After saying she "hold[s] women accountable" when their husbands "stray[]," Schlessinger returned twice to Today in same morning
SUMMARY: Discussing marital infidelity on Today, Laura Schlessinger said, "I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need." Despite the fact that panelists later referred to Schlessinger's comments as "absurd" and "nonsense" and that Meredith Vieira said of Schlessinger's first appearance, "The women were hysterically upset with her," Today had Schlessinger return to the program twice more the same morning.
Discussing marital infidelity on the March 11 edition of NBC's Today, conservative radio host Laura Schlessinger said, "[W]hen the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs. And these days, women don't spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give their men what they need." Co-host Meredith Vieira then asked her, "But, you say -- are you saying the women should feel guilty? Like they somehow drove the man to -- to cheat?" Schlessinger replied, "You know what? The cheating was his decision to repair what's damaged and to feed himself where he's starving." She added, "But yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need." Despite the fact that panelists later referred to Schlessinger's comments as "absurd" and "nonsense" and that Vieira said of Schlessinger's first appearance, "The women were hysterically upset with her," Today had Schlessinger return to the program twice more the same morning.
Schlessinger made her first appearance during the second hour of the show in a panel discussion with Vieira, psychologist Jeff Gardier, and anthropologist Helen Fisher. During the same segment, Fisher said of Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY): "Well, first of all, all you have to do is look at Eliot Spitzer and he's got very high cheekbones and a very heavy brow ridge, and those are signs of extremely high testosterone. So this is a very high-testosterone man. We know he's very aggressive, and he's also very sexual."
Later in the second hour, co-host Matt Lauer referred to "a very controversial lady, radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger. She kind of shook it up a little in your last segment." Vieira responded: "Oh, my gosh. The women were hysterically upset with her." Indeed, less than a half-hour after her panel appearance, Schlessinger returned to talk about her new book with Vieira.
During the third hour, Today featured a second panel about infidelity with news anchor Ann Curry, Fisher, Gardier, and Dina Matos McGreevey, ex-wife of former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey (D). Curry said that "there was an assertion made by Dr. Laura ... talking about what may cause some of this, and she generated a lot of controversy on our emails, basically, because she said that perhaps women are to blame when their husband cheat. Now, OK, you're shaking your heads. You're all shaking your heads." Fisher replied, "This is nonsense," and added, "First of all, there's no data to prove it. I mean, let's go for the facts. And second of all, it doesn't -- there's many reasons that somebody is adulterous." Matos McGreevey later said of Schlessinger's earlier remarks: "[Y]ou know, for Dr. Laura to say, 'Well, you know, his wife is responsible for this,' this is absurd."
Schlessinger returned later during the third hour and addressed the panelists' comments as well as email comments from viewers. Responding to the second panel's comments about her own, Schlessinger said, "But I was a little disappointed that you guys had a panel secondary after I was in the green room and pretty much misrepresented and attacked me on what I said when I wasn't there to answer to myself. I didn't think that was journalistically ethical and fair." Schlessinger added, "I certainly didn't blame Mrs. Spitzer and Mrs. McGreevey for their husbands' behavior. I do not know anything about their personal lives." Schlessinger went on to say:
SCHLESSINGER: I was asked to talk about why a lot of men stray. And the fact of the matter is, that men will often sadly breach their vows of holding only on to their wives, because their wives are not holding on to them at all. And I wrote the book The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands -- and I was even here talking about that -- and I made it clear that so many times -- excuse me -- women would call and complain that their men were maybe straying, looking at somebody else, talking, or even, you know, a full-blown affair. And I would say, "Let me just ask you one question. What he's doing is wrong. That's a fact. Let me ask you one question: Are you being the kind of wife you would want to come home to?" And that started a whole new way of looking at these situations where we have this happening. And we have vows to love, honor and cherish, and when we don't, there often are catastrophic results.
Later in her third appearance, Schlessinger said, "My job is to help families repair and stay together. And if people don't take responsibility for what they've done -- if he doesn't take responsibility for breaching his vows, that's not helpful. If she doesn't take responsibility for breaching her vows, that's also not helpful. ... They're both at fault."
The blog Think Progress originally noted Schlessinger's March 11 comments.
From the March 11 edition of NBC's Today:
VIEIRA: And do you think that women play any role in this, Dr. Laura?
SCHLESSIGNER: Well, it's interesting. What you said about what men need --
VIEIRA: I mean the wife obviously.
