David Letterman "gf" Stephanie Birkitt cheated on Robert Joe Halderman with Letterman reads Diary

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

According to the New York Post today, David Letterman's girlfriend and staffer Stephanie Birkitt intentionally cheated on her live-in boyfriend CBS Producer Robert "Joe" Halderman with Letterman after she moved in with him.

This is further proof of just how rampant cheating is in our hedonistic society, and that it's equally wrong for people who have done this to try and fry Letterman rather than say that we as a society should come to terms with who we really are. Letterman was cheating on his wife with a woman who was cheating on her boyfriend.

The NY Post's LARRY CELONA, JESSICA SIMEONE and DAN MANGAN - to use the caps they love to employ - report this:

Pretty former "Late Show" staffer Stephanie Birkitt revealed in her diary that she continued having sex with boss David Letterman even after moving in with her CBS-producer boyfriend, who later allegedly tried to extort him over the affair, sources told The Post yesterday...Letterman and Birkitt enjoyed romantic hikes last fall at his sprawling ranch in eastern Montana -- where he was married in March -- while her boyfriend, "48 Hours Mystery" producer Robert "Joe" Halderman, stayed home in Connecticut, the sources said.

At the time, Birkitt, 34, insisted to Halderman that she and the 62-year-old Letterman had just "a platonic relationship," a source said.

"I'm his best friend," Birkitt told the worried 51-year-old Halderman, the source said

After Birkitt graduated from law school, Letterman worked to keep her on the payroll, according to the NY Post. In turn, she planned to have a baby by Halderman estimating that with the new income they could afford to have kids.

This is the real story, far afield from the "bad versus good" brush some have tried to paint this with. This is a tale of an affair that happens in some way every day. This is real life beyond the Big Fat Lie we tell ourselves as Americans, especially those who delight in casting stones at others when their own houses are not in order.

What happened, again according to the work of the NY Post, is that Halderman only learned of the affair after they broke up and realized he was lied to, then cracked, establishing the $2 million extortion plan.

But I also read this as Halderman not making enough money himself and somewhere that financial problem had to impact his relationship with Birkitt, otherwise, why would she plan to have kids with him only after estimating that she - not he - could afford it. She left him.

Meanwhile, Halderman was reportedly "devastated" when his ex-wife moved to Colorado with his 11-year old son. The report does not explain why but I've got a feeling more information's going to roll out soon.

Meanwhile, I love what CBS's "Late Late Show" host, Craig Ferguson said. Ferguson, who works for the same Worldwide Pants production company as Letterman, quipped:

"If we are now holding late-night talk show hosts to the same moral accountability as we hold politicians or clergyman, I'm out. I'm gone."

And the last time I checked, Mark Sanford was still governor of South Carolina.

David Letterman sex scandal: more Americans cheating than ever before

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

What's interesting,and a rather sad, about the David Letterman - well, I guess we might at well use that term - sex scandal, is that some people who chose to comment point the finger at him as if he did something that many don't do: cheat on his wife.

As I stated in my video, Letterman's the real victim here in the way he was "outed":



The sad fact is a lot of people are doing it. There's no accident that Yelp San Francisco has a webpage called "Swinger's Clubs San Francisco" with 67 establishment listings.

As I stated in my last video-blog post on this, I've seen a lot of fooling around by both men and women who were married so I made the calculation that of those commenters who've been married or are married, a good set of them have fooled around on their spouses, making their critical words the stuff of hypocrisy.

Now here's the information to back my claim.

According to a number of sources, starting with this 2008 New York Times article, more people are cheating on each other - men and women. The statistics here are startling. Basically about one in five married men and one in six married women cheat:

University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.

The researchers also see big changes in relatively new marriages. About 20 percent of men and 15 percent of women under 35 say they have ever been unfaithful, up from about 15 and 12 percent respectively.

The reasons given vary from new drugs like Viagra for men, to the increasing availability of pornography online.

It's not that people think adultery is ok, it's that they do it more often than in the past but don't disclose it. This gets to the situation with the "conservative" response to the David Letterman scandal: making critical comments is a socially acceptable way of hiding the truth, making the critical commenter look better than everyone else, when they too may have cheated or may be in the act of cheating.

