Thursday Open Thread | Diana Ross Week

Good Morning. Let’s reflect some more on Diana Ross.


Continued solo career and development: 1981–1999

In October 1981, Ross released her first RCA album, Why Do Fools Fall in Love. The album sold over a million copies and featured hit singles such as her remake of the classic hit of the same name and “Mirror Mirror.” At this same approximate time, Ross established her own production company, which she named Anaid Productions (the “Anaid” being “Diana” backwards), and also started investing in real estate, while also touring extensively in the United States and abroad. Before the release of Why Do Fools Fall in Love, Ross hosted her first TV special in four years, featuring Michael Jackson in the special. In early 1982, Ross sang the “Star-Spangled Banner” at Super Bowl XVI and appeared on the dance show Soul Train. The program devoted a full episode to her and Ross performed several songs from the Why Do Fools Fall in Love album.

In 1982, she followed up the success of Why Do Fools Fall in Love with Silk Electric, which featured a selection of Michael Jackson’s authorship, composition, and music production, “Muscles,” resulting in another top ten success for Ross. The album eventually went gold under the strength of that song. In 1983, Ross ventured further out of her earlier soul-based sound for a more pop rock oriented sound following the release of the Ross album. Though the album featured the hit single, “Pieces of Ice,” which music video garnered heavy rotation on video channel stations, except on MTV, the Ross album failed to generate any more hits and failed to go gold, dropping out of the charts as quickly as it entered. On July 21, 1983, Ross performed a concert in Central Park for a taped Showtime special. Proceeds of the concert would be donated to build a playground in the singer’s name. Midway through the beginning of the show, a torrential downpour occurred. Ross tried to keep on performing, but the severe weather required that the show be stopped. Ross urged the large crowd to exit the venue safely, promising to perform the next day. The second concert held the very next day was without rain. The funds for the playground were to be derived from sales of different items at the concert; however, all profits earned from the first concert were spent on the second. When the mainstream media discovered the exorbitant costs of the two concerts, Ross faced criticism and poor publicity. Although her representatives originally refused to pay anything for the proposed playground, Ross herself later paid, out of pocket, the $250,000 required to build the park. The Diana Ross Playground was finally built three years later.[19] The Diana Ross Playground at 83rd and Central Park West is a beautiful assortment of wood structures and classic outdoor children’s gym obstacles making it a lovely addition to the park.

In 1984, Ross’s career spiked yet again with the release of the million-selling Swept Away. This featured a duet with Julio Iglesias, “All Of You,” which was featured on both the albums they had then released—his 1100 Bel Air Place as well as her Swept Away. It and the title selection both became international hits, as did the chart-topping ballad, “Missing You,” which was a tribute to Marvin Gaye, who had died earlier that year. Her 1985 album, Eaten Alive, found major success overseas with the title track and “Chain Reaction,” although neither of the songs became the best-sellers she was once accustomed to in America. Earlier in 1985, she appeared as part of the supergroup USA for Africa on the ‘”We Are the World”‘ charity single, which sold over 20 million copies worldwide. Ross’s 1987 follow up to Eaten Alive, Red Hot Rhythm & Blues, found less success than the prior album. In 1988, Ross chose to not renew her RCA contract. Around this same time, Ross had been in talks with her former mentor Berry Gordy to return to Motown. When she learned of Gordy’s plans to sell Motown, Ross tried advising him against the decision though he sold it to MCA Records in 1988. Following this decision, Gordy offered Ross a new contract to return to Motown with the condition that she have shares in the company as a part-owner. Ross accepted the offer.



diana ross in central park

This entry was posted in Music, Open Thread, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Thursday Open Thread | Diana Ross Week

  1. Ametia says:

    First Lady Michelle Obama Got Bangs!
    Jan 17, 2013 @ 5:23 pm

    First Lady Michelle Obama is really stepping out for her birthday! On her brand new Twitter account, the First Lady shared a photo of her meeting today with Inaugural citizen co-chair, David Hall—and the image reveals that Mrs. Obama got bangs! This is the first time since her husband took office in 2008 that she has made such a drastic change to her hair, after rocking a neat, side-parted look for most of the duration. What do you think of the birthday girl’s new look?

