Moral Nearsightedness

 Email This Post

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.

Gambling on Bad Behavior

 Email This Post

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 inactions 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.

Five Health Factors Could Prevent Millions of Deaths

 Email This Post

It was a surprise to me to learn from the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) that tackling just five health factors could prevent millions of premature deaths and increase life expectancy by almost 4 years!

Some of these factors (e.g., overeating) are totally within our personal, daily control.  While not having enough nutritious food is a big health risk for those in poorer countries, the BIGGER health risk in richer nations is being overweight or obese.  Obesity and overweight cause more deaths worldwide than being underweight!

The Geneva-based UN health agency listed the world’s top mortality risks as:

1. High blood pressure (which accounts for 13% of global deaths)
2. Smoking (9% of global deaths)
3. High blood glucose (6% of global deaths)
4. Physical inactivity (6%)
5. Being overweight or obese (5%)

The WHO added that if the risks in its report had not existed, life expectancy would, on average, have been almost a decade longer in 2004 for the entire global population.

That means that the quality and quantity of our lives are in our hands - in our control –  and are, largely, a matter of choice.  Keep that in mind when you eat foods high in salt or sugar, or eat too much and don’t get rest, or don’t get daily exercise, or smoke that cigarette…

When you do things that hurt you and you don’t take time to smell the roses, the roses will be planted over your premature remains.

Calorie Counts on Restaurant Menus Don’t Change Behavior

 Email This Post

When I was on a working trip to New York City, some of my staff and I popped into a very lovely open-air sort of restaurant for lunch.  The menu was huge in size (I always wonder how they have all that food on hand), and I noticed something I had never, ever seen before:  calorie counts between the description of the food and the price!

I read each and every calorie count and was shocked at how unbelievably caloric many of the foods were that I had thought were healthy.  An appetizer of fried calamari had more calories than one should have in a whole day!  Even the veggie meals were stuffed with extra calories from oil, cheese and sauces.  Oh my!

Talk about being “scared straight,” like those kids in front of convicts who warn them to clean up their acts.  I immediately selected the healthiest thing I could find (boring, but healthy), ending up with a turkey sandwich on rye with lettuce and tomato - no mayo and no dressing, but with some salt, because I normally have low blood pressure.  I give callers high blood pressure, but mine is usually low. 

New York City was the first place in the country, I believe, to require calorie posting.  What have we learned from this experiment?

Researchers at New York University and Yale discovered that, although 9 out of 10 people who saw the calorie counts claimed they “made healthier choices as a result,” when the researchers checked the receipts afterward, they found that people, had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect in July, 2008.

The lead research scientist said, “I think it does show us that labels are not enough.”  What?  What else do you want to do?  Send in the calorie police?  On cityfile.com, someone made a suggestion that restaurants could have scales for people to weigh themselves before sitting down to dinner (ohhhh, what  rude reminder!) or they should post pictures of what you’re going to look like if you have that lasagna in addition to  bread, butter or olive oil, a big salad with a cup of dressing and then cheesecake to wrap it up!

So, if calorie postings have no impact, except for the people who already are careful and appropriate in their healthy food choices, then what is the point of continuing them?  I still think it’s a good idea to continue.  Perhaps with patience, we will see people care about their bodies and their health as much as their family, friends and relatives do, and as much as the taxpayers who are not overweight and are forced to be burdened by the rising health costs brought on by illnesses associated with obesity.

But It’s Not My Fault!

 Email This Post

I am so sick and tired of people not taking responsibility for their own weaknesses, foolishness, bad judgment, and bad behavior.  Sick, sick, sick!!!
Here are just two examples:

- Fat people attempting to sue fast food restaurants because  they’re…well…FAT.
- People suing restaurants because they got ultra-hot coffee that they then chose to put between their legs (high up next to their private parts) while they were in a moving car.

