Sex tape at John Edwards trial?

Associated Press

Opposing lawyers in the John Edwards trial wrangled Friday over whether to allow into evidence a sex tape of the former presidential candidate and allegations of an extramarital affair involving an ex-aide who is the prosecution's chief witness.

Prosecutors objected when a defense lawyer for Edwards asked former aide and confidante Andrew Young whether he had threatened to release a "private video" to expose Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter.

U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles instructed Edwards lawyer Abbe Lowell to proceed with his cross-examination of Young without mentioning the tape, saying she would rule whether it was admissible later Friday.

Hunter sued Young in state court two years ago over ownership of the sex tape and other personal items in Young's possession. That civil suit was settled earlier this year with an agreement to destroy all copies of the tape, though there are suggestions in court documents that federal investigators may still have a copy.

Defense attorneys had no intention of showing the tape to the jury, but wanted to mention it in the context of the allegation that Young threatened Edwards.

Young was the first witness called by prosecutors after opening statements Monday and he has remained on the stand all week. His testimony is essential to making the government's case that Edwards directed a conspiracy to use nearly $1 million in secret payments from two political donors to help hide his pregnant mistress as he sought the White House in 2008. Edwards denies knowing about the money and has pleaded not guilty.

On the witness stand, Young has admitted much of the money at issue in the case was siphoned off to pay his family's personal expenses, including the construction of his $1.5 million home, and not to buy Hunter's silence.

Later, Lowell questioned Young about his contacting three witnesses in the case following the release of the defense's witness list. Despite having been instructed by prosecutors not to contact any other witnesses, Young admitted he called two men and a woman.

Without the jury present Monday, Judge Eagles told the defense it could mention Young had called the witnesses in opening statements, but barred Edwards' lawyers from characterizing the contact as "witness tampering" or mentioning that Young had previously had a "one-night stand" with one of the witnesses.

On Friday, Lowell asked Young what he had asked the woman when he called.

"It was for a personal issue, sir," Young replied.

Asked how the woman described her potential testimony, Young replied that she said she would tell the truth. That prompted Lowell to ask Young if he responded by telling her that the truth would "mess up everything."

Young said he may have said that, but couldn't recall.

Concerned about the direction of the testimony, Eagles dismissed the jury and broke for lunch early.

Both Young and the female staffer in question, who was named in court, are married. Young's wife, Cheri, is expected to be called to the witness stand after her husband completes his testimony.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012

Weekly Code Tip Number 6. A Man's World, the shocking truths women need to know about the male code.

 6.) The Male Fantasy: We men have a wide assortment of fantasies we discuss between one another. The biggest is the fantasy of having two women at once. There are many I tell you about in A Man's World but, this is number one. Believe me when I tell you that yes, your husband or boyfriend is secretly dreaming about this. The second woman could even be one of your best friends or your sister. It doesn't matter to him. Yes, I know it's a little shocking but this is why we keep things like this between other men.

Next tip Coming Soon...

March Because "Equal Enough" for Women Is Unacceptable

Soraya Chemaly

American women need to be recognized as full citizens. Yes, women in this country. It's me again, sitting in my office, by myself, saying that "equal enough" is NOT. But, I am not alone.

Tomorrow, Saturday, April 28th, thousands of women and men will participate in 53 marches and rallies for women's rights in 45 states and the District of Columbia. These events are part ofUNITEWOMEN.ORG movement against the War on Women. In truth, I don't care what the sustained legislative assault on women's rights by the Republican party is called. Nor do I care, actually, for the Unitewomen moniker, because although I am happy for anything that offsets a cultural preference to portray women as enemies, I believe that men and women who understand the importance and benefits of equality must work together. However, I agree wholeheartedly with UNITEWOMEN.ORG's goals and intent. If you are not joining them, you should ask yourself why and consider doing it.

Why should you march?

Because women's and girls' fundamental rights, to privacy, to life, to bodily integrity, to chose when to plan their reproduction are being violated.

Because women can't afford to nor should be forced to live their lives according to rules that assume they are dependent on men.

Because women and girls should not be punished, denigrated and publicly humiliated for speaking civilly and intelligently in their own interest or making their own choices.

Because boys and girls should be taught what equality, not entitlement, means.

Without fail, when I talk to people about gender inequality in the United States, someone inevitably says some variation of this: "Compared to other women, women here are equal enough." First of all, women are not in competition with other women for safety from violence and freedom. Second, this type of comparison, with its echo of threat, is an unacceptable and irrelevant framework for considering citizenship and protection under the law. Women are citizens and should have the full rights and privileges of citizens.