David Letterman and Stephanie Birkitt v. Roman Polanski

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com



David Letterman and Stephanie Birkitt v. Roman Polanski? Yes.

I created this vlog because I'd not talked about either David Letterman, Stephanie Birkitt, or Roman Polanski, and while some took those people and topics and split into conservative and liberal camps, to me, that's not the place for this. Republicans corner the market in political sex scandals, so there's nothing to talk about.

Let me preface what you're about to absorb with this statement: I've known a lot of people who were married and are married and have had affairs and relations with others in some cases also married and others not. I'm not married and I've not had an affair with a married woman. But flirting? A kissing session? Yeah. It's happened in the past (well, grad school) – not at work though.

And that's nothing. In New York, at one point in the 80s the the 90s, "wife-swapping" and "husband-swapping" was a popular thing to do at parties and its still done today. Even Oprah's talking about it.

But I've seen this so often, especially in San Francisco and New York, and at Super Bowls, that it's like drinking water. And if you've ever worked on a political campaign, then you know the term "campaign sex" which is at times so common during the heat of a political season its almost sport. It's not a good thing to do, but I've stopped passing judgment. All of this has soured me on the idea of marriage at times, but I remain hopeful.

It's so common that for people to come out and jump all over David Letterman for his attempt at impersonating "Wilt" Chamberlain (who once bragged that he shagged over 10,000 women), is crazy. I'd bet $1,000 that some of the commenters of this vlog anywhere have done "a Letterman" after a moment of drinking and partying. In fact, the one who jumps and says "No I didn't," is probably the one who did.

David Letterman's really the victim here. He and his former aide Stephanie Birkitt are the victims of an apparently jealous, sexually frustrated, and broke man named Robert "Joe" Halderman, a producer of CBS' 48-hours. Halderman, who was dating Birkitt until earlier this year, had the nerve to go through Birkitt's diary after they broke-up , discover the notes about the affair, then go to Letterman and try to get him to pay $2 million in "hush money."

But to use his ex-girlfriend Stephanie Birkitt, by invading her privacy in that way, was and is just creepy. It's beyond that, it's just plain sick. New York's a big city; can't he find some Upper East Side coed model-type to date? Oh, and for those getting after Letterman about his "at work" affair, excuse me, both Halderman and Birkitt worked for CBS and were living together!

The real jerk isn't David Letterman, its Halderman and those who would say Letterman's image is tarnished from this, some of them guilty of the same behavior as he. David Letterman's no Roman Polanski.

UPDATE: David Letterman apologizes to his wife on the air - TMZ.com.

Polanski's an accomplished director, no question about it, but feeding drugs to a 13-year old girl and then raping her is beyond the pale, regardless of when it happened. Heck, he's was a Hollywood film director and he couldn't get laid by someone of legal age? Come on!

But it happened decades ago, and the main issue is the woman who was the victim then, is now the victim again because she wants the whole deal to go away and, yet, the media and the legal system seems bent on putting the spotlight on her even to the point of posting her photos. Why?

Is it because the people who want the case done are younger than 40? There's a generation gap fueling this discussion where people over 40 - including the victim - want this whole deal to go away, and those who are younger don't.

So, let me get this straight. Polanski's said he did it and he's guilty. A weird twist of legal issues make this not a slam dunk case and Polanski didn't get fully punished for his crime - he fled. But the bottom line is now the victim just wants to be left alone and for this all to go away. Why can't we just go by her wishes?

If someone is serious and cares about her, then do as she asks. Otherwise, if you want to push this for your own reasons, then you're just as bad in a way as Polanski because your victimizing her all over again. And no, I'm not going to use her name - no links. Leave her alone. Please.

So David Letterman and Stephanie Birkitt were "outed" by a jealous ex-boyfriend and the victim of the Roman Polanski case is "outed" after some time of silence by a media and legal system hungry for closure. In both cases, the people doing the outing are being selfish creeps, and should just plain leave them alone.

Of course, we know that's not going to happen.

