I understand that the list is now at 14 distinct dalliances by Tiger Woods, and the count is likely to grow.' One of the reasons the legal types are interested in this situation is the precedent for "alienation of affection" suits, which can be filed when an "outsider" interferes in a marriage.' These suits are allowed in seven states:' Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.' Why these suits are disallowed in all the other states is a curiosity.' Perhaps lawmakers in those states were being pre-emptively self-protective.' Who knows?However, it doesn't matter that Woods lives in Florida, a state where alienation of affections suits aren't allowed.' If any of Woods' professed affairs took place in an alienation of affection state, Mrs. Tiger Woods could sue.' According to my research, the suits rarely make it to trial - usually the threat of such an embarrassing lawsuit is enough to have it end up in an out-of-court financial settlement.On my radio program, when I discuss with the "wronged" spouse their pain and desire to get revenge with the "other woman or man," I remind them that it is their spouse who breached vows.' The other individual was just the means to that sad end.' When people don't wish to leave their marriages, they often focus their rage on that other person to protect their spouse from their rage.' However, I believe it ought to be common understanding that the vows include a warning to others:' "let no man turn asunder" means that no one should interfere with the married couple's intimacy.' All society has really taken that vow.' Therefore, I believe it is fair that there be some consequence, and perhaps compensation, for the hurt caused.I think all states should allow such lawsuits, as they respect the sanctity of marriage. More >>

My comments today are short and to the point.With respect to Tiger Woods:He is the best golfer ever.He is a philandering spouse of major proportions.Should that matter?It was posited to me that what a celebrity does outside of his or her "famous" activity should not matter to anyone.I thought about that for about an hour, and then decided this:That statement is correct, unless that celebrity makes hay (or money) on the issue of TRUST , which Tiger Woods does by using his name and image as a "nice guy" to sell products.' He is untrustworthy...plain and simple, and therefore, should not be representing anything or anyone, because his word means nothing.He is a great golfer.So what.He is not a great man/father/husband.End of commentary. More >>

In a recent radio interview, I discussed the issue of "webtribution," a term coined by Elizabeth Bernstein in The Wall Street Journal to describe people who use the Internet to get revenge - i.e., publicly to hurt another human being with whom they are not happy.The Internet is anonymous, immediate, and gratifying in the moment.' In human history, vengeance is not unfamiliar - people haven't changed that much.' Their means of delivering pain has evolved from poison, duels, clever rumors, and Machiavellian manipulation to the world wide web.' In some ways, damaging someone's reputation is akin to murdering them, as their reputation is devastated world-wide and forever, making it difficult for them to function in private relationships as well as in the community and at work.To quote The Wall Street Journal: "Most of us have heard of someone posting naked photos of an 'ex' online.' Or writing nasty reviews for a restaurant or book, not because they dislike the product, but because they dislike the person who created it.' Or signing up an acquaintance for [unwanted] e-mail advertising lists." My opinion is that it should be illegal, as it is immoral, to post information or opinion about people without identifying yourself.' Obviously, it is also cowardly.' Google and all other such carriers should not permit anonymity.' That would immediately change the complexion of what is posted, and I don't think they'd lose business, except from those who use the Internet for evil (terrorists of the international and interpersonal kind). More >>

