Firstly, I apologize for the length of this opinion, but it must
                             be said.  Feel free to read it in segments at your leisure; quite
                             frankly, though, I don't think you'll be able to put it down!

                                  Wanna' bet?  That you won't be able to put it down!?

This opinion is about Larry King, Judge Judy, and Nadya Suleman, mainly; yet, also about Oprah, Dr. Phil, President Obama, Timothy Shriver, Ed Doud, Judge Wapner, Bernie Madoff....  What could all of these individuals possibly have in common!?

I've never been able to warm up to Judge Judy Sheindlen's television show (which premiered in September of 1996) the few times I have channel-surfed and caught glimpses of it.  From her literally elevated ivory tower, and in the name of comedy, power, entertainment, ratings-a paycheck-and secure employment, all rolled into one, Judge Judy puts down, berates, and abuses people of a lower class, those who are not wealthy or educated as she.  This, Goliath picking on David, to me, is not intellectually stimulating or entertaining; personally, I am not a voyeur; I am an intellectual who seeks knowledge.  Fleetingly, I thought that she's kind of a disgrace to the judicial system but, I pushed her and my feelings about her out of my mind and, quite frankly, never gave her a second thought until now.  I discovered recently that my instincts about her were correct.  As I journey through life, I'm amazed at how often my intuition is correct.  It's somewhat eerie.

After I watched Judge Judy on "Larry King Live" on Monday, March 16, 2009, I, fleetingly, investigated/skimmed her website which led me to Judge Wapner's website where I discovered that his sentiments are mine exactly, I'm in good company.  (Judge Joseph Albert Wapner of the real-life courtroom-style show, "The People's Court," ran in syndication from 1981-1993.)  Amongst his other conclusions, he believes that Judge Judy is insulting to the people who come before her for help.  "Unsavvy" people, he said, will think that her behavior is the behavior of all judges.  I took this to mean that Judge Judy is a disgrace to the judicial system.  So, my research indicates to me that my intuition of bygone years was correct, indeed.  

Judge Judy's response to Judge Wapner's criticism of her behavior was weak and childlike.  It was a comical, primitive, scolding of Judge Wapner who is in his 80s, "My parents taught me that if I don't have something nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all.  Judge Wapner must have missed that lesson," she said.  In essence, she was saying that a society should keep bad behavior a secret, like we did in those secretive, dysfunctional, days of yesteryear.

This is 2009 and that simple, naive, aphorism of a naive, unsophisticated, uneducated, past just doesn't apply, "Be nice!"  She's saying that a society should not talk about bad behavior, we should just, "Be nice!" and poof!  All the ills of society will be obliterated!  All of us, especially women, repeatedly hear that erroneous, haunting, message in our brains from our unrefined past, "Be nice!"  In 2009, Judge Judy should get with it, we teach our young children to tell any time someone exudes bad behavior toward them, "Tell someone!  Don't be nice!  Don't worry about being nice!"  From the indoctrination of our opprobrious past, victims of domestic violence don't tell of the bad, vituperative, unacceptable, inappropriate, abusive behavior (verbal, emotional, spiritual, physical, sexual... assaults) perpetrated against them, "Be nice!"  Regular, or ordinary, victims in day to day life keep their bad feelings inside about someone's unacceptable slurs, comments, or behavior toward them so as not to be rejected by family, "friends," and acquaintances, "Be nice!"  Even gang members, definitely, want us to, "Be nice!  Don't diss me!  You better not snitch!"  Contrarily though, Judge Judy is certainly not following her own advice to, "Be nice!" on her television program and with respect to her verbal and spiritual assault on Ms. Nadya Suleman, the UNWED MOM who bore octuplets recently; Judge Judy is not nice at all!  So, one set of rules applies to the elite Judge Judy and one set applies to the rest of us.  She doesn't have to, "Be nice!" but the rest of us must, "Be nice!"  Becaaause she's who?

On March 16, 2009, Judge Judy had the opportunity to spill her abuse from her television pulpit/program onto "Larry King Live."  Judge Judy and Larry King, two professionals, indulged in a fun, light, banter/repartee about Nadya Suleman and her children - Nadya's gifts that were given TO NADYA by God, Allah, Buddha, a Higher Power, Spirit, the Universe... choose your preference.  If Our Maker did not want her to have them, they would not exist.  I don't think God makes mistakes.  I was taught that God is all-knowing, all-merciful, omnipresent and omnipotent.

