Lorena Bobbitt Revisited

I’m not at all familiar with CNN’s correspondent, Alina Cho. I know she wasn’t all too happy with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown’s op/ed piece he wrote back in 2008 about the rise of Sarah Palin. Other than that, I haven’t paid any attention to her…until a few weeks ago.

She recently interviewed Lorena Bobbitt Gallo. You might remember she was the woman who, after being subjected to domestic violence and sexual assault by her husband, cut off his member.

Ms. Cho introduces Ms. Gallo as “the wife who employed, uh, shall we say, a dramatic response to an abusive relationship with her then husband, John Wayne Bobbitt.” During the interview, we learn that Ms. Gallo started an organization called “Lorena’s Red Wagon” through which she helps women and children in domestic violence situations.

And then the following question and answer:

CHO: I have to ask you this. As you well know, there was a time when joking about the Bobbitts was a national pastime. I wonder after all of these years – are you finally able to laugh about it?

LORENA GALLO: I finally am. And it took a lot of time, it took a lot of years, and definitely a lot of – I went to psychologists, and thanks to the doctors, the therapies I’m here, and I’ll be able to now basically start all over again and start a new relationship and have a family and basically I can laugh now. But it’s not a subject of laughing matter when we talk about domestic violence, though. It’s a serious problem and what happened to me was very bizarre, obviously. But I was a victim, I’m not a victim anymore, and that’s the message that I come – I have to come across and say it, and domestic violence is a serious issue and it affects 32 million people in the United States and is a worldwide epidemic, it’s a social epidemic that if we don’t do anything about it, then we faced with a bigger problem in the future for our newest generations to come.

I appreciate the fact that Ms. Gallo recognizes domestic violence is a serious issue but the idea she can now laugh about it is outrageous. But, I’m going to put that aside.

My problem is with Ms. Cho. What was she thinking?

Could anyone even imagine Ms. Cho asking this question of a man? “After all these years, can you now laugh about mutilating your wife?”

Let’s take it even one step further. I recall a horrific crime in in the 70s committed by Lawrence Singleton who raped a teenager and chopped off her arms and left her for dead. Well, she survived and he was eventually convicted. How about if Bill O’Reilly had interviewed him and asked the same question? “So, Mr. Singleton, tell my viewers, after all these years, can you now laugh about mutilating your victim?” The outrage would be deafening.

But, I see this double standard over and over in the media. Another perfect example is the reporting of sexual assault on students by teachers. When a male teacher assaults a female student, it’s rightfully called a “sexual assault” or “rape.”

I can’t count the number of times when I’ve read or heard reports of female teachers who sexually assault male students. While criminal charges are brought and are described according to the local penal code, reporters very often describe these assaults as a “sexual liaison,” “sexual relationship,” or “a teacher sleeping with her student.” Seldom is the teacher described as a rapist or pedophile but often characterized as “blonde,” “20-something,” “hot,” or “good-looking.” Why the double standard? Having worked in the area of child abuse law for over twenty years, I can assure you the long- term effects do not differ much between male and female victims.

I think the absolutely worst case involved 34-year old Mary Kay Latourneau, who began assaulting her 13-year old victim, who she eventually married after having two of his children and serving time in prison. She initially pled guilty to child rape and was given a seven-year sentence but was only required to serve three months under certain conditions, one being that she wouldn’t have any further contact with her victim. She served the three months, was released and was later caught inside a “steamed up” car with the victim. She was sent back to prison for 7 ½ years.

What’s disturbing about this story is how it was described in the media. Tru.tv describes its article as “Mary Kay Latourneau: The Romance That Was a Crime.” Gregg Olsen’s true-crime book was entitled, “If Loving You Is Wrong.” Lifetime’s made-for-tv movie was called, “Mary Kay Latourneau: All American Girl.”

Can you imagine the same treatment by the media had the criminal been a male and the victim a 13-year old girl? Of course, you can’t. It wouldn’t happen. (Oh, except if you’re a rich Hollywood director named Roman Polanski.)

On a lighter side, tv have changed dramatically over the years. I remember the handsome men who portrayed husbands and fathers in shows like “Bachelor Father” (John Forsythe), “Leave it to Beaver” (Hugh Beaumont), “The Show” (Carl Betz), “My Three Sons” (Fred MacMurray) and “Father Knows Best” (). All these men were masculine, intelligent, successful, hard-working role models for their children. I think the worst quality these Dads ever possessed may have been absent-mindedness. Other than a lapse of memory, these fathers/men were not demeaned on early television. Now, we too often see on sitcoms a bunch of overweight, doofus-looking, low achievers, where every joke is at their expense.