I remember when the Unabomber was caught.' There was an uproar of indignation concerning the fact that it was his brother who "ratted" him out.' When his brother saw the published ramblings of the serial murderer known as the "Unabomber," he recognized the sentiments, mentality, and writing style of his brother, and informed the police.' If memory serves me right, The Los Angeles Times had either an editorial or an op-ed piece castigating the brother for essentially "turning on blood."That was a morally repugnant point of view.' Protecting the innocent against evil is the responsibility of every human being, regardless of the "job description" of the evildoer - in this case, a sibling.Fortunately, in England, a wife of twenty years understood her responsibility to others (in this case, children), and set aside emotional pain and potential embarrassment.' She set out to trap her husband, whom she suspected of being a pedophile.' Apparently, her husband chatted with teenagers as he groomed them for sex.The wife pretended to be a 14 year old girl, and caught him in the act.' She was in the neighboring living room while he was in his study sweating over a hot computer, setting "her" up for a meeting to have sex.' He also used a webcam to carry out sex acts and send the videos over the Internet.' Our plucky wife watched this in absolute disgust and horror.She then contacted police who seized his computer.' She didn't march into his study to confront him, cry, or threaten.' Like a good citizen, she just turned it all over to the authorities. GOOD FOR HER! He only received three years of community service and was banned indefinitely from having access in person or online to children under the age of 18.' He also had to register as a sex offender, and, oh yes, she divorced him. "I did the right thing, and I don't regret it.' Now I just need some time to think and put this all behind me," she said to a reporter.She should have gotten a medal. More >>

I have watched film adaptations of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice in all its incarnations many, many times, and I recently watched the 2005 film version again. I love the film...no matter what criticisms may be about a portrayal or a performance. I clearly have a profound attraction to this work.First and foremost, I love the utter regard the men had for women, which is evident from how they addressed them: "Miss..." (and their first names if they were single) or "Mrs...." (and their last names if they were married). Men bowed upon entering and leaving a woman's presence, and women curtsied, even under unpleasant conditions. Flirting was ever-so-subtle: a look, a light "accidental" touch of a hand. A man romantically yearned for and tried to earn the affections of a woman. The sweetness of the regard for women in this era (particularly in upper and middle classes) was something to be admired, and something we now miss. There was a clear distinction between a "good" woman and an easy, loose woman or whore.That distinction is gone today. Now, women put down good money for music that represents them as whores without pay. So many young men are casual about women and sex in general, and sex is a casual expectation almost always fulfilled.Young women scoff at dignity and modesty as just stupid, prudish, sexist notions. They "shack up" with some dude without a marital commitment, yet expect the love and respect, fidelity and loyalty to exist without the spoken vows, only to be disappointed, hurt, and generally confused.There was a recent film comedy, called "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past," in which Matthew McConaughey (in a twist on Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" ) got to go back into his life to see all his old girlfriends. There was one scene in the television ad for the movie which showed a seemingly endless dining table filled with hundreds of girls. Obviously, this was meant to show how shallow and manipulative he had been. To me, it just showed how many stupid girls there were (and are), "putting out" in a situation where there was clearly no respect, regard, or intent.Men used to have to ask a woman's dad for permission to "court" her, even when the woman was an adult! Now, all he has to do is show her a bedroom, back seat of a car, or a motel room, and the date is sealed. When men had to explain and express their intentions, they had to take the whole activity of dating much more seriously, as there were personal and social consequences to misleading a young lady. That reputation would annihilate any chances he might have had of marrying a good woman. He'd have to move states or provinces away. Now? That kind of rakish reputation makes girls/women want to line up to get some from an infamous entity.The women's revolution did not raise any consciousness worth elevating. It mostly diminished a woman's sense of herself as special, minimized her value in the minds of men, put sex on the level of animals, created a nanny/baby-sitter/institutionalized day care financial boom (as women gave up the blessing of nurturing their own children), increased the use of abortion as a birth-control technique when an accidental pregnancy occurred with a guy who did not want fatherhood, created perpetually unhappy, angry, nasty wives, and made it very difficult for "nice girls" to be respected and cherished.The last scene in Pride and Prejudice between the two now-married lovers has them discussing what she wants to be called by him when he is not using her given name. He suggests one name, and she rejects it sweetly, because it is what her father calls her. She then asks him what he will call her when he is angry. He, not being able to envision that situation, talks to her about always letting her know how lovingly important his happiness in wrapped up in her...forever...and he kisses her gently about her face as he says "Mrs. Darcy" over and over again. He gave her his heart, his life, his vows, and his name. And, in that era, giving a woman your name was the ultimate public and private statement of his total commitment to her, which makes that scene so moving to most of us, and infuriating to feminists who see that scene only as ripping away the woman's identity.I always cry at the end of the movie.I cry also for what women have given up in exchange for wanting to have it all and not be subordinate to a man. I don't know...I kinda think being on a pedestal is not subordinate. But what do I know? I'm only a recovered feminist. More >>