  2. rikyrah says:

    Rubio Claims Obama Doesn’t Have ‘The Guts’ To Admit He’s Against The Second Amendment

    By Igor Volsky on Jan 17, 2013 at 8:49 am

    Florida Senator and likely 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio was first out of the gate to criticize President Obama’s violence prevention plan on Wednesday, issuing a statement claiming that “Guns are not the problem; criminals with evil in their hearts and mentally ill people prone to violence are.”

    In the hours that followed, Rubio appeared on a slate of conservative TV and radio shows to articulate his opposition to any efforts to limit access to assault weapons or high-capacity magazine, arguing that the policies “don’t work” and wouldn’t have prevented massacres like the shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    Rubio argued that any gun restrictions would be ignored by criminals.”The only people who follow the law are people who follow the law,” Rubio told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “Criminals don’t care what the law is. They ignore the law. That’s why they are criminals.” He went further, suggesting that Obama was exploiting the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut to infringe on the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens:

  3. rikyrah says:

    Telemundo Anchor to GOP: There Are “Aryan, Blond, Blue-Eyed People” Who Need Immigration Reform, Too

    José Díaz Balart, the television anchor for Telemundo, shares his personal thoughts.

    January 16, 2013 |

    While Marco Rubio has come out as a leader of the Republican Party on the issue of immigration reform, José Díaz Balart, the television anchor for Telemundo, isn’t all that impressed with the rest of the party.

    Speaking with Alex Wagner on MSNBC, he teased the GOP about the party’s obvious ethnic bias in the debate.

    “Let’s remember that the 11 million people that are here illegally aren’t just Latinos,” he said. “There are some aryan, blond, blue-eyed people” that also need legal

  4. rikyrah says:

    Bush attorney general disappoints Hannity: Obama’s executive orders are legal
    By Stephen C. Webster
    Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:29 EST

    Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared on the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” Wednesday night with a message that left the host looking rather disappointed.

    Rebutting the Republican talk show host, Mukasey said that President Barack Obama’s executive orders so far have been legal, as much as he finds them distasteful. He even expressed agreement with the Supreme Court’s finding that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, leaving Hannity looking perplexed.

    Speaking about the president’s most significant executive actions thus far, Hannity exclaimed: “It seems me to be, by definition, abuse of power. A power grab if you will… Is it then unconstitutional in some instances?”

    “I don’t think it’s unconstitutional in the sense that I don’t think it’s something you could get a court to find unconstitutional,” Mukasey replied. “We could have a debate about whether it’s consistent with the constitution or not, but there is a limited number of things that will get you into court to have that decided, and I don’t think any of the things you’ve enumerated are among them.”

  5. rikyrah says:

    Good riddance to the ‘Hastert Rule’?
    By Steve Benen
    Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:47 PM EST.

    The so-called “Hastert Rule” is terrific for party discipline and partisan rule, but it’s awful for democracy and governing. And as of this week, its demise may be near.

    As we talked about yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) brought a post-Sandy disaster relief bill to the floor this week, and passed it, despite the strong opposition of his own caucus. Though the aid package passed the chamber with relative ease, nearly 80% of the House GOP — 179 members — voted against it. This came just two weeks after Boehner also passed a bipartisan fiscal deal over the objections of most of his fellow House Republicans.

    Under the non-binding “Hastert Rule,” this isn’t supposed to happen — Boehner is only supposed to bring bills to the floor that most of his own caucus supports (measures that enjoy a “majority of the majority”). The idea is, Republicans shouldn’t even consider bills if they’re dependent on Democratic votes to pass; the real power belongs in the hands of the House GOP’s far-right rank and file. And yet, the Speaker has now ignored the rule twice in two weeks.

    Though Boehner aides insist these were isolated incidents, not a new normal, it’s generating a very interesting conversation on the right about whether the “Hastert Rule” has outlived its usefulness.

  6. Ametia says:

    Pauline Phillips, founder of the Dear Abby advice column, has died, according to her syndication service. She was 94.

  7. rikyrah says:

    A new hostage, every three months
    By Steve Benen
    Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:06 PM EST.

    Stanford University’s Keith Hennessey, the director of the Bush/Cheney National Economic Council, concedes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today that Republicans cannot follow through on their debt-ceiling threats. The political, economic, and electoral consequences would be too severe, he argues.

