"Technology is the Evil Empire, Bent On Destroying Family Intimacy!" That's the headline I'd like to put on this post, but guns don't shoot people - people shoot people - so technology is not destroying families. People are destroying their own families.The technology I'm talking about is texting, video gaming, Facebook, email, Twitter, MySpace and more. Remember when the only complaint about lack of communication in families was when family members were all in separate rooms watching different television programs? Well, now, family members can all be in the same room, totally ignoring each other for the sake of fake friends and useless information, instead of for family conversations. Some family members even text each other from different parts of the same home, rather than walk the 15 feet, hug, and talk to each other.I remember the not-so-recent TV ads that promoted a family eating dinner together. Now, if you showed an ad with a family at the dinner table, there'd have to be a sign nearby that said "No Wireless Zone." I wonder what depth of interaction is being missed because one is getting superficial "quickies" from texting or emailing or Facebooking?' On the other hand, I already know that we're less able to engage in reasoned, significant discourse and profound intimacies these days, because, from the age of 4 or 5, we're geared toward the superficial, faceless exchange of comments on each other's web pages.Parents, you must get yourselves into gear and limit the amount of time per day donated to the wireless world outside of work. Otherwise, over time, there'll be no need for lips and vocal cords and eye contact, and we'll evolve into "thumbs only" beings who just peck away with a false sense of actually participating in the real world. More >>

People have accused me of everything from being rigid, to simply spouting common sense.' Well, for the folks who think I'm rigid, I have this to say:' I have convictions - convictions that I took a lifetime to forge, convictions I stand by, because they make good sense, and ultimately help people to have better lives.Fifty years ago, most of what I have to say was common sense.'' Not so now.' Today, many values are no longer held in common, and what values are left happen to be undermined daily by forces in government, religion, professional organizations, media, communities, families, friends, neighbors, and even your own impulses.Honestly, I fear for the growing lack of cohesion in our country with respect to values, morals, ideals, goals, and general insight.' When half the country accepts a candidate for the Supreme Court of one gender and ethnic group who says she is superior in wisdom and intent to another individual of another gender and ethnic group simply because of her gender and ethnic group, and the country doesn't fall to the ground either laughing or outraged, I worry.That example is one on a huge scale, but no less important is how the evaluation of family, marriage, and child care has been constantly undermined by something as simple as TV commercials.'We've seen on TV a commercial for a chewing gum that seems to be an aphrodisiac (because young girls seemingly will jump their boyfriends in front of their parents).' And now, we have T-Mobile commercials that have a pretty spokeswoman who has a minor boy attempting to seduce her, as well as a husband who goes all "gaga" in front of his wife, who, when she reminds him she's right there, says "We're married....technically."This is supposed to be very funny?We have male penile enhancement supplements being advertised all day and evening (when children are watching), and some lubricant that makes a woman explode with orgasmic pleasure.' And on and on it goes.Back in the day, common sense would have precluded these commercials from airing, because they were tasteless and they undermined the common understanding that some things are personal and private.' But now, all the barriers are down.' Heroes today are people who sing, dance, play music, act in movies, and run with a ball.' People who sacrifice in battle, however, are ignored or impugned.'Car commercials talk about how sturdy and safe a car is, but they do so while showing a situation in which ex-spouses are doing a "child exchange."' Everyone is smiling and appears happy because the car is so nice.' There's nothing "nice" about a broken family for a child.After years and years of the TV show Friends winning so many Emmy awards, and the stars going on to other lucrative media adventures, young people think "shacking up" and out-of-wedlock pregnancies ARE common sense.'I don't mind being the lead salmon...I just hope that you will all consider swimming upstream with me and finally stand up privately (and publicly) for common sense. More >>

