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 >>

Students in the American Fork High School Marching Band swept the awards not long ago in a competition at Brigham Young University.' What made this story interesting and somewhat controversial is this:' on the way back from another competition held in Idaho, the driver of the bus in which the students were riding fell asleep at the wheel.' All of the students survived.' The one fatality was the 33 year old instructor who grabbed for the steering wheel when she noticed the driver was out cold.The controversial part occurred because some people believe that it is unseemly for life to go on, for joy to be in people's hearts, or for friends and relatives to be happy and involved in their lives when someone dies.' Some people believe that it is disrespectful, cavalier and insensitive for others to carry on as though a tragedy didn't happen.' Generally, this belief comes out of a confusion of pain, emotions and guilt over survival.I think it's a good thing that these students competed, and they did so in remembrance of Heather Christensen, the teacher who saved their lives.' And that's the point:' she saved their lives so they could live, love, and play music.' I believe they showed her immense respect by playing in her honor, continuing with the competition for which she coached them.'' Her immortality comes from being remembered fondly by her students who used the skills they learned from her to create the music she loved so much.When someone we love dies, we don't honor them by denying ourselves the normal pleasures of life.' I find that to be an insult.' Life is precious, and when somebody is gone from life, that which they lost should be treated with the utmost reverence by squeezing every moment of dignity, creativity, joy, adventure, work, love, compassion and fun that is possible.' This is the way you honor the deceased:' you carry on and do something of value with your life.The students received a long, standing ovation as they marched off the field and embraced in tearful hugs.' What a fitting memorial to a brave, caring teacher. 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 >>

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 >>

I am sick to my stomach and soul that Scotland freed the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds, allowing the terminally ill creep to die in his homeland, Libya, and rejecting American pleas for justice in the attack that killed 270 people.Abdel Baset al-Megrahi served ONLY eight years of his life sentence.' Because he's been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, Scottish Judge Secretary MacAskill felt that since "Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power," he should be set free to die in his own bed in Libya.' The mass murderer was convicted in 2001 of taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 - just before Christmas.' The airliner exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, and all 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground died when it crashed.This evil man has been given three months to live, or so the doctors guess.' He is being given the luxury of dying in his country, in his town, in his home and with his family.' Is that appropriately compassionate?' Well, my take is that this is definitely compassionate, but definitely NOT appropriate.'It is an appalling, disgusting, sickening decision made by misguided notions of compassion.' Compassion for this man is an insult to all the victims.' The compassion should be directed to the victims and the ongoing, permanent suffering of their families.' This is misplaced compassion, misdirected compassion, and inappropriate compassion.' All the families of the victims got the bits and pieces of their loved ones returned to them in a box.' The same should happen to al-Meghari.'Why is this happening?' As one wise man once said, "Follow the money...or the oil."' Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi collected al-Megrahi on his private jet.' Western energy companies (including Britain's BP PLC) have moved into Libya in an attempt to tap the country's vast oil and gas wealth.' Gadhafi, as reported by FoxNews.com, has renounced terrorism, dismantled Libya's secret nuclear program, and accepted his government's responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing.' He has paid compensation to the victim's families.' I don't know why he wants this vile creature back in Libya to die.' Perhaps it's because there's more to the story...When al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli, more than 1,000 young Libyans gathered to welcome him, cheering and waving Libyan flags.' You should know that large public gatherings are rare in Libya, and tightly controlled by the government (especially on the tarmac where Gadhafi's private jet lands). For a country that is supposed to have turned its back on terrorism, protecting, nurturing and celebrating a terrorist murderer is perplexing.' Perhaps it means that the roots of Libya are still firmly planted in extremist mentalities.' Or maybe it means that, having bowed to economic and political pressure, Libya wished to flex a bicep at the expense of 270 victims and their innumerable family members and friends.To have put al-Meghari on a plane and then to welcome him as a hero, allowing him to die in peace is, in my opinion, an insult to the values of all civilization which believes that life is precious.' He forfeited the preciousness of his life when he thought it righteous to murder, killing men, women and children who didn't mean him or anyone else any harm.'Shame on Scotland.' Shame on Libya.' Shame on Scotland again, for not inflicting a death penalty on an unrepentant mass murderer.' We do not show the world that we value life when we impose minor consequences on those who devalue and steal lives. More >>