Can anyone imagine women portrayed the same way in sit-coms today? I doubt it.

I’m sure Alina Cho won’t be fired for her stupid question but I’d bet a man would and NOW would have been picketing outside CNN headquarters. I doubt we’ll see honest reporting of sexual assaults by teachers regardless of their gender. I also doubt we’ll ever see a handsome and witty man married to a slovenly, dopey woman on a tv . I wonder why the feminists aren’t seeking equality in these areas. Hmmm.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

Common Sense – The Intelligentsia Just Doesn’t Get It

I live on an island of about 23,000 people. Most people are well-educated. Income and home values here are higher than in the rest of the state.

In the past couple of months, there has been a rash of burglaries in my neighborhood, probably perpetrated by the same person, according to our local police. Every one of the burglaries – there have been eight so far – occurred because people left their doors unlocked while they were sleeping. The police reported the burglar looked through a window, saw a wallet or something else valuable sitting on the table, walked right in, took it and left. (The burglaries were all “easy access” crimes most likely for quick money for drugs.)

Bottom line from the police: use common sense.

In 2011, common sense dictates that one should lock their doors when they go to sleep. The island isn’t the same as it was when we moved here 15 years ago.

I thought about this while watching the “O’Reilly Factor,” when Bill showed a clip of a round table discussion on CNN which included elite snob, Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen, who had the audacity to say, “how much time do we have left to talk about how stupid Sarah Palin is?”

First of all, I hope the host, Fareed Zakaria, sent a dozen roses to Bill O’Reilly because up until the time Bill aired the clip for his millions of viewers, probably only about 59 people had actually seen the original broadcast.

Getting back to the comment. By whose barometer, exactly, is Sarah Palin considered “stupid”? By Richard Cohen’s? First of all, I’d bet he wouldn’t survive one day in Alaska’s wilderness, but I’d bet big bucks Sarah Palin would. Smugness wouldn’t help Cohen in the wild, that’s for sure.

So, by whose standard are we to measure someone’s “stupid” factor? Is it measured by the books they read, the movies they watch, their circle of friends, the plays they attend, the music they listen to, their alma mater, their vocabulary, the newspapers and magazines they read? These seem to be the criteria used by the intellectual elites.

How about considering one’s “common sense” and how well they solve problems? How about looking at one’s actual accomplishments?

It seems to escape many of these supercilious fools that Sarah Palin was elected as Governor of the State of Alaska – no easy task. Another fact that seems to evade the liberal media’s talking heads is that, in the 2008 Presidential election, she was the only candidate who actually had executive skills, a trait I believe is necessary for the Presidency. Instead, our choices were Senators Obama, Biden and McCain.

Howsoever this snob came to his conclusion about Palin, is calling her “stupid” the best argument a so-called “intellectual” can make. Instead of analyzing Palin’s ideas, referencing where she’s wrong and debating those differences, Cohen was reduced to nothing more than a kid in a schoolyard who can’t win a fight so ends up saying to the other kid, “your mother wears combat boots.”

This brings to mind my courtroom days. I was prosecuting a child abuse case and things were going my way during the trial. In other words, I was having a good day in court. It was the day before Thanksgiving and we were recessing until Monday. Well, I guess defense counsel knew things weren’t looking good for his client so he said to me as he walked out of the courtroom, “See you on Monday, tubby!” That was his best shot.

Well, I’ve never been a size 2 stick woman. But instead of going home, licking his wounds, honing up on his trial skills, and coming up with a proper defense, I apparently reduced him to a sniveling little 3rd grader who couldn’t come up with anything other than calling his opponent “tubby.” I went home and hid under the blankets the whole weekend. Not.

This kind of immature behavior occurs more and more in the media. Day after day, smug liberals try to convince the rest of us how “stupid” conservatives are. Unfortunately for them, most of America isn’t buying it.

I guess liberals hate the message so much that they’re left dumbfounded and all they can do is personally attack those with whom they disagree rather than address the issues. They despise the fact that so many Americans – those who live in between NYC and SF – lead conservative lives (whether or not they identify themselves as such).

Evidenced by the recent election, the majority of people have rejected Obama’s liberal agenda. That’s left the liberals knowing they’ve lost the battle for the hearts and minds of America reducing them to sniffling little crybabies spewing sophomoric barbs at their opponents.