Judge Judy began to answer Larry King's question with a deep, insulting, sigh, referring to Ms. Suleman as, "This Looneytoon."  ("Looney" or "Loony" means "lunatic" and/or "insane.")  She went further to say that Nadya is "mentally-fragile" and "Nadya is religious and she might/will say that she's tired of her children and maybe they should be with God," or "she'll send them back to God," or something to that effect.  I took this to mean that under the pressure, Nadya might/will murder her children.

And, then, Larry King complemented these unprofessional statements and views of the famed family court judge with, "Well said!!!"  These two are professionals!?  Judge Judy is a disgrace to the judicial system and to the Jewish people and if this is Larry King's best judgment, he, too, should step down from "Larry King Live."

Children are impressionable.  They quickly, easily, and unquestionably, pick up conversation, idle chit-chat, from their parents at the dinner table and just as quickly, and assuredly, transfer it to the playground where Nadya's children will hear that their mom might/will kill them.  The Suleman children will be afraid of being killed by their mom.  Judge Judy is hurting these children that many people have stepped up to help; she is putting them in jeopardy, at risk.  Nadya has already been receiving death threats from an evil segment of our "illustrious" society and Judge Judy felt it appropriate to join in and hatch potential murderous plots in the media about Nadya's children.  Whaaat!?

Judge Judy is also insulting religious people insinuating that when the going gets tough, the religious kill their children!  Whaaat!?

Such a massacre had never occurred to me.  I am horrified and livid that Judge Judy would plant this murderous seed in my brain, especially; but also in the collective brain of our global society.  (1) This was a barbarous assault on my innocent psyche which I don't believe I will ever be able to erase.  She has violently battered my spirit!  She has helped to destroy my faith in the goodness of humanity.  Words hit harder than fists! Or, words hit hard as fists!  (Which do you like better?)  Ask any mental health professional.  What will this do to a child's mind?  What has she done to the rest of the world with her remarks?  (The world watches us!)  This is shocking, invidious, irresponsible, banter between Larry and Judy, two so-called professionals.  They are encouraging in-kind actions.  A citizen/do-gooder can come to the conclusion that, "These kids shouldn't have to suffer with a religious nut, a mentally-fragile mother; I think I'll take them out of their misery; I'll send them back to God!"  Judge Judy's creepy remarks and the death threats from society are the perfect backdrop for a grisly killing spree.

To plant "a murderous scenario of a mentally-fragile, religious, Looneytoon" in the minds of the American people is malicious, reprehensible, and unprofessional, to say the least.  I am not an attorney but I think this horror borders on malpractice and malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, or something to that effect.  Judge Judy should be disbarred.

This family court judge has a gloomy outlook on life and an obsession with death.  In one breath, she spoke of her surprise that Bernie Madoff hadn't killed himself; she said that gays won't be allowed to marry until "the old guard" dies off; she said that President Obama is going to have a rough way to go... to get things done... until the old people die off.  That's refreshingly optimistic!

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Nadya Suleman IS mentally-fragile.  Is this the way two professionals (a family court judge and a prominent talk-show host) in the media discuss and slander and humiliate a disabled human being!?  A professional refers to a disabled person as, "This Looneytoon?"  This is how two professionals lightly and scurrilously banter about the disabled!?

[[[Not much has changed!  Caucasian SINGLE MOMS including their families - including professional young women, teachers... who were well able to, financially, care for their children) have been crucified for centuries; for instance, they were forced to wear "The Scarlet Letter" on their bosoms.... (Why Caucasian is a whole other story.)  They have been systematically shamed, entrapped, ostracized and punished by a punishing, evil, envious, society; exiled to/hidden in abject, deplorable, "Homes for Unwed Mothers" where their spirits were broken and where they were shamed/tricked out of their offspring - their gifts that were given TO THEM by Our Creator, not to infertile married couples.  They were viewed, and still are, as is Nadya, by our "illustrious" society as mentally-ill, unstable, whores and sluts, sinners..., although people can't call Nadya a whore.

