But what may have gone overlooked was what Maher said before things got awkward with Hasselbeck. Co-host Joy Behar asked Maher about what he thought about the child sex abuse charges against former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

Maher: Well, you know, I uh.. you’d like this, ’cause I said on my show Friday night, that any institution where there’s no women around, like the church, like football, like the Middle East, like fraternities, it just goes to hell. You do need..

Behar: Boys are bad.

Maher: Well, you do need women as a moderating influence. I mean, when men are just among men, they just do stupid things. That’s really true.

Is Maher on to something? Are individuals in those institutions and others more likely to do bad things? Does something happen when men get together that cause bad things to happen? And if so, what can we, as a society, do to change that?

Was he right that women have a moderating influence on men?

Watch the video and leave your comments below.

(The exchange begins at about 0:46.)

*Disclosure: I work for HBO who airs his weekly show.

Connect with me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

I bring up my moderate interest in the wedding because of the very extreme ways people are reacting to the wedding. There is the news media who are going over the top with coverage. It’ll be interesting to see if they’ll feel it was worth the expense and effort when it’s all over.

But then there are the folks at the other end of the interest spectrum. Not the people who shrug off this real-life over-the-top reality show like they would shrug off a made-for-TV over-the-top reality show. This is anger. Check out Lawrence O’Donnell on “The Last Word:”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

First: The TV networks “obviously would have been on the side of the British” in the Revolutionary War. Huh? And second: The “British Crown has spilled more blood around the world and caused more oppression and suffering in the world than any other regime still standing”? History should never be forgotten, but why is O’Donnell still fighting a war we won over two centuries ago against a country that is one of America’s closest allies?

Yes, the British Empire was involved in the slave trade and the oppression of Indians, and the conflict in Northern Ireland is still unsettled. But every country, including the U.S., has done bad things as a matter of policy. Every country is a glass house. O’Donnell shouldn’t throw stones.

And then there’s Mark Oppenheimer flexing his “American-ness” in Slate. He says one reason for American Anglophilia is the theory that people who are oppressed by a country “internalize the message of the oppressor” and end up loving it. “The child who rejects his mother often loves her more than the child who simply drifts away.” Then he says:

If American royal-worship were confined to this twisted pathology of self-loathing, or to buying newsstand copies of People magazine every time Princess Diana is exhumed for another cover story, it would not be such a problem. But instead we forget our American-ness. We shuck and jive—I mean bow and curtsy—for the royal box at Wimbledon’s Center Court. We call them “the Queen Mother,” “Prince Charles,” or “Your Highness,” instead of the more American, and more dignified, “Mrs. Windsor” or “Charles.” We accept their worthless titles. We forget ourselves.

Not really. Americans love titles. We love a good Doctor, Senator, Madam Secretary or Mr. President. (The seemingly obligatory Mister in “Mr. Trump” has implied reverence, but I hope after this week everyone will go back to calling him “Donald” with the appropriately worthless title The.) While a doctor, cabinet member, and president have actually done something to earn their title other than just being born to a certain family, a title still adds an air of nobility to the person using it.

So, the aristocracy and nobility in a country reflect some of its values: Birthright and money in countries that still value royal families; achievement and money in America.

I can see why a lot of Americans don’t care about the wedding. The Windsors have no direct ties to America and there are a lot of bigger things going on in the world. Wills and Kate’s big day is just as much a celebrity wedding and soap opera as it is history and tradition. But why are some people getting their knickers in a twist? Watch the wedding, or just.. don’t. Taking a stand against the nuptials between a royal groom, who had a famous mother, and his “commoner” bride isn’t much of a stand to take.

Eastwood’s endurance is the endurance of saints, and what he embodies more than anything is the definitive virtue for American men both then and now: restraint. He rides the line between his own terrible desires and the world as it is with the grace we all aspire to.

Marche breaks down Eastwood’s supposed macho image. He calls macho, “a preening pose assumed by men who aren’t sure they’re men and who compensate by needing more, having more, showing more.” Eastwood, Marche says, “has always been about needing and having and showing less.”