SCHLESSINGER: -- is very true. Men do need validation. I mean, when they come into the world, they're born of a woman and getting the validation from Mommy is the beginning of needing it from a woman. And when the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs. And these days, women don't spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give their men what they need --
VIEIRA: But, you say -- are you saying the women should feel guilty? Like they somehow drove the man to -- to cheat?
SCHLESSINGER: You know what? The cheating was his decision to repair what's damaged and to feed himself where he's starving. But yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.
FISHER: First of all --
GARDIER: But of course, two wrongs don't make a right --
FISHER: Well, first of all, all you have to do is look at Eliot Spitzer and he's got very high cheekbones and a very heavy brow ridge, and those are signs of extremely high testosterone. So this is a very high-testosterone man. We know he's very aggressive, and he's also very sexual. And in fact, these days we're working harder on our relationships than we ever --
VIEIRA: But --
GARDIER: And he may not look at the consequences. When you -- when you're talking about testosterone, quite often you're going -- just it's hormone-fueled so you're not looking at the consequences. And studies have shown that men look at the consequences much less than women do.
[...]
LAUER: Coming up, we're gonna talk more --
CURRY: Not that I mind.
LAUER: -- to a very controversial lady, radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger. She kind of shook it up a little in your last segment.
VIEIRA: Oh, my gosh. The women were hysterically upset with her.
LAUER: I think just for fun, I may go read the emails in a second.
ROKER: Yeah.
LAUER: Anyway, she's got a new book out called Stop Whining, Start Living.
VIEIRA: Yes.
LAUER: And she's here to help people embrace the positive, not the negative in their lives. We'll talk more to her.
VIEIRA: Number one word: acceptance. She'll explain what she means by that.
[...]
VIEIRA: If you want your advice sugarcoated, don't expect to get it from Dr. Laura Schlessinger. She has been dishing out guidance on the radio for more than 30 years, some of it pretty controversial. She's also the author of nine New York Times best-sellers, and has a new book out today called Stop Whining, Start Living. Dr. Laura, good morning again.
SCHLESSINGER: Good morning.
VIEIRA: Stop whining? Whining is part of living, isn't it?
SCHLESSINGER: Yes, it is, and I start out the book by demanding that we have time to whine when it's necessary. It helps us vent. It helps us take it outside of ourselves. Look at it and make decisions as to what to do. For example, I think you're a wonderful example of this. I know something about your situation with your husband --
VIEIRA: Yes.
SCHLESSINGER: -- and if there was ever anything to whine about, the two of you have that in terms of his health issues. But instead, I understand that your perspective is, that it doesn't matter what we're both struggling with, we're both still taking care of each other. So perfection in your life is not about not having an illness or having all the money you want or -- perfection in life is your attitude.
VIEIRA: So this book is really about when whining gets out of control.
[...]
CURRY: And this issue, you know, earlier in this program, there was some -- there was an assertion made by Dr. Laura, who is among some of you in this group, talking about what may cause some of this, and she generated a lot of controversy on our emails, basically, because she said that perhaps women are to blame when their husband cheat. Now, OK, you're shaking your heads. You're all shaking your heads.
FISHER: This is nonsense.
CURRY: Nonsense?
FISHER: First of all, there's no data to prove it. I mean, let's go for the facts. And second of all, it doesn't -- there's many reasons that somebody is adulterous.
GARDIER: And I think -- I think if nothing else, perhaps partners need to take some responsibility for what has happened. It's not about the blame game. It's about looking at what is going on in this marriage that may have been ripe for this to happen. But as I said earlier, the person who cheats is doing it in a very selfish manner. It's a very selfish act, because you don't repair the problems in a relationship or repair your own psychological issues by going out and getting involved in an extramarital affair.
[...]
CURRY: Can I say something, though? I think everyone feels compelled sometimes when they meet someone, even if they're married or they're not --
[crosstalk]
GARDIER: It feeds the ego.
CURRY: So what is the thing that makes people stop? What makes some people stop?
FISHER: It's self-control, impulse control.
AL ROKER (weatherman): Dina -- go ahead, Dina.
GARDIER: Impulse control and maturity.
FISHER: Yeah.
