Friday, October 31, 2008

Sex News

Obviously, most of what you've been reading, hearing and seeing in the media lately has been about politics. But that doesn't mean that nothing new has been going on in the world of sex. All the pesky Presidential press has just buried the sex news. So, in case you've missed these developments in the area that can get just as hot as a debate about banking regulations, I'm here to fill you in.

Perhaps making the biggest waves in bedroom science is a recent study that discloses that women have definitely made some progress towards sexual equality, at least in one area. The area is infidelity. Yes, in this dubious race for equality, the number of women committing adultery is catching up to the number of men. So not only are some women breaking through the proverbial glass ceiling, but I guess they are also breaking through the motel's cottage cheese-plaster ceiling with the water stains on it.

Of course, some wives aren't the only ones fooling around. According to studies reported in the New York Times and elsewhere, infidelity in general has been on the increase. I wonder if cheating is going to continue to go up in this bad economy. Affairs are not for cheapskates, so fewer and fewer people will be able to afford a double life. But maybe all the tension people feel because of money problems will push them away from their marriages, regardless of the cost. Or the opposite could happen. Sometimes in times of trouble, stress can bring a couple closer together. For years, there has been a theory that when women's hemlines drop, so does the stock market. Only time and future studies will tell how the stock market will be affected by underwear dropping on a motel room floor.

Marriage experts often point to poor communication as a cause for infidelity. There is a new invention that's supposed to help with this. It's called the SweetieDo. It's a "silent whistle," much like a dog whistle. I'm not kidding. The theory, supported by something called the NeuroImage Journal, is that it's a lot of work for a man to understand what a woman is saying, because the man first interprets the female voice as music. I wonder what music the researchers feel men are hearing instead of their wives' voices? The theme song for ESPN'S "SportsCenter?"

Anyway, they say that it's often difficult for men to understand what women are saying, because a woman's voice contains complex frequencies, like music. So, it's hard for a woman to get a man's attention.

As much as I'd love to use this as a rationalization, I'm not buying – either the theory or the device. If a wife has to blow a whistle to get her husband's attention, the problem's the guy, not the wife's frequencies. The music that will probably be playing in that marriage is "Taps."

In another ring in the circus of sex, there will soon be a musical, actually a "rock opera," about "Deep Throat's" Linda Lovelace. For those too young to remember, Ms.Lovelace starred in the most famous porn movie in history in which she, well, you know the title. Those involved in the new musical production say they aren't interested in the salacious aspects of the late actress' life. Instead, they see her as a tragic, exploited figure. They maintain, "This isn't about a porn movie. This is the story of a woman's life."

All of that may be true, and I'm sure this could be handled in a way to make it a play that's not about sex. I'm just not sure I'll be able to sit in the theater while the play about Linda Lovelace is going on without thinking about how she became famous. It would be like going to a musical about Sarah Palin without having a song about mooseburgers. However, I just noticed that there are 43 songs in the Linda Lovelace play. That's a lot of songs. with all that singing, they'll have to call it, "Sore Throat."

In a strange event, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was scandalized recently when he was found guilty of seven felonies. What's so strange about it is that none of the felonies has to do with sex. What kind of Senator has a scandal without sex?

Finally, it was announced that it's Viagra's tenth anniversary. I don't remember any other medication having an anniversary, do you? And what do they expect us to do because of it? Are we supposed to buy Viagra an anniversary present? I have no idea what to get a blue pill that has revolutionized sex for many people. Although I guess I do know how we're supposed to celebrate the occasion.

Check out Lloyd's new Bob Newhart video, "The Challenge" at youtube or at striketv .

Saturday, October 25, 2008

America's Pastime: Politics or Baseball?

I need a rest from this Presidential race. Like many people, I'm too obsessed with it. And now that it's down to just days before the election it's getting worse. More and more news stories are about anything that has to do with the campaign. Maybe you're like me and need a little break from all this. A diversion. Fortunately, that diversion is being offered to us in the form of baseball's World Series.