And now, we have a so-called pathological gambler who, one unlucky night at the blackjack table, lost the $125,000 that an Indiana casino had advanced her.  But in a two-year court battle, she has argued that she doesn’t owe the casino a dime.  Why?  Because, she says, its employees should have denied such an addicted gambler as her access to the card table.  Her dumb argument is that the casino knowingly took advantage of her to enrich itself.

Well, my friends, she was gambling to enrich herself without any visible work, talent, perseverance or good sense.  She failed…and now wants to avoid responsibility for her choice.   The Indiana Supreme Court is scheduled to decide next month if she has to repay the casino.

I’m against ALL the bailouts.  When people took out loans they couldn’t pay back - too bad!  When people gamble with money they don’t have and then lose - too bad!

This foolish woman frittered away her $1 million inheritance from her deceased father.  The casino offered her a free room, free food, free drinks, and free use of a car.  She said yes, and gambled herself into a hole.

There’s a gambling commission that enrolls people in a program that allows them to voluntarily request to be excluded from the casinos for a set period of time (or even a lifetime).  This makes casinos babysitters for adults who ought to know better.  I don’t agree with this program and I hope the Indiana court tells her it’s her own damn fault:  get a job and pay it all back.

We’re losing America with these notions that individuals are not responsible for their own actions, and that “the village” is responsible instead.

When Good People Make Bad Choices

 Email This Post

Bad things happen to good people.  My question often is:  when they have a choice, why do good people choose for bad things to happen to them?  Here’s an email I received, which was titled “Choosing Wisely:”

Dear Dr. Laura:

…I have cerebral palsy.  My difficulties have motivated me to use common  sense quite frequently.  I consider what others may perceive as my  weakness to be my fulcrum of strength.

I have dated several men, but I knew at a young age that I couldn’t marry  a weak one.  I have to be strong, but in many ways, my husband IS one of  the reasons for my strength.

{I heard a female caller who knew she had not chosen her man wisely,  but] married him anyway.  When you were guiding her, she kept  responding with ‘I know that.’  But the fact is, she now has two children  who will likely witness an unhappy relationship between the parents or  succumb to the misfortunes of a broken home.  Why on earth are all the  red flags ignored?  We’re all born with a gift of intuition, but too often, it’s  discarded.  Choosing wisely in the first place is meant to help us avoid  unnecessary drama.

Many people still don’t realize the power that they have.  We teach others  every day how to treat us.  Conversely, we get treated in a manner that we  allow.  As I once read on your website, ‘The reason there are jerks is  because there is always someone willing to date them,’ and unfortunately,  in many cases, marry them.

My existence is hard, but choosing wisely was the easiest thing I have  done.  I have no complaints.  I suffer every day with a disability, but at  least it reminds me that I am alive.  I know you have said that what’s  ’normal’ cannot be fixes, and not everything can be.  However, if my  condition is the only thing I cannot fix, then I simply accept it.  I am my  husband’s girlfriend, and I remain your dedicated listener and reader.   Thank you for everything you’ve given me.

Sincerely,
Dana

As a psychotherapist with over three decades on THIS job, I know that plenty of people get absorbed in the melodrama of difficult situations with huge ups and downs.  Some people compulsively re-live early childhood problems in the hope of finally having them end up better; others are just not ready for healthy intimacy, but dive in anyway.  Then there are those who aren’t very interested in giving, which is avoidable if you’re in a difficult relationship with a difficult person and always spend your time angry or hurt. 

I know all this, yet it hurts my soul when people line up for grief, disappointment, disaster and hurt.  It makes me angry (sorry, it’s true) when they triangulate children into the chaos.

Choose wisely; treat kindly.  Those are my four words for success.  They are why I do my show three hours each and every weekday…in the hopes that many of you good people will not make bad decisions.  Your life counts on it.