The good, the bad, and the ugly....That was the title of a Clint Eastwood spaghetti western (I loved all of them), but in this case, I'm referring to the Internet, but in the same way that I would refer to guns or electricity.' Do you think I've blown a mental fuse?' No.' Here's my outlook:Right now, the governments of China and Iran are working ceaselessly to block web access to its populace.' Why?' So information the government "does not want you to know about" won't get in, and the truth of what is going on inside these totalitarian regimes will not get out.Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and their ilk have revealed the atrocities against the people of Iran protesting the sham presidential elections.' Beatings and murders have been viewed around the world, as people have had the courage to use cell phones and such to take the governmentally prohibited pictures.This, obviously, is a case of calling the Internet GOOD.On the other hand, we have people in the United States of America (where communication is completely open, some say to an unfettered fault) using the Internet for pornography.This, obviously, is a case of calling the Internet BAD.Internet sites have been used to defame and harass people.' Internet sites are being used to "publish" speculation, opinion, and downright meanness as "fact."' Internet sites have been used to troll for victims in order to rob, rape, and murder.' Internet sites have been used to incite violence, threaten, and frighten.This, obviously, is a case of calling the Internet UGLY.Electricity and guns can be thought of in the same way:' you can get electrocuted by dropping a hair dryer in the tub when you're in it, or electricity can be used to run a ventilator and save lives.' Guns can be used in robberies and murders, or they can be used by the free to ward off tyranny and other assailants.Objects have no moral value - the way they are used is the issue - and that assessment is in the hands of the user.' We all have the ability to choose right from wrong.' Our choices, though, generally depend greatly on the human atmosphere around us.' For example, we are more likely to be able to do atrocious things if we're part of a group.' We wouldn't dream of doing them alone.' Yet, there are those who can perpetrate evil all on their own.We are more likely to choose good when we are surrounded by people supportive of "good," and judgmental of "bad."'' However, when the cultural atmosphere dissipates with respect to values and moral judgment, it's easy for an individual to operate out of the moment without regard to circumstances or their soul.'It takes a strong person to choose good for its own sake.' There is often little reward or regard given to them.' There was a time when a child, seeing a dollar fall from an elderly gentleman's pocket, would race to give it back to him.' He would then get his picture on the front page of the local paper - rewarding him for character.' Now, that same child would probably not even entertain the thought of returning the money.' What for?' Look around that child - parents cheat, politicians cheat, entertainers and sports stars cheat.' What's the motivation?The good, the bad, and the ugly - two out of three are on the wrong side.' You choose every day which side to be on.' Now, go do the right thing. More >>

Either directly (e.g., sadness about not having a relationship with a parent or sibling) or indirectly (e.g., having trouble being intimate), more and more callers to my radio program report a sad sort of alienation from close, loving relationships. Yet the numbers of people deeply invested in "virtual" relationships via Internet "friending" social networks like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, is growing exponentially. We are involved more in frivolous levels of intimacy and less invested in warm, caring, loving, involved relationships.The pseudo meaningfulness we imagine as we add our names and faces to someone's Internet site is addictive, yet ultimately vacuous. There isn't really anyone out there who cares enough to hold your hand when you are in pain. The Annenberg Center for the Digital Future at the University of California reported last week that 28% of Americans interviewed last year said they have been spending less time with family members. That's nearly triple from the numbers in 2006. In the old days when television was young, families watched together in one room. Now there are TVs in every room of the home, with 500 or more channels, and the family is dispersed, with each "doing their own thing." The Internet is a one-on-one, non-family experience also - breaking down the cohesiveness of family dynamics, parenting, sharing, and plain old caring. The problem is that people are, by nature, gregarious. That means we need company. When we spend our time with the technology that minimizes the intimacy of company, we forever alter the ability of individuals to actually experience pure intimacy in a positive, ultimately satisfying manner. And the experience of having lots of so-called "friends" on the Internet is beguiling, but empty -- -in effect, a distorted form of solitude. There is no wonder that so many people have a deep problem with being able to love - they mostly want to be satisfied by flattery, freedom from reciprocal responsibility and the reality of obligations and responsibilities, much less sacrifice for the general good or the benefit of another. Technological advances in "communication" have actually increased the number of people you can interact with, but have more importantly diluted out the meaningfulness of those same interactions.Think of families together at dinner, and a whole town helping rebuild your barn. Compare that to what you have now in your life. Which is better for quality of life? More >>

