I beat myself up constantly for getting together with my ex. He was very convincing that he was this good guy but in the end, my instincts said something is not right with this. I stayed but it's not a mistake that I'll be making again.

Amy is right, people are who they are, and you have to pay attention. It's not always easy, for those that don't pay attention, there are always going to be people who are at least competent liars.

That said, when a man outright tells you he has "zero interest in kids" and "Look, I don't care about the baby. What I care about is my work," it becomes not about a lack of attention paid, but about willful disregard of character.

It is so much better if you don't do that to yourself, and especially, especially, don't do that to your kids.

Kendra, I used to be myself up about my ex, too, but you've got to stop. It serves no purpose. I'm with a fantastic guy now, and he's much better for my kids than their father is, but they still see him once a week, so at least he's making an effort now (largely due, I think, to my bf's influence; he didn't want the girls to like my bf better, or something). It was like pulling teeth when they were younger, getting him to spend time with them, but I guess now that they're older, they're more interesting to him. So be it. We all do things we regret, but you can't spend too much time beating yourself up about it. You have to move on and become the better person that you know you can be.

This story reminded me of my ex and one of his girlfriends. She came to me during one of our court cases. He was taking me to court because I refused to allow him to break into my home regularly and because he wanted to lessen his visitation time. His girlfriend decided to intervene and ask me if the reason I was fighting him in court was because I was still in love with him. Yes. Really. I can't figure out how wanting to protect myself from him entering my home illegally was proof of to her that I was in love with him especially since he was the one who filed that case, but that's what her interpretation was.

This woman has no kids and watched for a year as my son consistently canceled his visitations and never even called his kids. She was asking him to reverse his vasectomy because she wanted to have kids with her. I asked her if she had paid attention to the father he was and why she thought he would be different with any kids he had with her. The man went to court many times to reduce his visitation. He didn't need a court order to not see his kids. His problem was that when he canceled, he was on the hook for babysitting so by reducing his visitation, he reduced any babysitting that may have been needed when he canceled at the last minute.

A lovely guy. And some idiot somehow thought he would make a wonderful father and that the problem was his bitch ex-wife (me) who in her eyes couldn't let go.

I read Mia Farrow's book, which was very interesting, but, as this article points out, she had terrible taste in men.

Still, it's a rather big leap for a guy to go from having "zero interest in kids" to taking an extreme interest in your daughter. They even say it was out of character - him suddenly caring about this 18 yr old he'd never bothered with before. I don't know that Farrow could've ever predicted what happened there.

An interesting point in that article is that Sun Yi supposedly has an IQ of under 100! She came from an abusive background and has severe learning disabilities. Farrow adopted her at age 5 (they weren't sure how old she was) and the article says she was basically feral, roaming the streets.

I didn't know she was mentally challenged. I disapproved before, but now I really think Allen is despicable.

Funny thing is, that stuff about Woody contradicts things that Mia AND he said - in the 1980s, she was quoted as saying that he was a great father figure to her kids, and after the scandal in 1992, he said that when Mia adopted daughter Dylan (in 1985 or later) he hadn't intended to adopt her as well, but found her so wonderful that he simply wanted to. (Their son Satchel was born to them in 1987.)

And if he didn't really want kids, I wonder how the two he adopted with Soon-Yi are going to turn out. Unless Mia was lying about his not really liking fatherhood?

(BTW, I'm guessing that Soon-Yi couldn't have children, since Woody clearly proved that he could.)

LS, you really don't think Farrow could have predicted what happened? A man who lives separately from you and shows zero interest in any of your children, including his own, suddenly showing interest in your 18 year old daughter? She didn't break up with him for months after finding naked pictures in his home, left on the mantle, and she finished shooting his movie?

I've made my own poor choices but at some point remaining in denial, as Farrow did, or refusing to deal with a situation, only hurts your children. I could never look at a man who is a poor father after seeing how my ex has hurt the children we had together. I could never be with a man who treated his kids like that and make excuses for it. Ultimately, Farrow thought it was ok when it worked for her. When it hurt her, then it was bad. I don't know that he sexually abused his other kids but she was sure quick to use that in court when she decided to deal with his affair with her daughter. The whole situation is very sad, but I can't say she couldn't have predicted much of it.

An interesting point in that article is that Sun Yi supposedly has an IQ of under 100!

Doesn't half the population have an IQ under 100?