We should. But we don't.

If you are uncertain about what I am saying and think I am exaggerating the harm, consider the effect of one distillation of events: the degree to which the conservative "political" agenda requiresthat all women, regardless of color, faith, economic status or sexual preference, seek men's review and approval before acting. (Those factors, race, economic status, sexual preference magnify the effect.) "Informed consent, " "permission slips," wage policies determined because "money may be more important to men," "man-up finances," women's health care being determined by all-male religious leaders and congressional panels, refusal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Actbecause of homophobia (and racism). On and on and one: every time the baseline requirement for women to exercise their rights and live freely is the intervention and approval of men. This is not just unfair to girls and women, but imposes unreasonable responsibilities and pressures on boys and men.

Even the phrasing of hot button issues -- "Mommy Wars" and "Slutgate" -- are coded conversations that define women, their health, their choices and their incomes primarily in terms of their relationships to men. Those frameworks are unacceptable. These attempts to legislate the subordination of women are not just distasteful and embarrassing but designed ultimately to humiliate women and keep them in their place.

TO BE CLEAR: This is not a man-bashing exercise. I do not hate men. I hate inequality and oppression. This is about men and women being mutually central as humans and, together, fighting systematized biases against girls' and women's full engagement with the world.

All over the world women seek equality. Men and women, who understand this, fight against everything from subtle, cultural sexism to extreme and violent gendered oppression. Here, in the US, many people really do think women are "equal enough." I am told we should "consider ourselves lucky." I am not going to compare oppressions. Nor am I in any way dismissing the dehumanizing and life-crushing hatred that women face in too many places on the planet. But, because others are violently deprived of rights and life does not mean that we should be content with circumscribed rights and lives. Women should not have to be thankful for hard-won rights, be penalized for seeking to live better lives or have to settle for "enough" when it comes to equality. In theory, we are citizens with full rights.

Republicans would have you believe that the word "war" is not a valid way to describe the assault on women's rights represented by the hundreds of bills (916 since January 2012 alone) and laws they've pursued or enacted during the past two years. This attitude is unsurprising. What is surprising to me however, is the degree to which these assaults reveal the Republican abandonment, when it comes to women, of three core beliefs of their own party, namely:

• Our country was founded on the fundamental principle that individuals have rights and freedoms
• Government intervention into the lives of private citizens should be limited
• Traditional values and freedoms of the American Republic should be reaffirmed

Either they are betraying their belief in, for example, individual rights and limited government or they are demonstrating that they don't believe women are genuinely included in the definition of individual citizens with full rights and privileges. Time and again, women and their rights are made marginal and secondary to almost everything else and debated away as a matter of expedience.

You should march because this is unacceptable.

It is evident that conservatives do not believe women can be trusted to think for themselves and make their own decisions... about when to become parents, money, faith.. nothing. Instead, in almost every sphere of life, their agenda is designed to keep women dependent on the good graces of men and competing for the resources that men have traditionally provided and keep them vulnerable in the process. That belief seems largely derived from Complementarianism, a worldview of gender roles as different but complementary, in which there are requirements made of men (as heads of households and public life) and restrictions placed on women, who are essentially limited to childrearing. It is one thing for people to chose this model privately, but it should not be enshrined in law, imposed on everyone and enforced judicially and legislatively to undermine equality and freedom. Yet, like a slow moving train wreck, that's what is happening.

As I said, it isn't about individual men and their relative goodness. It's about systematized bias, gender hierarchies and how power, responsibilities and rights are distributed. And, also for the record, before anti-feminist trolls come out of the commenting woodwork, I believe women should fight in combat in military wars. And, yes, I know, these systems are supported by both men and women. That's how Complementarianism works. It's a primary vector for ambivalent and paternalistic sexism's cultural sanction and enforcement by women.

Writer Erin Solaro put it this way in a commentary on women and war and freedom:

"At the core of citizenship is the idea that the citizen's body is hers and hers alone, regardless of sexual history, marital status or childbearing... The full citizenship of women is not just about the right to hold credit cards, buy real estate in our own names, have access to abortion and birth control and lead openly lesbian lives in which marriages and adoptions are legally recognized. These things are important in themselves -- terribly so, to the point of sometimes being matters of life and death -- but what they represent is vastly more important. They are part of a woman's citizenship and freedom, the right of a woman to fully inhabit her own life and participate fully in the life of the polity (in this case the American Republic) as a public and private equal."

