Rob and Michele Reiner

As far as I know, I never met the Reiners. I have no direct knowledge how they were in private, on a personal level. Rob Reiner’s politics, for the most part, were different from mine. Clearly he cared and decided to get involved.

What I do know, and appreciate, is his prolific and highly effective work in television and movies. While he was an accomplished, lauded, and influential actor and director, even just his work as a producer was more than most people realize, and has impacted our culture.

If his longevity would have been anything like his father’s, he could have still been contributing to entertainment for decades to come.

But now he’s dead at 78, and so is his wife Michele (68), allegedly murdered by being stabbed to death by one of their sons.

If current allegations are true, the murderer had been in substance abuse rehab at least 17 times, had been homeless at times, and was a difficult person.

Imagine all of the time, money, heartache, worry, aggravation, frustration, pain, embarrassment, trouble, and shame Rob and Michele Reiner spent or endured over the last 20-30 years, trying to help their son. Imagine it ending with the terror, horror, and pain of being stabbed to death.

As of this writing, I don’t know what Nick’s defense narrative will be. A possible angle will be akin to another local case of double parental murders, the Menendez case: trashing dad as an abusive monster.

Think about this the next time someone insists the childfree will regret not being parents: Rob & Michele Reiner are unavaible for comment.

Also, despite this being Rob Reiner’s second marriage and second marriages with step kids in the mix, like this one, have a 70-percent divorce rate, this marriage didn’t end in divorce and won’t be counted in the divorce statistics. Divorce is just one way a marriage can end badly; this way was even worse.

Free men have a ZERO percent chance of being divorced or being murderered by their child.

Husbands Are Well Aware Adult Media is Fantasy

Antiporn crusaders will often say that porn gives unrealistic expectations, or that men don't consider that there's a difference between what's depicted in porn and real life. But THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY WATCH - because there is a difference between porn and real life.

What media has realistic portrayals of men, women, or relationships?

Professional sports coverage? How many people look like that and can perform like that?

Action movies in which men and women both withstand severe beatings but are still able to function like not much has happened to them?

Marvel and DC movies? Romantic comedies? Sitcoms? Advertisements, especially for jewelry and engagement rings? "Reality" shows? Princess fantasies? Church/ministry brochures, websites, and social media depicting gorgeous couples and their perfect children, all perpetually smiling and laughing?

Husbands are VERY aware porn is fantasy. They know all too well that wives are rarely that enthusiastic about sex.

Here's where someone retorts with, "Well maybe you're a lousy lover."

That might work on guys who "waited" or "saved sex" for marriage. Those of us who didn't know better.

"You should do more around the house."

Some of these husbands, myself included, do more around the house than their wife. But many of us did NOTHING around the home of our girlfriends, at least when we first started getting together with them, and yet they were enthusiastic lovers.

"That's just your wife. You should have picked better."

Picked better how exactly, if you don't want people having sex before they sign a terrible state contract? And nope, it isn't just my wife or his wife. We have seen the same story from many other husbands and ex husbands. Consider the old joke about why a bride is smiling so much.

Finally, any time an antiporn crusader says "Porn depicts___" or "Porn has____"  or "Porn is___" ...and finishes those statements with anything other than "...material someone finds arousing," they are misleading people. Adult media is very diverse. "Porn teaches" or "Porn says" or anything of the like is a statement as silly as saying "Books teach" or "Books say."

It's OK to say "I don't like nudity or sex in media." Criticizing adult media with criticisms that you can also apply to other media, but don't, reveals that you are desperate to persuade people to adopt your opinion through double standards.

Reality TV is Not Reality

[I'm bumping up this entry because another season of The Bachelorette has started.]

It should come as no surprise to any adult with any sense that "reality" television is not reality. News teams that attempt to give us reality for the sake of informing us quite often fail to provide reality (often by what they don't show) - so shows that are openly about entertainment certainly aren't going to be reality.