These gifts were given by God, Spirit, the Universe, Allah, a Higher Power... to the single moms of yesteryear who were vulnerable and duress-filled just by virtue of not being married at a time when societal mores were stringently against single mothers.  Signing a legal contract/document while under duress and/or coercion is against the law, except in cases of unwedmotherhood and adoption (family separation).  After the coercion, these gifts were easily tranferred, then, to deserving, married, couples who were unable to procreate.  These gifts - these children - live/lived, then, in the confines of their artificially-formed families to appease, protect, and take care of their adoptive parents and the infertility issues that plagued them, when it should  be/have been the other way around - the last time I checked, parents are supposed to protect their children!  Of late, though, business is not quite as booming as in the past! Most "Homes for Unwed Mothers" have closed, and I believe the few that do exist attempt to keep families -mother and child - together.  That's what I hear, but I doubt it!  Where were the human, Constitutional, rights of these millions ofsingle moms of goneby decades that guaranteed them the right to parent their own children?  In no other area of law are minors permitted to sign contracts, but in the extraction of children from single moms, in the uprootedness of children from their families, their tribes. Millions of illegal contracts were signed!  Neither minor moms, nor adult moms, were provided legal counsel; that is against the law.  According to our Constitution, all Americans are guaranteed their own legal counsel.

[Joe Soll and Karen Wilson Buterbaugh, authors of the book, Adoption Healing ...a path to recovery for mothers who lost children to adoption, are more conversant than I am about the legal rights that were denied moms who lost children to adoption.  They maintain that social workers, nuns... abused the legal rights of unmarried mothers of yesteryear through bad faith, conflict of interest, breach of duty, lack of informed consent, coercion and thought reform tactics for the sole purpose of extracting children from them.  

Joe Soll is/ has:

• an adoptee
• the author of several books about adoption loss and grief
• a diplomate psychotherapist and lecturer internationally recognized as an expert in adoption-
  related issues
• a former adjunct professor of social work at Fordham University Graduate School 
• director and co-founder of Adoption Crossroads in New York City, a non-profit
  organization that helps reunite and gives support to adoptees, original parents, and adoptive
  parents 
• the director and founder of the Adoption Counseling Center in New York City 
• co-organizer and co-chair of the New York State Adoption Agency Task Force
• a member of Matilda Cuomo's 1993 Advisory Council on the Adoption Option
• conference chair and board member of the American Adoption Congress
• a trustee of the International Soundex Reunion Registry
• an advisor to the Center for Family Connections 
• a fellow of the American Orthopsychiatric Association
• a fellow/member of the American Association of Grief Couselors
• a member of the Council on Social Work Education
• a member of the National Association of Social Workers
• a member of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences)  
• since 1989, organized and coordinated seven international mental health conferences on adoption attended by mental health professionals in the U.S. and Canada
• appeared on radio and television more than 300 times
• given more than 130 lectures on adoption related issues
• been featured or quoted in more than three dozen newspapers, books, and magazines
• in 1994 been portrayed as a therapist in the NBC made-for-TV movie about adoption, The Other Mother
• played himself in the HBO original movie, Reno Finds Her Mom  
• been featured in the 2001 Telly Award winning Global Japan documentary, Adoption Therapist: Joe Soll
• presented his own story as an adoptee more than thirty times on Unsolved Mysteries
• walked the 250 miles from New York City to Washington, D.C. six times to create public awareness of the need for adoption reform.

    Ms. Karen Wilson Buterbaugh is/has:

• a mother who has lost her daughter to adoption the 1960s
• one of seven exiled mothers whose personal experience of surrendering her child to adoption during the "baby scoop era" of the 1960s was audio taped for Everlasting, a multimedia sound and video installation by artist Ann Fessler.  The stories collected for this exhibition, which showcased the voices of mothers of loss from the 1950s and 1960s, have become part of the women's oral history collection at Harvard University's Schlesinger Library
• been writing about adoption since 1997 and is the author of two articles, Setting the Record Straight, published by Moxie Magazine (April 2001), and Not By Choice, published by Eclectica Magazine (January 2002)  
• co-founder of Mothers for Open Records Everywhere
• co-founder of OriginsUSA
• founding member of Mothers Exploited By Adoption

Mr. Soll resides in Congers, New York, and maintains an office in New York City.  Ms. Wilson Buterbaugh resides in Virginia.]                            

Children were procured for deserving, infertile, married couples byhook or by crook, while undeserving, God-made families were left in the lurch - ripped apart, handicapped, limbless amputees -and smugly, and insultingly, advised to "forget about it and go on with your life."  I analogize this experience of loss to cutting off a mom's limbs and then telling her to, "Go ahead!  Have a good life!!!???"  For the single mom who lost her child to adoption, her loss is an everlasting, personal holocaust!  I challenge you to find one mother who wants to give her offspring away, irrespective of the few cases of mental illness.