You should march because women have yet to be recognized as full citizens, with agency in both the private and public spheres.

Mo. woman wins $5.8M in 'Girls Gone Wild' case

By JIM SALTER | Associated Press

ST. LOUIS (AP) — The company that makes "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs is seeking to overturn a verdict awarding nearly $6 million to a St. Louis-area woman who claims her bare breasts were recorded without permission.

St. Louis Circuit Judge John Garvey last month sided with Tamara Favazza in her suit against Mantra Films Inc. and MRA Holdings LLC, awarding her $5.77 million. She was a 20-year-old college student in 2005 when someone lifted her tank top during a party at a St. Louis bar, exposing her breasts. Another person filmed it. She later discovered the recording was part of the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" DVD series.

Favazza claimed in the suit originally filed in 2008 that she did not give consent and the resulting DVD damaged her reputation. A St. Louis jury sided with the DVD makers in 2010, but a retrial was granted.

Garvey issued his ruling on March 5. On Wednesday, the defendants filed motions asking that the judgment be set aside and a new trial granted.

Jeffrey Medler, an attorney for Favazza, said he will "vigorously oppose" any effort to overturn the ruling.

Several messages left with David Dalton, the last listed attorney for Mantra Films and MRA Holdings were not returned. Phone calls to Mantra Films' office in California went unanswered.

"Girls Gone Wild" videos and DVDs, featuring young women exposing themselves on camera, have made a fortune for founder Joe Francis. But he has been targeted with dozens of lawsuits from women who said they were upset at being filmed. Francis was originally named in Favazza's suit but was dismissed from the case in 2009.

The video was made at a bar then known as the Rum Jungle near the St. Louis riverfront. Earlier court testimony indicated that a woman acting as a contractor for "Girls Gone Wild" pulled down Favazza's shirt at the shoulder strap, exposing her breasts.

Favazza, now a 26-year-old wife and mother, claimed that she only became aware of her appearance in the video when a friend of her husband pointed it out. She sued soon after learning she was in the video.

Three months after a jury sided with "Girls Gone Wild" in 2010, the judge in that case, John J. Riley, ordered a new trial, ruling that the verdict didn't reflect the weight of evidence. He wrote that it was clear in the video that Favazza was an "unwilling participant," saying she is seen mouthing the word "no" as her shirt is pulled down.

But attorneys for Mantra Films and MRA Holdings said at the first trial that signs posted at the bar explained how the video would be used.

The case took another twist in January when Dalton withdrew as counsel. When the judge heard the case on Feb. 17, Favazza's attorneys presented their case, but there was no representative for Mantra Films or MRA Holdings.

In asking for the judgment to be set aside, Dalton wrote that the defendants "reasonably and rightfully believed they were still represented by counsel and that the cause was being defended."

Student Loan Interest Rate Bill That Cuts Health Care Program Passes House

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives advanced a bill Friday that funds cheaper student loans by cutting a preventive health care program -- sparking a heated battle in which House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) accused Democrats of manufacturing a war on women.

The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 195, with 30 Republicans bucking their party to oppose the bill, and 13 Democrats voting in favor. Democrats might have blocked the measure if they had stayed together. The interest rate for federally subsidized student loans is scheduled to jump from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent for some 7.4 million students on July 1 if Congress does not act.

Republicans had voted earlier in the week for a budget that allowed the rate to go up, but under public pressure offered a plan Wednesday to preserve the rate by cutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund created in President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. Republicans say the move would save $6 billion.

Calling the health program -- which aims to lower health care costs by encouraging prevention -- a "slush fund," Boehner said its funding should be used to help students instead.

The White House threatened to veto the bill Friday, and House Democrats objected as well, arguing that the $11.9 billion program (already cut from $16 billion) funds things like cancer screening, child immunizations and programs designed to help people quit smoking and eat right.

They also argued that the Republicans' choice of that funding stream to pay for low loan rates showed the GOP doesn't really want to pass the bill.

"Make no mistake ... our Republican colleagues haven't changed their minds about this, they've changed their tactics," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "If they really wanted to stop student loans from increasing, they wouldn't seek to cover the cost by cutting funds for cervical cancer screening, by cutting funds for breast cancer screening, but cutting other women's health care measures. They wouldn't push a measure the president has already said he will veto."

Republicans stood by the "slush fund" description, however, and argued that money would still remain for screening and prevention programs.