I bring this up now not just because another season of that joke, The Bachelor, has come and gone, but because comedian and podcast superstar Adama Carolla recently explained a few important things we didn't see on a recent episode of Celebrity Apprentice. As the article points out, since real charities will have to deal with real consequences as a result of how the show plays out, it is a little more important how producers manipulate the situation than, say, what happens on the latest Kardashian series or season of The Bachelor.

I like Adam's work. If nothing else, I would have liked to see him continue on the show because of the humor he brought to it.

"Reality" television is not reality. It simply features characters who are aware, and behave according to that awareness, that they are on a television show. What is that? Postmodern? Self-aware? There's probably a better term than "reality".

On Law and Order SVU, the character Detective Benson is not aware she is on a television show.

On The Bachelor, every single one of the participants is a character, even if the actors are using their real names or actual stage names, who are all aware they are on a reality show. Same goes goes for Survivor or Celebrity Apprentice or Storage Wars any other "reality" show.

Just as it is with other television shows, the writers, directors, producers, and editors can craft the shows to portray the characters in way the performers might not be like in their lives.

The difference is, more people are likely to realize that a character on a "scripted" sitcom or drama is not the same as the actor portraying that character. Yes, some people have had trouble with that, but I think fewer people have trouble with that than with "reality" shows. Since some reality shows record and entire season before any of it airs, the participants might have no clue what's being done to their character until it is too late to attempt to do anything about it.

See this previous entry on The Bachelor and this one as well.

[For what it is worth, producers and participants have pretty much revealed that the shows of The Bachelor franchise are somewhat artificial and "scripted" or a put-on, rather than reality.]

Itches and Scratch

The obsession in Evangelical circles about "porn" makes me cringe, because so many bad arguments are used, which discredit "our" side, and the disproportionate focus on it. I recently sat through a sermon (unfortunately one of my young kids was with me) from someone who was not the church's pastor, but had been doing a sermon series on "first things" when it comes to following Christ. This was supposed to be a sermon on Satan and his tactics. Yes, doctrine holds that Satan is a real, spiritual (not physical) being who interacts with human beings.

Despite supposedly being about Satan, it was more about porn than anything else. One must wonder what Satan was doing before the advent of photography.

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?

"Colleen", in a letter to Dr. Laura, wrote about her disapproval of a pilot that ran on NBC. The title character, Whitney, was seen taking a shower with her boyfriend. That was the opening scene.

A little bit later I went back to see if anything had improved - wrong it was far, far worse. As Whitney's boyfriend was talking to his friend that he and Whitney had broken up, the friend was scornful he would even care- "What, you like having the same VAGINA every night?" As I quickly turned off the set, I was so disgusted. This is what we've come to in America, women are just interchangeable vaginas????

Well, "yes" in the sense that there are some guys who just want sex. "No" in the sense that the reason they don't mind being out of a committed relationship is that they can easily get sex from a variety of women, all whose bodies are different. If your "vaginas" (really, the whole body, the attitude, the sex) were really interchangeable, then the guys would stay put because there would be no reason to try other women. These days, vaginas are cheap, not interchangeable, due the law of supply and demand. They have always been in high demand. But beginning with the culture of mobility and urbanity, growing with contraception, functional atheism (in which people behave as though there is no God) and then "liberation" of women, easy access to many vaginas is widespread... so to speak.

Now, as I've previously written, it is more enjoyable to make love than to have casual sex, all other things about the sex being equal. But the guys in these scenarios do not want everything that comes along with being in that kind of relationship, which is harder to find anyway because much of the female population has changed in attitude.

It makes me sick to think of the children watching garbage like this.

I am a parent myself, and yes, it is hard to protect them from a lot of the bad influences, but discernment and filtering are very important. So is innoculation, which works much better than isolation or indoctrination.I agree that parents should not be letting their children watch something like that. However, are you proposing that everything in society be designed and operated so as to be child-focused? Children should be a top priority to their parents, and society as a whole should value children, but not every aspect of life should be appropriate or appealing to little kids.

Maybe She'll Get a Show on E!

From the Associated Press, distributing stuff from Maine's Portland Press Herald, comes this update on a repeat "American Idol" contestant.