I don't really know why this thread is supposed to be about blaming others. I don't think Farrow has denied responsibility. Whatever you think of her, she's done an amazing job with those kids, which is the point of the article.

I imagine she assumed the bulk of childrearing would be on her, since she had 7 kids when she met him. She considered him a good "father figure" only in the sense of being a cinematic genius, someone they could admire and look up to...not someone who was going to change diapers or actually spend much time with them.

It was certainly an unconventional relationship and family, which isn't necessarily bad. Their biological son is a Rhode's scholar, which may not have happened had he not been raised the way he was...or perhaps even if he wasn't Allen's.

But Allen is an asshole. Yet, we coddle him. We still see his movies, and people in the industry still revere him and excuse these bad traits because he's a "genius". So, it's not really suprising that the women in his life have too. The message is that you're supposed to tolerate these eccentricities and bad behaviors from a brillaint person.

Kristen, I don't believe she thought he would molest anyone before she found those photos. Yes, she went into denial for a few months, as her sister fully acknowledges. That isn't so uncommon, but, ultimately, she woke the hell up.

I believe he molested Dylan too. Her account of things in the book added up. He was fixated on that little girl, which pleased Farrow, particularly given his general disinterest in kids, but after Soon-Yi, it appeared more sinister.

"Doesn't half the population have an IQ under 100?"

Not really, though that may be the average 1Q, but I think it's more like 105 in the US, and higher in certain subsets of the population (Jewish, for instance). Average is just a mean, averaging all the mentally challenged people in with the geniuses. In practical terms, most functional, coherent, articulate adults are above 100.

Certainly, an IQ under 100 is no match for a genius like Allen, who must have an IQ of 140+. Only a person who was really controlling would desire a relationship with an IQ spread like that.

In fact, I've read that most relationships fail where the spread is over 10 pts. The brighter person just has nothing in common with the less bright person. It would be like having a child.

LS, I agree with you about his treatment in Hollywood although what the father he is is not a reflection of him as an artist. His behavior, while morally questionable, is not criminal. I see a difference between Allen and a Sheen or Polanski. I wouldn't enter in a relationship with any of them, but I can't support a rapist or repeat abuser. Allen, is an asshole, but I don't see him as being abusive or a rapist. I could be wrong though.

As far as what she's done with her kids. She seems like she's done a good job and she certainly has been devoted. Still, I question the sudden awakening she had about Allen and his parenting because I do recall interviews in which she spoke of him glowingly regarding their relationship and him as a father figure. He didn't wake up one day and become a completely different person.

LS, there was a lag in the comments on my end. I don't know enough about his relationship with Dylan to form an opinion about whether or not he molested her. Yes, denial can be quite normal, but still, she went into attack mode and I always question whether that was concern that she believed he was molesting or her hurt in him leaving for her daughter, which by the way, I do think is disgusting. I just don't know that he was molesting Dylan and Satchel as was claimed.

test

Yeah, this is kind of confusing, Kristen, with the comment leaps, but maybe it's been fixed.

Nobody can really know, but I can relate to how a woman (or man) with a controlling partner will say glowing things about him (or her) during the relationship. What else was she going to say in an interview?

The controlling partner usually does a good job of minimizing any doubts and/or gaslighting the partner into thinking they're imagining things or just plain stupid. For that reason, I don't hold it against her that she said complimentary things about him before all this came to light.

Certainly, if either of us were to discover nude photos of our daughter in our partner's possession, we'd go back through the whole relationship with a more critical eye.

A friend of mine walked in on her father-in-law abusing her youngest child. He went home immediately and shot himself. She had never suspected him of molestation before, but, in counseling, she learned he'd tried things with her older two kids as well.

It's easy to say people should know, and I agree Farrow should've known he was an ass. Just his treatment of her (not calling, etc), and all the neurotic self-absorption, should've screamed "narcissist", but not necessarily child molestor.

I can proudly say I've never seen a Woody Allen movie. To be fair, he was really before my generation, but even if he weren't I feel no need to support the work of true assholes. It gives too much hope and inspiration to other assholes and we have more than enough already.

I've never seen a Polanski, either, and never will.

Someone never told Mia that once you have kids, your choices in your love life get really narrow for about 18 years or so.

Being a distant father is one thing, but it isn't necessarily an indicator of someone who is grooming his teenage stepdaughter for sex.

Being a distant father is one thing, but it isn't necessarily an indicator of someone who is grooming his teenage stepdaughter for sex.