MATOS McGREEVEY: It's morality and maturity, but, you know, for Dr. Laura to say, "Well, you know, his wife is responsible for this," this is absurd. It's just like blaming a rape victim, and we see that happen all too often. They rape -- they blame a rape victim for, you know, being victimized. It's just insanity. This woman is suffering. She's enduring some excruciating pain. And to have to listen to the criticism, and I heard the criticism myself. People still to this day, "Why did you stand by him?" And I'm tired of hearing, "Oh, there's a little woman who's standing by her man." It's not about that. We all make it. We all do it for very personal decisions. I did it for my daughter, for my family. And I thought I was doing the right thing at the time because, you know, I loved this man. I learned three days before his announcement that, you know, he had been cheating and he was having his homosexual relationship. It was a shock to me and you don't -- it's not like flipping a switch and your feelings for the person evaporate overnight.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICES: Sure. Right. Absolutely.
[...]
CURRY: But first, the aforementioned Dr. Laura Schlessinger --
HODA KOTB (co-host): Aforementioned.
CURRY: -- earlier on the program, the radio talk-show host who doles out relationship advice, talked about her new book. It's called Stop Whining, Start Living.
KOTB: Stop Whining --
CURRY: She's back to answer your email questions. So we've got a lot of email questions about stopping whining, but we need to start because of the feedback that we've been getting about some of the things that were said earlier about the governor.
SCHLESSINGER: I don't want to seem like I'm whining --
KOTB: You're not whining!
SCHLESSINGER: But I was a little disappointed that you guys had a panel secondary after I was in the green room and pretty much misrepresented and attacked me on what I said when I wasn't there to answer to myself. I didn't think that was journalistically ethical and fair --
CURRY: OK, so what do you --
SCHLESSINGER: But I am basing -- I certainly didn't blame Mrs. Spitzer and Mrs. McGreevey for their husbands' behavior. I do not know anything about their personal lives.
UNIDENTIFIED: Right.
SCHLESSINGER: I was asked to talk about why a lot of men stray. And the fact of the matter is, that men will often sadly breach their vows of holding only on to their wives, because their wives are not holding on to them at all. And I wrote the book The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands -- and I was even here talking about that -- and I made it clear that so many times -- excuse me -- women would call and complain that their men were maybe straying, looking at somebody else, talking, or even, you know, a full-blown affair. And I would say, "Let me just ask you one question. What he's doing is wrong. That's a fact. Let me ask you one question: Are you being the kind of wife you would want to come home to?" And that started a whole new way of looking at these situations where we have this happening. And we have vows to love, honor and cherish, and when we don't, there often are catastrophic results.
And this is what I was speaking to. I was certainly not speaking about those two wives in particular, and I just wanted to clarify that -- without whining.
CURRY: OK, I -- and you just did it. Here's what Karen from Pennsylvania asks. She says that, "I think Dr. -- I think that Laura Schlessinger should be challenged on why cheating is the woman's fault. Are men too weak that they can't be held accountable for their own mistakes?" In other words, I think this question --
SCHLESSINGER: I'm holding men accountable --
CURRY: But what she's saying is why --
SCHLESSINGER: -- for their egregious errors.
CURRY: -- why would you have, and this question is basically saying, why would any of that responsibility be on the wife --
SCHLESSINGER: Because I would challenge the wife to find out what kind of wife she's being. Is she being supportive and approving and loving? Is she being sexually intimate and affectionate? Is she making him feel like he's her man? If she's not doing that, then she's contributing to his wrong choice.
KOTB: But if she's being -- let's pretend she's being the worst wife. She's too tired, she's got kids, she's exhausted, there are a lot of things lacking. Isn't there sort of a better plan than for the husband to have -- than to go --
SCHLESSINGER: You know what? You're missing the point.
KOTB: Tell me the point.
SCHLESSINGER: The point is, what he's done is wrong.
KOTB: Right.
SCHLESSINGER: The point is, what she's done is wrong. And I have kept marriages together after affairs because I have reminded the women that, "You have the power to turn this around. He had his children with you. He has his future-life plans with you, your dreams. His whole mind, body, and soul was wrapped up in the promise of you. If you now turn that back on, all this stuff you turned off -- because I'm busy or I'm irritated or I'm annoyed or I'm self-centered -- if you turn that around, you have that man back." My job is to help families repair and stay together. And if people don't take responsibility for what they've done -- if he doesn't take responsibility for breaching his vows, that's not helpful. If she doesn't take responsibility for breaching her vows, that's also not helpful.
CURRY: I think most people would --
SCHLESSINGER: They're both at fault.
Hey, Laura - do we need to discuss YOUR involvement with a married man that led to the posting of nude photos of yourself on the Internet??
Even more right-wing hypocrisy......
I don't think Billbo was married at the time-- in fact, I'm sure he was not.
