More >>

Lately I have chastised a number of male callers for being "wussy." This label is often pinned on their wilted chests after I give some great advice which requires them to actually stand up at home and proclaim: "I am a man - not an animal!"...oh wait, that's from the movie "Elephant Man." Well, basically the problem is that most men today are afraid of their women.' Their wives can nag them into a grave and or cut 'em off from any affection, attention, appreciation and sex.' That's pretty powerful stuff.' And then women wonder why they don't have passion and respect for their men.I asked aloud on my radio program for men to tell me why they've cut off their own "giblets" by not taking care of business at home, even if their wives disagree with stuff that should be common sense (like the case of a 12 year old girl, who was wearing a thong and a short skirt which started and ended at her pubic area).Neil, a listener, sent this answer: "As a faithful listener and devotee of your program, I have heard you scold men for being afraid of the wives/women, instructing them to act like or be a man. As a man, I heartily applaud your directives and only wish it were that easy - to simply snap out of a momentary distraction or passing lack of strength.' Sadly and scarily, it is far from a mere lapse of attention or fortitude - we are in a veritable struggle for our male lives against an angry, entitled and politicized culture that belittles the role of fathers (sperm banks and single motherhood), demands equality just for starters and purveys an attitude of supremacy in schools (where two-thirds of today's college grads are females), the workplace and at home. "If only it were a matter of putting our collective foot down and simply demand respect, most of us men, husbands and fathers, would gladly oblige...stepping up to the plate to shoulder our responsibilities to protect and provide and lead - as we always have.'''"But when you're fighting with one arm tied behind your back, skating on a sheet of ice as the rules continually change without notice, there's little chance of success. "So, we back off, uncertain even of what it means to be a man; confused about what is expected, further unsure about what we will be allowed to do.' And, while I pity the beaten man today, I fear even more for the women, families and societies of tomorrow, who will bear the consequences of all of this misguided anti-male/masculinity behavior today." I second his concern. More >>

If I were any more disgusted with modern parenting my head would explode.' I just about screamed so loudly that they could hear me in Dallas, where the Dallas Morning News published a piece with the headline:' "Social Networking Sites Cater to Moms and Babies."' What?' What?' What?' Internet social networking for babies?' What the heck does that even mean?I'll tell you what it means: it's another self-centered, insensitive, lazy, neglectful way for most mothers to pretend they actually care about their children and are making the sacrifices and efforts to give kids what the kids NEED.Here's a great comment from the article: "The messages, of course, are from parents, usually moms, who say sites such as TotSpot provide them with TIME-SAVING ALTERNATIVES to PLAY DATES and FACE-TO-FACE RELATIONSHIPS..." [Note:' The capitalization is mine].So let me understand this...these so-called mothers spend time on the computer posting pictures and descriptions of their kids to virtual strangers (which we now call virtual "friends") and get texted back with the saying, "You've been tickled," and they assume that this in any way serves any need for any baby or toddler?Other equally ridiculous mothers (and all these women actually gave their real names...is there no shame?) are quoted as saying that they don't have time (what happened to MAKING time) for actual play dates...this way they can connect with moms and kids without leaving the house or the office.Since when were play-dates only about the moms?' I always thought play-dates were about introducing children - FACE TO FACE - to other children, adults, environments, pets, experiences, and so forth.' I didn't realize play-dates were just "jabber jabber" time for busy busy women who seem to wish to live in a virtual world rather than the concrete one their children will have to deal with eventually.' These are probably the kind of women who get crazed when their husbands choose to do the same with naked women on the internet.Aside from the oh so obvious problems with parents putting information about children on the internet (a pedophile's play land), it directs children (from the time they're infants and toddlers) toward a life on the computer instead of in the park, the back yard, the street, a friend's home, etc.Many of the parents spoke about being "proud" of their babies and wanted to show them off and have them - even before they can burp on their own - have their very own social web page.' This is so utterly pathetic.This is all about three things:1. FEELING, versus' BEING connected.2. FAKING being a parent who nurtures, protects, teaches, and loves by a web page''''3. SHOWING off your child and text-gossipingLet me go back to that one most damning statement in the Dallas Morning News piece: "The messages, of course, are from parents, usually moms, who say sites such as TotSpot provide them with time-saving alternatives to play dates and face-to-face relationships, while helping them connect with parents and children in nontraditional ways." We've come a long way, baby...we've become women...mothers...who are too busy to introduce our kids to life.' Great. More >>

