iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

Counselor's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
Straight Men Look At Penises While Watching Porn, 'A Billion Wicked Thoughts' Co-Author Ogi Ogas Claims

Straight Men Look At Penises While Watching Porn, 'A Billion Wicked Thoughts' Co-Author Ogi Ogas Claims

Commented May 4, 2013 at 18:45:21 in Gay Voices

“I don't understand his point. It is impossible not to look at penises if you are looking at straight porn which features intercourse so that proves nothing. To show male interest in penises as penises you would have to demonstrate that straight men watch gay porn which I think is very very infrequent.”
Ben Affleck Thanks Jennifer Garner For 'Working' On Their Marriage During 2013 Oscars Speech (VIDEO)

Ben Affleck Thanks Jennifer Garner For 'Working' On Their Marriage During 2013 Oscars Speech (VIDEO)

Commented Mar 2, 2013 at 00:28:16 in Celebrity

“Would it have cost him anything to simply say that he loved his beautiful wife? Honesty is well and good on "60 Minutes". This was the most important award show in Hollywood and it was a once in a lifetime moment. He could have showed some freaking chivalry. His wife is not a private citizen but a star in her own right with a reputation. He could have showed more class. However, if he is tired of his "job" I am happy to replace him and put in all the "work" necessary.”
Nancy Pelosi: Video Games Are Not The Reason For Violence In America

Nancy Pelosi: Video Games Are Not The Reason For Violence In America

Commented Feb 10, 2013 at 13:46:13 in Politics

“While I'm sure violent video games have some effect, ask yourself these questions: What percentage of teenagers in the U.S. play violent video games let's say at least 20 hours per week? Of these millions of teenagers what percentage commit violent crimes? What percentage commit gun violence? I think you will find the answer to questions #2 and 3 a very low percentage. If video games are the culprit why aren't millions of teenagers running around with AR-15s? Wouldn't that logically follow?”

rocketranger on Feb 10, 2013 at 15:37:14

“That is an example of somewhat tortured logic, serially linking one supposition upon another.

I think a more careful study needs to consider what effect playing these excessively violent games has on individuals with diminished mental and moral development. Then ask how it is that no one close by them, knowing their challenges, saw fit to remove their access to weapons of any kind?

The parents of Dylan and Kleibold deserve blame for not knowing their children sufficiently and allowing their collection of firearms, ammunition and explosives.

The problem is more related to parents not parenting than most want to admit.”
Avoiding First Date Faux Pas (Part 1):  What Never To Do On A First Date

Avoiding First Date Faux Pas (Part 1): What Never To Do On A First Date

Commented Apr 30, 2013 at 18:24:13 in Fifty

“While I agree that women should never ever feel pressured into having sex on the first date (or at any time), I will also say that if a woman is very attracted to a guy, and he to her, and she is willing to risk the fact that a relationship may or may not ensue, and she feels that the guy is safe, there is nothing taboo about having sex on the first date. Don't do it if it will make "you" feel bad. But, if you are worried about the guy's view, let me tell you this as an experienced guy: any guy who holds against you the fact that you had sex with him on the first date is a very sick guy and you want nothing to do with him anymore. I repeat: any guy who holds against you the fact that you had sex with him on the first date is a very sick guy and you want nothing to do with him anymore.”

LovisMirac on Apr 30, 2013 at 19:55:58

“One problem with that: birth control doesn't always work... and the alternatives are [to say the least] emotionally complicated.

Do you really want to risk handling big questions together, with someone you really don't know well enough, to know if you can handle big questions compatibly?”

uzeurbrain on Apr 30, 2013 at 19:43:05

“had many women that wanted it first date too”
huffingtonpost entry

Victoria's Secret Lingerie Line Targeting Teens

Commented Apr 8, 2013 at 17:06:07 in Politics

“I have not always agreed with Boteach. In particular, I recall an article in which he criticized co-eds in New York for wearing mini-skirts and not leaving enough to the imagination which I thought ludicrous. But I must admit that, except for his view of Obama's comments here--I thought them completely innocuous--I agree with him all down the line in this article. The truth is that sex is often confusing even for adults let alone teenagers. It can cause very powerful emotions of many types and young people are often not ready to deal with these feelings. Also, I agree with Boteach that urging girls to be sexual before they have developed strong senses of themselves can bring them great frustration and pain. They may want the boy to like or love them for who they are, and to develop a relationship with them, and the boy may only want the sexual plaything he thinks he is seeing based on dress and external behavior. This is made worse by the boy's immature inability to understand the girl's feelings. I also agree with Boteach's suggestion that Victoria's Secret is really just motivated by amoral greed. This is another important lesson that we cannot look to Madison Avenue for social conscience. We must raise our own voices.”
What the NRA Doesn't Want You to Know

