NY Times

is still waxing idiotic about the Masters.

“To understand the outcry about the Augusta National Golf Club’s refusal to admit women members, it helps if you think about the Masters tournament as more than just a sporting event.” This sounds like a Dartmouth course (English 38: Deconstructing Sporting Events).

“It is also one of the world’s great attractions for business executives who bring along their most valued customers and clients.” So, sporting events are attractions. It’s for insights like that that I subscribe to the NYT. I’m also surprised that the Times, in its efforts to point out that Augusta discriminates illegally because business takes place there, didn’t point out that only male customers and clients are allowed to see the Masters. Oh, wait.

“CBS nevertheless plans to go on with the show, simply for the prestige of broadcasting the Masters. Some prestige.” Given the significant majority of Americans (both male and female) who support Augusta National, yeah, I’d say it is pretty prestigious.

“Top players present and past, starting with Tiger Woods, also need to ask themselves whether winning the Masters next year will be such a crowning achievement.” A few days ago, on this site, I said that I thought the NYT was pushing Tiger to boycott the Masters simply because of his drawing power. I was wrong. Clark: I apologize. There is absolutely no reason why a boycott has to “start” with Tiger Woods. This is absurd. And, for the record, winning golf’s biggest tournament will be a crowning achievement (jacketing achievement?), shocking as this may sound.

“The Masters has produced more than its share of great champions, but if Augusta National wants to retain its place in the golfing firmament its leaders must step into the modern world.” I don’t know where the Times has been, but its version of “the modern world” effectively ended in 1989.

And no, I won’t provide the link. Deal with it.