A police report says 25-year-old Jessica Candage of Yarmouth was spotted Sunday evening by a Portland officer who said it appeared she was preventing her husband from walking toward him. The officer then saw Candage punch her husband, Craig, in the face several times.

She's now facing domestic abuse charges, and I hope she will be get the very same treatment as if the sexes were switched in this story.

Craig Candage told the Portland Press Herald the incident was his fault and his wife shouldn't have been charged.

Isn't that the classic response from a victim of DV? There's something wrong with him for trying to protect her from the law. Or she's really, really good in the sack. Most crazy women are, and a lot of guys will put up with a heckuva lot for wild sex. It's all fun until she cuts off your penis or sets you on fire, and not only gets away with it, but has a movie made about her to air on Lifetime.

Jessica Candage competed on "American Idol" under the stage name Jessica Cunningham.

Cunningham? I don't remember Joanie behaving that way.

She twice made it to the final 24. When last voted off the show, she responded to the judges' rejection by delivering a two-fisted, obscene gesture.

That was no doubt a way to get a little more airtime. Stay classy.

It's Because I'm Fat, Isn't It

Somehow, it got to be a huge (pun intended) story that American Idol has been accused of weight bias by a teenager who was in the audience. Mind you, this is a show that has featured fat contestants.

From reading this Associated Press article from Lynn Elber, there doesn't seem to be any corroborating evidence to back the claim of 19-year-old Ashley Kauffman of Riverside, California of being told she was too fat to sit in the front row. Even one of the others in her group is quoted as saying nobody else in the group heard Idol staff telling her that.

To me, Kauffman's claims are highly doubtful. Who tells an audience member, someone the staffer wants to be cheerful and enthusiastic on camera, that she's fat?

But let's assume for the sake of discussion that someone actually said to her, "You’re too fat to sit in the front row."

This is a television show we're talking about. It isn't a public school, or a city council meeting. It is their show, they should be able to set the rules and arrange their audience the way that works best for them.

It doesn't matter how many Americans get overweight or obese. It isn't attractive to most people, and it isn't what most people want to see on TV. I write this as someone who has been fat. But reading through the article and actually watching the show, I find it hard to believe the claim.

According to a FremantleMedia statement, Kauffman and five other friends were among the first to arrive for the show and were told that there were "six great seats" available, three in one row and three in another.

Okay…

The group agreed to split up and Kauffman "did not sit alone or in the back of the house" as she alleged, FremantleMedia said. "In fact, she and her remaining party were seated just four rows behind their friends, directly in camera shot, in some of the best seats in the house."

Kauffman was in a row that included a VIP guest of judge Steven Tyler, Westphal said. They were a few rows behind the judge's table in a spot that has been featured on camera before, he said.

What does a witness say?

Hannah Solarzano, 19, said Tuesday that she was part of Kauffman's group, which traveled from suburban Riverside to Los Angeles for the show but hadn't met her before that night. Solarzano said she was seated next to Kauffman and didn't hear any insults being directed at her.

"Nobody started talking about the comment that was supposedly made to Ashley until she brought it up," Solarzano said. "I never heard those words except from her."

While she couldn't support her account, Solarzano said, it obviously stings to be labeled as overweight.

"You don't call a girl `fat,' ever. It's code," Solarzano said. "I understand how upsetting that can be. But, c'mon, honey, it's `American Idol.' You've got to move on from there. Big deal."

Exactly. Move on.

But, like most reality shows, the "Idol" audience and contestants generally have reflected American diversity, including when it comes to size.

An examination of a recording of the episode attended by Kauffman showed that it opened with a sweeping camera shot that included a cross-section of audience members, including some who could be characterized as plus-size.

So while the headline of the story is attention-grabbing, the article itself appears to debunk the claim.

If you're fat, do something about it other than being overly sensitive. Your life will be better if you get fit. I'm not talking about being ten pounds overweight (which can acually look good, depending). I'm talking about really being fat. Lose the weight, and things will be better.