What the NRA Doesn't Want You to Know

Commented Mar 30, 2013 at 20:02:29 in Politics

“Good post Nikky. I made a similar point (see below). The background check for mental illness definitely needs to be expanded beyond judicial commitment. Otherwise, as you point out, many more tragedies will ensue. It is not an easy issue because if you cast too wide a net, you run afoul of the 14th Amendment. But with some effort Congress could craft a wider check that is constitutional. Like you, I am very bothered that no one is focusing on this, Groups like MAIG desperately want to pass something and don't want to upset the apple cart.”
What the NRA Doesn't Want You to Know

What the NRA Doesn't Want You to Know

Commented Mar 30, 2013 at 16:13:05 in Politics

“Here's the truth you don't want to comment on Marian: Federal background checks have been woefully inadequate to stop disturbed individuals from buying guns. James Holmes, the Aurora shooter, bought his 4 guns legally and passed 2 background checks; Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter, bought his gun legally after passing a background check; even Cho, the Virgina Tech shooter, who should have been disqualified, bought his 2 guns legally after passing a background check. Between them they killed 46 people. There are many more examples. Should we have universal background checks? Sure we should. Will they be enough? Not even close. If we don't fix what records are checked under the background check and broaden the types of mental health records that can be sent to the database (as much as we constitutionally can), we will not address the problem. MAIG is not talking about this.”

alumcreek on Mar 30, 2013 at 17:08:15

“Insanity trumps everything. The problem is not insane people but the ridiculously easy availability of guns. Once guns are everywhere the poorly educated, insane, angry and downtrodden will use them with hideously bad outcomes.

No matter what your excuse is for having guns around, it is well known and widely understood that their presence in a home makes it far more probable that someone will be injured or a life will be taken.

So what if a few thousand people die and more are injured every year by guns? The answer is clear but you are swimming in river in Africa and can't see it.”

Sterling Ericsson on Mar 30, 2013 at 16:53:02

“Of course it won't be enough, but what about all the people that it did prevent from obtaining a gun? Those are a benefit. Universal background checks won't completely get rid of such incidents (as other laws didn't completely get rid automobile accidents), but it will reduce them, which is a good thing for everyone.

As for expanding the depth of the checks, those will probably need to be looked into. Maybe do some research on whether they would be effective?”

maclfam on Mar 30, 2013 at 16:44:36

“You continue the NRA campaign of disinformation here. Background checks, as currently structured, have several fatal flaws. The first is mentioned in the article. The second is more insidious: several states send NO names to the background check database; several others send only a token number (less than a dozen/year). Until the loopholes at sale are closed, and all states participate, voluntarily or not, the background check has massive gaps for the criminal to use. You are correct in that background checks do not solve the whole problem, but tightening the checks should be part of the broader effort to make America safer from gun violence in particular, and all violence in general.”

Nukey2 on Mar 30, 2013 at 16:31:41

“Background checks are another way of disenfranchising felons. We already have 3,00,000 people in prison. Both sides of the gun issue knows legislators can pass these laws easily and make it look liike something is getting done. It's a ruse on the public.”
Adam Lanza, Newtown Gunman, Had An Arsenal Of Weapons, Gun Safe, Swords, Search Warrants Reveal

Adam Lanza, Newtown Gunman, Had An Arsenal Of Weapons, Gun Safe, Swords, Search Warrants Reveal

Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 13:13:29 in Crime

“Question: Were these guns purchased legally by Adam Lanza after passing a federal background check?”

GreenEggsNSamm on Mar 28, 2013 at 14:03:08

“No, they were purchased by his mother. Earlier reports said he tried to purchase a gun but did not pass the background check. I'm not sure how accurate that information was.”