In addition, any mom who says that she "did the right thing" by "placing" her offspring for adoption is a liar in denial.  A defense mechanism, denial, is a method used to deny, change, or channel unacceptable ideas so that they need not be dealt with consciously. 

Also, a mom never PLACES her child for adoption.  A mom never GIVES UP her child for adoption.  HER CHILD IS TAKEN FROM HER via any, and all, of the stratagem listed above: intimidation, trickery, coercion, shame, entrapment, indoctrination (brainwashing).... AND, PLEASE!!!  DO NOT say that a mom who "gives up" her offspring for adoption is strong!  DO NOT say that a mom "gives up" her baby for adoption because she loves her baby!  DO NOT trick a mom out of her child by convincing her that she is fertile and, hence, always have more children.  DO NOT use compliments like "strength" and "love" and "fertility" as additional avenues by which to extract children from vulnerable moms/families/tribes!  These are all brainwashing techniques!  DO NOT FURTHER INSULT moms all over the world who have have lost children to adoption!

               KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR KIDS!!!

It is only ethical and moral to adopt a child when the child is truly an orphan, when no relative is able to parent the child! The parentless child must remain with his, or her, extended family whenever possible!  And if the plan of prospective adoptive parents is to adopt a child from a poorer country, don't just pluck out a vulnerable child from a vulnerable family of a vulnerable village.  Find ways to organize and help the child's community.  You have money! You know who you are!

How do adoptive parents reconcile within themselves separating a family!?  How do you, adoptive parents, go on living every day knowing that you have separated a family!?]]] 

Enough already, for now, about the callous, self-serving, separation of families....

Back to Larry King's judgment which bears repeating:  if he is beginning to show such poor sagacity by complimenting, hence, encouraging Judge Judy's astonishing remarks, he should step down from his eponymous talk-show.  He thinks that Judge Judy calling a mentally-fragile individual, "This Looneytoon" is well-said!?  Larry thinks that saying Nadya might/will kill her children is, "Well said!?"  He thinks that saying when religious people are distraught, they kill their children is, "Well said?" Whaaat!?

Of course, I LOVE to watch Larry King because his guests are wholly informative.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think he realized what he was affirming exactly when he asseverated, "Well said!" to Judge Judy's inappropriate, unprofessional, snide, analyses of Ms. Suleman.  I think he might have been concentrating on his next question for the judge - albeit, he was looking directly at her.  We often look but don't see.

And, before knowing anything about them, "Judge Judy's pooh-poohing a philanthropic organization, "Angels in Waiting," whose members, purportedly, generously help families in need was ignominious!  Although - the judge may have been correct in her assessment of this group.

[[[Firstly, the "angels" may have been antagonistic because there were not nearly enough donations to care for the Suleman newborns.

In hindsight, Nadya Suleman's first intuition about the "angels," her leeriness to collaborate with them, was correct.  Life is much about intuition!  I don't think by choice, but by experience, my own intuition is EXTREMELY fine-tuned, hence, sensitive, to the feuding electrical currents, the tension, passing through the crackling synapses of the partakers in the short collaboration between Nadya and the "angels."  My intuition is surefire, unwavering, and perfectly-primed from years of "grooming," in fact I FEEL people too much, a VERY uncomfortable attribute.  Sometimes I wish that I was a little less intuitive, and more dumb, perhaps (some combination:  unintuitive and unintelligent). "Ignorance is bliss" might be a past societal maxim that I might give credence to.  (Naaaw, I don't believe it!)

Secondly, Nadya stated that the "angels" brought a negative aura with them into her beautiful new home.  I was able to, mentally, inject myself into Nadya's environment and feel the lack of harmony between her and the "angels."  Their relationship resembled a game of one-upmanship.  By not returning calls to the "angels" in the beginning, it's obvious that Nadya knew, instinctively, that she wanted no part of it.  She should have followed her first intuition and not allowed herself to be swayed; but, I understand, I am still sometimes (not often) swayed by others.  It was reported that Nadya often left her house for long periods of time while the "angels" were there alone to care for the infants.  "The writing was on the wall," I suspect, and Ms. Suleman retreated awaiting the right time to tell the "angels" it's a no-go.

I visualized the theater that is the Suleman's LaHabra, California, residence and I understand how Nadya was made to feel like an outsider, a stranger, in her own home.  She is the mom of her household and should be respected as such, even if unmarried.  Let us not hold that against her like we have been doing!  I would expect the "angels" to be somewhat humbled in the presence of the miracle that are the Suleman children.  I visualize the angelic NURSES throwing their weight around, superiorly, taking over as if Nadya, the underling, worked for them.  I am of the notion that an evil society (and the "angels" are a part of society) views Nadya, consciously, or unconsciously, as something like "white trash," even though she is working toward her Masters degree, she is well-spoken, and beautiful.  Perhaps, that is the revulsion of a society:  Nadya is single, young and attractive - the audacity of her being blessed with 14 exquisite gifts!