    But Hennessey does not suggest the GOP simply meet its obligations without some strings attached. His plan suggests a series of short-term increases to the debt ceiling, instead of one long-term increase

    [Obama’s] obvious goal is to punt the issue past the 2014 midterm election. Yet if he has to ask Congress for a new increase every few months, the spending problem his administration has exacerbated in his first term will dominate the policy agenda — when he wants to work on other issues.

    That brings us to step two, which is for congressional Republicans to offer Mr. Obama a choice. He can have a long-term debt-limit increase if he agrees to cut spending, or he can have repeated, short-term increases without spending cuts. If the president continues to dodge the country’s long-term spending problem, the solution is to force him to ask Congress every few months to give him the authority to borrow more while facing questions about why he refuses to restrain spending

    Let’s put aside for now the fact that Obama doesn’t “refuse” to cut spending; Obama’s already cut spending and approved $2.5 trillion in debt reduction. Let’s also put aside for now the irony of these complaints from an economist from the Bush/Cheney administration, which made literally no effort to be fiscally sane.

    Instead, let’s note why a system in which the debt-ceiling needs to be raised “every few months” — as even House Speaker John Boehner and Paul Ryan have suggested — is a very bad idea.


    As an economic matter, it’s in the United States’ interest to reassure markets and investors that we will continue to pay our bills. Having a conversation about default is incredibly dangerous; having several conversations a year about default is hopelessly insane.

    But I find the politics of this even more peculiar. Hennessey starts from the premise that Congress has no choice but to raise the debt limit (i.e., Republicans can’t shoot the hostage). But once that’s established, what difference would it make to Obama if Congress has to cast this vote every few months or every two years?

  8. rikyrah says:

    The Small, Petty, Fraudulent Vendettas of Lance Armstrong
    By Ta-Nehisi Coates
    Jan 15 2013, 4:00 PM ET218

    Dan Wetzel has a (partial) list of people Lance Armstrong tried to ruin after they accused him of doping. For those living under a rock, Armstrong has now confessed that the accusations were true. Here are two examples:

    Let’s talk Betsy Andreu, the wife of one your former teammates, Frankie. Both Andreus testified under oath that they were in a hospital room in 1996 when you admitted to a doctor to using EPO, HGH and steroids. You responded by calling them “vindictive, bitter, vengeful and jealous.” And that’s the stuff we can say on TV.

    Would you now label them as “honest?”

    And what would you say directly to Betsy, who dealt with a voicemail from one of your henchmen that included, she’s testified, this:

    “I hope somebody breaks a baseball bat over your head. I also hope that one day you have adversity in your life and you have some type of tragedy that will … definitely make an impact on you..”

    What do you say to Emma O’Reilly, who was a young Dublin native when she was first hired by the U.S. Postal team to give massages to the riders after races?

    In the early 2000s, she told stories of rampant doping and how she was used to transport the drugs across international borders. In the USADA report, she testified that you tried to “make my life hell.”

    Her story was true, Lance, wasn’t it? And you knew it was true. Yet despite knowing it was true, you, a famous multimillionaire superstar, used high-priced lawyers to sue this simple woman for more money than she was worth in England, where slander laws favor the famous. She had no chance to fight it.

    She testified that you tried to ruin her by spreading word that she was a prostitute with a heavy drinking problem.

    “The traumatizing part,” she once told the New York Times, “was dealing with telling the truth.

  9. rikyrah says:

    Wednesday, January 16, 2013And now we’re down to the racism
    I’ve been thinking about what Peggy Noonan said on This Week ever since I saw the clip a few days ago.

    You have to ask yourself what is the root of this anxiety/fear Noonan is talking about in all her unctuousness. Paul Krugman nailed it when he said that the reality of life in America is that its safer than its been in decades. So where is the fear coming from?

    About the same time this discussion was happening, Colin Powell was answering that question.

    America is changing. The “majority” will soon be a “minority.” And not only that…the leader of the free world is an African American.

    I have long thought that we are passing through a milestone in this country’s long march towards “perfecting our union.” History might not judge it as significant as the Civil War or the Civil Rights Movement, but it represents a critical stage in our development. A black man is no longer simply leading African Americans, he’s leading the country. Moving from a stage where white people “granted” African Americans their freedom from slavery or their civil rights, we now in an era where white people are required to look black people in the eye with respect and equality – even be led by one. That’s not going down real well for some folks.

