As if you didn't know already, Dr. Laura's an idiot

Of course, the bigger question is: Shouldn't Dr. Laura be fined for saying F-You on the radio? If I can't play the edited version of The Real Slim Shady on the radio without getting fined seven grand, why should Dr. Laura be allowed to say "F-You" on the radio. I'm offended by her use of that phrase. I'm complaining to the FCC (of course, the truth is that the stations would be fined for what she said, not her, but since it offended me, I'm making a formal complaint to the FCC. There could've been children listening. And we all know that if children hear a bad word, they'll grow up to be monsters if they don't keel over dead on the spot).

And I'm also offended by the use of the abbreviation TS to refer to people with Tourette's Syndrome. That two-letter abbreviation is also in wide use to refer to transsexuals, so if I hear anyone on the air using that abbreviation, I'm complaining to the FCC, and the FCC better fine 'em.

------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

[This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).]

 

Maybe RM95 is AhPook's sidekick. The hero sometimes gets the sidekick's back, too, you know.


------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

RichRocket, if I say I listened to something, and you say I obviously didn't listen to something, are you saying I'm wrong, or are you saying I'm a liar?

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

------------------
Brought to you by the letter M.

 

I've got ~5 years of listening to Dr. Laura while he has one brief encounter some years ago, tell me (without playing favorites because I know I'll lose) which of us is more likely to accurately depict Dr. Laura's point of view?

Uh, that wasn't the point.

I specifically said I didn't know the truth, I did not take sides or show "favoritism" as you said.

I was just asking why you will not allow for the fact that RM95 could have heard that.

It is irrelevent how many times you have listened to her. he did not say, "she says this every day." He just said he heard her say something.

RM95 and I are not the same, why would I play favorites with him?

Is it because I am one of these libocrats of which you speak?

Or is it because I am one of the most hated posters on this board?

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

 

Dr. Laura is a self-righteous and mean idiot as well as a zealot, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this. Plenty of others are like this and use a public forum to spout their ignorance. What is wrong about her is that she uses a scientific pretense to try to add credibility to her political claims and personal drivel. Her scientific training has nothing to do with mental health, family well-being, children's health, etc--the things she offers her authoritarian views (in reality, unsubstantiated opinions) about. If she just called herself "bigoted Laura" or even just plain "Laura", I wouldn't have that much of a problem with her. I would not support her or listen to her, but I wouldn't have a problem with her.


[This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 14, 2001).]

 

haven: My objection was to his depiction of Dr. Laura as tolerating wife-beaters and cheating husbands and Belittling working Moms.

RM95 and I will forever disagree that she accepts terrible husbands and belittles working mothers.

I understand why you don't like what the article says about Dr. Laura; that part doesn't suprise me. In scanning the article, I could find no references to the above three citations by RM95. Let me know if you find them.

Her past is sad, no doubt. Are you so dismissive of her, though? In some ways, a past like that makes her more qualified to make the kind of comments she does because she has been on both sides of the issue.

Most of us have not. Why would you hold her past against her?

AhPook: You're right. I should have said "hearing" instead of "listening."

Rimbaud: RM95 cites 3 things he remembers Dr. Laura saying. I find all 3 things to be in contradiction to her public positions. What are the odds? How good a listener is he? I said his characterization of what he heard is WRONG with her well-know public positions. He says I called him a LIAR. Do you understand my skepticism?

Apparently, I'm making a run at you as the most hated poster. Ah, putred air!

Is this getting fun yet?

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 14, 2001).]

 

RichRocket:

I don't hold her past against her. But she's said some pretty awful things. I didn't find Rocketman95's particular accusations there, either. But I found statements of the same type, that would make me very unsurprised if he's correct.



------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

 

Which statements?

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

 

In her latest book, Parenting by Proxy: Don't Have Them If You Can't Raise Them, she continues her shrill attacks on abortion, birth control, feminism, and, most especially, single mothers and mothers who work outside the home.14

she writes in her book The Ten Commandments, "Holy sex is between husband and wife. . . .Unholy sex is everything else."6 Hopping full-tilt onto the "family values" bandwagon, she smugly decries women who dare to have careers instead of staying home with their children

Now that would seem to confirm the thing about working mothers...there was nothing about abuse....

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

 

These are some of the things I found offensive:

Dr. Laura's intolerance is not confined merely to name-calling. Besides trashing gays as "deviants," and
same-sex marriages as "despicable," she has said of feminists, "They nauseate and sicken me."3 Even
more shocking was her treatment of a Connecticut eighth-grader for an award-wining essay on free
speech on the Internet. Attacking the girl by name, she maliciously asserted: "If she was my daughter, I'd
probably put her up for adoption. . . .When she makes her marriage vows, and her husband has sex with
someone else, let's see if she thinks that this philosophy works. She also suggested that the girl be
"sacrificed," Inca style!