And I certainly don't coddle him or see his movies, or Polanski's. I'm with Momof4.

It's YOUR fault I don't accept responsibility and place blame!

"And I certainly don't coddle him or see his movies, or Polanski's. I'm with Momof4."

If you do background checks on the people who work on the things you want to see and/or hear, be ready to quit. Give up your The Mamas and the Papas albums.

There is so much going on here. One) Farrow and Allen are both people of the theater that translates to loving drama.
2) If you see husbands and wives I think the character Farrow plays is very close to who she is. I think passive aggressive is one side to her. Look at who she dated and how she obtained them. She is mad at Soon Yi? I wonder how Sinatra and Previn's wives felt.
3) Amys right it's one thing to make bad decisions but she had 7 children she was already committed to when she signed on with someone who didnt want kids.
4) Some people are weird control freaks and they do so by taking on charitable challenges not because they are so giving but because they feel only they have the right answers for the worlds ills. See crazy cat lady or these child collectors. Helping one or two kids but getting into 7-8 kids , someone is getting neglected.

Momof4 and NicoleK, no offense, but I think the whole idea of boycotting the works of assholes is silly. If you truly resolved never to experience or make use of anything created by a bad person, you'd miss out on a ton of masterpieces AND modern conveniences. I have no doubt that you have happily used, studied and enjoyed the intellectual and artistic fruits of many wife-beaters, rapists and child abusers throughout your lives.

Creative genius certainly does not equal good character. Both should be acknowledged as appropriate--pay for and enjoy the person's good works, condemn their rotten behavior. So what if it paying for them makes them rich? However much they have in the bank, or how many "friends" and self-destructive women they manage to gather around themselves, morally bankrupt people are fundamentally broken inside. That is hell enough.

I don't believe great works of art should equal a get out of jail free card--that is disgusting--but as for the movie industry fawning over its people, that's what it does. None of that stops me from buying a ticket to the Pianist and finding it one of the most shattering, historically significant and carefully crafted films I've ever seen. I absolutely loved Match Point, enough to watch it 5 times in a row. And I'll definitely see Midnight in Paris. All of which in turn does not condone rape, or seducing teenage stepdaughters.

A very personal and non-data-equalling anecdote: I myself got into an abusive relationship with a dominating, much older and very successful stage director. He had a brilliant mind and a disgusting, twisted, pathetic heart. Despite his millions, artistic recognition and a long string of beautiful female partners, he was the most miserable person I've ever known. He did truly cruel things to the people in his life, but I don't think any worldly punishment can be worse than having shit for a soul.

I will never speak to him again, and I now steer clear of assholes in my personal life. But I would still go see one of his productions if I'm ever around. They're damned good, even if he's not.

Obviously I can't background check everyone whose work I see or use. But some people just make things easy for us, and let us know exactly what sort of person we are supporting by buying their work.

I doubt someone is getting neglected when you've got the money Mia or Angelina has. Is it her giving the attention? Probably not, but a nanny is better than some random foster family.

"Helping one or two kids but getting into 7-8 kids, someone is getting neglected."

By our standards, maybe, but of course they would be severely neglected if left in the slums and orphanages. Unless all of us are willing to adopt a few of these kids ourselves, I don't think we have a right to judge her (or Jolie) for that.

I've had friends who've gone to those third world orphanges, looking to adopt only one child, and once they get there and see the conditions and meet these desperately needy kids, taking 7 or 8 of them becomes very tempting. So, I can see how someone with the financial means that Farrow and Jolie have would feel morally compelled to do what they've done, and I think they should be lauded for it. Farrow has apparently raised 15 children, several with special needs, like Soon-Yi

Also, I've never heard that she is mad at Soon-Yi. They have no contact, since she's with Allen, but I would say that is probably the only way she could possibly deal with such a bizarre situation. As her son said, "He's my father married to my sister...I can't have contact with him and be morally consistent."

Certainly, an IQ under 100 is no match for a genius like Allen, who must have an IQ of 140+. Only a person who was really controlling would desire a relationship with an IQ spread like that.

That might be true in this instance, but the difference between 150+ and 100, and 150+ and under 100 isnt all that great when you're the 150+ person.