Barbarian At The Gate on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:52:51

“No, Adam is too young to have the weapons in CT. He stole them from his mother after shooting her with her own gun.”

phal4875 on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:41:00

“I believe his mother bought them all. Adam Lanza had been stopped when trying to buy a gun. I am not sure how they made that smart decision.”

kaysings on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:38:10

“I think I remember reading that his mother purchased all those weapons, not Adam. And I have to assume she passed a background check if one was done.”

LT714RET on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:36:02

“No they weren't. They belonged to his mother whom was a sport shooter. Lanza was turned down a week earlier because he failed a background check!”

tharper001 on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:35:46

“No... he had tried but failed due to the background check. So he found another way to get those weapons, which were legally purchased by his mother. HIs mother was the irresponsible one here. First of all, as a parent, no one wants to admit that their child is different. But that's when we have to be good parents and try to get them the help that they need. And it's unfortunate that these grass roots groups don't think that focus on the shooter is what is needed... Any one that commits these types of horrific acts are mentally insane and very sick... unfortunately, finding help and getting a timely diagnosis is very difficult... so that is what should be the focus here... mental health and ample care, understanding and help for the patient and their family. But that's too difficult because God forbid that someone gets their human rights trampled on because they are called out for being sick... so just go ahead and go the easy route and target my right as an American citizen... Mental Health is the root cause of all of these types of tragedies... and that is exactly what needs to be focused on...”

Pete Geller on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:32:54

“He wasn't old enough to buy handguns in CT. so I doubt that's the case. What I would like to know is how mom owned an AR15 as Connecticut currently has an "Assault Weapons Ban" which has been in place since before the Federal ban expired. No one seems to be able to answer that question though......”

WM2 on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:29:35

“I believe his mother owned them”

Megg Lindeen on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:27:20

“watch the video and you won't be asking stupid questions.”

Piepie on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:27:10

“Apparently, they belonged to his mother.”

tsk1002 on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:25:20

“They were not his they were his mother's, the was a gun fanatic. If you had followed this from the beginning you would have know.”

GoldwaterKid on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:21:34

“Nope.”

hap0749 on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:18:52

“He was too young to buy any guns and was in fact turned down! It is my belief that is why he shot and killed his Mother! because she said NO! You can't take my guns! He said sorry Mom and shot her dead!”

lagamer99 on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:16:14

“it was his mothers”

Freescjk67 on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:15:01

“The mother bought the guns.”
Rather Than Stay Divided by the NRA, How Do We Build Bridges to Reduce Gun Violence?

Rather Than Stay Divided by the NRA, How Do We Build Bridges to Reduce Gun Violence?

Commented Mar 24, 2013 at 22:38:19 in Politics

“Christine--I respect your opinion though we sometimes disagree. We both want universal background checks, but agree that deception is never good. I bring to your attention a deceptive (I think) solicitation I received from MAIG. I hope you might know a way I can contact them. This week I received a solicitation from MAIG written by Stephen Barton announcing he is a survivor of the Aurora, Colorado massacre. He stresses the critical importance of background checks and urges us to call our senators, stating "background checks keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and save lives" and states (I paraphrase) that they are the key to reducing the number of gun deaths.

All fine except for one fact: James Holmes, the Aurora shooter, bought all 3 of his guns, including his AR-15, LEGALLY and passed 2 FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECKS! He then killed 12 people. How dare MAIG invoke Aurora to push their agenda without admitting that the Aurora shooter passed his background checks and went on to take 12 lives! Sorry. I consider this deceptive. They could have admitted this fact but stated that nonetheless they are pushing to improve the background check format and make it universal. I think Mark Glaze should apologize publicly for this and send out an apology e-mail. If you agree, maybe you can suggest a way to contact MAIG. I will not use your name if you don't want me to. I welcome your opinion in any event. Thanks.”
LaPierre Reveals True Purpose Behind Assault Weapons

LaPierre Reveals True Purpose Behind Assault Weapons

Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 14:46:04 in Politics

“Good article. Also Notice how Grassley and La Pierre don't even mention the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller that the government has the right to prohibit the sale of "dangerous and unusual weapons" and that such prohibition does not conflict with the Second Amendment. They like the first part of the decision that affirms an "individual" right of Americans to bear arms under the Second Amendment but the second part of the decision is inconvenient for them.”