Called moralistic and dogmatic by her detractors, Dr. Laura, a
convert to Orthodox Judaism, stridently asserts that abortions are murder, sex outside of marriage is a sin,
no one should divorce except in the case of abuse, and that mothers should stay home with their children

Hopping full-tilt onto the "family values" bandwagon, she smugly decries
women who dare to have careers instead of staying home with their children (in spite of the fact that she
has a teenage son at home). Reinforcing this advice, her Web site has had links to magazines and
organizations such as At Home Mother magazine and Full Time Parents.org.

Being married is not only the sole permissible ticket to sex but apparently to mental stability as well. In
August 2000, a man who needed a trustworthy executor for his will called in to her radio program to ask
Dr. Laura if she thought he should name his sister. When Dr. Laura learned that the sister was not
married, she advised the man to pick a married person. A single woman, she claimed, would be too
unfocused and unstable.7 Apparently, based on her comments in this program, Dr. Laura imagines that
single young women are all dithery and intent on only one thing-getting a man. Ironically, social science
research actually shows that married women have higher rates of depression and instability than single
women.8 But Dr. Laura, as we will soon see in more detail, is not troubled by what legitimate research
shows.

And to back this crap up, she quote Gary Bauer's panel. Wheee!



------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

 

I've had a chance to go back and read the piece more thoroughly. It is a really and truly fair-handed treatment.

I didn't know that Dr. Laura had done everything wrong and had nothing of value to say or contribute over the last 15 years or so.

I'm not saying she is beyond criticism, but this is outlandish.

Both Achebe and Haven quote this passage: "...she smugly decries women who dare to have careers instead of staying home with their children..."

Do you see a pattern in the language? "Smugly." "Decries". "Dare."

I have heard Dr. Laura many, many times talk about just this subject. She thinks that people who have children should raise them.
What a revelation. I know.. Hillary thinks it takes a village.

Her main criticism of people who put children in daycare seems to me to be that she finds them putting their needs (ego, career, fulfillment, et al) in front of their babies' needs. She understands that sometimes it is financially necessary to use daycare to get by. I've heard her say it!

In sum, I would say that she expects the adults to sacrifice something rather than asking the babies to sacrifice the experience of being raised by their parents.

Damn, one line in that article claims that parents of daycare attenders spend as much time with their children as stay-at-home parents do. Will someone tell me how that is even possible?!

Further she thinks that either parent could or should do the job. I know. Part of the time I was listening to her I was a stay-at-home dad for a year with my new daughter. No doubt she would probably say that women are better suited for the job and HAVING DONE IT MYSELF I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH HER!!!


------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

 

RichRocket:

I agree I gave you a polemic against her. But look at the quotes, even if you don't like the tone.

Advising a man to not let his sister be the executor of his will because she's not married? That's incredible.

Or what about calling feminists despicable? Or verbally abusing an EIGHTH GRADER who wrote a prize-winning essay on freedom of speech?

I'm sure she's said things of value in her career. But I'm sure there's another host who can say things of value who won't make remarks like those.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

 

Advising a man to not let his sister be the executor of his will because she's not married? That's incredible.

Sure it's weird, but before I cut off her head I would like to have it confirmed that that is the sum-total of the story there. If so, that is the shortest call in radio call-in history!

Or what about calling feminists despicable?

Some of them are.

Or verbally abusing an EIGHTH GRADER who wrote a prize-winning essay on freedom of speech

Again, it sounds weird, but what is (as Paul Harvey was wont to say) the rest of the story.

These summations could easily be out of context etc. The author's agenda is clear so it is best to remain open-minded!!

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 14, 2001).]

 

Sorry Jeff, I couldn't get in touch with you earlier! Can we make Tofu breakfast burritos after my Yoga class? (I actually am going to try to go to Yoga, but who the heck gets up at 7??)

------------------
When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm

girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!

 

Dr. Laura's Cruelty To Children
ctnow.com
November 11, 1999
It is distasteful when someone uses a public podium - a radio show or newspaper column or Web site - to launch a vicious, uninformed personal attack purely on the basis of a political disagreement.

When the victim is a child, it's disgusting.

