Time for Father’s Day Again

[Bumped up from 2010] I have a better relationship with my father than my three siblings. Part of the reason is that unlike them, I wasn't around when the worst of the divorce and related drama was taking place. I was at college. Speaking of college, I'm the only one that got a college degree. One of my siblings is likely get one eventually – in mid life. I don't expect the other two to even go back to college at all. My father and I have done work for the same organization in the past, and I know I remind him somewhat of himself. But three important reasons why my relationship is better with my father is that I take some initiative, I don't treat him like an ATM, and I don’t badmouth his wife.

There will probably be a dinner – homemade or otherwise – in honor of my father-in-law, even if it doesn’t happen on Father's Day.

I'm a father myself now, as you know if you've read other entries in this blog. I’m also the sole income earner in our home. As such, I’d rather not get purchased gifts for Father's Day. I mean, it was my money to begin with after all, and if I need it, I'll buy it. No, homemade gifts are good, and so are services.

Truly, I can't think of getting anything better for Father's Day than a hug from my kids.

Technology is a Tool, Not An Evil

There are people who are in enduring, happy marriages who "met online". Granted, there aren't a lot, but that's because most people in general aren't in enduring, happy marriages. Yet the moment a female caller to the Dr. Laura Show says they met a guy online, the rest of the call is determined. That's because the hostess' bias against all things online kicks in (she has her reasons). She says she obtained bias confirmation (she doesn't put it in those words, but that's what it is) when she says "guys and articles" tell her guys go online for an easy lay.

Yes, many men do. But not all.


And men also go to bars and clubs and street festivals and a bunch of other places for easy lays.

But yes, some guys use dating and hookup services to, surprise, hookup. Some of the most effective tactics include going after all women whose pics attracted them and are in the area, regardless of whatever else her profile says. These guys aren't looking for general compatibility, just easy, no-strings-attached sex. This is one reason why women can be inundated with contacts from men. It's a numbers game. Guys throw as much against the wall as they can to get a little to stick.

But not all of the men online are looking for hookups. Especially with the more exclusive matchmaking services, the ones that take more time and money, there are men looking for a wife (because they think they can beat the odds or they are unaware of the odds or are masochists or losers who are desperate for a woman to take over for mommy).

My advice to women is that if they're really looking for a husband, they stick to the serious, more exclusive services (in addition to the old-fashioned ways of looking) and never assume that what the guy says about himself is actually true. This is just a way to establish contact. Like a guy you meet on the street, everything he says about himself could be a lie. Meet in a neutral, public place, and don't get sexual right away.

Just remember, though, ladies, if you do find a man who wants to get married: You will be sharing your life, home, and finances with a guy who is foolish enough to enter into contracts that have no guaranteed upside to him and horrendous risks and limitations.

I'm sure Dr. Laura gets calls from women in good marriages who met online, but that never comes up in the conversation because the calls are usually about things that are troubling them.



Dr. Laura has mentioned more than once that she'd been in talks to endorse and/or help facilitate an online matchmaking service, but she had so many requirements and restrictions that it would limit profitability so it wasn't a go.

The caller on yesterday's show did admit she got sexual right away with the guy she met online, so Dr. Laura again said "men used to have to pay" for that. Sigh.

Was Sacks Sacked?

As I previously blogged, attorney Adam Michael Sacks would do the Tuesday "bonus" hour of the Tom Leykis Show, and for me, it was must-listen. Recently, that arrangement ended, and as far as I know, all Leykis has publicly said about it is a terse written statement indicating the involvement had ended. No reason was given.

Since Leykis' Internet-based audio talk show began (after the terrestrial broadcast corporate radio version had been off of the air for a few years and Leykis rode out the rest of his contract), Sacks would not only do that hour on Tuesdays, alternating between  "criminal law" (mainly DUI and marijuana violations) and "family law" (mainly divorce, alimony, child support, and child custody), but he would be at listener parties  and events and his ads would run throughout the show. And by his ads, I mean ads for his law practice that featured copy read by Leykis, and ads for becoming an advertiser with The New Normal (Leykis' businesses) as spoken by Sacks. Sacks and Leykis even talked on the show about work Sacks had done for Leykis, such as with traffic tickets and with getting a restraining order against a radio show host Leykis and/or Sacks have described as an obsessed fan. Finally, Sacks would often appear during other times on the show by calling in to answer questions and give advice to another caller.

Of course, listeners have speculated as to why Sacks and Leykis have parted ways. Leykis has had his staff go back and eliminate the Sacks bonus hours from the archive files available as podcasts to paid subscribers. To paraphrase Leykis, he did that because those hours were essentially infomercials. However, there was some entertaining and informative content to many of those hours.


What could the reason be for ending the professional relationship? I have no more insight than any other frequent listener who occasionally visits the show's Facebook page. I figure there are several basic plausible reasons, and it may be a combination of two or more of them. So in no particular order, let's consider them. Again, these are POSSIBLE reasons, I'm not stating that they ARE the reason(s).