I can't believe how many emails I got from those of you who watch that program, Jon & Kate Plus 8 .' It's a reality TV show, and they're breaking up because he had an affair?' Because she seems to be really mean to him, people have written suggesting I get involved.' NO WAY.'When I was young, there was a show on PBS, An American Family , that was the same sort of thing.' Cameras were there 24 hours a day, and the family fell apart.' Strangers were there, the family was performing for television, and there were stresses and strains with the celebrity part of it - there shouldn't even be a celebrity part.' I just think these things are disgusting displays.Then there was the Jim Carrey movie, The Truman Show , which was about his life being a television show, and he not knowing it.' I remember at the time that people said, "Isn't this a disgusting thing to do to a person?"' Well, now, people volunteer for it!' So, I have no respect for these parents.' I have no respect for any of the people who do this "reality" stuff.'My heart goes out to the kids.' Is it humane to children to let their parents exploit them in a television program when their images and intimacies are exposed to everyone for all time when they have no say or control?' Is it in the children's best interests to be USED as entertainment by two parents so self-absorbed that they put money and celebrity in front of their children's privacy?' It's like putting your children in a circus freak show strip and having a barker yelling: "Come in, come in and see what happens to children when their parents use them for your entertainment... It's exciting, it's damaging, but you won't be able to take your eyes off 'em.' Watch 'em wiggle. Watch 'em cry. Watch 'em squirm.' It's so much fun...bring popcorn and beer and come watch the show." To me, there should be a law that you can't use kids on TV like this.' It's one thing when they're acting, but it's another thing when they're being exploited.' I'm surprised that nobody stepped in and said "This is the exploitation of minor children," although late last week the Pennsylvania Department of Labor said it was looking into whether the show is complying with the state's child labor law.' But I'm not going to get involved.' There are other show-biz types who have a habit of doing that.' I'm not one of them.Here's one of the letters that came into me, and seemed to have the most in-depth information: I was once a fan of Jon & Kate Plus 8.' I loved watching these children, and seeing them grow. [note: I think it's exploitation]. Only the longer I watched the show, the more disturbed I became with Kate's treatment of her husband.' I'd turn off the TV feeling deflated rather than uplifted. Episode after episode, she'd berate and belittle him:' about his weight, his intelligence, and his parenting.' He'd take responsibility for his mistakes, while she'd excuse hers.' I remember one specific episode where he'd taken the day off to help her at home.' Having noticed one of the kids acting up, he put them in a "timeout."' She went over and said "Daddy's being mean," and let them go back and play.' It broke my heart to see his authority continuously undermined in front of his own children. Recently, at the end of their last season, Jon mentioned he wasn't up for another season, explaining how he hates how he can't go out in public and 'just be Jon.'' Instead, he's 'Jon & Kate Plus 8.'' Translation:' he's the guy on TV who is whipped by his self-centered wife. Weeks later, all of the scandal broke.' Kate, in a People Magazine interview, said that Jon felt cancelling the show would make him happy, but she didn't think anything would, so she would do what she felt was right for her family.' What is right for her family is not a television show, but two parents who love each other. He wanted to cancel the show so the world would no longer see his dirty laundry, his controlling wife, and constant failures.' It may not make him happy, but it would make his life bearable.' What would make him happy is having a wife who cares for him.' I just wish that someone would reach out to that woman and give her a hard shake, before she damages the lives of 8 little ones, and her husband.' It seems silly to be caught up in the lives of ten reality show strangers, but I've learned a little something from it.' I gained a better understanding of the Dr. Laura saying:' "Do you want this woman/man to be the mother/father of your 87 children?' Thanks for being a version of reality that I can rely on. I like that last sentence.' What do we call "entertainment?"' The shows where they have people competing to cook, make clothes, and all that other stuff are such mean shows.' Hostility?' Competitive venom?' I can't understand why we call this "entertainment."' The population that enjoys sitting there with popcorn and a beer, watching people be mean, be diminished, and be demoralized is scaring me. More >>