I've seen a few of Allen's movies and enjoyed them. As YTS pointed out, if we get back round checks on everyone we'd miss out on a lot of entertainment. That being said, I do boycott Polanski because while I didn't get a back round check, I am aware that he raped a 13 year old girl and just cannot justify to myself supporting him in any way no matter how miserable he may be, although, YTS, I don't know that he's as miserable as you think and I have a feeling the whole Nazi thing may wear him down more than being accused of rape and fleeing to a country where he's treated as if he were a god.

I feel the same about Sheen. His Comedy Central Roast was the icing on the cake. Laughing about women cowering in the corner and beating his wives and girlfriends was too much for me.

Mia Farrow deserves tremendous credit for caring enough to adopt kids who would have grown up in slums or orphanages. I'm sure the life they had with her was a picnic in comparison to what they may have ended up with. I question her choices in men and the blinders she wore, not the love or devotion she had for her kids.

Woody Allen is a creepy jerk, and I am glad I don't enjoy his brand of humor. That said, Mia Farrow is nutty and probably very selfish too. She is the person who insinuated Soon-Yi had some sort of developmental delay, which I doubt. This is Soon-Yi's public statement after Farrow accused Allen of molesting other children and I think it is worth consideration even if it could just be a product of Woody Allen's PR team.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1992/08/30/soon-yi-speaks-let-s-not-get-hysterical.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1992/08/30/soon-yi-speaks-let-s-not-get-hysterical.html

It's pretty much what I expected from her - I've seen a few things she'd written.

But how can she avoid talking about how Moses, the then-teenage adopted son of Woody and Mia, must have felt? (He said to Woody: "Everybody knows not to sleep with your son's sister.")

I think it is likely that none of the three are nice people. She's the most sympathetic because she was young, but you have a moral compass at 18. Remember she has also adopted children with Woody Allen, and he's the one quoted above as saying he has zero interest in kids.

"Exactly what Sam said. And why I posted this."

I think we all get that you have a moral compass at 18 just as we all understand that she adopted kids with a man who said he had zero interest. Pointing out the mistake well after it was made accomplishes what though? We all have our opinions on what people do and shouldn't do yet people still make mistakes and still make mistakes that affect others. I made poor choices in my life for lots of reasons. While I take responsibility for my choices, I'd hope that instead of being judged for my failures, that there are people who could learn from what I did wrong and why.

While I think that she should have been able to see what Allen was about before, I think you also have to understand the patterns behind her choices. I'm surprised, Amy, only because of the amount of research you put in and even after having some great guests on your radio show who seem to have an understanding of why people make the choices Farrow made. Its not an easy pattern to break, but considering that after Allen, she devoted herself to motherhood and didn't engage in any romantic relationships, I'd say she recognized that she wasn't making the best choices.

I agree, Kristen. It's not enough to judge someone, like a Monday morning quarterback, for the choices they've made. The important question is "WHY was this a bad choice?"

There it gets a little more complex because for every guy who says he had zero interest in kids, I can show you a guy who once said that very same thing and now dotes on his kids. Perhaps because they're his kids and not someone elses. It even sounds like Allen did that too. When he made the statement, he had no interest in HER kids, but his kids were a different matter, and maybe he is actually a very good father now to the two he adopted with Soon-Yi. We really have no idea.

So, that's what's tricky. It's easy to take that statement and say she should've known he'd be a terrible father, but what if he actually isn't a terrible a father? What if he had the capacity to change?

I'm doubtful, but that is why these matters are harder to judge than it seems on the surface. If we only make choices based on who someone appears to be at any given moment, it is certainly playing it safe. The cheater will always be a cheater. The criminal will always be a criminal. The drug addict will always be a drug addict.

Some people do make choices that way, but I think artists lean more towards the possibility of redemption and transformation, which often gets them into trouble in their personal lives.

Farrow obvously chose to continue things with Allen in the hopes that he'd change his mind about fatherhood, and now, ironically, her daughter may have achieved what she was unable to achieve.

This might say more about Farrow than Allen, and the dynamic between them, than the choice itself.

LS, I don't know that Soon-Yi accomplished what her mother couldn't or even if she did or just that as Allen aged he mellowed. It wouldn't excuse a lot of his behaviors. No matter what, there's something sick about an affair with your partner's daughter, even if it leads to marriage and kids. But yes, I do think that it may say more about Farrow than Allen, specifically her patterns. It is easy for me to sit back and say what she should or should not have been able to predict just as it is easy for those to look at my mistakes and shake their heads.