The Most Dramatic Rose Ceremony Ever

There can't possibly be anyone left over the age of ten who watches "The Bachelor"/"The Bachelorette" thinking that the show is really about romance and finding true love. There are probably more people who watch pro wrestling who fail to grasp that the shows are "booked" - the vignettes, the outcomes, some of the moves, and some of the trash-talking by the characters is written by others, and the wrestlers are actually cooperating in choreography with each other to put on an entertaining show. (It would be interesting to hear from the pro wrestler who was on this season a comparison between his roles.) The difference is, pro wrestling can be watched in-person and on live broadcasts in which mistakes and performer-improvised aspects will be included. And people can and do really get seriously injured. And, of course, the industry now openly admits the nature of their programming. In contrast, the people behind "The Bachelor" seem to fear that being open and honest about the nature of the show would take away the fun of their show.

It is absurd for a contestant on this series to talk about what they were given by the star as a date. The settings and activities of those dates are arranged by the producers.

The entertainment value of "The Bachelor" series is mostly in 1) laughing at the stupidity of the whole thing; 2) noticing just how much the people behind the show will stretch credulity; 3) watching the train wreck of bizarre behavior and hokey acting by some of the performers; 4) guessing who is being set up to be the “star” of next season.

My wife watches the show and she shows me the "good" parts. It was rather easy to figure out that last season, on "The Bachelor", Ali was being set up to be the star of this current season of "The Bachelorette". It was also obvious that Jake made the decision he did because he knew people would forgive him for dumping the woman he chose; fewer people would if he picked the "good girl" and then dumped her. And there always is a dumping – none of them ever stay together. Thinking about that – none. Nonmatchmaking "reality" shows have actually ended up creating lasting couples, because the participants have something in common. This time, it appears that the break-up was timed to keep the two of them in the headlines after Jake's run on "Dancing With the Stars" ended.

In the latest episode of this season – Ali's season – a contestant left after it was revealed that… gasp… he had a girlfriend! And he had been seeing someone else in addition to her, too.

How many other participants on the show have a girlfriend or women he has been seeing back home? Probably most. There's no way everyone else on the show, aside from this guy, was completely unattached and seriously looking to settle down with someone they were going to be performing with on such a farce of a show.

The entire premise of the show is hard enough to believe. Twenty-five young, attractive, unmarried professional men (or women) have each closed all other doors and are wholeheartedly focused on winning over an attractive woman (or man) who is dating twenty four other men and making out with some of them on camera, spending time with them in hut tubs and overnight in nice hotel rooms. (I would suggest not promising exclusivity to anyone unless there’s a ring and a date.)

Do all of the guys really want to marry Ali? I'm sure most of them, if not all, would love to share a room with her overnight, and that all of them want to stay on the show as long as possible (at least when they start out), hopefully setting themselves up to be the next Bachelor… where they will get to star for a season and make out with various women. But there's no way that all of them really want to marry her. And, given the track record, there will be no pressure for them to do so should they have the misfortune of being picked by her instead of being picked by the producers to be the next Bachelor.

There there's the fact that everyone – from the guy who is supposedly quitting and running away from the show to his girlfriend who supposedly isn't part of the show - waits for cameras to get into place (sometimes coming to a remote city) before going ahead and doing what they were going to do. Kind of like pro wrestling television.

Don't get me wrong. I find the show entertaining, like watching an empty car burn. I just don't think it is doing positive things for relationships.

If you are also a viewer, are you there for the right reasons?

Click on my tag below to read my previous writings about "The Bachelor".

Apathy

I'm not watching the World Cup. I played soccer - that's what we call it in the USA - when I was growing up. But I'm simply not interested in watching it on TV. The NBA finals, I'll watch. Football, I'll watch. Postseason MLB, I'll watch. I find sports more entertaining in person, even without the closeups and narration that comes with TV.

Song of Cinemax

Jon Weinbach was published in the Los Angeles Times, writing about the proliferation of "soft-core pornography" on cable television. He specifically addresses what is found on premium channels and their on-demand channels.

With much harder stuff free on demand online, I paused to wonder why “soft” stuff is so important to the cable business.