This simplicity and restraint, according to Marche, has not only allowed Eastwood to live to 80 years old, but to thrive at an age when most people think about retiring.

Eastwood’s endurance is one of the rare phenomena that make me genuinely hopeful about men. It’s not just that he proves that you can be awesome when you’re eighty. He proves that it’s possible to be open-minded and creative and daring and still hold on to the old virtues.

When I hear terms like “old virtues,” it’s often yearning to recapturing a sense of masculinity that was lost: A nostalgia for the 1950′s, pre- Civil, Women’s and Gay Rights definition of white masculinity. Marche isn’t talking about that. These virtues are restraint and simplicity. If the undoing of the modern man is partially due to boys who can’t focus and “sit still in kindergarten,” then these virtues could turn that around. Walk away from your Internet addiction of choice, turn off the flatscreen and gaming system, and focus on something productive.

Muscles and gadgets may not be mandatory in whatever new masculinity ideal will be imagined, but endurance and restraint surely will be.

Read the full post at Esquire.

He and his camp haven’t responded to the drip-drip, drip-drip of tapes containing angry, racist and misogynistic rants directed at his ex-girlfriend and mother of one of his children, Oksana Grigorieva. (To be clear, there’s no confirmation that the man on these recordings is Gibson. Nor has it been determined if they were edited.)

But people are already proclaiming that his career is over. If it is him on these tapes and the investigation into violence against Grigorieva goes anywhere, it’s easy to see why people would say that. Put the recordings alongside the anti-Semitic comments he made during his 2006 drunk driving arrest, and it doesn’t take a PR expert to doubt the likelihood of a Lethal Weapon 5 or anything else from Gibson.

Nothing is impossible, though. A public figure, particularly a Hollywood celebrity, can do a lot of negative things, but people will still admire and work with them. So, I think Gibson can have a career after all this. In fact, I’m pretty sure he will. It’s just a question of how he’ll go about it.

Apologies mean a lot, especially to the public. If Gibson wants not only to work, but have the adoration of fans and have people see that work, he’s going to have to have a mea culpa moment: Say he’s sorry and get help for the anger. If he suffers from bi-polar disorder, get help for that too.

Then, he must turn his life around. He’ll probably have to reach out people in the black, Hispanic and Jewish communities. I could see him appearing on Oprah to talk about the racist language and the verbal and alleged physical abuse toward Grigorieva. He could even do a film about one or all of these issues. These recordings will probably always haunt him and his career, but time and action can heal many wounds.

Another option is to do nothing. Gibson can independently produce and distribute his films outside the major studio system in Hollywood. Don’t think people would work with him? Look at Roman Polanski. He gave a 13-year-old girl champagne mixed with part of a quaalude and then forced himself on her. Polanski pled guilty to having unlawful sex with the girl, but fled the U.S. in 1978 before he could be sentenced. So, what does the Hollywood community do? They continue to work with him. Hollywood also honored him with one of it’s highest honors: He won an Academy Award for best director in 2003 for The Pianist.

Gibson hasn’t done anything like Polanski, but it shows what Hollywood and the public will let slide. So, Gibson has a choice. He could lay low for a while, wait for the next few celebrity scandals to come around and then slowly reappear in the spotlight with carefully chosen work and parts. As long as his anger issues don’t get in the way of his work (outbursts on movie sets, etc.), he could just wait it out. His other option is to apologize, get help, make amends and then re-emerge as a re-invented person. The second option would obviously be better for him personally. Exorcising whatever demons he has would give him a better quality of life. But, it is his life and career.

Mel, the choice is yours.

See also:
Forgive And Forget

Two weekends ago, Chris Brown tried to resurrect his career and redeem himself in the eyes of the public with a tribute to Michael Jackson at the BET Awards. The performance was almost a year to the day since Brown pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting his ex-girlfriend, pop singer Rihanna. The first half of Brown’s performance was a dance tribute to Jackson. The second half was Brown weeping to Jackson’s “Man In The Mirror.” He was supposed to sing the song, but Brown appeared as if he couldn’t hold back his tears. I say “appeared” because there are allegations that the tears weren’t real.