Chevron Ecuador case has new judge; Nicolas Zambrano

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

Ecuador's lawsuit (which it can now be called officially since Ecuador would get any award money Chevron would have to pay) has a new judge after Judge Juan Nunez officially stepped down in the wake of the alleged video bribery scandal. He is Judge Nicolas Zambrano.

The plaintiff's attorney, Pablo Fajardo, said this according to Ecuadorreport Blog:

Pablo Fajardo, who leads the team of Lago Agrio plaintiffs that sued Chevron for damages, said that the fact that the recusal was accepted could be seen as a victory for Chevron, although he added that this will only be temporary.

Yeah, especially since Judge Nunez was part of a political effort led by President Correa to get money from Chevron, apparently for the cronies in Correa's political party, at least from my view. Now the automatic "yes" to the idea that Chevron would be found guilty of something that was really done by Ecuador's state run oil company and a large number of oil firms since Chevron left Ecuador in 1992, is gone.

Maybe.

Meanwhile, and in further proof of the sham idea that the lawsuit's brought by Ω's "indigenous" people rather than American trail lawyers, we have the news that real indigenous people are protesting against Correa's proposed water policy which they believe would result in water being controlled by energy companies.

Now go figure: Ecuador's top prosecutor admits on the record that the country will get any money from a possible Chevron lawsuit loss, not the "indigenous people". Then we have new violence between those groups and the government. Correa failed to give them any say in the use of the land by the oil companies active there.

Guess why? Well, one of those companies is state-run oil producer Petroecuador, which would find itself under the control - to a degree - of the residents impacted by there operations.

How long before they realize that the lawsuit's not going to help them either, especially when they get wind of the news that 90 percent of the money's going to the same Ecuador government they're protesting against.

Wild.

Google Trends change hurts small bloggers, but there's a way to fight

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

I saw Brian Haughey's great article on Google Trends over at Associated Content where he writes that Google's reducing the number of keywords listed on Google Trends from 100 to just 40, a reduction of 60 keywords, will hurt small bloggers.

(He uses the term "small-time" which I think is insulting to the legions of one-writer bloggers, but I'll let that go.)

Haughey:

The drop of 60 trends hurts the small-time blogger sites, as the top 40 results favors established e-magazines and newspapers. An article written on a popular site like Yahoo! will have a better chance of breaking into the Google Top 40 than a marginal blog post breaking into the top 100 and moving upward from there via user curiosity.

As a constant daily user of Google Trends, I think Haughey is correct but there's a way for "small bloggers" to counter that change: team up. Really bloggers do this anyway, but the tendency is for small blogs to echo what the large news sites put out there.

Small bloggers should team up more often and share blog post topics less likely to be found on sites like Yahoo. If 100 blogs did this, the result could be to break into the Google Trends top 40 depending on the keyword, but teaming up in effect makes a large blog ring.

Another way around this change is for the same bloggers to share writers, then apply for Google News status (since Google News insists on blogs having multiple writers) and have their blog's posts listed at the top of or the front page of a keyword search for a topic. But even here, Google favors the larger news sites.

And from that perspective, if I were running a news site like, say, SFGate.com, I'd have recirprocal link and content deals with as many local blogs as possible, thus taking better advantage of traffic from them should the same bloggers team up on one topic that the mainstream media isn't covering.

Zennie62 Live on USTREAM.TV and BlogTalkRadio



Coming soon I'm going to try a kind of experimental show combining UStream.tv and BlogTalkRaio. I did it before just to get the hang of the process. But the idea is to have a kind of streaming and call-in show at once. One can't call in to Ustream.tv and BlogTalkRadio doesn't have live stream capability. Tech aside, I'm going to cover the topics of the day with a guest at times, or a video personality, or both. You'll be able to see the stream from all of my blogs. Stay tuned.

USC 30, Cal 3 – Mark Sanchez gets the last laugh on Zennie

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

At the 2009 NFL Draft, after USC quarterback Mark Sanchez was selected 5th by the New York Jets (and finally had a terrible game against the New Orleans Saints today), I opened the media interview by cracking on USC:



Mark Sanchez just gave a chuckle when I said that the reason he left USC was because he knew Cal would beat the Trojans this year.