I think this quote from the founder of a producer of “soft erotics” explains a lot of it:

"You're more likely to get your wife to watch my show - it's not so in-your-face,"

Yup. I never had pay TV before I married. My wife grew up with cable and subscribed as an adult, and we continue to subscribe, but not to the premium channels. My wife, who was virgin when we married and had also maintained boundaries well beyond intercourse, confessed that before we married she had taped some of this soft-core stuff during free preview weekends, during which one or more premium channels would be temporarily viewable for free. She apparently erased the tape, however. The principle, though, is like how the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue will make it into homes that would not welcome Playboy.

The article goes on to say that skin and depicted sex is also making its way to series that aren't presented as "erotics".

At the same time, premium channels have been upping the skin factor on their higher-profile, higher-brow series. Shows such as HBO's "True Blood," which debuts its third season next month, and Showtime's "The Tudors" and "Diary of a Call Girl" all showcase fairly graphic sex scenes that are often as explicit as what you would see in an R-rated movie in theaters.

The question again is – why? I think that is somewhat addressed...

Ironically, the proliferation of hard-core porn in recent years seems to have made the softer stuff more appealing - or at least more palatable - to a wider audience, particularly among women, according to industry observers. While women who are now in their 20s and 30s have grown up in an era when adult entertainment has become increasingly mainstream and sex tapes helped launch the careers of celebrities such as Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton, many of them are still uncomfortable watching all-out porn, even if it's in the company of a partner.

With the "mainstream" series, some of it may boil down to a series having the sex/nudity garnering more viewers than a similar series that doesn’t have it. The article describes more about what the difference is between the hard stuff and the soft stuff.

In contrast to hard-core pornography, which depicts full male nudity and actual sex, soft-core sex is more simulated than real, and the films usually attempt to have coherent storylines and dialogue. Many of the soft-core TV series also center around a female character, such as the madam in "Beverly Hills Bordello," a longtime cable-TV staple, or the pair of sisters - one a recent college graduate, the other an erotic model - who are the leads in "Life on Top," a Cinemax series that debuted last year. But while soft-core content may be less graphic than a Jenna Jameson film, it does not aspire to high art.

Ever the writer, I don’t find bad writing appealing, even with sexy women doing sexy things. But that’s me.

All of the premium channels will air films that are rated X by the Motion Picture Assn. of America, but they also adhere to certain self-imposed guidelines when it comes to sexy material.

I thought NC-17 replaced X?

In general, cable channels won't show full male frontal nudity or extended close-up shots of female private parts.

For now.

I know entertainment producers like to say that nudity and sex are necessary to tell a realistic story. That's  the gist of what "Zane" says. A female African American author from the D.C. area, she wrote a series of “erotic” short stories that has been turned into a series on cable, with which she is also involved.

Across all platforms, the series, which follows the romantic adventures of a group of professional women, attracts about 1.4 million viewers per episode, according to the network, which has nearly 12 million subscribers. "I don't think that sexuality should be separated from the rest of life — it can be fun, it can be painful, it can be kinky and it can be entertaining in a tasteful way."

Is the stuff eye-catching if channel surfing? Sure. I would guess, however, that most married people have a lot of other things they could be doing to stimulate each other rather than watching this stuff. And unmarried people who don't have qualms about sex outside of marriage could do a lot "better".

Married or not – what do you think about this stuff and why? Have you watched any of it? Like I said... although I find the female form extremely attractive, I'm more likely to find a well-written story on paper more appealing than a ridiculous barely-there story on the screen – whether or not I should be subjecting myself to either. Solomon gave us plenty. Think you'll ever find a copy of it under your son's bed? Speaking of the kids... this stuff is one reason why it is a good idea to keep screens out of their rooms (but what are you going to do about smart phones?) and to use parental controls/filters.