When Cohen called Palin “stupid,” I never heard a word from NOW or any other feminist group. That’s because they never come to the aid of a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachman because, even though they’re women, they’re not liberal women, and, therefore, they don’t count. That’s the hypocrisy of so many feminists. They’ll only support a woman if that woman adopts their ideas. If you don’t, you’re on your own, sister!

Sarah Palin’s message resonates with so many people because what she says makes sense. That’s what drives liberals insane.

For me, I’d rather have a common sense politician who can balance a checkbook rather than one who tries to convince me that by spending money, I’m actually saving money. If I want to hear that type of drivel, I’ll turn on the home shopping channels.

As Emerson wrote, “Common sense is as rare as genius.” Those words were never truer than in today’s political arena.

In this case, I get it but the intelligentsia does not. Diversity Training = Spam

As far as I’m concerned, diversity training is like spam. Too many people get it and nobody wants it.

I recently read that the U.S. Agriculture Department has hired a consulting firm to advise it on “diversity” matters. Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack has “taken a number of actions to make his department more sensitive to civil rights issues.” This comes on the heels of the recent Congressional approval of a $4.6 billion settlement of a discrimination lawsuit filed by black and Native American farmers. There are more lawsuits pending.

Interesting that over at the DOJ just the opposite seems to be happening. Two officials, J. Christian Adams and Christopher Coates, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that the DOJ repeatedly showed “hostility” toward prosecuting cases which involved black defendants. But I digress.

Let’s get back to diversity training. Why is it even necessary? What other country is as diverse as ours? Didn’t we recently elect the first half-Black/half-White President? Doesn’t that say anything for this country and its people?

This all reminds me of my own experience when I worked for the County of in the 1990s and required to sit through hours and hours of co-called “diversity training” to make me a better lawyer.

In my opinion, this is more political correctness gone amok. Smooth talkers could put together some worthless seminar to “teach” people about sensitivities and bias – all at a very substantial price to the corporation or entity which feels compelled to provide this service to its employees.

We were all subjected to diversity training which revolved around Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, Men/Women, and, of course, the LGTB community. My experience in the courtroom was one that did not see any real bias against homosexuals, but I’ve seen some against the transgender community. I heard snickering and snide remarks, particularly from homosexuals and a lot of liberals, when that 6-foot tall woman who “doesn’t look quite right” was spotted in court. It all comes down to hearts and minds – laws and forced training aren’t going to change attitudes.

All this training was to make us more sensitive to the needs of the parents and children in the dependency system. I heard a lot of argument from attorneys who represented minority children when they were placed in white homes but not once did I hear anything when a white child was placed in a Spanish- speaking home. Sounds like a double standard to me.

But the most ridiculous diversity training I had to participate in involved the young black community. I’m sure everyone’s seen some young guy with his pants hanging down around his butt and his underwear showing. It’s got to be the most stupid look I’ve ever seen and I’d like to see one of these fools try and run in those pants. Well, according to our “diversity instructor,” this so-called “style” originated at Riker’s Island in New York, where prisoners aren’t permitted to have belts. (Since then, I’ve also read that this style signifies sexual orientation or, at least, sexual willingness, in prisons.)

According to the instructor, black youth adopted this “look” because it’s part of their “heritage” even though it reflected a negative segment of the population, namely, prisoners.

Well, I’d never heard of anything so stupid. So, in my inimitable fashion, I raised my hand during the seminar and asked the following: “My father came to the United States in 1924 from Germany. Based on your analysis, would it be okay for me to don a swastika because, even though it reflects a negative segment of the German population, it is part of my heritage?”

After stunned silence from fellow attorneys, the instructor attempted to explain away why my example was not analogous to the droopy pants look even though I knew I was spot on. Afterwards, several of my co-workers absolutely agreed with my analogy.

Needless to say, I thought the whole diversity training was a big waste of time although it did count towards my continuing education required by the State Bar of California. Up until I read the article about the Agriculture Department, I hadn’t a clue that diversity training was still being touted in this country. I thought we’d moved way past this.

Apparently, we haven’t. There are still “workforce diversity specialists” who go around the corporate world teaching people how to relate to one another. For example, one website I came across lists the politically correct terms now acceptable in the corporate world. For example, you shouldn’t say “guys” when speaking to a mixed group of people. You should say, “friends,” “folks,” or “group.” You’re not supposed to say “no culture,” when referring to parts of the U.S. where the opera and the theater are scarce or nonexistent but rather “lacking European culture.” My favorite is that I’m no longer an “old person” but rather “chronologically advantaged.” Does this mean that young people are “chronologically disadvantaged?” Sounds politically incorrect to me.