    Yesterday I ran across one of the most vile things I’ve ever seen on the internet. Its a Facebook page titled Christians Against Obama’s Re-election (click through at your own risk). Sure its filled with all kinds of racist pot-shots at the President of the United States. But the main content appears to be anti-immigrant and pro-gun. This is from people who want to call themselves “Christian

  10. rikyrah says:

    The wrong message, the wrong messenger
    By Steve Benen
    Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:18 AM EST.

    At his press conference the other day, President Obama offered the political world a reminder about reality: “The debt ceiling is not a question of authorizing more spending. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to. These are bills that have already been racked up and we need to pay them.”

    Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said this explanation may seem “compelling,” but he disagrees with it anyway.

    “It is a compelling message saying we need to pay the bills that we’ve racked up. But it misses the whole point,” Portman told Fox News.

    The Ohio lawmaker went on to compare the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling to credit card debt, equating Obama’s stated unwillingness to bargain over an extension to a free-spending teenager.

    “Think about it in terms of a credit card,” Portman said. “If you have a son or daughter who exceeds the limits, what do you do? The first thing you do is probably rip up the card. The second thing you do is say, ‘We need to change our spending habits.’ This is what the president won’t do.”
    Now, you may be thinking that this sounds like pretty routine rhetoric from congressional Republicans, and it’s true — nonsensical GOP talking points on the debt ceiling are painfully common.

    But the reason this quote stood out for me is the background of the person who said it: Rob Portman is the former director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Republican senator, in other words, must realize what he’s saying doesn’t make sense.

  11. rikyrah says:

    NYT: A retired nurse, a 26-year-old who was denied health insurance, a soldier injured in Afghanistan and a laid-off auto worker who got her job back after President Obama moved to rescue the auto industry are among eight “citizen co-chairs’’ of Monday’s inaugural festivities, inaugural planners are to announce Thursday morning.

    The co-chairs, all ordinary Americans who have met Mr. Obama during his travels, will participate in Saturday’s National Day of Service and ride a float in the inaugural parade. They will also attend the inaugural balls.

  12. rikyrah says:

    The Morning Plum: The question every member of Congress should answer
    Posted by Greg Sargent on January 17, 2013 at 9:13 am

    Every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, needs to be asked this question: Do you believe people should be able to buy guns in America without undergoing a background check designed to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting their hands on lethal weapons that can ultimately be used in crimes and mass killings?

    In one sense, this is arguably the most important question at the heart of the gun debate. But it’s being obscured by the widespread media focus on the assault weapons ban. To read many accounts is to come away believing that the assault ban is the centerpiece of Obama’s package of initiatives — and that because the ban faces a tough road in Congress, Obama’s whole proposal is doooooomed.

    But this is just flat out wrong. Obama’s package of proposals designed to beef up the background check system is in many ways more important than the assault weapons ban. A universal background check is the top priority of many gun control advocates. And the politics of background checks are considerably more favorable to Obama and Democrats then much coverage suggests.

    Worse, the focus on the assault weapons ban is allowing members of Congress to dodge the very difficult political question of whether they favor fixing the background check system. For instance, Senator Lindsey Graham’s statement comes out against the proposed ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, but doesn’t say word boo about the universal background check, even though that is the lead proposal Obama unveiled.

    There’s a lot of chatter to the effect that the House GOP leadership won’t allow a vote on any of Obama’s proposals. In the case of background checks, however, historical precedent suggests the contrary. In the wake of the Columbine massacre in the late 1990s, public pressure — mobilized by then-President Bill Clinton — forced the GOP controlled House and Senate to allow votes on requiring background checks for all gun show sales and other gun provisions. Though Republicans were hostile to the bill, they ultimately relented and allowed votes on it. It passed the Senate but failed in the House, but that doesn’t mean it would fail this time. The point is that public anger in the wake of horrific massacres has been known to break the GOP’s determination to block votes on gun regulations — particularly one as rational as improving the background check system.