David Carson on Feb 4, 2013 at 21:08:41

“since ARs are the most popular rifle in the U S by sales and millions of them are owned--they are NOT unusual”
Universal Firearms Background Checks -- There's Got to Be an App for That

Universal Firearms Background Checks -- There's Got to Be an App for That

Commented Jan 13, 2013 at 22:23:12 in Politics

“Those are fair points. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my comments. By the way, I''m Hastings '85.”
Universal Firearms Background Checks -- There's Got to Be an App for That

Universal Firearms Background Checks -- There's Got to Be an App for That

Commented Jan 13, 2013 at 16:57:08 in Politics

“It is a band-aid on a mortal wound! You are being naive. Aren't we better off taking ALL assault weapons and large clips completely out of circulation than hoping against hope that the disturbed killer who wants to buy them turns up as one of the tiny fraction of mentally ill revealed in a background check?! Do you know who passed background checks? Loughner and Holmes, the Tucson and Aurora shooters. There are other tragic examples. You want to strengthen and expedite background checks? Fine. But do not tell the American public that you will "take guns out of the hands of the mentally ill" when you cannot do it!”

hp blogger Christine Pelosi on Jan 13, 2013 at 19:42:17

“The operative word in my sentence is "help" ... As in: "We have the know-how -- now we must democratize and distribute it to help keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, mentally ill persons and people on the terrorist watch list."

From the rest of the resolution text perhaps you can see my support for restrictions on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.”
Universal Firearms Background Checks -- There's Got to Be an App for That

Universal Firearms Background Checks -- There's Got to Be an App for That

Commented Jan 13, 2013 at 02:08:09 in Politics

“Christine--I respect your goals and ideas which are all laudable and which certainly can only help, and I respect the Vice-President and the task force. But let's be very honest about background checks and mental illness: The vast majority of men and women who have diagnosed mental illness, including psychoses such as schizophrenia, even if they are seeing a psychiatrist, and even if they are taking powerful doses of anti-psychotic drugs, cannot lawfully be prevented through a background check from buying weapons because a) they have never been adjudicated as mentally incompetent by a court or applicable govt. agency acting with proper due process and b) they have never been officially reported by a mental health professional with proper legal documentation as being a clear danger to other people (which by the way I am not certain is constitutionally sufficient). I am not just saying that background checks won't detect them. I'm saying that they CAN'T detect them. This is not just politics. The constitutional right to not be deprived of a fundamental right or property without due process of law forbids otherwise. There are therefore legal limits to restrictions. You simply can't keep assault weapons out of the hands of most "mentally ill" people through background checks. You can only ban the assault weapons.”

hp blogger Christine Pelosi on Jan 13, 2013 at 13:16:29

“As you point out there is no one-size-fits-all approach to soling the problem. We can only work in categories of mitigation as we o with most human experience.

Take natural disasters for example. We could remove all residents from flood plains, restrict new construction on flood plains, require flood insurance for those who live in flood plains, construct levees and floodgates, etc -- all of which mitigate to varying degrees and run up against Constitutional property and due process rights.

Now back to the guns - as you state, only a mentally ill person in the system would fail a background check, so that does mitigate some damage and save some lives - a worthy goal in my opinion. You can also invest more resources into mental illness intervention and care so that people who can manage their conditions through treatment as less harmful to themselves or others.”
Why Most Women Agree With the 'Irresistibly Attractive' Ruling  (Even If They Won't Admit It)

Why Most Women Agree With the 'Irresistibly Attractive' Ruling (Even If They Won't Admit It)

Commented Dec 24, 2012 at 18:58:24 in Women

“Regardless of the law here, you are wrong about something obvious. I'm surprised at how naive you are! I am certain that one of the reasons that the wife fired the woman is that she didn't trust her husband because of HIS behavior. Not with this woman but at other times. Perhaps he has cheated in the past or threatened to do so. Perhaps he has simply expressed boredom to his wife. But if this wife didn't trust her husband enough to work with Mrs. Nelson, then she won't trust him in the future and he may, in fact, be untrustworthy. This firing will not keep their marriage intact. This is just the beginning!”
Integrity vs. Infidelity: Why Do Men Cheat? (Part 1)

Integrity vs. Infidelity: Why Do Men Cheat? (Part 1)