Another redemption story came to an end a few hours after Brown’s performance. Robert Byrd – the longest serving U.S Senator in history – died that Monday morning at age 92. Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940′s, voted against Thurgood Marshall’s appointment to the Supreme Court and filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Then in the late 1960′s, Byrd had a turnaround on race. He supported the creation of the Martin Luther King National Holiday and endorsed Barack Obama for president. How’s that for a switch? A former Klan member endorsing the man who would become the first black president.

Also that same weekend, the world mourned (again) over Michael Jackson’s death. One year after he died, the media and some of the public rehashed the King of Pop’s life, death and money. Though he was never convicted of anything, the allegations of child molestation followed him for over a decade. Those allegations along with the years of strange behavior  - we all know he did, so I won’t list the incidents here – made the Michael Jackson who died into someone different from the one who made hit records. There was one Michael Jackson who was a megastar performer in the 1970s and 1980s and became one of the most famous performers on the planet. Then from about 1993 until his death, he was another Michael Jackson: the guy who once a megastar, but did a lot of weird things and was accused of molesting kids.

I think one reason Jackson’s death was so traumatic to so many is that it could’ve been fantastic to see him perform in his “This Is It” tour. It had the potential to remind both devoted and casual fans why the world loved and admired him so many years ago. But Jackson never made a comeback. We’ll never know if he could have regained his former respect and reputation had he lived and been physically able to tour.

Sadly, I don’t think he could regain them. The abuse allegations and strange behavior were a big part of his image. A child molester label is nearly impossible to scrub from someone’s image. It would have taken a lot for him to completely separate himself from that second Michael Jackson.

Yet, people still love him. The crowd at the BET Awards was cheering both Brown and Jackson.

Which brings us back to the 21-year-old Chris Brown. He is young enough where he has time redeem himself. He has said he grew up in an abusive household, so he could speak out against domestic violence. As someone who knows where that anger comes from and has been on the receiving end of it, he could be a powerful voice against domestic abuse.

How long do you hold a grudge against public figures? Are some transgressions forgivable while others are not? You could hate Robert Byrd for being in the Klan back in the 1940′s and voting with segregationists in the 1960′s, but does being pro-Civil Rights since the late 1960′s – longer than I, and perhaps some of you, have been alive – redeem him? Byrd was constantly apologizing for being in the KKK, and he should have been. More than that, though, he tried to right some of those wrongs for more than 40 years.

Yet, even toward the end of his life and in death, some people couldn’t forget Byrd’s past – even if it might be to score political points. So, when Chris Brown is an old man, could he still be known as the singer who hit his girlfriend, even if he is an advocate against domestic violence? Jackson was never convicted of any of the child molestation allegations against him, but they still lingered along with his weirdness. Could he have ever broken away from the labels and caricatures to regain his Thiller-level cache.. and dollars?

When it comes to public figures, at what point do you forgive and can you ever forget?

Leave your comments below.

Famous people who cheat always get the public’s attention. Lately, though, it seems that we’re bombarded with stories about the rich and powerful who are unfaithful.

The latest, of course, is the allegation that Sandra Bullock’s husband, Jesse James, cheated on her. We’re still in the midst of the whole Tiger Woods saga – he’ll make his professional comeback at the Masters this week – and the John Edwards story has been a slow drip of revelations for about two years now. While the three might seem the same – famous people who cheat – the fame and income dynamics of James and Bullock’s relationship is the opposite of Edwards, Woods and their wives. Even though James is famous (well, semi-famous, perhaps infamous) and presumably makes a good living on his own, Bullock is an A-list superstar and surely makes more money than he does.