  13. rikyrah says:

    Reagan’s solicitor general dismisses right’s fantasy about Obama “tyranny”
    Posted by Greg Sargent on January 16, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    GOP officials are greeting President Obama’s announcement of 23 executive actions on guns today as if they constitute an abuse of presidential power not seen since the dark days of Watergate. RNC chair Reince Priebus is decrying Obama’s “executive power grab.” Others have called the move reminiscent of a “dictator” or a “tyrant,” and Marco Rubio slammed Obama’s rule by “executive fiat.” Still other Republicans have floated impeachment.

    Guess who disagrees? The former Solicitor General of the United States … under Saint Ronald Reagan.

    “These are either standard exercises of presidential power, or even more benignly, standard examples of the power of the president to exhort the public or state officials to be aware of certain problems and to address them,” Charles Fried, who was Reagan’s solicitor general during his second term, told me today.

    Fried noted that some of the provisions are merely “use of the bully pulpit.” What he means is that provisions such as “launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign” and “challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies” to promote gun safety merely constitute the use of presidential stature to advocate. “If that’s an impeachable offense, then the president has just lost his first amendment rights,” Fried said.

  14. rikyrah says:

    National Memo: How did California go from a projected $26 billion budget deficit to projected surpluses? …. what changed since Jerry Brown was elected in 2010? …. he was able to push through painful cuts that forced Californians to take the budget seriously. But what helped him most was the state’s demographics and shift toward the Democratic Party.

    ….. the state went for President Obama by a margin of about 10 percent and elected a supermajority of Democrats to the state legislature. Also on the ballot in November were ballot propositions designed to secure more revenue. One temporarily increased income taxes on high earners while temporarily increasing the state sales tax for all Californians to fund education…. Voters said yes to higher taxes.

    Just a few months later, Brown announced that for the first time in about a decade, a governor of California was presenting a balanced budget….

  15. rikyrah says:

    E.J. Dionne: President Obama went big in offering a remarkably comprehensive plan to curb gun violence, and good for him. But his announcement Wednesday is only the beginning of a protracted struggle for national sanity on firearms. Extremists have controlled the debate on guns for many years. They will do all they can to preserve a bloody status quo. The irrationality of their approach must be exposed and their power broken.

    Far from acting as if his work was now done, the president made clear that he is fully invested in seeing his agenda realized — and fully prepared to lead a national movement to loosen the grip of resignation and cynicism in the face of brutality and carnage…..

    …. Most heartening of all was the tone the president took. He did not cast himself as an evenhanded umpire far above the fray, handing down ideas that all people of good will would inevitably accept. He acknowledged that the battle ahead would be difficult. He predicted he would have to fight the lie that his plan constituted “a tyrannical assault on liberty.” And he sought to mobilize a new effort to counteract the entrenched power of those who have dictated submissiveness in the face of bloodshed.

    “Enough,” Obama declared, insisting that change would come only “if the American people demand it.”

    Will we?

  16. rikyrah says:

    An untenable status quo for the GOP

    By Steve Benen

    Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:00 AM EST.

    The latest Time/CNN/ORC poll, released yesterday, shows President Obama’s approval rating climbing to a three-year high shortly before his second inauguration. It’s consistent with a general trend since Election Day 2012 — after Obama won, his standing improved.

    Congressional Republicans can’t say the same. Josh Marshall flagged this interesting image, showing poll results on the generic congressional ballot. The red line shows support for Republicans, the blue line for Democrats.

    Note, while Democrats aren’t exactly setting records for popular support, their generic-ballot number is about where it was over the summer. The post-election dip for the GOP, however, has pushed them to their lowest point since early 2009.


    With gerrymandered districts, House Republican leaders may simply assume that their majority is unbreakable, and they’ll hold on no matter how reckless, irresponsible, or unpopular they become. But I’d remind GOP leaders that it would only take a net Democratic gain of 16 seats next year to give Nancy Pelosi back her Speaker’s gavel. Are there 16 House districts, currently represented by a Republican, where mainstream voters may be willing to make a change? Sure there are.

  17. rikyrah says:

    President Obama in the Connecticut Post: As a society, our first task must be to care for our children – to shield them from harm and give them the tools they need not only to pursue their dreams, but to help build this country. That is how we will be judged. And in the wake of the tragedy in Newtown, it’s clear we have a long way to go.