Well, forget that.

Cal, er, we, lost big time Saturday, 30 for them, to 3 for us, and frankly it wasn't that USC was that much better but that we just didn't execute well or call the right plays. Or as my Cal buddy Greg Heywood put it the following today, "When USC safety Taylor Mays catches Jahvid Best on a reverse, you know it's gonna be a long day." It sure was.

Mays is 6-3, 230 pounds of hitting machine. So why call a reverse and not a double reverse since USC's so fast?

Cal's best effort of the day was an opening drive that was the best I've seen all season thus far and because Cal Offensive Coordinator Andy Ludwig channeled Zennie Abraham (er, me) and had Kevin Riley throw short, timed passes from a three step drop.

Awesome.

We drove down to the eight yard line, then Riley decided that rather than operate within the play called, he was going to make something happen. He did: an interception.

Ludwig also used Cal's version of the Wildcat Formation, with Javid Best lining up at quarterback, with some success. I loved the change-up.

After that Cal's performance was an exercise in footballic suckatude. For the second straight week, Riley proved to President Obama that he could, if called on, overthrow Iran. Normally I get on the coaching staff, but this time, Kevin Riley was just plain awful – 15 of 40 for 199 yards. Receiver were open when Cal tried to return to its middle-range passing game, but Riley missed them.

That's why I want Riley to throw short – one and three step passes - almost exclusively. He's just plain missing receivers, most of the time on the deeper passes. There's no shame in dinking and dunking – the objective is to win.

But it doesn't leave the coaching staff untouched.

First, Ludwig, for some reason, got totally away from the masterful first set of passes Cal opened the game with. If Ludwig stuck with the short passing game, Riley's numbers would have been much better.

Second, what was it with lining up to kick a field goal with 12 seconds left? I don't get that. It's funny about a contest like Cal – USC: one can get so into it that they forecast events before they happen. That was true for the man I was sitting next to, who said "Oh, now they're going to line up and kick a field goal, and miss it." Cal did just that.

The Berkeley stadium crowd booed like nobody's business. Some Old Blues are starting to actually wish for Tom Holmoe!

I'm not one of them.

I continue to believe that Cal can salvage this season. It's possible to win all of our games from here on out, but the Golden Bears have to make some schematic changes as soon as possible. I have some suggestions:

1)Use the flea-flicker. If defenses are prepared for Jahvid Best to carry the ball, that's the perfect play to use. A simple version: one based on a dive play; the other on a sweep.
2)Go five-wide receivers early to spread the defense but throw three-step passes.
3)Use the no-huddle offense to open the game.
4)Install roll-out and sprint passes to move the "launch point" of the passes and keep Riley from being a sitting duck when throwing deep.
5)Install a throwback pass off the roll-out series.
6) Use "bubble passes" - but not screens because the defense follows the pulling offensive linemen right to the ball. USC killed us because of that when we called that form of pass.

Finally, GO BEARS. We still have a chance to make this a great season, but we can't have any more losses. Cal must run the table. First, we have to beat UCLA. If we need any incentive, Stanford did it, winning 24 to 16 last Saturday.

Stay tuned!

Erin Andrews | Michael David Barrett accused of making peephole video

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com



Well, the Erin Andrews peephole video wasn't an "inside job" after all. After an FBI invrestigation, Michael David Barrett was arrested for creating the now famous "peephole" video. Deadspin has posted the entire criminal complaint.

From my cursory read of the documents, the Barrett also goes by the name "Mark Barrett" and used the email adress "handsforyou@yahoo.com". The person who officially filed the complain on behalf of "E.A" or "Erin Andrews" was FBI Special Agent Tanith Rogers.

Rogers and case agent Justin Vallese basically caught Barrett trying to do the same thing this year that he did last year. That is checking into the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University and before that the Radisson Airport Hotel in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and staying in a room next to Erin Andrews, where he employed a specially created peephole for the purpose of making videos of Andrews and selling them online.