More >>

Y'know, I really don't know why I am so upset about Roman Polanski.' I mean, he's the director of such notable films as Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown , and The Pianist .' When one is a "respected" artist, shouldn't we allow for certain...shall we say..."proclivities" that maybe aren't what the average schmo should get away with?' After all...he's a movie director!What's the big deal about telling a very pretty little 13 year old girl that he could make her a star - i.e., a model for the French Edition of Vogue magazine?' How narrow-minded can you be to imagine that taking pictures of the naked 13 year old girl in a hot tub, plying her with glass after glass of champagne and popping her a few Quaaludes (ostensibly, he said, to cure her asthma), and then showing her what a real man can do without Viagra is a problem?' And what's wrong with the fact that he cautioned her to never tell her mother about their "little secret?"' It just makes the whole scenario more...intimate.Go figure...the Los Angeles District Attorney's office filed charges against Roman Polanski for this "innocuous" behavior - gee, it must have been a slow legal day.' After pleading guilty to having sex with a 13 year old child, working out a plea bargain, and then paying off the girl's family, Roman Polanski fled the United States in 1977.' The American authorities (just stubborn, I guess) issued an international search request in 2005.' Swiss authorities arrested him Saturday at the Zurich airport.How terribly inconvenient for the film world.' Polanski had traveled to Switzerland to collect a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival, and by going to Switzerland, he finally got arrested for his "lifetime guilt."' Actress Debra Winger, President of the film festival's jury, was terribly upset, poor thing: "The festival has been unfairly exploited to secure Polanski's arrest over a case that is all but dead.' Despite the philistine nature of the collusion that has now occurred, we came to honor Roman Polanski as a great artist.' We hope today this latest order will be dropped; it is based on a three decade old case that is all but dead except for a minor technicality." There are so many people around the world who were equally as astonished as I was that such an important film director should be treated so disrespectfully.' Jack Lang, a former French culture minister said, "While Mr. Polanski had committed a 'grave crime,' he is a great creator and artist, and there's a sentiment here that pursuing someone for a crime committed 30 years ago...is unreasonable...a kind of judicial lynching." I'm not sure what Mr. Lang's notion of what consequences a "great creator and artist" should have had, had he not eluded sentencing three decades ago.' And it certainly isn't the fault of the American judicial system that a country such as France would give him sanctuary.Apparently, 100 or so entertainment industry professionals created a petition for Mr. Polanski's release, saying "Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision." It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.After all, with all the stress of hiding in France to avoid criminal punishment for what is ultimately the drugging and raping of a little girl, he still managed to get the Best Director Oscar in 2003 for "The Pianist." In spite of the clarity of his "wrongdoings," the Zurich festival director is experiencing " great consternation and shock," adding, "We are unable to judge the legal background surrounding the arrest." Let's go through this again:' the man drugged and raped a child. The man drugged and raped a child, and then fled the United States to avoid jail time.' The man drugged and raped a child, and the fled the United States to avoid jail time, and has been for 30 years treated like the patron saint for the arts by a world that is growing more and more morally corrupt by the moment. There is hardly a more sympathetic creature on the face of the earth than Roman Polanski.' He was born in Paris, moved to Poland with his Jewish family when still a toddler (shortly before World War II).' His mother died in a Nazi concentration camp, but Polanski avoided capture and spent his youth in Poland before moving to the United States.' His wife, Sharon Tate, was 8 months' pregnant with their child when she was brutally murdered by the Manson family.' When you look at his ability to make movies, after these grossly horrendous experiences, it seems logical that you should forgive a little drugging and a little raping of a young girl.' NOT.In my opinion, all those who have participated in any way in the making or distributing of Polanski's movies for the last 30 years should be considered accessories after the fact, and part of a conspiracy to protect a child rapist.' Polanski's movies should be boycotted by every decent American, as well as the movies of those who acted in or contributed to any of Polanski's movies in the last 30 years.The man is an animal and a coward.' He's an animal because of what he did to a child; he's a coward because he didn't take his punishment like a man with character.I am thoroughly disgusted by the world's film community for supporting him just because he makes good movies.' I understand that Hitler was a good painter...Maybe we shouldn't have closed in on and bombed his bunker because good painters are a treasure.There's word that both the Polish and French governments are going to try to get Obama to "pardon" him.' I can't believe Obama would agree to such a request while looking into the eyes of his two little girls.' Can you?Amoral is the word of the day - it means no moral compass whatsoever.' And that's what we are seeing around the world in those who have come out to sympathize with and support Roman Polanski, child rapist.' His heinous act and three decades of freedom avoiding an appropriate sentence don't mean anything to amoral people.' It's all about the game of movies.' God bless the Swiss arrest and the intent of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office to bring him back to face justice.'Someone in Hollywood is already, I am sure, scripting up for the movie of Polanski's life, and to be sure, he will be presented to the Vatican for consideration of sainthood, because he is big box office. More >>