Commented Sep 26, 2012 at 20:51:50 in Women

“I'm a guy and it disgusts me that other guys here are actually playing the card of "men are all dogs. That's just the way we are made." That's weak-willed garbage. What about personal responsibility? What about not doing something that you want because it would hurt the person you love? You don't go around stealing from people do you? Even if you would like to. I think Dr. Weiss gave you all a very logical alternative: Have an open marriage or open relationship. That way your wife/girlfriend can have exactly the same amount of "strange"...often right in front of you! Sounds pretty good to me. What's wrong with that solution? Can't you handle it? What are you then...a sissy? Oh, and don't try to say "my wife would never allow such an arrangement". If "strange" is so important to you, find a wife that will.”
Contraception Isn't a PR Game; It's a Woman's Right

Contraception Isn't a PR Game; It's a Woman's Right

Commented Feb 9, 2012 at 18:09:42 in Politics

“What does it matter to this argument whether the female employees have chosen to work for the institution or not? Isn't that irrelevant? And what does Al mean about the employees having no choice but to work for that institution? Seriously? That implies that college professors (assuming this issue applies to them) at a catholic university (say Loyola) are there involuntarily. No. It is a prestigious job and they are thrilled to be there. The question is whether or not the institutions are obligated under federal law to pay for this type of coverage despite their religious objections, not whether or not employees are there voluntarily. I think they do have a valid argument that is not as open and shut as Al thinks.”
huffingtonpost entry

Keith Ablow, Fox News Psychiatrist: Newt Gingrich's Infidelity Might Make Him A Better President

Commented Jan 21, 2012 at 17:40:35 in Media

“What about Newt's utterly hypocritical action in persecuting Bill Clinton while he himself was having an extramarital affair. Does that make him a good president too?”
A Meaningful Life: Is It Possible for Eliot Spitzer?

A Meaningful Life: Is It Possible for Eliot Spitzer?

Commented Mar 9, 2010 at 17:17:01 in New York

“I disagree. It is true that what Spitzer did was wrong because he was married. However, it is much better to have sex with a hooker than an ongoing girlfriend. The hooker-client relationship is not romantic and not really intimate. It involves the playing out of fantasies. Thus, it was not an "emotional" betrayal. That's way better than Edwards and Sanford. John Edwards conducted an ongoing emotional romantic affair with another woman for whom he bought romantic gifts, professed love, and even offered the hope of marriage. That was a monstrous betrayal of his wife, made worse by her illness. If I were a woman, I would rather know that my husband had sex with a hooker than that he had been holdling hands over candlelight with another woman.

Spitzer is an intelligent man with a great deal of knowledge about economics and finance. He could still make important contributions. I predict that, precisely because of his contrast with Edwards and Sanford, the public will soon forgive him to some extent and he will make slow inroads back into public life. (He is on Bill Maher; is Edwards on Bill Maher?) Furthermore, if he were single, there would be nothing morally wrong about him spending time with a hooker. It would not say anything about his ability for intimacy. That is flat-out ridiculous. True, having chosen public life, Spitzer probably should not be committing a "crime", but that one would not bother me or many other people.”

pointyheadprodigy on Mar 9, 2010 at 22:54:47

“Well said. Thank You and fanned!”
New Rule: Stop Saying

New Rule: Stop Saying "Sex Addict" Like It's a Bad Thing

Commented Feb 27, 2010 at 22:02:42 in Comedy

“Question for anyone out there who actually professes to know about sex addiction: While I acknowledge that true sex addiction may well exist and that it can be a compulsive behavior that needs treatment, I (and everyone else) have known men who regularly cheated on spouses or girlfriends not out of addiction but simply because they did not care about their spouses or girlfriends or, frankly, anyone else but their narcissistic selves. And they always employed lies and deception to get what they want much as an alleged sex addict might. How does one tell the difference between a true sex addict and a guy who is quite simply a bad guy? Answer me that and then maybe I can better evaluate Tiger.”