"All of these things are going to continue to receive base discretionary funding," said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) "All these programs are going to remain in existence, so how can you come come down to the floor and constantly say we're going to cut? The slush fund will not affect women, families and children."

Several Democrats noted that while the student loan measure would not cost all of the $11.9 billion that would be saved if the health care program is cut, the GOP intends to slash the remainder of the money from its budget. The House blocked a Democratic alternative that would have paid for the student loan bill by taking away tax subsidies for oil companies.

Boehner accused Democrats of being the ones to play political games, saying they were making the student loan battle part of a phony war on women.

"How in the world did we ever get here? Think about this -- a fight being picked over an issue that everyone knew was going to get resolved," Boehner said. "Nobody wants to see student interest rates go up."

But he contended that Democrats wanted to score points with the issue by opposing the cuts to the health program, and he mocked their contention that the Republican stance was more evidence of an anti-women bent in the GOP.

"Why do people insist that we have a political fight?" Boehner said. "People want to politicize this because it's an election year, but my God, do we have to fight about everything?

"Now we're going to have a fight over women's health. Give me a break," Boehner said to cheers from his side. "This is the latest plank in the so-called war on women entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain.

"To accuse us of wanting to cut women's health is absolutely not true," he said. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is beneath us, this is beneath the dignity of this House."

But Democrats said the political maneuvering was coming from the GOP, and maintained that Republicans were indeed trying to cut a program that would help thousands of women.

"They're using the student loan issue to drive their agenda. I find that very cynical. I find that in fact quite repulsive," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). "They're not looking for a better way. They're just looking for a way to cover their rear ends."

The Senate is expected to bring up its version of the bill next month. It will be paid for by closing a tax loophole on S-corporations.

Adult film producer found guilty in LA of violating federal obscenity laws

By Greg Risling, The Associated Press 

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - A jury in Los Angeles has found an adult film producer guilty of violatingfederal obscenity laws by selling movies depicting bestiality and extreme fetishes.

Defence attorney Roger Diamond says his client, Ira Isaacs, was found guilty on Friday of five counts, including mailing obscene matter. Sentencing is set for Aug. 6. He could face a range of probation to 20 years in prison.

Federal prosecutors did not immediately comment about the verdict.

It was the third trial for Isaacs, the first two ending in mistrials.

Isaacs was indicted several years ago as part of an effort by a Bush administration task force to crack down on smut in the United States. The unit has since been disbanded.

President Michelle Obama?

By Mary Bruce | ABC OTUS News
First Lady Michelle Obama made clear today that she does not plan to follow in Hillary Clinton's footsteps and run for president after her husband leaves office.

"Absolutely not," the first lady declared today, when a girl at the White House for its "Take Your Daughters And Sons To Work Day," asked if she will ever run for president.

"One of the things you learn about yourself as you get older are what are your strengths and what are your interests," she said.  "And for me, it's other stuff, that is not being the President. So I probably won't run."

In fielding questions from the youngsters, the first lady expressed confidence that her husband will win reelection and that she'll be in her current role for another four years."

"When my husband is running for President, we're right in there; we're serving, too," she said. "And I think that once his terms are over, we'll go on to do other important things - because there are so many ways that you can help this country and the world, even if you're not president of the United States," she said.

Obama revealed that what she most wants to do is "sneak around." Asked if she would change anything about the position of first lady, she said she yearns to ditch her security detail and go for a walk.

"I've done it a couple of times. But you know, one fantasy I have - and the Secret Service, they keep looking at me because they think I might actually do it - is to walk right out the front door and just keep walking," she said laughing. "Just go right over there and go into some shops, and stop and have some ice cream."

"But I can't do that. I can't just up and decide, 'I think I'm going to go for a walk' and… I'm going to walk to Georgetown. So if I could change something, I'd be able to sneak around a little bit more. But it causes people a lot of stress when I do that so I try not to," she said.

Exclusive: Secret Service Agent May Write Book About Scandal

By Charlie Gasparino

Paying for prostitutes, partying at strip clubs and lots of boozing – they're the elements of the Secret Service sex scandal that’s rocking Washington and possibly a new tell-all book to be written by an agent at the center of the controversy.

The FOX Business Network has learned that Greg Stokes, one of the agents fired for his alleged involvement in the scandal, has told friends he might want to write a book about the matter.