More >>

I don't see morality, ethics, or character in too many places in our society these days, so when I do, it's time for rejoicing and handing out kudos. So, kudos go out to G. Craig Hanson, the president of Simmons Media Group, which owns KXRK-FM radio in Salt Lake City, who dumped a morally repulsive and exploitative commercial off his station.There's an infidelity dating service, The Ashley Madison Agency, on the Internet for people "looking for a little something on the side."' They boast - yechh - over 3.6 million members in the United States and Canada.' These are people looking for a quick "hump" without their dates, fianc's, and spouses knowing anything about it.The ads are off KXRK-FM, but they're supposedly still airing in Salt Lake City on 97.5, The Blaze.The President and CEO of Ashley Madison, Noel Biderman, says he aims to buy TV spots and billboard space in Utah, and labeled as "hypocritical" the media outlets that refuse to take his ads.You know, I get called "hypocritical" all the time, because it's a "nice" swear word to use to discount somebody else's point of view.' A hypocrite actually is someone who says they believe one way, while (secretly) they behave the opposite.' A "teacher" (as opposed to a hypocrite), for example, is someone who formerly smoked and has quit, and now campaigns to get others to do so in order to have a good and healthful life.'People like Biderman call others who judge them negatively "hypocrites" because, in their world, they can't imagine people with different values as being real, serious, happy, and successful.' They just see the potential for a dark side in everyone and decide to try to make money off of it.So, "poo poohs" to Noel Biderman, who wants to provide people with the opportunities to betray their vows and diminish their own characters with ads providing affair "match-ups," and kudos to KXRK-FM's president G. Craig Hanson of Salt Lake City who said the scum won't float on his lake. More >>

I love Susan Boyle.' I've never watched any of those "Idol," "Model," or "Talent" shows.' The only reason I know of Susan Boyle is that she has hit the news big time.' For those of you, like me, who don't keep up with these shows, Susan Boyle made a big hit on "Britain's Got Talent" as a singer.Unfortunately, the news was two-fold:' boy, is she ever unattractive, and boy, can she ever sing.Susan Boyle is 47, overweight, flabby, and has graying, frizzy hair, bushy eyebrows, and a blubbery face.' Susan Boyle also has the singing ability of an angel, giving a performance of the Les Miserables tune "I Dreamed A Dream" that has made her an instant star with more than 20 million views on YouTube.Now the debates rage:' should she or shouldn't she get some kind of makeover to look prettier on camera?''' The United Kingdom's Guardian published a "no, she shouldn't; she should stay natural" comment from one of their most "done over" women stars.' Others are repulsed by her looks, and can't imagine that beautiful voice coming from such a plain, frumpy woman.Many of those 20 million plus YouTube views very likely occurred simply because of that incredible contrast.' For many, it was like watching a geek or freak show, so they could laugh at her lack of physical attributes, without, of course, looking in the mirror themselves.Me?' I give her lots of credit for being more focused on her voice than on her lack of beauty.' She is definitely not attractive.' Should she get face work to match the scores of women who all look like they came out of the same factory:' the puffed-up face, abnormally protruding cheeks, and lips that look like the rump side of an orangutan?' I wouldn't advise it.Clearly, this is not a woman of means...yet.' So, getting her hair colored and calmed down, learning some makeup tips, and having clothes which best compliment her ample figure is something that is probably in the works now, which means that she'd be spiffing up what she has, and not getting surgically transformed into a vision which will make the snide snickers go away.' Making the best of what you have is admirable and advisable; getting re-made into something nobody is, is not admirable nor advisable.And the main point is that she has a beautiful voice, and a tremendous amount of talent.' If she were "pretty," I wonder how many YouTube hits there would have been.' Gosh...I long for the days before television and the Internet, when only the quality of what a person had to offer was revealed. More >>