I heard on my television and saw on the internet that one of the    "angels" announced, flippantly, inside Nadya's home that she, or someone, could abscond with a newborn simply by inserting the little bundle into his, or her, pocket, or purse, and casually sauntering out of the house without  detection.  Whaaat!?  This hysterical, histrionic, negative script would have NEVER crossed my mind!  (2) My innocent psyche was assaulted once more!  Nadya said that she almost vomited when she heard this assertion emanate from the specific "angel."

Reportedly, and allegedly, an "angel" threatened Nadya's attorney with, "I could take you out right now, buddy!" or something to that effect, and the potential victim looked like a sizeable fellow.  Whaaat!?  (Does she know karate!?)  That threat was crudely tantamount to, "I'll kick your ass!" or "I can punch your lights out!" or worse.  Whaaat!?  I wouldn't want anyone that unrefined around my precious babies.  Vocalizing this type of threat to a man, particularly, or to anyone, would NEVER have crossed my mind!  (3) My innocent psyche was assaulted, once, more!  (I'm starting to sound like a wimp, I suspect; but, I truly am not, I am very strong!)  What kind of a middle-aged, professional nurse would assert such a threat?  Isn't it illegal?  What kind of crass individual would utter such menacing words within, I assume, earshot of innocent children?  Whaaat!?  They were all in the same house.]]]

Back to our acclaimed family court judge (No, I'm not through with you, yet, Judge!):

And, then, as if the Monday, March 16, 2009, insulting broadcast of Judge Judy's incendiary remarks didn't do enough damage, CNN repeated Judge Judy's same insulting, incendiary interview/broadcast, again, on Saturday, March 21, 2009.  It was broadcast a total of three times on each of the two dates, in the early eve, in the middle of the night, and in the early morn.  Is there something amiss with this cluster of professionals!?

I am horrified, but not surprised, that CNN producers think that Judge Judy's incendiary speech is appropriate!  They see nothing wrong with it!  Whaaat!?  It's acceptable because Nadya is an unmarried mom - without the protection of a husband.  Before the Suleman miracle, there was another set of octuplets born to an African-American married couple and, quite frankly, I did not hear a word about it.

And, so what if we help Nadya take care of her children - which I doubt that we'll have to.  One of the children could be destined to grow up and find a cure for a vicious disease!  Don't be selfish, think of it as an eleemosynary act.  In each lifetime, every one of us should contribute to a charity.  It is in the giving that we receive!  Moreover, we have, financially, helped innumerous mothers and children heretofore.  Why must we now stop at Nadya?  Why don't we notice all of our tax dollars that have been obscenely wasted on utter balderdash and frivolity for umpteenth decades?  Since when are we, all, so economically, and politically, inclined as to what our taxes are spent on?  Most people don't even know what taxes are, let alone what they're spent on!  (Come on, don't make me laugh!  It's late and I have to finish this blog.)  What'd you care if our taxes are spent on raising Nadya's kids or killing our kids in the Afghanistani War or the unjust Iraqi War!?

On Thursday, March, 19, 2009, President Obama was gleefully persecuted by the media, and society, for an innocuous remark (I believe he said that his bowling is comparable to that of a Special Olympian.) that he made on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" about the "Special Olympics," yet, the producers of CNN, our collective reporters (the media), and the rest of society, have noticed nothing wrong with a prominent, celebrity, family court judge calling Nadya Suleman who is a private citizen, "a mentally-fragile Looneytoon and the potential murderer of her 14 children."  Whaaat!?

President Obama obviously did not set out to offend the "Special Olympics."  From "Air Force One," he promptly, even before the show aired, called Timothy Shriver, Chairman of the "Special Olympics," and apologized.  Mr. Shriver responded with, "Words hurt and do matter.  Words can cause pain and result in stereotypes that are unfair and damaging to people."  (Judge Judy must have missed that lesson!)  This is a teachable moment for society as I hope this opinion is a teachable moment for our global society.  (The world watches us!)  Mr. Shriver characterized the event as "an opportunity to remind ourselves of the powerful, damaging, impact of words, no matter how innocent the intent."  President Obama's words were innocent, but Judge Judy's were not!  She was very serious, and proud!  No humor there.  Of course not, how can you make humor out of murder?  There is no way one can twist Judge Judy's words into innocence!  Are you listening Judge Judy and CNN reporters!?

