Chocolate Chiq.com

So I was PRETTY proud of myself. After reading that shockingly bad and poorly written piece from New York Times' Maureen Dowd, The Lady and the Tiger, I decided to do a little critique of the critique-er. My gift to you, "EPIC FAIL: MAUREEN DOWD (NYT) GOES IN ON DESIREE ROGERS AND TIGER WOODS", basically revealed in that column, Maureen decided descriptive snarkiness was much more important than making a cohesive argument. Furthermore, the personal attacks came across as jealousy of Desiree "the most beautiful 50 year old woman in the world" Rogers and "I guess he is black - CHEETAH!" repulsion of Tiger Woods.

Now I know a little about the ins and outs of Google. After submitting my blog to the search engine a couple of years ago, my website did disappear momentarily, but I found out that was normal and it subsequently reappeared. However, this situation is a little different. I published the Dowd/Rogers/Woods piece on Sunday night and for the next 48 hours or so I received a HIGH number of hits for the post(at least high for my site) and consistently ranked very high (at least top ten) on the Google searches for: "maureen dowd desiree tiger", "maureen dowd lady and the tiger" and so forth.

After seeing that the hits dropped off quite a bit this morning, I decided to check out my ranking using the previous queries logged by my web hosting company, Squarespace. My page did not show up anywhere! So I decided to search "chocolate chiq maureen dowd" and "EPIC FAIL: MAUREEN DOWD (NYT) GOES IN ON DESIREE ROGERS AND TIGER WOODS" which would have surely pulled up that specific page...NO DICE. What I did get was the post title as a part of another blog post on my site, but not the actual web page, and a result listing from Global Grind where I posted the article yesterday.

So now my ego is expanding...was my piece that good that it had to be yanked from the great portal to the internet? Was it New York Times or Maureen Dowd herself? Or was it simply a glitch in the ginormous machine we call Google? I don't know, but I'm gonna find out. Stay tuned.

**Update** About 8 hours after I first noticed the web page was missing, it reappeared in Google's index. I did submit a question to the Google Webmaster's Help Forum, so that may have corrected the situation.

Picture Source

I guess Maureen Dowd's editor didn't have time to review her latest column, The Lady and the Tiger. It was a nonsensical, catty, AND petty attempt to slam Desiree Rogers and Tiger Woods. The phrase to best describe the piece is simply "WTF?" I've read her column from time to time, mainly during the 2008 campaign season. While not especially deep and moving, she occasionally was entertaining. However, this week she definitely scraped the bottom of the barrel.

She accuses both Tiger and Desiree Rogers of being "perfectionist high-achievers brought low" who "mistakenly think the rules need not apply to them" and that they "broke the first rule of scandal: Don’t stonewall. Admit your mistake before others piece together the embarrassing facts." A bit dramatic, don't you think? Maureen did you forget you had a deadline and threw this together in a matter of minutes or were you really tired and wrote this with one eye closed and the other drifting towards REM?

Errahh, Tiger is an ATHELETE who cheated. Not a priest nor a Congressman, but a young, attractive, world-adored, MALE player of sport. Surprising? Kinda. Earth-shattering? No. Of course, he was wrong because he was married. However, the amount of disgust spewed in that article is over the top, calling Tiger a "golf diva" with a "puffed up ego" with his "string of buffed and puffed babes". Isn't that a bit much?

As far as the unforgivable sin that he committed by refusing to talk...he supplied a statement within A FEW DAYS. Actually, previous to statement, it had only been a week or so since the stories about his infidelity began to leak, so it's not as if he took a whole tour season to come clean. With all the hoopla and intense media focus, it is not surprising that the Woods would need more than an hour or two to decide how they would move forward.

And while there is no doubt that Desiree Rogers shares some responsibility for Crashergate, Dowd seems to be downright appalled that Ms. Rogers didn't conduct an apology tour, and that she is "sashaying around and posing in magazines as though she were the first lady." Errahh, she is the fashionable, popular SOCIAL SECRETARY for the fashionable, popular Obamas. Remember the election...it ushered the new Camelot and a snazzy, jazzy new Washington. Ms. Rogers is the epitome of the new vibe.

There has certainly been some discussion about whether Desiree should have appeared before Congress, however, there is little doubt that she was advised on which actions to take by her close, long time friends, THE PRESIDENT AND THE FIRST LADY. I really can't understand why Dowd, while complaining about the use of executive privilege by the White House, is trying to rip Desiree a new one and lay the bulk of the responsibility at her feet. As if Ms. Rogers would ignore the wishes of the First Couple and do her own thing.

I do recall hearing some complaints about the childish nature of Ms. Dowd's writing style, however, I am still shocked about nature of the personal attacks. Ms. Dowd, what did they ever do to you?!?! "It was the assertion of personal privilege by Tiger and Desiree that was so off-putting." Really? In what way compared to other politicians, celebrities, and numerous privileged persons who have been involved in scandals?

The New York Times obviously has some job openings and is in need of columnists. Maureen, before you write your next vicious drivel interesting commentary, could you put in a word for me. Thanks. XOXOXO

Picture Source
Story Source