Timeless Lessons from A Classic Story

 Email This Post

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.

Pepsi’s iPhone App Under Fire

 Email This Post

I Googled “PepsiCo and Apple iPhone” and found three million sites talking about PepsiCo’s promotional concept for Amp, their energy drink:  “AMP Up Before You Score.”  The app purports to help men pick up any one of 24 types of women and then get coached on “pick up and score some sex” lines.  The app then takes the coaching a step further, encouraging users who “score” to post details such as name, date and comments for their pals on Facebook and Twitter.  Apparently, a lot of people (mostly women) have criticized the app (mostly on Twitter), saying it contributes to the objectification of women.

Frankly, I think it is hilarious, and that women (especially the feminists) are being unbelievably hypersensitive and hypocritical.  Let me count the ways:

1. Women’s studies at colleges and universities objectify men as the “dark side.”
2. Women dress provocatively these days.
3. Women “hook up” (i.e., casual sex – no obligations, no dinner)
4. Women use abortion as birth control for any children conceived via
 casual sex, as opposed to marrying the father of the child.
5. Women “shack up,” have sex out of wedlock, and have babies out of wedlock.
6. Women today are so casual about sex that The Wall Street Journal reports that they have interfered with the earning abilities of call girls and prostitutes.
7. Porn movies star women.
8. The porn industry is owned and managed largely by female entrepreneurs who themselves are objectifying women.

So, what is the problem with an app that suggests pick-up lines?  If a woman is foolish enough to hear a come-on and drop her undies, well, that’s her choice, isn’t it?  Instead, she could tell the guy to “kiss off.”  She could wait to have sex until at least 1 ½ years into the relationship, with an engagement ring and a wedding date. 

I am not offended by this ad program.  After all, it worked.  Everyone is talking about it (even me).  I think it’s stupid, but I’m not offended.  But if any of those “lines” gets a guy some free sex, well it’s the woman’s damn fault, not PepsiCo’s.

Roman Polanski is an Animal and a Coward

 Email This Post

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.

Spitzer’s Call Girl Complains

 Email This Post

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.

Michael Vick Returns to Football

 Email This Post

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.

72-Year-Old Woman Tries To Have a Child

 Email This Post

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.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

 Email This Post

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.

Standing Up for People, Values and Ideals

 Email This Post

An all-too-typical issue that comes up on my radio program is cowardice, because someone didn’t stand up for others, for values and/or for ideals.  The standard excuses range from not wanting to escalate a situation, being afraid of other people getting mad, fear of being marginalized or left out, being afraid of being “judged,” not “liking” confrontation, not wanting to lose the image as a nice person, and so on.

I disrespect the actions of not standing up for friends, fairness (even when a friend is not involved), and values.  Some of my callers are parents whose adult children are behaving recklessly, thoughtlessly, and in total opposition to how they were brought up.  Too many of these parents are more concerned with “peace at all costs” instead of continuing their parental leadership by clarifying their position and drawing the line.

I remember a long time ago, there was a talk show host coming on right after my program.  We were polar opposites in our political views, and she would use her three hours on the air to critique my program.  This, of course, annoyed the heck out of me, but I never spoke about it on the air - not even once - because I don’t use my air time to do anything but help people do and be better in their lives.

Fast forward several years later, and a feminist group went after her with venomous attacks, attempting to destroy her career.  Mind you, she was a feminist activist leader herself, but she dared to have her own opinion about something that went against the grain of the activist group’s position.  It turns out that I was the first person who called her the next morning - with a call of support.  It galled me that there was a concerted effort to unfairly destroy her career.  I just don’t like life’s unfair qualities, and I have generally stood up to them no matter what.

Fast forward again years later, and I was being unfairly attacked by a different activist group that she had once been part of.  She went into numerous public venues to defend and support me. 

We both took hits for doing these things, but we both turned out to like each other very much, and we both still maintained the bulk of our differing opinions.  We did, however, agree on one point of ethics, morals, and values:  you defend who or what is being attacked unfairly, and consequently, we both defended responsible free speech.

We both lost to the power of the activist groups, however, but we won each other’s respect and support, all while keeping the high ground.  We each went on growing in success and the respect of our peers as well. 

That’s one very personal experience for me.  I hope the next time you see rudeness or cruelty, you will stand up.

Racial comments coming from Don Imus are as ugly and unnecessary (except for ratings) as the joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter getting “knocked up” by a baseball player.  It isn’t the term “knocked up” that’s the issue - I use it all the time for out-of-wedlock pregnancies, because they usually end up with the child being aborted or growing up with the chaos of a life with one parent gone.  David Letterman wanted to shoot insults at Palin simply because she’s Republican, and he aimed his gun at her child.  That’s disgusting.  How many of you would stand for that happening to your child? 

Imus lost his job…temporarily…and Letterman’s ratings are higher.  And I’m left wondering if you’ll stand up for others (or values, morals, ethics and principles) when most others around you will turn their gaze away.