It's great timing. Right when I think it's possible that people could be turned off by the long campaign, along comes America's Pastime to take our minds off politics. Without some other interest, I'm worried that some people are going to O.D. on politics and be completely turned off. I fear they might even stay home and not bother to vote. So if you feel you're too obsessed with the campaign, maybe you should join me in trying to get as immersed as possible in the Series. I figure I should be able to wean myself off politics at least a little bit in these last days of the campaign.

It's not going to be easy. I have to summon interest in a Series between the Philadelphia Phillies and a team called, the Tampa Bay Rays. Yes, once again, my beloved Chicago Cubs blew it and won't be winning the World Series for the 100th year in a row. The Rays are the Cinderella team that went from "worst to first," finishing in last place last year and winning the American League Pennant this year. Until this season, they were called the "Devil Rays" and their record was awful. As soon as they dropped the word "Devil," they did great. Hey, maybe those on the Religious Right would say, oh, no. No way. I'm not going to bring politics into this. It's baseball. Pure and simple.

Because I grew up on Chicago's North Side – home of the Cubs -- I generally root for the National League team. To me, the American League always represented the enemy White Sox or the always-winning Yankees. The Yankees were the team in pinstripes with the Big Money salaries, so they always seemed somewhat Republican and Oops! Sorry about that. No politics.

Anyway, I like the Rays' storybook history, but since the Phillies are in the National League, they will probably get my vote. Wait! I didn't mean to say, "vote." I meant to say that I'd probably root for them. I've got to stop being obsessed with politics. Sorry.

Even the candidates can just enjoy baseball without injecting politics into it. Or at least that's what I thought until John McCain accused Barack Obama of "flip-flopping" on the World Series. He said about Obama, "When he's campaigning in Philadelphia, he roots for the Phillies, and when he's campaigning in Tampa Bay, he shows love to the Rays."

They've traded insults for months, and the campaign has gotten pretty nasty. But to accuse someone of "baseball rooting malfeasance?" Now, that's serious. And which team is John McCain rooting for? Here's what he said, "I'm not dumb enough to get mixed up in a World Series between swing states." He refuses to answer because he's afraid of alienating Florida or Pennsylvania. And he admits it!

That probably means that Obama will accuse McCain of not having the courage to take a stance. Then McCain will proclaim that he's been a baseball fan all his life. Then Obama will say, "Of course McCain's been a baseball fan... just like George W. Bush." And on and on and on.

So, maybe it's impossible to get away from the campaign by turning to the World Series, but I'm going to try. First I have to look up and find out what network it's on. Let's see's on Fox. Fox? As in "Fox News?" Does that mean the commentators are going to call the National Leaguers who allow everyone an equal chance at bat "socialists?" Are they going to call some home runs out if they are "too far to the left?" And will the Democrats cry out every time someone "steals" a base, that it reminds them of the 2000 election? Oh, man. I can't get this stuff out of my head. When will this election be over?

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Comments On "It's Because He's Black, Stupid"

I received many comments from readers of my previous
column, "It's Because He's
Black, Stupid." The
comments reveal, not surprisingly, that race is
still a very
emotional issue for many people. That
is why I have decided to publish some of
those comments
here. I have left out some comments because of space

limitations and edited others for the same reason --
not because the reader/writer
may have disagreed
with me. After reading them, of course, you may
comment on the


90-95% of African Americans are going to vote for Obama? Mostly because he IS black?

Some of us don't like socialists of any color.

Some of us don't like candidates of any color who are so extreme on abortion. (That one is my reason.)

Some of us don't like candidates who are not only liberal, but closer to being radicals.

There are conservative black individuals I would vote for in a nano-second and be proud to do so.

Obama is also 1/2 white.

Who cares?


Home run Lloyd!! You absolutely hit the old, lingering fear of difference, American "racist" nail on the head.


A little comedy would have made this less a preachy lecture. In my humble opinion, knowing most liberals think all Republicans and hinterland-voters are racists,

This isn't 1982, and you're going to be proven wrong when the final poll numbers before the election prove to be accurate.

The enormous amount of new voters ACORN is registering aren't voting along racial lines?