On March 22, 2009, on "Meet The Press," California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he was not offended by the President's remark about the "Special Olympics."  Arnold said that all politicians have made some "dumb" remarks, including himself.  Mr. Schwarzenegger affirmed that he knows the President's heart and that, even before the incident, the President had promised to do all that he can to benefit the "Special Olympics."  Another individual said that the painful part of the March 19, 2009, "Tonight Show" was the audience's laughter at the now infamous remark.  If this "minor infraction," if you will, is so painful, how distressing, then, is the absurd, outrageous, and continuous negativity, and downright abuse, surrounding the innocent octuplets and their family?

As I write this, I hear from my television that a mother who has the protection of a husband has given birth to quintuplets, but fear not, there won't be much publicity or disdain for that miracle.

While I'm at it...

A few weeks ago, Oprah interviewed Nadya Suleman's dad, Ed Doud, as if she was interviewing Charles Manson.  Her tone was disrespectul and offensive!  I  always LOVED Oprah but I've lost some respect for her, I didn't think that would be possible.  

It was quite a change from Oprah's typical interviews.  In her COLD grilling of Nadya's dad, I felt/observed/perceived a subtle hostility that I've never seen, heretofore, emanating from Oprah.

(a)      Perhaps, Oprah wanted to be "stern" with Mr. Doud so as not to cross/clash with the rest of society, her viewers, her fans) and their reactions to daughter, Nadya.  I have been an avid watcher and adorer of Oprah and I can't think, right off hand, of any other interview in which she has been so - how shall I say - contemptuous?  Rude?  Believe me, rudeness from any professional stands out in my mind.  At that moment in time, on that fateful afternoon, in my usually VERY comfortable living room, I was very uncomfortable; I watched the interview, and only, "Who does she think she is?" traversed my brain as I sat in disbelief, prompting Oprah, "Smile at him.  Just once!"  Smile, for instance, like you smiled at the moms that you interviewed on March 30, 2009, at the polygamous compound!  "Exhibit some inflection in your voice, Oprah!"  Literally, my whole body was so tense for Mr. Doud!  I sat stupefied!  Oprah is usually very personable, joyful, and kind.  She goes overboard bubbling over her guests, movie stars....

(b)      It is none of our business, per se; however, Oprah did generously put it out there, and I hesitate saying it, and my aim is certainly not to offend my hero, but, just perhaps, her trainer, Bob Greene, is correct?  Perhaps, our beloved Oprah is depressed?  That interviewer was not the Oprah who I LOVE and adore!

The Suleman/Doud family are everyday people.  They are not criminals, movie stars, or politicians, well-versed in giving interviews.  To have a truculent tone like Oprah's (and Judge Judy's) during an interview is tasteless and insulting, to put it mildly.  Tacky!  Oprah interrogated Nadya's dad with spite in her face (I think it was the face that Bob Greene described after her bout with a thyroid  quandary.), sternness in her voice, and standoffishness in her body language, while Mr. Doud (who, reportedly, sought out Oprah) loyally, humbly, and gratefully, answered Oprah's questions; it was plainly visible that he is a good and honorable gentleman.  Somebody else would have walked off the stage!  

(c)    Could it be that Oprah has a more deep-seated, perhaps, unconscious reason for exuding meanness in her interview with Mr. Doud?  She looked and talked like she hated him and his family, I conjecture, in particular, Nadya.  Our "unconscious wishes" seep through to the conscious when we least expect them. When our "defense mechanisms" are down, "unconscious wishes" seep through!

Dr. Phil is the only true professional who has shown Nadya and her family any semblance of courtesy, respect, kindness, and empathy.  Although, I was becoming a little tense there for a minute during his questioning of Nadya; after all, he is a psychologist whose duty it is to employ a certain type of bedside manner and she did just birth eight children!  All in all, though, he has been a gem!  (But... he better not misstep!  Becaaase...  I'm "Watching The Watchers!!!")

Hey, Life happens!  I'd like to express my gratitude to everyone who revels in hearing and expressing offensive, egregious verbiage/speech becaaase... now I have a cause:

                                         "Watching the Watchers!!!                             
                           
                     [    Expect Miracles!   ]           


Copyrighted 2009 Caleigh Brooks