From The Inbox

From the Morning Read inbox

Whaley doesn’t deserve PGA presidency
Kudos to Patrick Casey for standing up and speaking out (“L.A. pro to PGA: Clean up Levy mess,” Aug. 2).

I wonder how Suzy Whaley, the PGA of America’s vice president, and the PGA’s board of directors would have felt had president Paul Levy hit a car, injuring or killing innocent people, rather than a traffic sign (“In the news,” June 14). DUI is a criminal act that endangers the lives of others on the road.

Whaley, because of her mishandling of this matter, should not be allowed to take the presidency of the PGA in November. Also, the 29,000 members of the PGA should cast a vote of no confidence in the board and elect new, responsible members.

Carl Nilsson
Jacksonville, Ore.

Try some compassion
I applaud Robin Dea on presenting this view on the rise of sanctimonious and vindictive reactions to the unfortunate situations that may befall any of us in our lives (“From the Morning Read inbox,” Aug. 3).

There is a famous quote that we might remember as it applies to the human aspect of us all: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

Compassion is free and easy. Try it out and surprise yourself.

Baird Heide
Bradford, Ontario

Cover Woods, but don’t ignore other golfers
I’d like to thank Gary Van Sickle for his views on all Tiger Woods, all of the time (“Tiger Woods takes golf on time travel to 2001,” Aug. 3).

A responsible golf media would figure a method by which to cover Woods’ return to competitiveness and not do disservice to the golfers defeating Woods. Why is it that the remainder of sports media manages to cover LeBron James, Mike Trout, Sidney Crosby and others and yet make the winning teams their focus? 

The former best active player in golf no longer deserves the adulation for his near-victories. He is worthy just as Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Ben Hogan and many, many others.

If the golf media wish to canonize Woods, it should be done with separate programming so as not to insult the viewers who were golf fans before there was a Tiger Woods. However, more importantly, this adulation should not be at the expense of the players whose time is now. 

Steve Hoffman
Howey-in-the-Hills, Fla.

You can’t have it both ways, Van Sickle
In the last two issues of Morning Read, Gary Van Sickle has seemingly joined the Tigermania throngs, but in an odd way.

On Thursday, Van Sickle mused that maybe the state of Ohio ought to be renamed to some derivative of the name Tiger, among other equally inane ideas (“Real ‘king’ of Akron? It’s Tiger, not LeBron,” Aug. 2). In his piece Friday, though, he seems to question why all the renewed interest in a golfer whose best days clearly are behind him (“Tiger Woods takes golf on time travel to 2001,” Aug. 3).

It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. To one day extol Woods as deity-like, and the very next day to question why this might be, is confusing at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Methinks it is yet another attempt to stoke the Tiger fire.

Ted Comstock
Lancaster, N.H.

Two turkeys unworthy of Thanksgiving weekend
Who cares about seeing two near-billionaires playing a set-up golf course for millions of a sponsor's money? (“In the news,” Aug. 3).

I know that the outcome will be for charity, but if it’s not their own dough, it’s a desperate act for attention.

The fact that Phil Mickelson needs to be in the spotlight and Tiger Woods does not is why it took so long to get this stupid deal done. By the way, what network is dumb enough to go against the single-highest-rated weekend of football, outside of the playoffs?

I guess only Golf Channel, with a hint of NBC, perhaps.

Neither player is in his prime, and both will be trying to fake it with interesting and cute comments. It will not be on my viewing list.

Bob Geismar
Boca Raton, Fla.

Morning Read invites reader comment. Write to editor Steve Harmon at Please provide your name and city of residence. If your comment is selected for publication, Morning Read will contact you to verify the authenticity of the email and confirm your identity. We will not publish your email address. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and brevity.