­ --------------------------------------------------

..."He's inexperienced" really means, "He's black." What? What kind of stupid statement is that? He really is inexperienced and quite naive about many important issues. His lack of experience has nothing to do with his race. I would have voted for Alan Keyes if he were a viable candidate and had won one of the major party nominations. Not because he is black, but because I like his views.

Besides, he's not really black anyway. Half white, mostly Arab for the rest with less than 10% black from his ancestry. So we are not voting for the first "black" candidate, we voting for the first half white, mostly Arab candidate.


"Loved it Lloyd. And you are so right. But I'll be in there voting for him. Of course I've kissed a few black guys - think everyone should."


Too much LA smog for Lloyd. Obama is a socialist... he wants to redistribute wealth. He is dishonest about his associations with Ayers and Wright... he has long standing associations with people who dislike this country and by words and actions have acted against this country... that is his prerogative...just don't deny it. Still want to vote for Obama ..that is your choice ... race will not be as much a factor in people not voting for Obama as age is for young people not voting for McCain.


Lloyd wonders why there are still “undecideds” in this election. He thinks the answer is racism. That’s an odd conclusion. Have you ever met a racist who was undecided about their opinion? Me neither. Racists by definition are decidedly decided. They aren't open to being swayed. They don't sit around picking petals off flowers wondering aloud “I love people, I love them not. I love people, I love them not.”


Lloyd, you lost me with this one. I'm not voting for Barack Obama. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin and everything to do with the content of his character. To see you equate "He's inexperienced" with "He's black" tells me everything I need to know about your political judgment. In effect, you just called me a racist. I'll not hang around for more of that.


I totally agree with this article. AMERICA just say it... He's black! This river of racism is as much apart of the American fabric as it has ever been. Most black people I know realize this. We have always known, believed and experienced this. I think white America most of the time likes to keep their head in the sand about it. This is not to say that every white person is a racist. This is not to say that every black person is down trodden and persecuted minute by minute, but as they say on Clean House, "Take off your blindfolds and Open your eyes!" Racism is as much a part of America as Apple Pie! The sooner we all admit it, the sooner we can all work to rise above it.


...if i have to hear from another white liberal baby boomer my head is going to explode. they are so consumed with white guilt they see everything thru the prism of race. Racism is alive and well but give me a break. I am undecided not because of race, but because i don't like either candidate!!!! … I'm a fan of this user


Thanks for speaking TRUTH, my pale skin brother.. (LOL) I believe it was best said by Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth!!" The UNDECIDED group seems to lack the all important ability to be Honest with ONES SELF. This made my day. Keep up the good work.


…Of course you can have legitimate complaints against both candidates and I laud your decision to not cast a ballot for either of them. Hence, you are not one of the "undecideds" Garver is citing. My problem is with people who truly like Obama's message and would (arguably) benefit from an Obama administration but either can't commit to him or, worse, will, sadly, vote against either their ideological or economic interests by punching the ballot for McCain/Palin. There does seem to be an inordinate amount of people this election cycle who--for whatever reasons--fall into one of these two categories.


Die for me. Get an education, get a job, follow the rules, you will be ok. You can do anything you want in America.

If I kick you, your role is to be quiet and pretend that 0I did not. If you ever speak of the fact that I kicked you, I will deny it through charges that you are trying to profit from a victim mentality.

If you are brown, you are looking for a handout or you are following the orders of superior people who know best. These are your only options in this society. Either way, suffer silently, never point out disparity, know with clarity your place and never try to rise above societal definition of your place or we will crucify you.

It is imperative in a world that hates and labels it love that one retains their own definitions. It is imperative when one lives in a world where a fellow human being can be slandered in society and some consider that "the rough and tumble nature of politics" to be self-sufficient in all things moral. One cannot look to their country for moral guidance when it is a wasteland of immorality. Once cannot trust their country to do what is right when it shows ample evidence of leaning towards that which is evil and wrong.

1968 -- 2008, this was the lifespan of a wake-up call to get things right. Regret or fear not the results of getting it wrong. We were warned.


You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, these people are trying to appease their own consciences by saying they're not racist, but the bible says, "out of the heart, the mouth speaketh," and their words are saying plenty. They can say whatever they want, however because there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. The time has come for change, the time has come for unity of races, cultures, creeds and colors, and those who can't get with the program will be left far behind to wonder what the hell happened.