Mugzi on Feb 28, 2010 at 06:00:39

“Now if he were single, would it be a big deal???? Seems a healthy libido is okay if you're single, but not okay with a variety of people if your married...”

techcafe on Feb 27, 2010 at 23:55:50

“"While I acknowledge that true sex addiction may well exist and that it can be a compulsive behavior that needs treatment,"

at best, Tiger's Wood had a 'compulsive disorder', but only IF his 'addiction' was interfering with other aspects of his life (his wife for example). but i don't think Tiger was 'suffering' from 'a disorder'... he just GOT CAUGHT. and now he's on TV apologizing for something that millions of men (and women) across this country do each and every day. philandering, adultery, cheating is a 'normal' part of the human experience; it happens, always has, always will. for the media to pathologize it the way they've been doing is ridiculous, and so was Tiger's 'heartfelt' apology. all this sanctimonious 'sex addiction' hypocrisy is astounding.

if you ask me, it's the media that's got a 'scandal addiction', because the msm is constantly trolling for their 'next scandal', even where there ought not be one.”

techcafe on Feb 27, 2010 at 23:53:22

“"While I acknowledge that true sex addiction may well exist and that it can be a compulsive behavior that needs treatment,"

at best, Tiger's Wood had a 'compulsive disorder', but only IF his 'addiction' was interfering with other aspects of his life (his wife for example). but i don't think Tiger was 'suffering' from 'a disorder'... he just GOT CAUGHT. and now he's on TV apologizing for something that millions of men (and women) across this country do each and every day. philandering, adultery, cheating is a 'normal' part of the human experience; it happens, always has, always will. for the media to pathologize it the way they've been doing is ridiculous, and so was Tiger's 'heartfelt' apology. all this sanctimonious 'sex addiction' hypocrisy is astounding.

if you ask me, it's the media that's got a 'scandal addiction', because the msm is constantly trolling for their 'next scandal', even where there ought not be one.”
huffingtonpost entry

Polanski: To Hate or Not to Hate

Commented Jan 6, 2010 at 12:48:57 in Entertainment

“I have a question for the international law scholars out there. Regardless of what one thinks of Polanski (and personally I hate the guy), I think that we all agree that the proper forum for resolving this matter is California. Why the frig is it taking so long for the Swiss to resolve the extradition matter? I assume that he was validly arrested and that there is an extradition treaty in place between the U.S. and Switzerland. Why then is he not on an airplane in handcuffs?”

jackbutler5555 on Jan 6, 2010 at 14:43:00

“Until an international law scholar shows up, let me tell you what I remember from some research I've done some time back.

Countries in general resolve extradition requests in three ways:

1. They just send the guy who the other country is seeking.

2. They don't send the guy, unless they can establish probable cause.

3. They send the guy only when they determine that the guy is guilty.

I don't know what Switzerland does.”

hp blogger Jeff Norman on Jan 6, 2010 at 13:13:58

“Counselor, extradition isn’t automatic. Although they take people into custody for little reason beyond having been requested to do so by the requesting nation (if there’s an extradition treaty, which in this case there is), the defendant is entitled to argue that he shouldn’t be extradited, and it takes a while to study the evidence before a decision is made.

One of my points is that one shouldn’t be surprised if the extradition request is ultimately turned down by the Swiss. They have been asked to send Polanski to a jurisdiction that has failed to address – let alone rectify – serious allegations of judicial misconduct. Moreover, even though Polanski’s guilty plea is hanging by a thread, the LA County DA has publicly boasted that it’s “airtight.” Though his rhetoric and actions appeal to the emotions of U.S. Polanski haters, the Swiss might not appreciate the amateur act, and might be unwilling to send Polanski back to be sentenced under such conditions.

But now, sentencing the defendant in absentia seems to be a real possibility, so developments in California could impact the extradition process. If it’s resolved while he’s abroad that Polanski faces no additional prison time, there may be no need to extradite him.”
huffingtonpost entry

Tiger in a Cage of His Own Making

Commented Dec 24, 2009 at 00:43:56 in Sports

“You make a good point Diane. I think that particularly since Tiger's dad seemed a dominant and at times oppressive figure, it is possible that he pressured Tiger to get married. Still, guys like Tiger, Kobe, and other philandering athletes are allegedly grown men and you would have hoped that, before taking the plunge, they could have asked themselves if they were really the kind of guys who (at least for the time being) should get married. Unlike politicians (which is a related but slightly different kettle of fish that I would be happy to discuss with you--Spitzer being my favorite), it is not as much of a stigma for athletes to be single.