Bottom line: these are money-making industries by people who’ve convinced corporations that it’s necessary, especially if they’re after government contracts. And the corporation, afraid of looking insensitive or something even worse, kowtows to this type of political correctness. I see no difference between this type of training and theshakedown of corporation, like NASCAR, by the Rev. Jesse Jackson in years past. Remember when NASCAR gave $250,000 to Jackson’s Rainbow/Push Coalition to develop programs to try and correct perceived racism and animosity towards blacks.

For how many years, the private sector has been bullied into diversity training. Now we the taxpayers are spending, God only knows, how much to “train” the employees over at the Agriculture Department. Whatever it is, it’s a waste of our money.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

Beauty Is How You Feel Inside

Well, maybe that’s easy for Sophia Loren to say, but what I’ve read recently about some women’s obsession to attain the perfect body is downright insane.

Let me start out by saying I’ve absolutely no problem with anyone who wants a little nip, tuck, lipo, or lift to make them feel better about themselves. Mother Nature isn’t always kind and if a little help is needed from a surgeon to age gracefully, go for it.

I do have to say the idea of injecting a toxin like botox, a form of botulism, in order to achieve that stunned, I-can’t- move-my-face, deer in the headlights, Nancy Pelosi-look isn’t very appealing to me. Hey, but that’s just me.

I literally gasped when I read about silicone pumping parties where folks inject “industrial” silicone directly into their bodies. According to TMZ, low grade silicone used to lubricate auto parts in Argentina, was injected into Priscilla Presley’s face and we all know how that turned out.

What I don’t get are people who want to completely re-make themselves. Perfect example is the New York socialite, Jocelyn Wildenstein, whose initial goal was to win back her husband who she caught with a 21-year in bed and look more cat-like. You decide but she just looks bizarre. Fortunately, she’s continuing to have more plastic surgery to reverse some of the horrific results.

Another example is the late Michael Jackson who, for whatever reason, wished to eradicate any semblance of his former self, and instead, did everything possible to look like his sister, Latoya, or Diana Ross – I was never sure which one he wished to emulate.

I have to say the most frightening is 24-year old “reality star,” Heidi Montag, who, before I read about her surgeries, was completely unknown to me. Here’s a pretty, albeit cookie- cutter blonde who had 10, yes, 10 surgeries in one day! I couldn’t even believe this. She opted for brow-lifts, ear- pinnings, a chin reduction, as well as a second rhinoplasty and second breast augmentation .increasing her 32C bust to 32DDD. Now, a year later, she regrets it all. After seeing the before and after pictures, and other than her obvious inability to sleep on her stomach, she doesn’t look all that different to me except for the tape she now has to wear on her nose to keep it from shifting. She claims she’ll never have surgery again. Yeah, right. Wait a few more years. We’ll be reading about her again.

I have to ask myself, why a 24-year old would choose to do this. I haven’t come up with an answer because I’m not a psychologist. If there isn’t already one, there should be a diagnostic name in the DSM to identify someone who is so self- loathing, so insecure, so lacking in self-esteem that they would subject themselves to this kind of behavior. Perhaps it’s an addiction; I have no idea. I do have to ask, if, at age 24, you hate the way you look so much, what do you do when you reach 60 when things really start heading south? But the bottom line is also, what reputable plastic surgeon would be willing to do this? A recent article about the Chinese obsession with plastic surgery brought all this to my attention. After the United States and Brazil, China now ranks third in the world for most elective plastic surgeries. Who would’ve known? Plastic surgery, except for harelip surgeries, was considered bourgeois. Because of the economic reforms of the 1980s, the pursuit of beauty has risen gradually.

The problem in China became obvious when a promising 24-year old singer died in the operating room while undergoing a face- lift with her mother. 24 years old!

The article describes the journey for the perfect body of a 28-year old woman, who started having plastic surgery at the age of 16. “A nip and a tuck led to another nip and another tuck, and another.” There were the follow-up surgeries, and the repairs for the procedures that were botched. In total, this young woman had between 170 and 180 operations (she didn’t even know the exact number), usually six or seven at a time on nearly every part of her body.

Unfortunately, many of these surgeries aren’t performed at legitimate hospitals but rather at what are called “black surgeries” where lesser standards and less experienced doctors perform these operations and are done secretly. As usual, ethics decrease while bank accounts increase.

Most of the Chinese patients are young women in their 20s and the most popular procedure is eyelid slicing – to make Western-style double-lidded eyes – followed by nose jobs and tummy tucks.