Want to hear the savage verbal beating that powerful talk-radio host "Dr." Laura Schlessinger visited on 14-year-old Sara Miller of Simsbury? Just go to Yahoo! Broadcast's Dr. Laura section, click on October 25th, 1999 and scroll to 1 hour and 28 minutes into the show. (You'll need the RealPlayer plug-in.)

Schlessinger objected to Sara's essay opposing legal restrictions on the Internet. The essay won the Law Day Essay Contest sponsored by the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General. (I was one of the judges, but more about that later.)

It's not suprising that Schlessinger wants to restrict the Internet. She did, after all, lose a lawsuit to keep nude photos (which she had posed for willingly) off a p*rn Web site. That probably left her with an unfriendly attitude toward the 'Net.

Schlessinger criticized, particularly, Sara's statement that "Every person has a different set of moral values that they live by. Nobody's values are wrong, unfit, or too strict." It is certainly an arguable point, but Schlessinger did not counter it with a reasoned argument. Instead she spewed a stream of invective, calling this eighth-grader's views "stupid" and "dangerous," and said, "If this were my daughter, I'd probably put her up for adoption."

Schlessinger ignored most of Sara's well-reasoned essay, including this statement: "Parents have the resources readily available to them to decide, by their own set of moral values, what their children have access to. They should use those resources."

That opinion is supported even by some of the people posting to the message boards on the official Dr. Laura site. (Ironically, the very episode of the show in which Schlessinger attacked Sara was sponsored by an Internet service provider advertising filtered Internet access - one of the resources Sara was writing about.)

Schlessinger did at least show that she's capable of picking on someone her own size when she also criticized the judges of the contest. She listed several of them in alphabetical order but stopped just before my name. Not the pen name for this column, my real name. So let me fill you in: it's Jeanne A. Leblanc.

Schlessinger wanted to ask the judges about "their excuse" for choosing Sara's essay. I can't speak for the others, but here's my excuse, Ms. Schlessinger:

When a bright, 14-year-old girl writes a cogent essay in which she overstates a principle but argues vigorously and thoughtfully for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I don't really have a problem giving her an award. I wish her entire essay were posted on the Web so people could see the way you twisted a few sentences out of context to make your unbalanced point.

I hope that parents take her advice, not yours, and "decide, by their own set of moral values, what their children have access to." I hope they take that to mean they should turn off the radio when you start your daily dance of self-righteous, hypocritical cruelty.

And if I were your daughter, Ms. Schlessinger, I'd put myself up for adoption

------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

Hey. I eat tofu... once in a while.

Calling that girl "stupid" and offering her up for "adoption" were both really stupid things to say. I'll bet even Dr. Laura would like to have those words back, but no need... people have impaled her on them. She has them still indeed!!!

As for the rest of it, the girl's point of view sounds truly naive. But it does "feel good" doesn't it?

Do we not have a problem with children and sexual predators on the internet?

Is there not a precipitous rise in the population of hate- or violence-oriented sites on the internet which are largely visited you young people?

Are families not evermore connected at home to the internet?

Are children not evermore left unsupervised for long periods of time with these temptations?

Existing solutions to these problems are inadequate so lets not ignore the dangers implicit in a 14YO's appraisal of a very dangerous predicament.


------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

 

Of course, from this editorial, it would appear that Dr. Laura's biggest problem with the essay was that the girl said that morality is relative and that no one's views were right or wrong.

That's certainly a point that I would not agree with, but I don't think I fight that assertion by calling the girl stupid. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine that I would have so little to talk about on a nationally syndicated radio show to have to talk about some 14 year-old's essay, award-winning or no.

------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

Actually, we do not really. Not any more than the problem in the regular world (actually less of one). And we're talking about filters that filter out things like the Planned Parenthood (and p*rn and all that other stuff) website and things like that. We're not talking about chat or places where children conversate with others online.

And again, we get back to the idea that it's okay to suspend the Constitution in order to protect children from things that are not harmful to them (in respect to Internet filtering).

------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

I tried to find the audio link but could not; my guess is that it is too old (1999). If anyone can locate it, please post it here.

Dr. Laura has had a long-running battle with the American Library Association over their position recommending an unrestricted internet in library facilities-- which leads to much inappropriate viewing over which parents have "no" control because they entrust their children to the public library system. Is it a mistake to send your children (of reasonable age) to the library unattended?

I'm sure that's why the screener let this girl get on the air because she was parroting an inane position which was being promoted by her school, the AG's office, and the ALA. Dr. Laura wanted to expose the inadequacies of the position. She did, but she did it in the fashion of Atilla the Hun rather than Jesse Jackson.

It's a pity that she overstepped her bounds, but why is this almost two year-old issue bubbling again to the surface?

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.