"What are they waiting for?" Good question and I think you're right--more of these undecideds than we would like to believe are having a hard time committing to Obama because he's black. When I hear them in the post-debate interviews singing his praises and then, finally, lamenting, "I still haven't decided," I want to pitch my remote through the TV screen. For most people, there is only one rational and reasonable choice in this election. "He's black" isn't a good reason someone to vote against his/her ideological and economic interests. These folks either need to get off the fence or sit this election out.


Do you have ANY evidence to support this latest story?


Here's your real racist author, Lloyd Garver:

"He's inexperienced" really means, "He's black."

You've been hypnotized and you don't even know it.


Any one who votes for a political candidate because he or she is black, red, yellow, brown or because he or she is a democrat or republican, catholic or Jew, male or female has some serious mental problems. …

When I hear people say ... "I'm voting for Obama because he's black." or "I'm voting for the republicans because Sarah Palin is a female.", makes me sick to my stomach.

I also look at the type of people who support a political party and this year, one of our political parties is made up of liberal scum bags, radical left wingers, gays, freaks and kooks who I have absolutely no respect for. Bet you can't guess who I'll be voting for.


I would have to agree [with you, Lloyd]. It’s the ONLY thing I can think of that would cause people to be “undecided” at this stage. I do wonder though, has there ever been a study to determine what percentage of our population is just completely incapable of making a decision? And make all their choices based on whim? So I’m hoping on Nov 4 that at least half of them will walk into that booth and feel like voting for Obama and doing so.


You forgot:

He's Arab = He's Black
Powell endorses Obama because He's Black
He isn't from the "real" part of America = He's Black.
He's a Socialist = He's Black
He's a Communist = He's Black
He's establishing a welfare state = He's Black
He has radical ideas = He's Black
Tony Rezko = He's Black
ACORN = He's Black
William Ayers = He's Black
Not the "right" kind of Christian = He's Black

Those who think this is just about politics try this little experiment. Place an Obama/Biden sign in your front yard or better yet - an Obama bumper sticker on your car and see what happens.


I am not a 'who me?' kind of person but I do have issues with Obama. I was a strong supporter of Hilary, and the fact he didn't do the wise thing of selecting her to be his vice (which would have united the democratic person) made me lose some respect for him. Furthermore, despite being quite left wing, in recent economic discussions, I've felt McCain has taken the favorable approach. This has led to a little dilemma as I would feel very guilty to support the Republicans but at the same time, this election campaign has raised doubts over Obama as a president. Am I a 'who me' person? No. Am I racist or remotely prejudiced on issues of race or background? Far from it. Am I sure I support Obama? No sadly not. Where does that leave me?

Saturday, October 18, 2008

"It's Because He's Black, Stupid"

The election is only a few weeks away, and there are still "undecideds." What are they waiting for? And how can they be torn between these two guys. They're so different. They are offering voters a very clear choice. Besides, what more could the undecideds possibly hope to learn or see about the candidates? Is Obama finally going to gain a few pounds? Is McCain finally going to stop saying, "My friends?" What is taking these people so long to make up their minds? Well, when it comes to some of them, to paraphrase a famous political saying, I'd have to say, "It's Because He's Black, Stupid."

Now before you start angrily typing to me, let me make a few things clear. I'm not suggesting that everyone who dislikes Barack Obama and plans on voting for John McCain is doing it because of race. I'm not saying that all of the people who are still undecided are racist. What I am suggesting is that we have to look at and wonder about those voters who agree with Barack Obama on issues that are very important to them and disagree with John McCain's positions, yet are still thinking about voting for McCain. Why? Could it be race?

Lately, political pundits have been talking about "The Bradley Effect." This refers to the 1982 California gubernatorial contest in which Tom Bradley, an African American, was ahead in the polls but lost to George Deukmejian. Some experts feel that some white voters were embarrassed to tell pollsters that they really planned to vote for the white candidate, and others who favored Bradley just couldn't vote for the black candidate once they got in the polling booth. There is some feeling that this may happen again in the Obama-McCain contest.