By the way, didn't you love the comments of that Swedish (or Norwegian?) golfer who is a friend of Elin? I believe he stated that he would now have to apologize to Tiger's wife for introducing her to Tiger since Tiger apparently is not the good guy that the Scandinavian golfer thought he was. That Scandinavian guy is now one of my favorite people. It occurs to me that we have reached a point in the U.S. where we need Europeans (at least the Scandinavians) to tell us what is right and what is wrong.”
huffingtonpost entry

Tiger in a Cage of His Own Making

Commented Dec 23, 2009 at 18:47:33 in Sports

“I agree with you completely Diane. I tried to make my point earlier but, for some obscure reason, my comment was not printed so I try again here: You want to know why Tiger got married when he clearly can't be faithful? Simple. As with many of these guys, he is infantile and narcissistic. Consequently he feels entitled to indulge his every desire. He wants the beautiful wife, the estate, the trappings of fame simply because he wants them. However, he does not stop to consider the responsibilities involved because that would get in the way of his immediate ego gratification. Society misperceives many of these men as "powerful". This view is terribly misleading and does a disservice to men and women alike. In truth, these men are much more like 10 year old boys playing with a toy than they are like men.
I am not religious but that beautiful phrase from 1 Corinthians (quoted by Obama) is apt here, and I must paraphrase since I don't recall the exact words but basically: "When I was a child I thought as a child and acted as a child, but when I became a man I put away my things of childhood."”

hp blogger Diane Dimond on Dec 23, 2009 at 19:38:07

“Counselor:

I wonder too if Tiger, like so many people (men and women), got married mostly because it was what was expected of him.
Maybe his mother and father pressured their son - "Now that you've achieved all this fame and glory it can't be complete until you take an exceptional bride and start making babies...." or some such.
I've learned to never underestimate the power a parent has over a child....~ DD”
Polanski To Offer Cash and Cuddliness For Release

Polanski To Offer Cash and Cuddliness For Release

Commented Nov 5, 2009 at 17:24:57 in Entertainment

“I am sick of people complaining about the possibility of Polanski having to serve prison time. Let's put this in perspective: Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for bilking investors out of money. Is it too much to ask that Polanski should serve 24 months in prison (if that is the max) for the drugging and rape of a minor???

But I'll tell you what. Just to show that I am not a bad guy, I would be satisfied with Polanski serving 20 months in prison...but in GENERAL POPULATION where he belongs! (Or GENPOP as they say in the joint)...dig it.”
huffingtonpost entry

For Roman Polanski

Commented Oct 29, 2009 at 02:00:41 in Entertainment

“I'm afraid that my reply of last night to Ms. Stahl's point may have been censored due to my harsh language so I will try to express my point more moderately: The comparison to the Salem witches is, at best, misleading and inaccurate and at worst, disingenuous and irresponsible. The Salem witches were women who were falsely accused of crimes that they did not commit which were largely imaginary and the product of hysteria. Since the alleged crimes were themselves unreal and supernatural, the womens' persecution was of course baseless and has become synonymous with a groundless search for trumped up criminals. The situation here could not be more different. Polanski's crime was real! It was a crime that he could commit and that he did, in fact, commit. He committed the crime, pled guilty to it, and has, to my knowledge, never denied the essential facts. Has he ever stated that he did not have sex with the minor in question? Indeed I do not believe that the actual crime is in dispute. He added another very real crime by fleeing the United States. Polanski is an actual criminal, not a victim of some paranoid conspiracy. How then could this arrest be labeled a "witch hunt"? It is, rather, hopefully an attempt at justice. Monsieur Levy's comparison to McCarthyism fails for the same reasons. Writers should think their analogies through before throwing out kneejerk references to inapplicable historical events and hoping that we readers do not notice the fallacy.”
huffingtonpost entry

Roman Polanski, Have I Got a Sentence for You!

Commented Oct 17, 2009 at 02:21:17 in Entertainment

“Ellen--Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my comment! I appreciate it. So often, you never hear back from the author. Meanwhile, since I agree that your proposed documentary would be a very valuable and important film for young girls and their parents all over the country, I thought of a good compromise: Make Polanski go to prison AND finance your documentary out of his own pocket as a form of monetary damages. He is a millionaire as you know. Of course he would get no credit, no recoupment, and no remuneration of any kind whatsoever. He would just pay the money into an escrow account. True, he would not be around to direct it but it is better for your career and the film if you direct it anyway.”
next
1 - 25