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 >>

Perhaps you've seen the TV ad?' It begins with a family scene, where the father has gotten one of that company's cell phones, which permits the selection of certain people as "favorites."' Everyone is making suggestions as to who should be among his "favorites," and the eight-year-old son, in front of Mommy, suggests that Dad put in the number of the woman he stares at during the son's ball games!' There is absolutely no reaction from anyone.The teenage daughter then suggests her boyfriend (who has a mustache), and the Dad says that the "fine print" indicates that no kid with a mustache is permitted, and then he proceeds to call his daughter "dude."Using behaviors destructive to families is not my idea of good sales practices.' T-Mobile is off my radar.' I can't imagine a group of executives sitting around in a brainstorming session thinking this would make for a great sales incentive.' I can't imagine TV executives agreeing to play these ads.' I can't imagine anyone at home watching and thinking "this is cute," and feeling driven to buy T-Mobile's products or services.' I can't imagine ever buying one of their products. More >>

I have been a big fan of the television show The Closer , starring Kyra Sedgwick.' It has a great ensemble cast, and it's fun to watch the (generally implausible) twists and turns as she has those "aha!" moments, based on some innocuous comment made by someone totally unrelated to the situation at hand.One recent episode, however, ended on an entirely amoral note.' Frankly, the plots are often too complicated to summarize, but here goes: an illegal alien takes sanctuary in a church to avoid deportation and to avoid becoming a murder victim at the hands of international drug-dealing "bad guys." The bad guys are "setting up" the illegal so that he will end up in prison, where they can kill him for his lack of loyalty.' Apparently, if you're the target of a "hit," being in prison makes you quite accessible, because you're surrounded by bad guys who'll contract out the job in exchange for cigarettes, comic books, or whatever.A policeman from the drug-providing country comes to "help," but turns out to be one of the bad guys.' Kyra, the "closer" of the title, upon discovering his true mission, threatens to put him in jail under the name of the illegal in order to 1) scare him into talking, and 2) possibly give the illegal good guy a new identity.I thought that the threat was a clever ploy.' However, the "bad guy" foreign policeman didn't collapse under the threat.' Kyra followed through with her threat, and he was subsequently misidentified as the illegal alien "good guy" and murdered while in custody.' Now the illegal alien had his own special type of witness protection program.The program actually ended that way - with no one questioning the immorality or illegality of Kyra setting up the foreign cop for murder by his fellow bad guys.' It just ended up with everyone being content with the outcome.While it is particularly satisfying to me when bad guys get their just deserts, it is not satisfying to watch role-models misuse the system to exact their own vengeance.' I was tremendously disappointed with the writers and producers, and with Kyra for agreeing to leave the story line intact. More >>

Turns out that the latter leads to the former!' Recent research by the University of Buffalo Department of Communication and the University of Hawaii reveals that the people who watch reality television visit social networking websites to engage in behaviors like the celebrities they see on shows like American Idol or Survivor .When people on reality TV are rewarded for their behavior, it communicates to the (usually) young audience that these behaviors are good things.' These so-called "reality" TV shows depict people being exploitive, deceitful, hyper-emotional, vengeful, conspiratorial, sexually promiscuous, generally undignified, immodest, self-centered, and basically exhibitionistic.According to the university research, "heavy reality TV viewers may adapt personality traits association with celebrities....Reality TV even may be to blame for the erosion of the distinction between the everyday world and the celebrity world." This phenomenon is encouraging young folks to make personal information about themselves publicly available online.' We've all heard about the proliferation of youngsters sending photos to each other and through the Internet, revealing their genitals and showing themselves engaged in various sexual acts.' Instead of this being "shameful," it's trendy.' Parents are becoming way too lax in allowing their children access to electronic equipment, from cell phones to the Internet, without any supervision.' So, with a little "push" and little "pull" back, kids are getting themselves into situations which will impact them for a lifetime.When children behave like out-of-control celebrities, including drug use, sex, having out-of-wedlock babies, "shacking up," and testing their parents' limits as well as the limits of the law, they are less likely to be studying, participating in sports, or contributing charitably in their neighborhoods. More >>

When I was a kid, all the sitcoms showed married couples sleeping in separate beds.' Evidently, it was unseemly to show married couples sharing the same mattress, lest the idea of "sex" pop into anybody's mind!These days, it appears that TV finds marriage unseemly - but not the sex.A recent study by the Parents Television Council shows that marriage gets little respect on network television.' Instead, extra-marital, kinky sex, partner-swapping, and pedophilia are more likely to get center screen.The report said that visual references to practices such as voyeurism and sado-masochistic sex outnumbered married sex references by a ratio approaching 3 to 1.' The report contends "Behavior that once was seen as fringe, immoral, or socially destructive has been given the imprimatur of acceptability by the television industry and children are absorbing or even imitating it." When parents want to identify and block such programs via the V-Chip, they're lulled into complacency by the inaccurate and inconsistent designations, such as "S," signaling sexual content.The programs the Parents Television Council included in their report were from four weeks of scripted shows on the major networks at the start of the 2007-2008 season.' ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, and NBC, the networks in the study, all declined to comment.It's disgusting that the so-called "family hour," the first hour of prime-time TV, which draws the most young viewers, contains the highest ratio of references to non-married sex vs. married sex. More >>

It was a minor news item when a Barack Obama aide fell off a Chicago curb while texting on her BlackBerry.' Evidently, she is one of way too many people getting hurt as they text while doing something else at the same time.' The ability to multi-task can be a great thing, unless it's taking attention away from where you are walking, bicycling, rollerblading, driving, cooking, and even riding a horse!The American College of Emergency Physicians has even put out an alert, because of the rising reports from doctors around the country who are seeing injuries as a result of text-messaging "on the go."' Two people in California have died while texting as they crossed the street, because they weren't looking around at their surroundings before stepping off the curb.I've been amazed to see bicycle riders pumping quickly around my neighborhood while either holding a cell phone to their ear or texting with one hand, while supposedly steering their bike with the other.' It's amazing to see, but quite dangerous to do. More >>

Andrew Klavan, an award-winning author of mystery novels, wrote a brilliant op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal (7/25/08) in which he stated exactly what I believe.'He pointed out that liberal Hollywood films about the war on terror ( In the Valley of Elah, Rendition , and Redacted ) have all failed, largely because they propose to make the actions and philosophies of terrorists and coalition forces moral "equivalents," because they disrespect the military, and "seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism." These films depict "good" guys as indistinguishable from "bad" guys, ultimately "denigrating the very heroes who defend us." Klavan points out that the big blockbuster The Dark Knight , is a conservative movie about the war, like 300 before it, and these films value morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right.' Liberal, ultimately anti-American, films are realistic and direct, while conservative, pro-values films are usually fantasies using comic-inspired heroes ( Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, Spiderman 3 ).What makes the real world difficult is that "good" guys must defend values in a world that does not universally embrace them, and that puts "good" guys in the awful position of sometimes having to be intolerant, unkind, and brutal in order to ultimately defend the "good" values we love.As a psychotherapist, I talk to people on the air every day who try to keep out of the way of conflict, confrontation, and judgment, so they will be liked and seen as "good" guys.' I remind them that "good" guys risk, and sometimes cross the line, to stand between evil and the innocent who need protection from the few.Instead, as Klavan points out, "When heroes arise who take those difficulties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness.' We prosecute and execute the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve." That means that sometimes good men have to kill ("murder" is to kill an innocent) to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate values in order to maintain those values.' That's just a fact of real life in which good and evil have always co-existed. More >>