I'm just sickened to hear the news that Lori Drew was only convicted on three misdemeanor counts of unauthorized access to computers after she, her then 18 - year-old assistant, and her teen daughter plotted to humiliate a neighbor 13-year-old...who ended up killing herself because of the emotional pain she endured at their fingertips on the computer keys.You've probably heard the story: the young girl committed suicide in October of 2006 after the end of her online relationship with a fictitious 16-year-old-boy created on a fake MySpace account.' According to various news reports, the trio used the account to contact and befriend Megan.' Within a few days, Lori Drew encouraged her daughter and her assistant to on-line flirt with Megan; they planned to lure Megan to a mall to confront her with the hoax and taunt her.As things go and grow, another neighborhood girl got involved in the whole thing and sent Megan a message - as if she were the fictitious boy - that he didn't want to be friends anymore.' Lori Drew's assistant then, according to the District Attorney, wrote, "the world would be a better place without you in it."Twenty minutes later, Megan's mother found her hanging from her belt in her bedroom closet.I'm not a lawyer and I don't really understand all the legal machinations about what criminal behavior this planned cruelty constitutes, but it's clear that there's no real punishment for people who misrepresent themselves on an internet chat site with the INTENT to do emotional harm to a child known to have several psychiatric disorders.' Federal and state laws appear to be mute on this issue, and while companies like MySpace have "Terms Of Agreement" (which is kinda what "caught" Lori Drew, because she didn't abide by those terms), they don't have much in the way of "teeth" - often the most they can do is terminate the service of the offender.Imagine: one mother decided to drive another mother's child to devastating emotional pain as entertainment; she includes her own young teen daughter and a young adult employee....and they all have a great time of it.' No one charged the assistant or the daughter, even though they were all complicit in the intent to do emotional harm.'I hope there is a civil court for something like wrongful death so that these people pay some price for their evil cruelty.Now - add to that the parental responsibility of more supervision of this vulnerable, fragile, emotionally compromised child...her parents had reversed the lock on her bedroom for her "safety," as they were aware that she had problems.' Children without psychiatric issues ought not have unsupervised access to the internet or text messaging or any form of communication without parental oversight.' Children with psychiatric issues are at more risk.'Recently, another teenager, this one 19, overdosed with several medications to kill himself while his computer stayed on so that everyone on the net could watch him die.' There was a huge rageful response to folks waiting 12 hours before reporting this situation to the net site or the police...who came too late.It seems that he'd done this before, so many folks thought he was playing "wolf," others just didn't care, some showed concern, and others just "egged" him on....the same way folks on the ground often "egg on" a person threatening to jump from a tall building.' There are always creeps about.What was curious to me is that the reports of this event include that the boy died in his father's room and on his bed; that he used a combination of prescription and illegal medications.' Again we have a pathetically ill young man without proper supervision by those who could understand and help him.' It sounds like he needed hospitalization.The Internet gives young folks the attention and pseudo-importance they naturally crave.' It is also a conduit for evil...the same way electricity is neutral...unless you try to electrocute somebody with it.Parents have to be less casual about the evil that comes through all these technological marvels of communication. More >>

More >>

There have been innumerable skirmishes all over America concerning whether or not parents should get notification, much less a say, in whether their kids can visit the museum of natural history during school hours (usually yes), get their ears pierced (also yes) or have an unborn baby scraped or sucked out of their bodies (ahh...that would be a "NO" if you ask Planned Un-Parenthood, the ACLU, and a host of other ultra-liberal, feminista organizations).Generally, the concern these organizations present have to do almost solely with the imagined sociopathy of America's parents: that they will savage or murder their pregnant daughters, or toss them bodily from their homes into the murky night and swampy streets. They have not, however, ever come up with any instances of that happening - but what do facts matter when you want to make sure an abortion is always available when a kid wants one?For the third time in the last four years, California voters were asked to weigh in on teen abortion, determining whether doctors would be required to notify parents at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor...you hear that?' ON A MINOR CHILD!There are those who think abortions are so important to the well-being of children that they believe that children are capable of making that decision on their own.' That's why a piece by Kenny Goldberg (KPBS-FM radio in San Diego) is so blatantly clear on the limitations of the thinking of children.The Vista Community Clinic in California sees hundreds of teens a month for reproductive health issues.' Mr. Goldberg interviewed some of those teenage girls to see what their opinions and concerns were regarding their parents' knowing about their abortion appointments.' Here is a typical example: "I don't think I would tell my parents, because I feel like they would look at me as someone who's already messed up - like early in my life, and I'd feel like I was a disappointment." Hey - that sounds like a valid reason to terminate the life of a baby in one's body without a parent to talk to about alternatives or to help.By the way, most of these parental notification initiatives allow for children who come from abusive families to notify another adult relative - like a grandparent or aunt/uncle - or ask a judge for a waiver.With respect to those options, another teen says "Pregnancy already weighs on you enough.' So to even add court issues to that - that would just be insane - I mean, it would be so much harder to deal with." Come on folks - kids who worry about parental disappointment, and the burden of dealing with judges or other adults, clearly are not mature enough to make life-and-death decisions for another human being.I do know, from my years on the air, that there are many parents who would wholeheartedly support their child's abortion so that they would get that problem out of the way so their kids could just get on with school and sports.' Unfortunately, they leave their child with a legacy of always knowing they eliminated their first child because of an inconvenience.' That's better than facing some disappointment or legal procedure?I believe parents ought to be with their children to help them through any and all crises...from not making the basketball team or cheerleaders, to facing the reality of having created a human life. More >>