So, why do men cheat? There have been a ton of recent stories trying to answer that question. (Don’t be fooled, though. Women cheat too. Yes, men cheat more than women, but not by a huge margin.) On Saturday, “Larry King Live” had a show to discuss try to answer the question and get into what causes cheating. I won’t tell you the entire motley crew of guests. All you need to know is that addiction expert Dr. Drew Pinsky, comedian Adam Carolla, “Survivor” host and LKL guest-host Jeff Probst, and Dr. Daniel Amen, a psychiatrist and brain imaging expert, (as I said, a motley crew) got into an exchange about whether driven and high-powered people might cheat more:

CAROLLA: I have a question for Dr. Drew. I’m going to don the Larry suspenders for one second. Celebrities, athletes, people that are driven, already focus and motivated, a higher percentage of cheating or is it just opportunity?

PINSKY: A higher percentage of trauma, and thereby a much higher percentage of the kinds of things Dr. Amen is talking about in their brains.

PROBST: Dr. Amen, when you — I think a lot of people look at someone like Tiger Woods, so controlled. That’s what he was known for, the calm golfer. And then all this chaos in the other part of his life. Does that show up, or is there an explanation based on the brain?

AMEN: You know, what I would say is people who are celebrities, who are very successful, well, they’re always getting the pleasure center of their brain stimulated. So it’s stimulated repeatedly. You know, you win a Masters. You win another tournament. People talk about how wonderful you are. You get tens of millions dollars of contracts.

Well, pretty soon, the pleasure center in your brain starts to get warn out. And it takes more and more and more excitement in order to feel anything at all. So I think that’s one of the things that celebrities have to worry about.

While drive and success is only one factor in determining who will cheat, could wives be more likely to cheat on their husbands now compared to in the past? A recent Pew Research study showed more women were more educated and making more money than their husbands in 2007 compared to 1970. So, could there be an up-tick in the percentage of women who cheat on their husbands?

Or will insecurity about their wives’ success and bigger income cause even more husbands to cheat?

Leave your thoughts below.

On his website, Martin addressed why he didn’t come out sooner:

Many people told me: “Ricky it’s not important”, “it’s not worth it”, “all the years you’ve worked and everything you’ve built will collapse”, “many people in the world are not ready to accept your truth, your reality, your nature”. Because all this advice came from people who I love dearly, I decided to move on with my life not sharing with the world my entire truth.  Allowing myself to be seduced by fear and insecurity became a self-fulfilling prophecy of sabotage.

Back in the late ’90s, it actually was big news that Ellen DeGeneres was saying “Yep, I’m Gay,” both in real life and as the character on her show. Singer George Michael revealed he’s gay after getting arrested for a “lewd act” in a Beverly Hills bathroom, and Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered for being gay. So, it’s understandable that Martin and the people around him were reluctant to be open about his sexuality. And whatever the context of those times, Martin had to come out on his own clock, whenever he felt the time was right.

It makes me wonder about how much or how little times have changed. If a seemingly unknown singer wowed the audience with a performance at next year’s Grammy’s and was the talk of the show, like Martin in 1999, would it hurt their career if they told the world they were gay? If Martin had come out or had been outed during the height of “Livin’ La Vida Loca,” what effect do you think it would’ve had on his career?

There was the risk of a professional backlash, but because many people believed Martin was gay anyway, I don’t think it would make that much of a difference. And as far as a singer who publicly announced they’re gay early in their career, remember the collective shrug at this Adam Lambert interview?

What do you think? Leave your thoughts below.

The resurrection of the Tiger Woods Brand began Friday with his televised apology. Woods seemed sincere, but the mea culpa to his fans, sponsors and the general public is secondary to something else.

He must win at golf.

The most important part of Tiger’s brand is being a golfer who wins. Yes, his image as wholesome family man helped him be a pitchman, inspiration to kids and known as an all-around good guy. All of that, though, was based on him being a golf champion.

His apology was a good first step to bring reality in sync with what his image was before seemingly countless women came forward to say they slept with Tiger. The biggest step, though, will be when Tiger competes. If he can dominate on the golf course, then he will be “back.” If he can’t, The Tiger Woods Brand will be a contrite face on the memory of a once-great golfing career.