But I think there's also something going on that I'll call, "The Who, Me? Effect." This involves white voters who don't consider themselves anti-black. They may live among or work with African Americans and would certainly never use a racial slur. But, well, they just aren't completely embracing African Americans. They feel uncomfortable, weird, and awkward about the whole thing. When they're having a public conversation in a restaurant, etc., they always seem to whisper the word, "black" (like some people always whisper the word, "cancer"). If someone called these people bigots or said they were prejudiced, their response would be a shocked, "Who, me?"

But they agree with Obama on all the issues that are important to them, yet they're just not sure about voting for a black man. So they remain undecided. And they are desperately searching for some reason, some excuse, some rationalization for voting for McCain that doesn't involve race. Apparently, they couldn't convince themselves that eight-year-old Barack Obama was a radical member of the Weathermen, so they're still looking for some reason not to vote for Obama without feeling guilty.

When you combine "The Bradley Effect" with "The Who, Me? Effect," the numbers could be quite significant. A whole vocabulary has evolved to help the "Who me-ers" rationalize their opposition to Obama. I can help with the definitions:

"I don't like him because
he's arrogant" really means, "He's black."

"He's inexperienced" really means, "He's black."

"I know he's not a Muslim,
but how can I vote for
someone with a name like
that in these times?" really means, "He's black."

"His speeches are too fancy" really means, "He's black."

"How did a guy with his
background end up at Harvard?" really means, "He's black."

"I like his ideas, but
there's just something
about him" really means, "He's black."

"I don't like his wife" really means, "He's black."

One good thing about America is that you are not required to justify whom you vote for. If you want to vote for someone because you like his eyes or the way she dresses, you may do that. And if you don't want to vote for someone because of the color of his skin, that is your right. I just hope that not too many people exercise that right.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Sarah Palin: Speakin' Her Mind

Maybe John McCain was clever in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. Now that their campaign is increasingly desperate, she can be his "attack dog" as they say in politics. She can say whatever she wants, things that McCain can't say. And if anyone points out that she's exaggerating or ignoring some facts, they're accused of sexism or of picking on Palin.

She was quoted the other day in the "New York Times" as saying, "I was reading my copy of today's New York Times and I was interested to read about Barack's friends from Chicago." Right there, we've got a credibility problem. First of all, she was quoted as saying "reading," not "readin'." Next you'll notice that she was quoted as saying, "my 'New York Times.'" Do you really think that Sarah Palin gets the "New York Times?"

If she did, don't you think that would've been one of the newspapers she could've come up with when Katie Couric asked her what she reads? You betcha it wouldda been. Some people might say that it wasn't fair to ask her what she reads, because the other candidates weren't asked questions like that. That's true, but we already knew a lot about the other candidates. We don't know much about her, and it seems like we have a right to find out about her interests and her intellectual curiosity.

I know it's been a while since the Biden-Palin debate, but the networks have been rerunning it over and over again much like "Law & Order" or "Wings." For me, it's like seeing an accident on the highway. I know I shouldn't look, but I can't help looking for a moment.

And now that I've seen her rerun, I'm suspicious about something. Her performance seems even more extreme, more exaggerated than it did on Debate Night. Her poor grammar, her poor diction, and her poor sentence structure are just too over the top. Here's the suspicious aspect of this: she had a great deal of time to prepare for her debate, she haed some very experienced people helping her, and she clearly practiced her lines. Don't you think, if the party professionals wanted to, they could have told her the proper way to pronounce "nuclear?" Don't you think they could've told her how to say words that end in "ing?" You're goll-darn right they could have.

So here's my theory: they want her to sound like that -- not just like you and me, but dumber than you and me! They think this will endear her to voters. George W. Bush played down his Yale and Harvard education, talked in a Texas twang, and it seemed to work for him for six or seven years.

It's always been interesting to me that American politicians aren't supposed to be too smart. The public doesn't seem to trust or want intellectuals, "eggheads," or professorial types. The theory is that they want someone who is "just like them." If they speak properly, if they're highly educated, if they're interested in complex issues, Americans are wary of them. Smart people are considered "elitists" who think they are "better than we are."