    That’s why, last month, I asked Vice President Biden to lead an effort to come up with concrete steps we can take right now to keep our kids safe, help prevent mass shootings, and reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country. And on Wednesday, I put forward a specific set of proposals based on Joe’s recommendations. Because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence – if even one life can be saved – we have an obligation to try.

    As President, I’m committed to doing my part. That’s why I signed 23 executive actions giving law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and the public health community the tools they need to help reduce gun violence.

  18. rikyrah says:

    Jobless claims plummet, reach five-year low
    By Steve Benen
    Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:38 AM EST

    Going into this morning, most economists expected initial unemployment claims to improve, but after seeing the new report from the Department of Labor, few expected news this good.

    New applications for U.S. unemployment benefits fell by 37,000 to a seasonally adjusted 335,000 in the week ended Jan. 12, the Labor Department said Thursday. Claims fell to the lowest level since January 2008, but the big drop likely stems from a seasonal-adjustment quirk whose effects could quickly fade and push the numbers back up in the next few weeks. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch expected claims to drop to 368,000 from last week’s slightly revised 372,000.

    The caveats certainly matter — seasonal quirks don’t last — but for the record, the last time we saw a number this low, it was exactly five years ago this week.

    To reiterate the point I make every Thursday morning, it’s worth remembering that week-to-week results can vary widely, and it’s best not to read too much significance into any one report.

    In terms of metrics, when jobless claims fall below the 400,000 threshold, it’s considered evidence of an improving jobs landscape, and when the number drops below 370,000, it suggests jobs are being created rather quickly. We’ve been below the 370,000 threshold five of the last six weeks.

  19. rikyrah says:

    Federal laws are not optional
    By Steve Benen
    Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:49 PM EST

    From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws. Maybe it’s Democratic local officials objecting to Republican policies, perhaps it’s Republicans in municipalities who disapprove of Democratic policies, but since the Civil War, there hasn’t been any credible debate about whether such laws are optional.

    They’re not.

    The sheriff of an Oregon county sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden on Monday saying he and his deputies would not enforce — nor allow federal officials to enforce — any new federal firearms laws in his county, according to a copy of the letter posted on the Linn County Sheriff’s Office website.

    “Politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines,” Sheriff Tim Mueller wrote in the letter dated January 14, 2013. “Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County, Oregon.”

    As Mueller sees it, it’s apparently not up to courts or judges to determine which laws are consistent with Americans’ constitutional rights; it’s instead up to a local sheriff. And if the local sheriff decides the law doesn’t meet the standards of his constitutional analysis, he just won’t enforce it.

    To put it mildly, this is a problematic approach to a functioning democracy

  20. rikyrah says:

    Report: Tiger wants to remarry Elin

    Tiger Woods is a single man these days, but he may not still be over his ex-wife Elin Nordegren.

    According to the National Enquirer, Woods wants to remarry Nodregren and he’s offering a huge chunk of change to get her back. The magazine also reports that Tiger even proposed to her over Christmas, getting down on one knee and presenting Nodregren with a ring.

    Nodregren is reportedly considering the proposal from Woods, who is desperate to get Nordegren back, but wants a $350 million anti-cheating clause added to the contract.

    Woods’ proposed deal reportedly is worth over half of his estimated $600 million fortune.

    “Tiger didn’t even balk at the demand. Even though his accountants think he’s crazy, he’s ready to sign the pre-nup and set a wedding date,” a source told the magazine.

    “The guy has never recovered from being dumped by Elin. He’s dated lots of models and bimbos, but none of them were more than a one night stand.”

    The Enquirer reports that Woods and Nordegren have even begun having a sexual relationship again.

    “Tiger stopped by Elin’s rental house one afternoon when their kids were out with a nanny and they had sex for the first time since the split,” a source reportedly told the Enquirer.

    Woods and Nordegren met in 2001 after being introduced by Swedish golfer Jesper Parnevik, for whom Elin was a nanny. The couple became engaged in November 2003 and married more than a year later in October 2004.

  21. rikyrah says:

    Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters
    FLASH: U.S. jobless claims fall to 335,000 in latest week from 372,000 in prior week

  22. rikyrah says:

    Good MOrning, Everyone at 3CHICS!!

Leave a Reply