I do have a friend who married a divorced father of two. He told her he did not want more kids. She was not in a place where she wanted kids. As she got older, she wanted them and he remained firm that he didn't. He was not the greatest father to begin with and she was in denial about that. She felt robbed but chose to remain with him and be miserable and make his life miserable. I asked her why she thought he'd make a better father now than he did to the two he already had and still ignored. I also asked her how she could feel robbed when from the beginning he told her he was not having more kids. She was the one in denial, not him. But it happens all the time.

My ex said he had never had a "strong desire" for kids, but was open to having them if I wanted them. I should've taken that as a sign he wouldn't be a very involved father, but I figured he'd fall crazy in love with parenthood once he saw his first child. I knew other men who had, and frankly, I'm such a kid person that I couldn't imagine someone not feeling that way.

And he made a valiant effort, really. He carried our son around everywhere when he was a toddler, and he even changed diapers and so forth. It gave me the impression that parenthood was growing on him, but, as our son got older - and not as cute - he pretty much lost interest in the day to day stuff of parenting.

Not that he didn't love the kids. He does and they know that. But he just doesn't like doing kid things. That's not a natural skill set he has. Now that they're adults and can partake in his activities more - traveling, concerts, charity events, etc - he actually spends more time with them. He takes our son out to play pool quite often.

Our daughter spent part of the summer with him a few years ago and reported that he cooked her and her gfs breakfast every morning, took them tubing, shopping, and horseback riding.

So, I actually think he's changed a little, become a better dad since our divorce. He took it for granted that I was always there to do the kid things, so he didn't have to. We kind of all sherk our side of things if someone else will take up the slack.

I believe people are either kid-oriented or not. If they aren't, that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't have kids, but they should make sure to have a partner who is a kid person.

But the reality is that kid people don't always partner up with each other and plenty of kids have survived this particular dynamic just fine.

Allen thinks all the time. He's a neurotic thinker, fascinated by his own thoughts. They say he loves therapy, and he's been in therapy for 50 years or something. I'd take that as a bad sign too.

You have to remember the era Farrow comes from. Women did the childrearing. Men worked and were brilliant. I think she figured it didn't much matter whether this genius filmamker was into kids or not. He would be out working, while she was the hands on parent (with plenty of help).

She herself was raised by nannies while both her beautiful, alcoholic parents were on movie sets. Her father was a man she idolized from afar. He didn't change diapers or toss a ball around.

We have more involved fathers these days, but from her traditional upper class viewpoint, Allen's parenting skills were irrelevant. He was to be a brilliant, fascinating character for them to adore from a distance, as she did her own father.

lol. I bet you're right!

YTS, I'm happy to enjoy the works of dead assholes, but I really don't need to spend money making live ones richer.

Amy, whenever I forget to type stop and hit back to resubmit it won't let me because it says I already submitted, which I didn't because it wouldn't let me.

Again, NicoleK and Momof4--do you also avoid the work of drunken bigots like Mel Gibson, or creepy cult members like Tom Cruise? Do you not watch professional athletes on TV? Some amazing moral role models among them! Do you not use Apple products because an already wealthy Steve Jobs refused to acknowledge or support his illegitimate daughter for two years while the mother was on welfare?

You are enriching people who've done despicable things every day, because things they make are worthwhile to you and to society on the whole. Do we only boycott those we know about? Or allow ourselves to support abusive drunks and (possibly reformed) lousy fathers, but not rapists?

It's stupid if sadly common for someone to have a personal relationship, let alone kids with someone of obviously questionable character--Amy's point. But people's work should be allowed to speak for itself, regardless of how good or bad they are morally--that's MY point. And I shall stop repeating it, now.

do you also avoid the work of drunken bigots like Mel Gibson
_____________________

I don't need an excuse to avoid his work. Most movies today are bad anyway, even if the critics like them.

If I want a movie or book, I usually get it from the library anyway.

LS said:
Not that he didn't love the kids. He does and they know that. But he just doesn't like doing kid things. That's not a natural skill set he has.
_________________________

Interesting the way some adults prefer kids when they're little, while with others, it's the opposite.

There's a charming 1970 book by the late Ruth Chew - it's her only non-fantasy story, to my knowledge. It's called "Baked Beans for Breakfast," aka "The Secret Summer." In it, two pre-teen siblings run away from their mean babysitter who's been hired to watch over them for the whole summer while the parents are in Europe - but every day, she orders them to stay outside in the hot sun without anything to drink so they won't get in the way while she plays with their two younger siblings. They take a bus to another state, where they stay at a familiar lake and discover a kind old lady who has every respect for them and hires them to do chores. I love the subtle contrast.

