Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Is She Dr. Laura or Dr. Strange Love?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Tempest

unread,
Dec 26, 2002, 6:04:03 PM12/26/02
to
Or is she just a sex kitten?
http://www.bartcop.com/mengidx.htm
-------------

Is She Dr. Laura or Dr. Strange Love?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer24dec24.story

Some family values. Your 77-year-old mother lies dead and decomposing
for two months in a condominium not far from the radio complex where
you sternly hector millions about how to live a moral life while
attacking those who "deviate."

And you never bothered once to inquire how your own mom was doing? Maybe
send a minion over to knock on the door once in a while? For two months,
the mail piled up, the condo fees went unpaid, and you, successful
syndicated radio advice guru "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger, never noticed
these and other worrying signs that, as the police suggested, your
mother may have been murdered?

Of course, when you finally found out, after the building manager called
the police, you were "horrified by the tragic circumstances" of her
death.

But was it really appropriate to add, self-servingly, that she "died as
she chose to live, alone and isolated." You said, "My mother shut all
her family out of her life over the years, though we made several futile
attempts to stay connected."

Those are not kind words to speak of one's dead mother. Ties it all in a
neat little bow, doesn't it? Italian-born Yolanda Schlessinger was
"Sophia Loren-like," and you found her difficult. In a 1998 interview,
you claim a childhood "that would curl your hair."

Welcome to reality: Good family values don't come easily. Problem is,
you've made it sound as if they do. You are one of the leading
conservative sloganeers who arrogantly claim a lock on the moral high
ground while deriding those, such as homosexuals, who dare to "deviate"
from your "norm." Using the title "doctor," earned in physiology rather
than medicine or psychology, has lent a false credibility to your
depictions of homosexuality as a "biological error," a "dysfunction" and
a "deviancy" -- words that encourage hate crimes.

Worse, honoring and caring for one's parents is at the heart of your
philosophy, as spelled out in your own presumptuous 1998 book, "The 10
Commandments: The Significance of God's Laws in Everyday Life." You
wrote: "God's commandment of honoring parents is basically the message
that parents are a conduit of God. Any profanity or harm to the parent
is as if we've profaned God."

You wrote, "By honoring our parents, we learn to honor God. By honoring
God we become decent human beings."

You obviously failed that test. "Even bad parents deserve to be honored
if only at a minimal level," you wrote. Thus surely "honor thy father
and thy mother" intends something more than letting a septuagenarian
woman go months at a time without even a drive-by visit from her
daughter.

You also wrote: "There is often a profound unwillingness to give
anything to a parent perceived as being unloving or undeserving.... That
avoidance is part of the mentality that says, 'If it doesn't obviously
serve me, I won't do it and I shouldn't have to!' " Apparently, that is
your mentality.

But you, whose shallow perceptions are laced with bursts of meanness and
contempt for others, will no doubt continue as a hot media product and a
darling of the religious conservatives. "A positive voice for positive
values without equal in our time," gushed the Rev. Robert Schuller.

What can we draw from all this? That family relationships are
exceedingly complicated and often painful. That maintaining true "family
values" is not a matter simply of attending church, being heterosexual
and mouthing platitudes, but demands humility, resiliency and deep
compassion. That religious texts like the Bible can provide inspiring
lessons in the hands of sincere teachers and also can be used as clubs
by the cynical and ambitious.

And finally, that the "Dr. Laura" show typifies the dangerous hypocrisy
of those who build profitable and politically potent empires on the
basis of claiming a monopoly on simplistic answers to complex problems.
The guilt and shame they induce in those who might resist their nostrums
is loathsome, made more so when they themselves so casually ignore them.

--
There is no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people in this
country to help rich people in poor countries.
- Ron Paul (R-MD)

0 new messages