People have accused me of everything from being rigid, to simply spouting common sense.' Well, for the folks who think I'm rigid, I have this to say:' I have convictions - convictions that I took a lifetime to forge, convictions I stand by, because they make good sense, and ultimately help people to have better lives.Fifty years ago, most of what I have to say was common sense.'' Not so now.' Today, many values are no longer held in common, and what values are left happen to be undermined daily by forces in government, religion, professional organizations, media, communities, families, friends, neighbors, and even your own impulses.Honestly, I fear for the growing lack of cohesion in our country with respect to values, morals, ideals, goals, and general insight.' When half the country accepts a candidate for the Supreme Court of one gender and ethnic group who says she is superior in wisdom and intent to another individual of another gender and ethnic group simply because of her gender and ethnic group, and the country doesn't fall to the ground either laughing or outraged, I worry.That example is one on a huge scale, but no less important is how the evaluation of family, marriage, and child care has been constantly undermined by something as simple as TV commercials.'We've seen on TV a commercial for a chewing gum that seems to be an aphrodisiac (because young girls seemingly will jump their boyfriends in front of their parents).' And now, we have T-Mobile commercials that have a pretty spokeswoman who has a minor boy attempting to seduce her, as well as a husband who goes all "gaga" in front of his wife, who, when she reminds him she's right there, says "We're married....technically."This is supposed to be very funny?We have male penile enhancement supplements being advertised all day and evening (when children are watching), and some lubricant that makes a woman explode with orgasmic pleasure.' And on and on it goes.Back in the day, common sense would have precluded these commercials from airing, because they were tasteless and they undermined the common understanding that some things are personal and private.' But now, all the barriers are down.' Heroes today are people who sing, dance, play music, act in movies, and run with a ball.' People who sacrifice in battle, however, are ignored or impugned.'Car commercials talk about how sturdy and safe a car is, but they do so while showing a situation in which ex-spouses are doing a "child exchange."' Everyone is smiling and appears happy because the car is so nice.' There's nothing "nice" about a broken family for a child.After years and years of the TV show Friends winning so many Emmy awards, and the stars going on to other lucrative media adventures, young people think "shacking up" and out-of-wedlock pregnancies ARE common sense.'I don't mind being the lead salmon...I just hope that you will all consider swimming upstream with me and finally stand up privately (and publicly) for common sense. More >>

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. More >>

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. More >>

As I was walking through my kitchen to my office, my husband was having his morning cereal, watching Fox News.' They were in the midst of a perky promo for 'what's coming up next,' concerning a school district that was using financial rewards to motivate students to get good grades.' I kept walking... and only heard one bit more about the subject:' 'It's working.'That promo stuck in my mind because of those last words:' 'It's working.''If tantalizing children with money, money, money actually makes them get good grades, because they pay more attention in class, put more effort into their homework, are more invested in studying for exams and working on reports and projects, well, that means that a lot of kids aren't living up to their potential.Why would MONEY make the difference, and not the appreciation of their parents, the respect of their peers, the approval from their teachers, or the mere burst of pride in doing well?' The answer is simple:' kids these days are not raised to care about appreciation, respect, approval and pride...period!' They are brought up to care about celebrity, extravagance, notoriety, freakish attention (think reality shows), infamy as a positive experience, and extreme non-conformity to traditional values.What happens to these kids when the money isn't there, but there is still the expectation of profound effort and commitment?' Certainly teachers, police, firefighters, those in the military, and small shop owners (to name just a few) aren't putting out their best efforts for the financial reward.' A police officer who 'collars' a serious bad guy gets a lot of thumps on the back, a night of some beers with fellow colleagues, and a notch toward an eventual promotion in rank.' Mostly, he has pride in doing his job well.'These children are not being moved in that direction at all by this 'money reward for grades' idea (except, maybe, for the beer).Schools have been eliminating accolades such as high honors at graduation (e.g., valedictorian) so as not to hurt the self-esteem of those who won't or can't rise to that occasion.' Yet, they want to give money, money, money to those who do.' What is THAT message?' No one's feelings are going to be hurt because they didn't get the money, money, money.' Ugh.I think we should go back to showing respect for the children who do perform well: for example, point systems that offer monthly 'perks' like not having to take a few quizzes because their grades are above a B+, or earning a class trip to the zoo, aquarium, or museum or something else that acknowledges their efforts without minimizing the meaning by throwing coins at them. More >>