I have some comments to make about Ashley Dupre, the highly-paid prostitute who notoriously humped disgraced ex-New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer.Angry about the negative perception of her, Ms. Dupre wrote on a blog post: 'Let me say this:' most girls, to varying degrees, of course, want to be pampered and have nice shoes, designer handbags and gorgeous clothes.' I know many women who target guys with money and use them to get these things.' They toy with them, flirt, go on dates, have sex and then drop hints about that new dress...or being short on rent money ' and the guys deliver it.' Whoa, missy!' Trying to make yourself look better by making comparisons to other devious skanks just doesn't work that well.' Everyone in the universe would like 'nice things,' but some people are satisfied with richer things in life ' like love and family ' while others simply work hard at a legitimate job that doesn't exploit or damage other people's families to get those things.One comment listed on the New York Post website in response to this story was quite interesting: 'She's a cheap trick trying to cover the fact that she sold her body for a few thousand bucks.' There IS a BIG difference.' Implying that a relationship is like prostitution is like implying that hunting and killing game is no [different from] hunting and killing people.' She's trying to spin the simple fact that relationships are give-and-take to say that all that are give-and-take in any way are the same, but giving and taking in a long-term social and intimate relationship is NOT the same as a business transaction for sex. She would have done better to say that a piece of ham in a supermarket is 'no better' than she is being the more closer comparison to buying a piece of meat for consumption.' I have a simple question to ask women who are defensive about their behaviors:' would you teach your daughters to do this?' It is amazing how the answer to this will definitely be a quick and disgusted 'NO,' but then, these women are quick to rationalize.Ashley Dupre is a disgusting creature, not only for being a 'paid-for' sex machine, but mostly for being an unrepentant destroyer of some other woman's family.' It is the unrepentant part that really gets me, and should get you, too.' As a foolish young woman with warped values, we could all 'get' (i.e., understand) her behavior, but here she is, older and after the fact, and she still has no conscience about her actions.It is the lack of conscience in this woman that ultimately judges her. More >>