"Not that he didn't love the kids. He does and they know that. But he just doesn't like doing kid things. That's not a natural skill set he has."

There are some who are more comfortable with different ages. My ex is better with my son who is now 19. He was a lousy father, abusive when around and otherwise non-existent. My son has accepted that it wasn't personal and that his father was not great father material and chosen to attempt some form of adult relationship. I have supported it because my son's happiness means the world to me and we're not whitewashing the history, just trying to learn from it and move forward. I'd like to think that my son has learned enough through this process to be a different father when he has kids. My other two kids have sort of stepped back and are watching their brother and father with interest.

"I like kids for three minutes."

I suspect that you like well-mannered and well-behaved kids a little longer. It's funny because as my kids are getting older, I'm missing the younger stages a lot but love being around other people's kids because I can enjoy them and give them back.

Some people are better with young kids and worse with teens and vice versa. It's natural. I think its rare to find a parent who truly enjoys and excels with kids of all ages, just as it would be rare to find a writer who excels in both journalism and screenwriting. Yet, that's not to say they shouldn't be a writer.

Parenting works the same way. If someone knows they would go bonkers reading "Goodnight Moon" 10 times a day to a preschooler, they should accept that limitation and turn them over to caregivers who actually enjoy being with them during that particular stage. But that same person may be wonderful with an older child.

Of course, if someone genuinely hates being around kids from 1-18, they shouldn't have them at all, but I think most people who say they dislike kids mean little kids...not necessarily an engaging, articulate 12 yr old.

I mean if you dislike kids of any age, you probably dislike people in general because kids are just small, developing people.

"I like kids for three minutes."

Any longer and they're overdone.

"I mean if you dislike kids of any age, you probably dislike people in general because kids are just small, developing people."

That phrase is self-canceling, because it really says that kids have the same variety that adults do. The antithesis is, "I mean if you like anyone specifically, then you would probably like some kids because they are just small, developing people."

I dislike many "people in general" because they do not want to think, and cannot realize that the opinion they hold so dear they must speak about it is based on nothing.

I came up during the CSA witch hunts in the 80' and early 90's. (Read: McMartin was happening and a friend was screwed over by the system.)

Later on in 2007/8, I made a comment to my ex-gf about school district requiring a background check to attend after-school public functions, inspired by Amy's blog. She agreed the concept. Meanwhile she was letting me watch her three children with no background check. She didn't see the difference.

I actually liked her kids and could generally handle being around them. But I think that was a maturity thing on my part.

I don't think I would want kids of my own, but could probably accept them as part of a package.

====================================

What's better than playing with your kids?

Playing with the box they came in.

Parenting works the same way. If someone knows they would go bonkers reading "Goodnight Moon" 10 times a day to a preschooler, they should accept that limitation and turn them over to caregivers who actually enjoy being with them during that particular stage.

Posted by: LS at January 10, 2012 10:31 AM

Just wanted to say that there is NO reason to read the same book more than once or twice a day, even to toddlers. Yes, they thrive on repetition, but they also need to learn that shared time should be fun for adults too, which means the adult is perfectly entitled to pick three books off the shelf and THEN let the kid choose. Or, if the kid gets to go to the bookshelf first, at least every other book should be the adult's choice. My point is that if adults see reading as a chore, chances are the kid will too, which you don't want to happen.

Not to mention that plenty of books ARE trash, and there is no reason to have them in the house at all if you don't want to be bored to death. When they're very little, at least, it's easy enough to pretend that such-and-such isn't available at the library or bookstore. (Though later on, you might have to go there alone so the kid won't hunt out what IS available.)

"Again, NicoleK and Momof4--do you also avoid the work of drunken bigots like Mel Gibson, or creepy cult members like Tom Cruise? Do you not watch professional athletes on TV? Some amazing moral role models among them! Do you not use Apple products because an already wealthy Steve Jobs refused to acknowledge or support his illegitimate daughter for two years while the mother was on welfare?"

Again, I said I can't and obviously don't background check every human on the planet. When people make their background check public all on their own, I pay attention. I am no sports fan and watch none-in large part because of how people talented at sports are given passes on the rest of life from such an early age. I haven't seen a Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson film in a long long time-are they still making them? Who knew?