What Barrett did this time was - and keep in mind this is a year after all the media coverage of the first peephole scandal - check into the same hotel and specifically ask for a room next to that of Erin Andrews and try the same stunt again! So he unknowingly established a kind of track record that the FBI zeroed in on.

Talk about one big red flag! Geez!

Apparently Barrett had created a special peephole that could be used from the hotel hallway, possibly using a cell phone video camera.

Who's Michael David Barrett?

Well, according to the complaint, he lives at or near Westmony, Il, and is an AT&T customer. His possible places of employment at the time of his "acts" were listed as "Combined" which is listed in the report as the Combined Insurance Company.

A good read on Internet sleuthing

The complaint is a great read on how with the help of organizations like AT&T, Yahoo, and credit agencies, a stalker can be caught and charged with, well, stalking. Barrett's accused of a federal offense, violating 18 U.S.C. 2261A: Stalking

Whoever—
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or
(2) with the intent—
(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to—
(i) that person;
(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 [1] of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;
uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); [2]
shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.

I've got to get this out of the way; I really am sorry this happened to Erin Andrews. You know, we hear and read so much about sex tapes and celebrities and "revealing videos" that seem timed with the release of some book or magazine photo shoot that it's hard for us to consider that maybe some ass hole like a Michael David Barrett was actually stalking a celebrity like Erin Andrews, rather than someone at ESPN trying to up ratings.

I took that view after Andrews' GQ photo spread was revealed - I was livid because it seemed like there may have been a deliberate business connection between the mag and the video as now after the peephole video the spread was even more popular, but now I realize it was the accident of the timing of events.

I'm really sorry for jumping ship on Andrews at the time. But I stated then, and restate now, that I also feel Andrews should use her heightened platform to do more to advance the cause of women in broadcasting and sports. Erin should join WISE: Women in Sports and Events.

USA Today Columnist Christine Brennan really took a different and much harsher view of what happened to Erin, which seemed to imply that Andrews was asking for it on Twitter, tweeting:

#Erin Andrews incident is bad, but to add perspective: there are 100s of women sports journalists who have never had this happen to them.

And..

Women sports journalists need to be smart and not play to the frat house. There are tons of nuts out there.

Christine was raked through the coals for that, but I don't think her complete view saw the media light of day. In an email to me dated September 1st, Brennan wrote:

Suffice it to say that the first words out of my mouth on the subject were that what happened to Erin was "gross" and "despicable," and I went on in that July radio interview to say several times she "didn't deserve" what happened to her. Some media and internet outlets cherry-picked and misconstrued my comments and generally misquoted them -- other than that... :)

The "trading off your looks" line actually was something I was saying in general about women in sports media, and about myself -- that I wanted to have a long career. Realclearsports.com interviewed me a month ago and went into more detail on that, if you wanted to look for that interview.

So the issue is quite complicated, but I have spent nearly three decades fighting for women in sports media, including Erin, and will continue to do so.

This is the full statement from that interview:

I also want to say, in case there is anyone out there who hasn't heard me say it, that what happened to Erin is terrible, and I support her completely. You wouldn't know it from some of the internet and TV coverage of my comments, but the first words out of my mouth on that radio show in North Carolina were that what happened to Erin was "gross" and "despicable." I'm not sure why news organizations and internet sites didn't report that.

Now, to your question. Since I'm not doing any hiring for any network, I have no idea why certain people might be hired, and for what reasons. But I do know this: Erin Andrews is smart and talented, and to me, that's why she should be on the air.

There is a very simple thing I fall back on, and it's advice I've probably given to thousands of women now, young women I've mentored, young men, too, for that matter, in speeches at colleges, in e-mails, things like that. The advice is to simply rely on your talent and your brains. I so believe in that. I would think that most parents would say that to their daughters or their sons, to focus on being smart and talented and good. If you happen to be good looking or not, who cares? Focus on being a person of substance. Whether you want to be a teacher, a doctor, a journalist, whatever -- be smart. Work hard. Those are some of the things that are just so ingrained in me.

I think Erin does a terrific job on air. As I said, she's smart, she's talented. That's what's important. I wish her the best because she's been through an awful experience.

I totally agree. That's a great place to end this post.