Some mornings after I’ve had a bad night’s sleep, I wake up and look in the mirror and visualize what I’d look like with a few less wrinkles and lines but, I have to say, I never thought of doing anything as drastic as surgery when I was in my 20s.

I can only figure that these young women obsessed with their looks and the achievement of the perfect body are destined for very unhappy lives. Some people have great genetics; some don’t. Not all of us are lucky enough to look like Sophia Loren or .

My suggestion to any of these women is to save your money. Invest in a very good psychologist and figure out why you’re so unhappy. Eventually, everything heads south and surgeons are doctors, not magicians.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

The Gray Lady Has Jumped the Shark

I don’t read the New York Times on a regular basis. I may check out a story here and there just to reinforce my belief that, while it may be considered the “newspaper of record,” it’s still just a part of the lamestream media. I’ve often hoped they’d call to sell me a subscription so I could say I don’t own a bird and, therefore, am not in need of a birdcage liner, but that hasn’t happened yet.

While the paper’s motto continues to be “all the news that’s fit to print,” I dare anyone to explain to me why the next story is fit to be told anywhere other than on a third-rate reality tv show.

I heard about the December 17th article appearing in the Weddings/Celebrations section’s “Vows” column while watching “Red Eye,” which, by the way, is the funniest late night show on television. Anyway, the article describes the recent marriage of former New York WNBC reporter and anchor, Carol Anne Riddell, and John Partilla. The article describes in detail how these two met, fell in love, married, and created one big happy family with their respective children.

They met in 2006 in a pre-kindergarten classroom. Their children went to the same upper west side school. Ms. Riddell described Mr. Partilla’s dynamic personality, “He doesn’t walk in, he explodes in.” Similarly, Mr. Partilla describes Ms. Riddell as a kindred dynamo. “She’s such a force. She rocks back and forth on her feet as if she can’t contain her energy as she’s talking to you.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Well, they both had spouses. The two families became friends, shared dinners, Christmas parties and even vacationed together!

This is the tripe the NYT chose to publish: “But it was hard to ignore their easy rapport. They got each other’s jokes and finished each other’s sentences. They shared a similar rhythm in the way they talked and moved. The very things one hopes to find in another person, but not when you’re married to someone else.”

When I read that Mr. Partilla “didn’t believe in the word soul mate before” but he does now, I was ready to toss my cookies. When he made that sophomoric statement, did he ever consider his ex-wife, the mother of his children?

The article goes on and details the anguish each suffered and how horribly punished they felt. “Why did someone throw him in my path when I can’t have him?” I thought this was the type of drivel daytime soap operas were made of.

We were given the details about how they eventually told their spouses, their separation, their wedding in the clerk’s office and subsequent “small ceremony in the presidential suite of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.” According to Ms. Riddell, her “kids are going to look at me and know that I am flawed and not perfect, but also deeply in love. We’re going to have a big, noisy, rich life, with more love and more people in it.” Wow, I know I’m touched.

Have we, as a society, sunk so low that even the NYT, the supposed “newspaper of record,” finds it newsworthy to set forth the sordid details of this alliance? Sure, people split up every day. Some even meet new people while they’re married to someone else. But who would reveal, and what newspaper would publish, the intimate details of the destruction of two marriages and two families?

These two, obviously narcissistic, individuals feel compelled to bear their souls and describe in detail their sordid relationship. But what would make the NYT decide to publish this “fairytale” piece? I’d like it to re-visit these two utterly selfish human beings in five years to see if their hot monkey love is still in play. My guess: I doubt it.

I skimmed through the 139 published comments. While there were a few “we shouldn’t be judgmental” remarks, and a few good wishes for their happiness, I didn’t see too much support for the NYT publishing the Riddell/Partilla exposition. One woman whose ex-husband left her for a woman she considered one of her closest friends wrote, “to sugar-coat the destruction of two marriages by telling this story in the Vows column, I find appalling.” Ditto.

Like I said, I don’t regularly read the NYT, and I have no idea about Devan Sipher, who starts off his article by asking “what happens when love comes at the wrong time?” But, regardless of my opinion of the NYT, I don’t get why it would stoop to the level of a Jerry Springer to publish such an exposé. After reading about these two self-centered individuals, I’ll venture to guess that their ex-spouses are better off without them. But I’m sure that’s easy for me to say. I wish them and their children all the best.

I get that these two obnoxious people found one another. What I don’t get is why the editor of the NYT thought their shameful story should be told. But, if you do, God bless you.