It’s unclear what Stokes plans to write, or even if he will decide ultimately to go the literary route after a 20-year career in the agency. But in recent days, following the news that he had been among the first agents disciplined as part of the sex scandal, Stokes has reached out to people who could put him in touch with literary agents and publishers who might be interested in his story.

Given the profit squeeze at major book publishers, it's unclear how much of an advance such a book might generate. A person with knowledge of the matter says Stokes may be looking for a hefty advance, something along the lines of the $1.5 million that Greg Smith, a former Goldman Sachs (GS: 115.14, +1.16, +1.02%) executive, received for a book about alleged sleazy behavior at his old firm.

“A secret service sex book could fetch anywhere from $75,000 to $500,000 or more depending on how many publishers bid on it,” said one prominent literary agent. 

Smith, the agent noted, took advantage of the frenzy among publishers for the Goldman story after he wrote a New York Times Op-Ed that caused a stir on the Internet.

A spokesman for the Secret Service declined to comment. Stokes' attorney didn’t return telephone calls and emails for comment.

Stokes was one of the supervisors of President Obama’s Secret Service detail for his trip to Cartagena, Colombia, where agents allegedly paid for prostitutes after a night of heavy drinking. According to published reports, as many as 11 Secret Service agents paid for prostitutes, but the incident became public after one of the men involved allegedly refused to pay an agreed-upon fee to one of the women.

After the disagreement, Colombia authorities reported the incident to the US Embassy.

The Secret Service then announced that three men have been dismissed from the agency which is charged with protecting politicians including the president; later two of the men were identified in press reports as supervisors David Randall Chaney and Stokes.

One of the big questions swirling around the scandal is whether the incident is isolated or whether it's routine for Secret Service members to engage in such activities -- activities which have embarrassed the Obama Administration, but could have occurred under his predecessors as well.

If Stokes does write a book on the matter, he could provide those details as well. “This guy worked in the Secret Service during the Clinton years, so who knows what he saw,” said a person who knows Stokes.

One Washington-based attorney who had worked at the Securities and Exchange Commission and is familiar with confidentiality agreements involving government employees said it’s unclear if Secret Service agents “have advanced confidentiality agreements” like those at the Central Intelligence Agency which could prevent Stokes from writing a tell-all book about the shenanigans.

“But former Secret Service agents have written books before and appeared on television,” he added, thus they aren’t totally restricted.

Secret Service Scandal: Official Says Agency Probing El Salvador Trip Allegedly Involving Prostitutes

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL 04/26/12 

WASHINGTON — The Secret Service acknowledged Thursday it is investigating whether its employees hired strippers and prostitutes in advance of President Barack Obama's visit last year to El Salvador. The disclosure came hours after the Homeland Security secretary assured skeptical senators that a separate prostitution scandal in Colombia appeared to be an isolated incident.

A spokesman for the Secret Service, Edwin Donovan, said the agency was investigating allegations raised in news reports about unprofessional behavior that have emerged in the aftermath of the prostitution scandal in Colombia. The latest, by Seattle television station KIRO-TV, quoted anonymous sources as saying that Secret Service employees received sexual favors from strippers at a club in San Salvador and took prostitutes to their hotel rooms ahead of Obama's visit there in March 2011.

Prostitution is legal in both Colombia and El Salvador.

Separately, the Washington Post earlier this week cited unnamed "confidants" of the Secret Service officers implicated in the Colombia scandal saying senior managers tolerated similar behavior during official trips. It described a visit to Buenos Aires in 2009 by former President Bill Clinton, whose protective detail it said included agents and uniformed officers. During that trip, the Post said, members of the detail went out for a late night of partying at strip clubs.

"Any information brought to our attention that can be assessed as credible will be followed up on in an appropriate manner," Donovan said.

The expansion of any investigation into immoral behavior by the Secret Service represents another mark against an agency that has been tarnished by the prostitution scandal. At an oversight hearing Wednesday on Capitol Hill, senators struggled to reconcile the image of courageous agents assigned to protect the lives of the president and his family with the image of a fraternity atmosphere that has emerged from its investigation in Colombia so far.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., praised the Secret Service as "wise, very professional men and women" and called it shocking that so many of the agency's employees were implicated in Colombia.

At the same hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said there was no evidence of similar behavior, based on a review of complaints during the past 2.5 years to the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility. She said that if there was a pattern of such behavior, "that would be a surprise to me."

The Colombia scandal erupted the morning of April 12, when a fight over payment between a prostitute and a Secret Service officer spilled into the hallway of the Hotel Caribe.