Betty White

Have you noticed that actress Betty White is still going strong? T.L. Stanley has an article in the Los Angeles Times about Betty White and her ongoing popularity. Despite being a young straight dude, I loved The Golden Girls when it originally aired and I still enjoy catching syndicated episodes. In retrospect, the show was often quite gay, the layout of the house was ridiculous and inconsistent, and while some topics had permanence in the series, other aspects disappeared. Like Dorothy's Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

But the writing was mostly great and the timing and facial expressions of the actresses was excellent. Betty White was just as much a reason for that show's success as anyone else. I happened to have met her in person and I know people who have worked with her.

I think her ongoing success at an age when most surviving actresses are completely out of the public eye is due to many factors.

1. She's a talented actress; she's hilarious.
2. Rather than fighting age, she has embraced it in her characters.
3. She's professional in both attitude and ability.
4. She's smart, as evidenced by her performances on various editions of the Password game shows. Notice that there are actors that never appear on game shows or talk shows. That's because they are either bores without a script or aren't too bright and it comes across loud and clear without a carefully controlled script.
5. Her cause of caring for animals is no phony public relations add-on to her life or excuse to do commercials. She really does care about animals.
6. She's a nice woman.

So when you hear complaints that Hollywood dumps women past a certain age – keep Betty White in mind.

I hope she has many more years of full living.

Love the One You're With

I don't really know what happened between Kate Gosselin and her ex-husband Jon. I know that they made a lot of babies and then stuck them on TV in a regular "reality" show. I generally think inviting TV crews to follow your minor kids around or portray your marriage on an ongoing basis is a bad idea. The Duggars might be an exception.

From what was portrayed through their TV and has been portrayed in the gossip media – which often is a poor reflection of truth – Kate wasn't the warmest or most respectful wife, and Jon has been acting poorly for a while.

What I did notice is that now that she is divorced, Kate has acquired hair extensions so that she has "long hair" again.

Why do women do this? Why do they go back to long hair, dressing nicely, and hit the gym after divorce? The cynical answer is that they are "back on the market" and want to get the attention of the highest bidder they can. When they are married, they don't feel like they need to try because they already have a guy, and if he wants to leave, he'll probably get penalized for doing so. This isn't a ringing endorsement for marriage, ladies. Why can't women like this look nice for their husbands?

Maybe Jon was always a creep and she was deliberately trying to turn him off and knew they were heading for divorce and so didn't want to bother. But there are probably cases out there where making an effort to attract her husband would prevent a woman from going through a divorce in the first place.

Same goes for that type of guy who will do things for his second wife he wouldn't do for his first wife. By romancing and listening to his first wife, he may be able to keep the marriage fun and healthy, and thus keep his first wife.

No matter how she does herself up now, guys should avoid Kate Gosselin, at least until all of those eight kids are grown. It doesn't matter how nice her hair gets. And Jon should concentrate on his kids and not be bringing more drama and turmoil into their lives. And no, I'm under no delusion that my opinion matters to – or will even be read by – either of them.

Surprise Weddings Are Generally Not Cool

But in some cases, they may be the best thing.

Several years back, there was a "live" television special on a major broadcast network during which women surprised their guys with a surprise wedding. The guys supposedly didn't know – each woman explained the situation to the audience while the guy was in some isolation chamber, and then he was thrust out in front of a live audience, glaring lights, and television cameras, and presented with what amounts to an immediate ultimatum. I suppose that is better than finding yourself on the show of Connie Chung's husband or the former mayor of Cincinnati. I'm not sure how this was all supposed to work out from a legal standpoint – I would imagine if the guys actually wanted to get married and weren't just doing it for show, the couples obtained marriage licenses after the fact.

If I recall correctly, it was only women surprising men – not a single instance of a man surprising a woman with a let's go now wedding.

I would like to know how those couples are doing now.

I bring this up now because of this Associated Press story (complete with photo):

A woman in a wedding gown surprised her fiance by greeting him at a Texas airport along with a justice of the peace.

Robyn Moore and William Acosta exchanged vows Monday at Corpus Christi International Airport after he got off a plane arriving from Toledo, Ohio.

