Dr. Laura isn't a very good traditional moralist.

About 10 years ago or so, when I was 16/17, I would listen to the Dr. Laura Show, which was extremely popular. I think she was at the height of her popularity then because I never seem to hear about her any more. She also attracted a fair bit of controversy.

I've heard of people criticize her because (1) she espounses traditional morality and (2) her lurid life and (3) her shrill unbearable manner.

I realize that I'm 10 years late in the game, but I wanted to criticize some her advice, which I think is bad advice from a conservative perspective.

Bad piece of advice no. 1: She advocated not getting married until age 30. Oh, and one is supposed to remain chaste until then.

Huh? People who practice chastity until marriage never wait until age 30 to get married. They marry young. For instance, among the people I went to high school with, all the serious Christians I know go married just after college. People who are 30 when they marry are never virgins. And in fact, in Sex in America, the authors reveal the very interesting fact, that 50 years ago, you would marry at age 19 or 21, but today, instead of getting married, you would begin your first sexual relationship at age 19 or 21. The reason the age at first marriage has gone up is preceisely because you can have sex without being married. People who believe to highly religious subgroups which condemn premarital sex still get married at young ages.

This same point is missed by people on the other side of the political spectrum. They will say something to the effect that one cannot expect people to remain chaste until marriage because people get married at age 30. Wrong. If people decided to remain chaste, they would not marry at age 30.

In fact, I remember a phone call in which a young woman who was 25 told Dr. Laura that she was engaged and that the wedding was a long ways off (2 years?) and that she felt tempted to have sex with her fiance. Dr. Laura firmly told her to suck it up for the sake of her morals. This sort of thing makes no sense. Why not get married already?

Then there is the fact that woman's looks rapidly deteriorate with time. Many say that a woman peaks at age 25. Whatever the age at which woman peaks though, it is much younger than 30! It's a good idea to start working on getting a husband when you are young and then marrying him at age 25 or so.

I think she says this kind of thing precisely because of her own messed up private life. Because she herself wasn't chaste when she was young, she doesn't understand the relationship between chastity and the speed at which you get married.

So what reason does she have for people putting off marriage until age 30? I believe it the greater stability that comes with marrying at an older age.

Bad piece of advice no. 2: Someone called and asked, my son is not interested in school. He wants to be a rock star. What should I do? Dr. Laura's advice? I don't know what will happen in the future. I don't have a crystal ball. I guess, buy him a moderately priced guitar.

What stupid advice. A sensible person would have said, the chances of his becoming a rock star or movie star or whatever is nil. Concentrate on getting yourself into the best career track you can, whatever that may be for someone who is not a good student (plumbing?). Then play guitar with your band in your spare time. If you hit the big leagues, you can always quit your day job.

I don't know how she could have messed this one up so badly.

Bad piece of advice no. 3: Someone who says do as I say and not as I do is a hypocrite. Someone who says do as I say and not as I did is a teacher.

I think this is Dr. Laura's response to her less than spotless record in life. But it makes no sense. Especially when she gives advice about sex. It is very well to say when one is in one's 50s that you should be chaste or whatever. But of course people will look to see how you behaved when you were in your teens and 20s.

A Primer on Persimmons

November-January is persimmon season.

There are two varieties of persimmons which are commonly available: (1) the conical Hachiya and (2) the round, flat Fuyu.

Any persimmon you buy should be be a bright deep orange color. The brighter and deeper the color, the better. It should be as free of black spots as possible.

Fuyu:
Fuyus can be eaten when they are crisp. But I think they are best when they are slightly soft, so I like to leave them out on the counter for a few days to let them soften up.

Hachiya:
The thing about Hachiyas is that they are completely inedible if they are not ripe. A ripe hachiya is *squishably* soft. It should look somewhat like an overripe tomato. Looking at a ripe hachiya, you would think that by the standards of any other fruit it was overripe. The skin should be wrinkled and a bit loose (not taut over the fruit) and the fruit itself should feel like a mass of jelly. The fruit should at a stage where you're afraid of handling it for fear that the skin will break.

This is information I could not find online. I would always buy firm taught hachiyas, wait a couple of weeks, at which it would have softened somewhat and deepened in color. It would "look" ripe to me. I think I must have discarded at least a dozen hachiyas before finally buying what looked to me like badly overripened hachiyas, which are of course perfectly ripe hachiyas.

I would recommend buying already ripe hachiyas as opposed to buying unripe ones and letting them ripen on the counter. Hachiyas seem to take a very very long time to ripen. (At least, more than 2 weeks, which is the longest I've waited).

Hachiyas are considered superior to Fuyus in flavor and I heartily agree. While Fuyus are very good, Hachiyas are absolutely divine.

The Lives of Others

Just watched "The Lives of Others." Very good anti-communist movie.

I loved watching the main character Wiesler (Ulrich Muhe) more than anyone else in the movie. Intense, conscientious, and competent people are always fascinating to me. The writer and actress charcters are sexy, but somehow I didn't enjoy watching them anywhere near as much.

One thing I found somewhat unconvincing is why Wiesler is so moved by this writer/actress pair into changing his core beliefs. This is a man who has been a part of the Stasi for 20 years. He teaches a class on interrogation. He has ruthlessly "interrogated" (tortured) people. And he hasn't blinked. But all of a sudden now he begins to melt. What is it about these people that moves him? He seems to be in love with the actress. Is that the reason? Is this is the first time he has spied on arty types as opposed to "priests and peace activists," a phrase used in the movie? This great change of heart would have been more convincing if Wiesler had been young and just starting out rather than a seasoned veteran.

Another aspect of the movie which irritated me is that various arty and literary types (playwrights, directors, newspaper publishers) are portrayed as brave anti-communists. But generally most arty/literary types are far leftists and very sympathetic to communism. In the US for instance, Hollywood was full of Communists. And in fact, the hero the writer, is actually a committed socialist and state-approved playwright. It is only after a very good friend is blacklisted and commits suicide that he beings to rethink his loyalty to the regime.

Final comment is that the movie was wrapped up so very neatly, which is not a bad thing. No loose ends. The writer learns exactly the extent to which the actress snitched on him. He discovers that Wiesler had protected him, and Wiesler learns that the writer has discovered that he protected him.

It is refreshing to see a Communist era movie. Despite my fault finding, the movie was very good.