A listener labeled his email to me:'"The Newest Movie "Trash" Banned in Utah! Go Utah!" I read recently that some parts of Utah had banned the release of the new film "Zack and Miri Make a Porno". The film is about a guy and girl who have nothing better in their dull lives to do but to produce a pornographic film together just for the fun of it. I, for one, am sick and tired of films that exploit women AND men!!! Whatever happened to going to the cinema and watching a good movie? Thank God that Utah, a state that won't forfeit its values and morals, stands up to films such as these, and won't let them play in theaters there. I am a high school teacher, and believe me, Dr. Laura, our kids are craving to be taught values and morals. They want direction. They need direction. Films like these are teaching them that sex is just something that can be played with. I teach a student who has been sexually abused by his own stepfather, and I'm trying to guide him and show him a bit of comfort that he has never received....It breaks my heart to know what he has suffered, and it also breaks my heart to see students being exposed to trashy sex and stupid behavior on film. This kind of sick mess makes our jobs much more difficult in the teaching arena.... it's time that we did something about this trash that's being shown to our children. " This email coincided with a US News and World Report study that sounds like "yes/no yes/no" silliness. The new research suggests that teens who spend the most time watching sexually charged television shows are twice as likely to become pregnant or impregnate someone else.No kidding.' My generation grew up on The Flying Nun and Leave it to Beaver .' I never knew anyone who knew anyone who got pregnant in high-school.'Here's where the back-and-forth nonsense begins.' First, the report says that these findings don't prove that sexy programming causes pregnancy - well, of course it doesn't " cause " pregnancy.' But it is clear that a permissive media has a huge influence on impressionable teens, opening them up to behaviors which are not in their best interests, emotionally or medically.'Interestingly, the researchers refused to "name names" with respect to which television shows they considered "sexually charged."' I guess they don't want to be open to lawsuits for suggesting that there are specific programs on the air that hurt children by opening them up to behaviors which could lead to unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, or the psychological trauma of sexual abuse.Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington who studies kids and television says that these findings "add to the growing body of evidence that what children see on screen affects their behavior in real life." I've always gotten a laugh from much of what psychological research - a soft science at best - finds.' They state the obvious like it was a revelation and they get grant money to do it.'Let's see, if we didn't think that media impacted how people behave in real life, how long would the advertising business last?' Oh please, they pay millions for product placement movies...to influence you,'' They pay millions for seconds of promotion on SuperBowl Sunday...to influence you.' It must work.' So to be "surprised" at the impact of images and behavior the media immerses our children in has got to be some kind of joke.Back to the beginning... hooray for Utah.' Parents who want to expose their children to "trash" can always buy it on the Internet. More >>