I don't know about you, but riding in a cramped commercial jetline usually doesn't put me in the romantic mood – with one exception. At the end of our last trip without a child with us, I decided to take advantage of the fact that my wife was wearing a short skirt and... let my fingers do the walking. Sure, there was some guy napping next to us, but we were subtle about it, making good use of blankets. My wife found it to be a major turn-on. Certainly made the flight more pleasant. I recommend this for married couples. But I digress.

Acosta, who was wearing jeans and a sweater, says he was speechless and thrilled by the wedding Moore planned.

What else was he going to say? Make a negative scene in the middle of the airport? Actually, it might not be a bad place to dump someone if they are abusive - lots of security, and no tolerance for threats.

But here's the important info:

The couple got a marriage license last week and planned to tie the knot this month, at a site to be determined.

In this case, it sounds like they were both actually planning to get married, which can make this move a very nice one for him. He didn't have to deal with all of the stress of a big ceremony and all of the lead-up, although she still gets to be the center of attention (even in the news) and I would expect that they'll still have a reception later, so they don't miss out on a party and still may get a lot of gifts. Not a bad idea, and a lot less expensive.

I wish them well.

In other cases, like the ones with the TV show, it isn't a good sign if a woman has to trick, badger, nag, beg, or manipulate her guy into marrying her. (If any of those couples secretly were already set to get married, but decided to trick TV producers into paying for their wedding and wedding video, then good for them.) Even with all of our feminist changes in our culture, men are still expected to pursue. It's nature. If a guy wants to marry you, he'll ask. He'll make it happen. If he already is unenthusiastic about being with you, that's a horrible way to go into marriage. Besides - it robs you of the challenge relished by so many Category 4 gals of breaking his spirit and driving him to despair from the heights of joy and optimism. It is much more fun when you can point out to him that he was eager to marry you. The look on his face as he tries to silently reconcile that fact with his misery should be priceless.

I would have like to have seen one of those guys on the TV show risk the boos of the audience and all of the TV talk-show and magazine trashing he would have received – by explaining exactly why he wasn't going to get married. The director of the show probably wouldn't have let him talk very long.

Letterman and Leno

What exactly did Letterman do wrong?

As Letterman mixed wisecracks with contrition, he said his wife, Regina Lasko, had been "horribly hurt by my behavior" and stated flat-out that those affairs "are in the past."

Well of course they are in the past, by definition. This does not mean there will not be any more. However, if these affairs happened before Lasko and Letterman married, then he really doesn't have much to apologize to her about. Just because he was shacking up with her doesn't mean he was obligated not to have sex with anyone else. If he explicitly made such a promise, then he broke his promise, and that's about it. (Since Letterman doesn't publicly proclaim to follow Christ, I'm not applying Biblical standards.) He has more obligation to apologize to her for knocking her up out of wedlock and not marrying her until after the baby was born, shacking up with her for years. Even then, she consented to all of that, right?

During the hour, Letterman apologized to his staff, which, he said, had been subjected to "being browbeaten and humiliated" by reporters since his revelations.

And then there are the sexual harassment and favoritism issues. If we're going to have government regulation of employer-employee relations, then sexual harassment needs to be treated seriously. We can't only apply it to unattractive conservative men who aren't wealthy or powerful.

Letterman, 62, began dating Lasko in 1986, and they have a son, Harry, who was born in November 2003. All the affairs took place before Letterman's marriage, said Tom Keaney, spokesman for Letterman's production company.

So why the apologies - honestly? We expect a man to only sleep with a woman to whom he has no formal commitment? Why would it be okay for him to fornicate with her, but not other women?

But the CBS producer accused of blackmailing Letterman used pages from a former assistant's diary that described an affair with the "Late Show" host, a law enforcement official said Monday. The ex-assistant, Stephanie Birkitt, went to live with CBS News producer Robert Halderman, who found her diary describing her relationship with Letterman and used it to help blackmail him, the law enforcement official said Monday on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.

Gotta love those physical diaries that some people keep around. She probably also told all of her girlfriends too, giving every detail imaginable. But the written word is something else – especially in the hands of a desperate and perhaps jealous guy.