Every time a celebrity does something egregious (and only when they get caught doing it), they appear on Letterman (or previously on Leno) or some network morning show to self-flagellate as a method for gaining sympathy.' It's a rather standard public relations maneuver, and I usually find it to be an example of false contrition.There's a big difference between having remorse because you were caught, as opposed to before you were caught.' Most people just say "Sorry," because they were caught, and not because they have actual remorse for doing something wrong.' In other words, their "Sorry," actually means "Geez, I'm soooo sorry I was caught," which is vastly different from "Oh, I'm soooo sorry I hurt someone." This brings me to Michael Vick, who, with his own hands, perpetrated some of the most horrific torture of fighting dogs that I have ever heard about.' Frankly, it was hard to imagine the kind of dissociation from all compassion and emotion that goes into looking into the eyes of suffering animals, and enjoying watching the pain and enjoying having that much power over an agonized, terrified animal.' To me, that is sociopathic which is over the top in cruelty.' I would not like to see that person on the streets ever again.Vick is now out of jail, and has been on 60 Minutes to explain his behavior and to make the case for his repentance.' Repentance has four parts:' 1) taking responsibility for your actions (owning what you've done and giving no excuses or blaming others for your own actions), 2) feeling remorse (i.e., being truly regretful for the hurt caused), 3) repair (for example, going to the Humane Society and/or giving talks to change people's minds and hearts about how they treat animals - and, by the way, Vick has been doing that), and 4) no repeat behavior.' Those are the Four R's of Repentance.On 60 Minutes , Vick took total responsibility for his actions.' He was even pushed by James Brown, who asked: "Who do you blame for all of this?" Vick said, "I blame me." He didn't use the words "but..." or "it's just..." which I hear all too often on my radio program.' Instead, he just took responsibility.' He talked about his first experience watching dog fights at age 8, and, as a boy of 8, thought it was cool, fun, and exciting.' It was something a lot of men friends did together.'It was poignant when he pointed out that it was time for him to pay the price with jail time, he did that alone, because all his so-called "friends" were gone.' He said, "I deserve to lose the $130 million." He also admitted to being lazy and arrogant while at the Atlanta Falcons. It seems he took his prison time to really assess his own moral character and his life.' He spent 2 years in jail, and was suspended from playing football, and he lost all his sponsorship dollars and his reputation.'None of that really impresses me...not at all.' What does impress me is his statement that "football doesn't matter at all," because "...I should have [taken] the initiative to stop it all.' I didn't.' I didn't stop it at all." So, I'm okay with the Philadelphia Eagles giving him a job.' I think he's taken a right-hand turn onto the correct road toward being a decent human being.' I'm willing to stand out of his way and let him do just that. More >>

I should have curly hair by now, especially considering the shenanigans and cruelty perpetrated on children by self-centered adults who have the title "parent."' Their behavior would curl anyone's hair.A 72-year-old woman realized that she "always wanted a child, but spent [her] younger years devoted to academics, achieving degrees in medical sciences and zoology.' I'd always had it in the back of my mind that when the time was right I'd like to have a child.' But my studies meant that children kept getting delayed.' The right time finally came in my early 50s, and since then, I've been attempting, and failing, with IVF [in-vitro fertilization]." This excuse for a prospective mother has never had a long term relationship (no time for that either), and therefore doesn't even have an ancient daddy to provide for the child.' As for her age?' Well, she figures anyone can die at any time (and she's a scientist?' She's supposed to understand actuarial tables).' She really believes she's going to last long enough in good enough health, or she says she'll "ask one of my younger friends to be a guardian." So, IF she conceives (and I sincerely hope her 20 years of fertility failure continue), she'll play with the kid and then just pass him or her off to some friend.' Great.Remember the Italian woman, then the oldest to give birth in 2006 at the age of 67?' She died recently.' You can count the age of her orphaned child on less than one hand.If this woman succeeds, she will have the title of the oldest mother in the world.' I would suggest that she will be the oldest female creature to give birth, as a real mother would never set up her own child for this selfish foolishness.' I wish this fertility doctor would have his license revoked.' The same should happen to the American doctor who impregnated the "Octomom."Freedoms without limits automatically encroach upon good sense, compassion, and someone else's well-being.' This is just another example of how insignificant the needs of children have become as compared to the impulsive, self-centered desires of adults who want children, but who don't necessarily want to be bothered by the needs of children. More >>