When was the last time you took your kids to the airport and bought some candy and magazines?' Did you notice what your kids see at their "short-eye-level" when you pay for your items?' They see what they can also notice at many grocery store check-out lines and magazine racks:' they see soft porn - half-naked, provocative photos of well-endowed men and women.Now, I'm no prude.' I wear jeans below my waist, and I have some belly-button "bling."' But I do believe that there ought to be such a thing as a free society maintaining its First Amendment rights, while at the same time jealously protecting the innocence of children.A recent female caller complained that her boyfriend occasionally looked at some photos or videos of naked women on the Internet.' It is unbelievable to me that, lately,' there is such hysteria about men viewing naked women or male/female sexual encounters.' Did somebody just discover that men are very interested in sex and are visually stimulated by viewing women's bodies?Of course, Internet porn can be a problem, particularly when it becomes compulsive and a substitute for real-life intimacy, or self-medication for emotional problems.' However, much of the time, it is just a curious male having a stimulating moment.I brought up to that caller that I thought the guys who do the workout ads for some of those exercise machines are "hunks," and exciting to see.' She agreed.' If all I did was play a continuous loop of these ads, I'd be having a serious emotional problem.' There is a huge difference between "casual," and "compulsive."That said, our society has a big problem making "crass" more casual in the public square.' The fashion police should arrest most of those young women with big bellies and big butts hanging over those ridiculously low-cut, tight jeans, and short, too-tight tops, as well as young men with no tops, and with their pants falling just at or below their pubic hair line.' Their parents either don't care, or have given up attempting to be leaders, or have joined the ranks of the "crass" themselves.This society should shun malls that harbor Victoria's Secret, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Frederick's of Hollywood, as these are establishments which use provocative photos and displays to promote their products within clear view of families and children walking through the malls.' I mean, there you are with your adolescent sons and daughters, looking up at practically naked women and men in their underwear, with seductive looks in their eyes.' What are you supposed to say to your children about that?These images tell your children that sexuality, nudity, their bodies, and intimacy are just "everyday stuff" - no big deal, certainly not private, and definitely not special.' Is that the lesson you want them to learn?One mother of a 12 year old boy wrote to me that after they came home from their town's mall in which they personally experienced all of the stuff I've just mentioned, he suggested that they should do their shopping online from now on.Not a bad idea. More >>

According to a study being released in November's American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , Internet web searching may just enhance brain activity and keep your elderly (55-75 years of age) brain working at top function.The study compared 24 subjects between the ages of 55 and 75, and discovered using MRI scans that reading a book helped stimulate certain areas of the brain that had to do with language, memory, and visuals.' They also found that searching the Internet created these same stimulations, but activated more of the frontal, temporal, and cingulated areas of the brain - areas that have a lot to do with decision-making skills. More >>

One television show I'm both intrigued by and ambivalent about is called House .' It's a medical drama in which the main character, a physician, is a diagnostic genius...except that he almost kills his patients a number of times until he brilliantly deduces the correct problem.One problem he and his associates always have in diagnosing these strange presenting disorders is that, as Dr. House says, "everybody lies."' It would seem that patients will withhold information essential to their proper treatment because of shame, guilt, embarrassment or to get out of some potential problem -- even if it threatens their lives!' Sometime during the one-hour drama, for better or worse, the truth comes out.' Moral debates sometimes arise about the value of truth and honesty.During my radio program, I have often cautioned people about being too flippant with honesty...it is, in fact, not always the best policy.' For example, "Your child is ugly and below average in intelligence!" or "Aging is sure being mean to you...look at all the wrinkles between your chin and your chest!"' Now, they may be honest assessments, but must all truths be spoken if they are going to hurt someone with no reasonable or positive motivation or intent?' My answer is, "no."' My answer is to find something sweet and kind to say...there always are those aspects of a person or a situation.However, there are circumstances where the truth is essential; and sadly, so few of our young people believe that is so.' Every school age child in America knows that a sitting, married President looked right into the television news cameras and lied about having had a sexual relationship with a young, single intern.' What was astonishing was how quickly his supporters and political party members were to dismiss this kind of lying since it was "personal."'It's funny how "personal" impacts the world.' ABC News produced a story about college cheating using the most advanced devices our technology has to offer.' The piece centered on a Texas college freshman, Kiko Kho, who had used a see-through plastic pen, opened up the back and slipped in a strip of paper with vocabulary words on it so that she would pass her French exam.' If you think it is remarkable that she admitted all this to a reporter...hang on to something...she posted a video on YouTube detailing how she'd pulled off her cheat that received more than 120,000 hits.' Did she show remorse and argue against cheating?' Nope.' She did admit "it's not a good thing to cheat," followed up quickly by "everybody has done it."'''''Our young people watch television political talk and debates and hear time and time again..."that's not true,"' "that's false," or "that's a lie."' When I was a child all I heard about was that President George Washington didn't lie about that cherry tree...that was something to aspire to!In Jasper, Indiana, two of three challengers for a congressional seat have agreed to be hooked up to lie detectors during an October 21 debate, but an official with the incumbent's party dismissed the idea.' The Republican Party Chairman made this proposal to Democratic Incumbent and the GOP and Libertarian challengers.' The only one who declined to comment was the Democratic Incumbent...now that just looks bad.I think all political debaters, product promoters, attorneys, teachers, scientists, and students in exams should take advantage of lie detection technology...and that's the truth! More >>