Eight of the Secret Service officers have been forced out, and the agency is trying to permanently revoke the security clearance of one. Three others have been cleared of serious wrongdoing but face administrative discipline. One of the Secret Service officers was staying at the Hilton hotel in Cartagena, Colombia, the same hotel where President Barack Obama later stayed for the Summit of the Americas.

Another dozen military personnel also were implicated. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this week that all have had their security clearances suspended.

The Defense Department briefed senators on Wednesday about its investigation, but Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he was unsatisfied with what the Pentagon told lawmakers. Unlike for civilian U.S. government employees, soliciting prostitutes is a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel even in countries where prostitution is otherwise legal.

"Secretary Napolitano and especially the director of the Secret Service has been pretty forthcoming in many aspects of this, unlike the Pentagon, which has completely stonewalled, using the excuse that a Uniform Code of Military Justice – as you know, that's the military law – somehow is a barrier to us receiving information," McCain said Thursday on the CBS program "This Morning.

Dalai Lama: World belongs to 'humanity,' not leaders

By Catherine Shoichet, CNN

Dalai Lama: Bush 'very nice person'

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: He says the string of self-immolations by Tibetans is "extremely sad"
• The exiled Tibetan leader calls for an end to censorship in China
• "Each country belongs essentially to their own people," the Dalai Lama says
• He says he doesn't listen to music, watch movies, drink or take drugs

(CNN) -- The Dalai Lama says he supports the principles behind Arab Spring protests.

"The world belongs to humanity, not this leader, that leader, kings or religious leaders. The world belongs to humanity. Each country belongs essentially to their own people," he said in an interview Wednesday on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight."

Politicians at times forget that, even in democratic countries like the United States, he said.

"Sometimes they are short-sighted," he said. "They are mainly looking for the next vote."

When asked about the Arab Spring, the exiled Tibetan leader said he thought it was "in principle, very good."

"Now they achieved the basic goal, now time come they must be united, all forces, no matter what their political thinking or something, now they must work together, that is very important," he said.

In a wide-ranging interview, the Dalai Lama discussed his thoughts about topics ranging from China's changing political landscape to whether he is tempted by women.

Dalai Lama tempted by women? 'Oh, yes'

Dalai Lama: I support the Arab Spring

The Dalai Lama is the traditional religious and temporal head of Tibetan Buddhists. He was made head of state at age 15 in 1950, the same year that Chinese troops occupied Tibet, enforcing what Beijing says is a centuries-old claim over the region.

The Dalai Lama held negotiations with Chinese officials on Tibetan self-rule with little success. In 1959, he fled Tibet for exile in India after a failed uprising against Beijing's rule.

As China has deepened its economic, political and cultural influence in Tibet, the Dalai Lama has acknowledged that full independence is no longer realistic. But he has continued to advocate greater rights for Tibetans.

In Wednesday's interview, he said that the dozens of reported self-immolations by Tibetans living under Chinese rule in recent months are "extremely sad."

The Dalai Lama, who last year stepped down from his political responsibilities with the Tibetan exile movement, said Chinese leaders needed to think "more realistically" in order to resolve the problems in Tibet and other restive parts of the country.

And he called for an end to censorship in China.

"Chinese people also have the ability to judge what's right or what's wrong. ... Chinese people should know the reality," he said.

But the spiritual leader also showed a lighter side.

Chinese people also have the ability to judge what's right or what's wrong. ... Chinese people should know the reality.
Dalai Lama

Even though he's taken a vow of celibacy, the Dalai Lama said he still feels temptation when he sees women.

"Oh yes, sometimes (I) see people (and think) oh, this is very nice," he said.

But even in his dreams, he said, he reminds himself of his spiritual role.

"I'm Dalai Lama. I always remember, I am monk, I am always monk," he said.

He said he doesn't watch movies or listen to music, has never taken drugs and doesn't drink. But he recalled one time when he tasted wine.

"I was very young, I think 7, 8 years, very young. One evening, late evening, I'm just playing. Then one person I see carrying two bottles, and I immediately run to him. And then, my finger, (I) put (it) in the bottle. Very sweet," he said, laughing.

When asked what world leaders he admired, he mentioned former South African President Nelson Mandela. He also praised former U.S. President George W. Bush, even though he didn't always agree with his policies.

"Not as a president of America. Some of his policies may not be very successful," the Dalai Lama said. "But as a person, as a human being, very nice person. I love him."