When I was a kid, we spent most of our time outside playing...something.' Riding bikes, playing ball, walking, running, performing dramatic vignettes, or finding clues in twigs, among other activities.' Imagination, strategy, and fresh air were the mainstay of life then.And then....the incredible technology age came along, with chatter, Twitter, and pics, texting and more.' You don't have to be a rocket scientist to guess that that isn't very good.Kids today aren't on "friendship" sites to get help with their math homework or discourse on all things philosophical.' They're basically trying to make a mark, to be somebody, or to impress somebody, all without having done a damn thing to actually earn the attention.But why should they?' Look at what they see on television:' reality show after reality show where people get "famous" for behaving badly and creating nothing of value or beauty.' Ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich may even be getting his own television show after being tossed out of office because of severe wrongdoing.That's where kids get the idea that "outrageous" is more important than goodness, patience, commitment to a goal, and values beyond their own immediate "fantasy" gratification.' I don't know how you parents can shield your children from this "Pinocchio Island," which ultimately degenerates the value of living and giving to merely depraved acting out.' Removing all TVs and never going to the movies might be a start - maybe the Amish have it right in that regard.' They have long held that so-called "modern" advances don't necessarily advance the human spirit.It breaks my heart to hear all the stories each day of children and young adults who, in a rush to feel the power of adulthood freedom, don't get the matched message of responsibility and nobility.' Religion in this country is breaking down as people go to Easter services or Passover dinners as mostly a yearly reunion, as opposed to a daily profound observance.' Families are breaking down with "shack-up," out-of-wedlock children lost in a morass of adult yearnings for easy intimacy.' And so it goes.Do I sound negative?' You bet.' I am worried.' I am heartened by the emails and calls from families struggling in the midst of all this societal turmoil, which has robbed them of the support and respect they so dearly need to help their children find a good and righteous path in life.' My heart goes out to them, and, hopefully, there will be more like them. More >>

When I was in my first year of college, I ate and ate and ate...especially at breakfast.' There was an unlimited supply of raisin toast, and that was the trough at which I fed.' I gained a good ten pounds.' This was a rebound from my anorexic last year of high school, when all sorts of stresses led me to find an answer to no sense of control in self-starvation.' The "plumpy" time was short-lived; however, as I became very active, and the rebelliousness was no longer necessary, as I was out of the home and on my own.Since then, I've always been thin, but thin is neither healthy nor particularly womanly.' I've been working out six ways from Sunday, and I am a petite hardbody at 62, and proud of it, even if the discipline sometimes annoys me.I do not watch reality shows.' I know of them, but I just can't imagine how any rational person can consider these highly-produced dramas, with people pushed to bring out the worst in themselves as entertainment.' Yuck.I just read that FOX has yet another so-called reality program in the works.' FOX is teaming up with "The Bachelor" producer for a new dating-competition series that casts fat people.' The series, titled "More to Love," is billed as "the first dating show for the rest of us," versus the sexy babes and good-looking bachelors that we usually see on these shows.' The show is considered "controversial," because there is some argument the viewers don't want to watch anyone other than "pretty people" do anything.The producer says, "We want to send the message that you can be the size you are and still be lovable.' We aren't going to 'thin' these girls down so they can find love - that's a backwards message." I have my concerns.' This is the network that aired such shows as "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance." I worry that, in order to get attention, overweight types might be exploited for the "freak" attraction element.' I worry that emotions are going to run higher and deeper, because these folks already have sensitivities and have likely experienced rejection in public, and public display (even though it's voluntary and in pursuit of their '15 minutes of fame') could hurt people.' The "pretty people" shows have contestants used to acceptance and calls from agents for other "pretty people" opportunities.'I'm hoping this doesn't get set up as a circus sideshow, which I think these shows are, even for the thin types.' Viewers are not looking for true love to occur - they're waiting for the train wreck, the car crash, the suicide jump, as embarrassed and hurt people display their pain, and potentially, their rage.I know some of you might say, "It's about time that the typical American man and woman (who are, by the way, overweight and out-of-shape) get to be treated on TV like anyone else." Okay.' I get it, but, my friends, this is ENTERTAINMENT, not a psychotherapeutically romantic venture.First, we saw on TV the pain and hurt of "pretty" types.' Now we'll get pain and embarrassment for overweight types.' Frankly, I find that reality programming is there because it is inexpensive to do, and because the population seems to have an inexhaustible appetite for watching people get emotionally and/or physically splattered.'I thought those days in the Roman Colosseum were over, but I guess base nature doesn't change. More >>