During his recent African trip, Pope Benedict XVI said that the distribution of condoms would not resolve the AIDS problem.' The Pope has made it clear that abstinence is going to be the best way to fight AIDS.Google "Pope" and "condoms," and you'll never run out of reading material excoriating the man for his observation and opinion.' Many health advocates have gone ballistic in their criticism of his comments.' They feel it is one thing to promote abstinence as part of the Catholic religion, but that it is an entirely different thing to preach it to the world.On a person-by-person basis, wearing a condom does, of course, offer some protection against contracting various venereal diseases and (of course) unwanted pregnancy.' It is also true that condoms sometimes break, slip, or are put on incorrectly (taut to the very end).' Everything has its limitations...except abstinence.I remember listening to a rabbi describing a situation that occurred to his kosher family.' His 7 year old child was invited to a birthday party for a classmate at one of those fast-food hamburger establishments.' When he came to pick up his child at the end of the party, one of the mothers - clearly annoyed - chastised him for the pain he caused his son.' "All the children had hamburgers, chicken nuggets, french fries and dessert, and your little boy had to sit there and eat none of it.' Imagine how terrible your son must have felt?' How could you do this to him?' Food is food.' There is nothing sinful about food.' What you are doing to him is just cruel."' Just about at the end of her tirade, his son bounded up to him, gave him a huge hug around the waist, and said "I had a great time.' This was a fun party."The woman blanched and walked away.' The rabbi followed her and gently told her the following:' animals will eat whatever is around, even if it will make them unhealthy.' Humans are to rise above animals and become masters of their urges.' Imagine my son in a dorm room where harmful illicit drugs are being passed about.' We already know that peer pressure and urges will not force him to relent and give in to the impulse.' Learning at his early age to control impulse and desire is not a harmful trait - many times, it might be a life-saving one.' Look at him.' He enjoyed the company of your son and the rest of the children without giving up his values.' He looks happy and satisfied.' We really need to bring up our children to be masters of their instincts, not slaves to them, don't you think?The woman scowled, but listened to him.Yes, in any one instance, a condom could protect, but in the overall scheme of humanity, why do so many people wish to push away the enormous protective power of moral values?When the Pope suggests that human beings are best off saving their sexual passion for the stability of a covenant of marriage, he is making a statement that the act of sexuality is elevated by the context, and ultimately protects both man and woman from a myriad of hurtful consequences from venereal diseases to unwanted pregnancies (complete with abortions, abandonment, single-parenthood, and homelessness to name a few).The naysayers all have one thing in common:' they refuse to want, believe or accept that human beings can commit to a higher spiritual state of thought and behavior.' The Pope believes in us more than that.I am not Catholic, so this is no knee-jerk defense of my spiritual leader.' The truth is that he is simply correct and too many people don't want to hear it, because they want to live lives unfettered by rules.' It is sad that they don't realize that this makes them a slave to animal impulse versus a master of human potential. More >>