Courts Aren’t Supporting the Concept of Personal Responsibility

 Email This Post

When President Obama spoke to school children last week, he gave the kind of speech I would have given:  he emphasized that personal responsibility is the ticket to a life of success and a strong country.  He mentioned that all the equipment, books, and desks were all well and good, but useful only if students took the responsibility to work hard at their studies.

I wish our courts (and the rest of the President’s agenda) followed that concept of personal responsibility.  Not so.

An Indiana court has ruled that a pizza shop must pay for a 340 pound employee’s weight loss surgery in order to ensure the success of another operation for a back injury he suffered at work when he was accidentally struck in the back by a freezer door.  I wonder how much his girth was responsible for the accident.  I don’t wonder how much his girth is responsible for the fact that the surgery for his back won’t be undertaken until he reduces his weight first - no kidding!  But making the pizza shop employer responsible for paying for that weight loss surgery is not in keeping with the President’s message of personal responsibility.

The man was obese before he was hired.  If he hadn’t been hired because of his weight, that would have been discrimination, and would have been illegal.  Employers are screwed no matter what they do to run a business and make a reasonable profit.

This is not the only such case.  The most recent was in Oregon, where the state’s Supreme Court ruled on August 27 that the state workers’ compensation insurance must pay for gastric bypass surgery to ensure that a man’s knee replacement surgery was effective.

Businesses will definitely and understandably be much more careful about whom they hire.  While they can’t not hire a fat person because he or she is fat, they are not obligated to hire the first person who shows up for the job, and they can and should come up with some other reason to protect themselves from unreasonable financial demands because they hired a person who eats more and moves less. 

Obviously, this situation is anti-personal responsibility and anti-business.  This ruling will have repercussions beyond obesity and weight-loss surgery.  Employers will be wary of hiring people who have other conditions that expose them to workplace injury.  Developmental and physical limitations of some applicants will likely keep potential employers from being as compassionate as they’ve been in the past. 

This is really sad, because ultimately, it’s the individual with some challenges who will suffer.

Cheating Husband Does Public Penance

 Email This Post

William Taylor, from a Washington, D.C. suburb, cheated on his wife.  How do I know that?  Because he held a sign near Tyson’s Corner Mall that read:  “I cheated and this is my punishment.”  He stayed out on the corner for most of the morning commute, creating quite a commotion.  He and his wife brokered the deal.  He figured he had to do what she asked in order to make things right.

When Fox TV interviewed women, they all loved the idea.  The print version of the story appeared on www.foxnews.com and it was followed by a series of reader comments.  Some of the responses suggested that castration was the best punishment for infidelity.  One (obviously male) writer pointed out that women seem to enjoy publicly humiliating men, but would not tolerate the reverse for exactly the same situation.

That is true.  Feminism’s perspective is that no matter what a woman does, it is the man’s fault, and whatever a man does is the man’s fault.  Hypothetical example:  a man and woman rob a bank.  He’s a bad guy, and she is duped, clouded by love, or dominated by his will.  She’s a sad victim, instead of a co-conspirator.  Another example:  a married man has an affair which lasts two weeks.  He comes guilt-ridden to his wife and confesses.  He tells her he’s been so emotionally and sexually ignored by her for ten years, that he just absolutely needed some feminine attention and affection.  She ignores everything that comes after the confession and spends her time punishing him and whining to all who will listen.

Women rarely take responsibility for any negative relationship issues, and that’s largely because of the feminist brainwashing which has made them see all men as Darth Vader. 

Here’s another point:  in the development of our country, being humiliated in the public square was a standard form of punishment — remember “stocks” and “pillories” from American history class?  There is something positive to be said about this concept of punishment - for men or women. 

When we lived in small communities, the power of shame was potent, and probably dissuaded many from inappropriate behavior of all sorts.  The thought of being embarrassed in public is horrendous to most people, since our reputations are everything in interpersonal relationships.

I bet that a lot of spouses, seeing this fellow out there, will remember him when they consider straying.  Consider it a kind of prophylactic for infidelity.