For a celebrity the caliber of Hugh Grant, publicity - including speculation of career suicide - was unavoidable when he was arrested with a prostitute on Hollywood's Sunset Strip. But then he retreated to NBC's "The Tonight Show" to try to explain.

What was to explain? It was easy for Hugh Grant to get sex. Guys like him go to prostitutes for one or both of the following reasons: 1. He wants the woman to go away and leave him alone after they have sex; 2. He has some sort of fetish, or perhaps a somewhat normal desire, that his girlfriend won't accommodate.

Back to Letterman – some people are calling on CBS to dump him. I don't know if they should or not. What would happen to the average CBS employee under the circumstances? But on the other hand, isn't Letterman more of an independent contractor? His actions are a liability for his own production company for sure – someone could easily sue for sexual harassment. It is probably a liability for CBS, too, but as the article says, ratings are way up because of this.

People screw up and have sex with people they shouldn't. Letterman is just the latest in a long line where it has gone public. I don't think he was doing right by his employees, and I also don't think he was doing right by Lasko, but that is more about things to which she willingly consented. Although I haven't committed these sins (sex with employees, "cheating" on a shack up), anyone who reads this blog knows I've done plenty of wrongs of my own.

The fact is, if CBS dropped his show, he would be able to go elsewhere easily. That gets me into my other topic, which I am keeping short. NBC already runs Leno at 10pm (Eastern/Pacific), eliminating five expensive hourlong dramas from the schedule. ABC could do the same by taking Letterman aboard. Some TV industry people blame Leno for reducing good TV jobs. But considering that even with five less evening hours for drama programming, NBC is still running SVU twice a week (showing the same episode twice), is Leno really to blame? Looks like NBC would have dropped at least five hours of drama with or without Leno.

Please Stop Watching “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette”

Although I own shares of ABC’s parent company, I hereby urge everyone (which mostly means women) to stop watching “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette”. Isn’t it obvious now that, like other matchmaking “reality” shows, that the goal isn’t matching compatible people for lasting relationships? The goal is to get you to watch the show. That means participants and situations are going to be selected to be geared towards that, not towards developing an honorable relationship. With extreme rare exceptions (maybe no exceptions, actually), these kinds of shows have failed to produce a lasting relationship. Just about any other television show, reality or otherwise, has had a better track record than the modern matchmaking shows. The real goal of any of the pool of hopefuls is to stay on television as long as possible, not to find true love. How can you find true love with cameras and bright lights and a crew surrounding you whenever you are together?

Here’s E! Online Natalie Finn’s story on the latest with “The Bachelor”. Last I checked, E! is partially owned by ABC’s parent company, so this isn’t going to be hard-hitting journalism.

Recent Bachelorette reject Jason Mesnick, whose heart DeAnna Pappas passed over in her own second-time-around quest for love, has signed on to be the new
Bachelor when the ABC series returns in January 2009.

Ugh.

The hunky single dad from Seattle had been all primed to propose, ring and everything, when Pappas stopped him from getting down on one knee, leaving him—and plenty of viewers—crushed.

He’s a divorced dad. He shouldn’t be dating. Much less on TV. He should be concentrating on raising his child.

Instead, she opted for 26-year-old snowboarder Jesse Csincsak.

And how is that working out? You can keep track of this sort of thing on Wikipedia.

Now Mesnick gets another shot at making the perfect match. The hunt is on for 25 ladies willing to bare their hearts, souls and, in some cases, claws on national TV.

And be portrayed as the producers/editors choose. Actually many of them are struggling/hopeful actresses anyway, and they will act on the show.

The logistics are still being hammered out, but Chris Harrison, who hosts both The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, told iFilm.com during the recent Television Critics Association press tour that Mesnick's 3-year-old son, Ty, "would have to take center stage."

Great. Let’s screw up this kid as much as possible.

“If they look for the right people [to cast], anything is possible."

Hey, buddy, they aren’t going to cast people who are fundamentally compatible with you – at least not for the most part. They are going to cast a wide variety of attractive women based on their ability to fill archetypes, stereotypes, and entertain the audience.