “straight” or “gay,” and make life
decisions accordingly, psychologists are finding that each of us has an “erotic
personality” as unique as our fingerprints, and which bears little resemblance to our traditional concepts about ourselves. As
reported in the American Psychological Association’s Monitor, Linda Garnets, a Ph.D. researcher
at the University of California at Los Angeles, looked at the results of
hundreds of studies to conclude that no one is “100 percent heterosexual 100
percent of the time.” Science is showing that sexual orientation exists along a
spectrum, and where one falls on that spectrum is not fixed but rather can vary
widely, depending on one’s current emotional attachments, erotic fantasies and
relationship status.
Ms. Garnets found that our sexual selves rarely if ever
behave according to accepted norms: There
are women who identify themselves as bisexual but never feel strong lust
for a man; there are heterosexual men who have homosexual fantasies while
having sex with their female partners. Research also indicates that people’s
attraction toward men and women can change over time-that women who desired men
in their youth may come to be more attracted to women later in life, for example. Studies also show that
women are more likely to accept sexuality’s changing nature than are
men.
So the next time you’re having sexual tensions with your
partner, it might help to remember that no one knows who they really are.