This is crazy. I want the leaders of my country to be smart. It's fine with me if they're smarter than I am. Now more than ever, we need educated, intelligent people to help lead us out of this sad situation we're in. That's a lot more important to me than making sure that a leader likes to have a few beers when he or she goes bowling.

Obviously, I don't know if Sarah Palin is purposely exaggerating her lack of intellectual curiosity and her being just a "regular person." It doesn't even matter to me if she is or not. The point is, why should intelligence be derided and being average celebrated in politics?

At the October 7th Presidential Debate, John McCain called for a "commission of the smartest people in America" to help solve the economic crisis. I was shocked when I heard him make the suggestion. For one thing, how is he going to identify who the smart people are? Then was he just going to send them invitations? But, of course, what surprised me the most was that he dared to mention using smart people to solve a big problem. Maybe his campaign is really getting desperate.


Friday, October 3, 2008

The Internet Cure

When one of those morning "news" shows recently featured a story about people using the internet to get medical information on the same day that the "New York Times" dealt with that subject, I knew that this medical surfing had become an epidemic.

I've never used the internet to self-diagnose an ailment or second-guess my doctor. This is because it would only make me feel worse. I'm the kind of person who asks my doctor to refrain from telling me the possible side effects of medications, knowing that this information will make me imagine that I'm suffering from these side effects. So I don't think it's a good idea for folks to use the internet for medical purposes if they are among those people who, whenever they're asked for their occupation, should truthfully answer, "hypochondriac."

Don't get me wrong. The internet can be a marvelous resource. If I had a serious ailment or had something that several doctors were unable to diagnose, I would probably turn to the internet. I'm sure that the internet has saved lives and armed many patients with important information.

There are so many medical sites on the Web that some experts suggest that you only go to those whose names end in .gov. The theory is that if it is a government-approved site, we can trust it. Nice theory, but remember it's the same government that gave us the Great Economic Disease of 2008. I say, shop around and use whatever sites make sense to you. But use them wisely.

Those who think they know as much as doctors just because they have surfed the Web, are probably wrong. Those who give their friends medical advice based on what they read on the internet last year are probably making a mistake. And those who learn things from the internet but keep them a secret from their doctor are really being silly. Share what you learned with him or her. If your doctor is insulted that you went on the internet, get another doctor.

I still maintain that the internet isn't the place to go every time you have a pain, a scratch, or a cough. I decided to put this to the test. I have some pain in my arm that I assume is from playing tennis. But how can I be sure? I'm not a doctor. So, I went online to see what the Web had to say about my pain.

The first site I went to listed 123 possible causes of arm pain. That seemed a bit overwhelming, so I left. The next site – honestly -- had 61 causes of arm pain. It's interesting that this site had almost exactly ½ the causes of the other site. I wondered if it only dealt with one arm instead of two.

There is a kind of site that is the worst kind for anxious patients – and is there any other kind of patient? This site allows you to take the symptom --- like arm pain – and then look at various causes which you can accept or reject, and then add a second symptom, etc. In other words, let's say you have arm pain, but sometimes you have an itchy left eye. That could mean that you have an entirely different problem from the person who has arm pain and is allergic to sour cream.

Among the first ten causes prominently listed on a site dealing with arm pain were angina, arteriosclerosis, and a chronic peptic ulcer. I couldn't even find tennis or any kind of exercise on the list. Was I wrong about my pain? I had to admit that I often have an upset stomach. Could the pain in my arm mean that I had an ulcer?

The longer I looked at possible symptoms, I felt I'd be lucky if it was "only" an ulcer. The more I read, the more I felt a need to read even more. "Just one more site," I promised myself – over and over again. After a while, the pain in my arm grew worse and worse. Was this psychological?

But before I checked out "psychological for pain," I realized what was causing the increased pain. My arm was hurting me more and more because of all the typing I was doing. I had been typing so much to try to find out why my arm was hurting, and it hurt me more because of the typing! That was it. That was the correct diagnosis.

At least I'm happy to say I resisted doing a search for "pain and stupid repetitive behavior."

New Bob Newhart Video

Check out Bob Newhart's first internet video by