More >>

More >>

More >>

The other day, someone made an honest comment to me about a gift I gave them - a rude comment, but an honest one.This is the sort of circumstance I hear about a lot on my radio program.' Callers get very upset about some small moment of discomfort, stupidity, rudeness, thoughtlessness - you get my drift.' It sends them into a tizzy, because I guess they yearn for this perfect world where everyone else's behavior conforms to what it is that makes them happy.People are largely busy with their own lives, and they don't always monitor their mouths or body language.' Sometimes, they're prone to say things without consideration of how it might be received.So, back to my story - I just laughed.' Look, my feelings can get hurt just like yours.' But since I am "Dr. Laura," and because I have the experience of over six decades on the planet, I have learned to choose what will annoy me.' When you have friends and acquaintances, you have to' 1) cut everyone some "stupidity slack" once in a while (as you would have them forgive you);' 2) look at the totality of that person and realize that, percentage-wise, they're "fine," and 3) decide whether or not their action was intentionally meant to do you harm or was just a quirk of their personality.When someone is downright evil, please avoid them.When someone is simply a bit thoughtless of others, then put them in their place...in your mind, that is.' Know that they have this "quirky-ness" and in the future, don't have expectations for them that are out-of-proportion.You can still be friendly, and even be friends, once you accept their limitations.So, if you don't have a "goat" to get , they can't get your goat! More >>

More >>

Earlier this month, I took a call that I thought was a perfect example of how "moral nearsightedness" is overcoming American society.This twenty-something young woman was pregnant out-of-wedlock, "shacking up" with her alleged fiance (they are living with his father), and the fiance doesn't have enough income to support a wife and child.But that's not why she called!! In fact, when I pointed out the irresponsibility and immaturity of conceiving out of wedlock with a guy incapable of supporting a family, I got back: "Well, that's not my question!" (And, by the way, she didn't want to have a wedding until after the baby was born and she got her figure back in order to wear a white gown).Her question actually related to her mother.' Apparently, her mommy came to visit and "got it on" with the fiance's dad.... all night .' There were other children (of other family members) in the home when this was happening.That's as far as she got when I said: "It's genetic." She responded with: "What?" I repeated and expanded: "It's genetic...having no moral foundation for decisions.' Like mother, like daughter." Now that may sound harsh to you, but truth often is, and there was nothing I could do to change anything about this situation.' She was already "shacking up" and pregnant; her mother already had humped the maybe future father-in-law.' Her question was going to be about confronting her mom about this outrageous behavior.' I couldn't bear to hear her even go there, considering she was the pot and the kettle all by herself.It's a shame both of our eyes point only outwards.' It would be a far, far better thing if one of them turned inwards. More >>

Frankly, I'm fed up with excuses for out-of-control, bad behavior.' Excuses like:''''''''' 1) it's an addiction''''''''' 2) it's somebody else's fault.Nothing is going to change in anyone's life until responsibility for choices, actions, or in actions is taken.Here's an example:' during a year-long gambling binge at the Caesar's Palace and Rio casinos in Las Vegas in 2007, Terrence Watanabe managed to lose nearly $127 million (most of his personal fortune).' Watanabe - unmarried, no kids - who spent his adult life working around the clock for his father's import novelty business, picked up gambling in Las Vegas and was treated like a king.Apparently, he drank to excess, and is claiming that the casinos named in his lawsuit violated gambling regulations by not shutting off his ability to gamble when he was drunk - which is a state rule.Mr. Watanabe is also a criminal defendant who faces 28 years in prison for "intent to defraud and steal from Harrah's," stemming from $14.7 million that the casino says it extended to him as credit and that he lost.So, which is it?' Is Watanabe responsible for his debts, drunk or sober?' Or is Harrah's responsible as they allegedly let him gamble and lose when he was drunk?Well, it might be BOTH!Watanabe may have a case if, indeed, Harrah's broke the law about allowing drunks to gamble.HOWEVER (and it is a BIG "however"), that argument might work for Watanabe for one tour of gambling, but when sober - sober , mind you - he made the choice...the choice ... to go back to Harrah's, drink, gamble, lose, ask for credit, and not pay the full amount he owed.Watanabe is responsible for his bad behavior, bad habits and debts.' If Harrah's employees kept him gambling when he was "fall-down drunk," then they have to deal with the civil courts and the gaming commission of the state.' However, how drunk do you have to be before you are not responsible for deciding on a bet, physically pushing chips forward, and so on?' If you're fall down drunk, you're probably not able to do those things.'He placed his bets; he lost.' He needs to pay up. More >>

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 >>