From Wikipedia's page on Laura Schlessinger:
In 1998, allegedly upset that he was snubbed by Schlessinger at an event, former radio mentor Bill Ballance sold to a media outlet nude photos of Schlessinger, for which she had posed when she and Ballance had an affair in the 1970s. Internet Entertainment Group (IEG), which had purchased the photos, subsequently posted them on its website. IEG was already known at the time for making available to subscribers a sex tape of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee. The Schlessinger photos were originally available only to subscribers to the IEG website, but predictably, the photos later appeared on different free sites in varying forms.
Schlessinger initially said the photos were not of her, but then claimed a copyright interest in them in court. Eventually, she admitted that the photos were authentic, and read a statement on her radio show addressing the issue. Schlessinger tried to get the photos off the Internet, but ultimately was unsuccessful in doing so, as a court ruled IEG had legally acquired the rights to the material.
In the statement she read on her radio show about the scandal, Schlessinger called Ballance a "mentor and friend," and said she was "mystified as to why this 80-year-old man would do such a morally reprehensible thing." She said the photos were taken when she was 28 years old, going through a divorce, and had "no moral authority." She added that she had undergone "profound changes over the course of my life from atheist to observant Jew."
Despite the apology, many faithful listeners to the Dr. Laura show felt betrayed. Once the nude photo scandal came to light, accusations surfaced that Schlessinger cheated on her first husband, broke up the marriage of the man who became her second husband, lived with him while unmarried, and intentionally bore a child with him out of wedlock––all things she railed against on her show, but never mentioned were part of her personal life experience. Schlessinger's response to these criticisms was that "A hypocrite says, 'Do what I say, not what I do,' rather than, 'Do what I say, not what I did'," meaning that a hypocrite is not a person who makes a mistake and then changes, but is instead a person who sets up a double standard.
Bottom line? Laura Schelsinger is hardly in a position to talk about anyone else's personal life. Add to this the fact that she was estranged from her mother for many years, and because of that estrangment, her mother's dead body lay in her house for a period of time undiscovered, unclaimed, and unwanted.
Laura Schlesinger - One Moral Dilema After Another......
WZ,
Well that certainly explains her presence on the corporate owned media!
I get the feeling that she will be found somewhere on FOX Noise soon enough......
The pics were in Hustler-- I believe that's who Billbo sold them to-- he called up Larry Flint about it personally, it was said. Flint flipped when he saw them. He said something like it was one of his best moments in publishing.
Ballance was a very funny guy and a very good liberal. So his reason for 'exposing' her was pretty obvious.
Schlessinger is really patronizing men by implying that we can't keep it zipped if things aren't going our way at home. While I agree that good marriages are a shared responsibility, being a bad wife doesn't give the husband the right to be unfaithful at all. It's just a copout excuse.
Absolutely agree Bruce, it is about behavior and choices. We each make them and are responsible for their consequences, to blame the person who drove us there is ridiculous.
Although, I am not sure how this fits into a political watchdog website, except that the current NY Governor is in the news, or is just to put up an hysterical picture of Dr. Laura and slap her around a bit?
This one is a character piece Tommy
It demonstrates that she is an idiot on a whole variety of issues, not just politics
That way when she bashes Libs her credibility is already garbage
I believe these items are remedial education for conservatives in denial
To clarify
The cheating was his decision to repair what's damaged and to feed himself where he's starving. But yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.
That is a dip spit thing to say
So when she says Liberals are the root of all evil, you know she is a dip spit ahead of time
And Spitzer deserves no absolution, he F'd up, especially any comfort this cold biznatch has to offer
Right you are, Bruce.
I wish that Schlessinger had stayed with her chosen field of study (she earned her doctorate working in the rat labs, which seems appropriate), rather than pretending she's a psychologist.
Both parties in any relationship need to work on it so that it's a good relationship.
Regardless of how much work a woman might be putting in or not putting in, it's no excuse, ever, for a husband (or vice versa) to cheat.
The woman is not responsible for the cheating. She easily could be partly responsible for the failing relationship, but she is not at all responsible for his cheating. No woman drives a husband to cheat. That's a choice the husband makes.
"You know what? The cheating was his decision to repair what's damaged and to feed himself where he's starving." She added, "But yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need."
I completely agree. I have strong feelings about adultery. It is a reprehensible type of betrayal.
Said it before and I'll say it again...pie hole & liberal amounts of duct tape.
"...she's contributing to his wrong choice." Are these the same people who talk about personal responsibility?
Here's a great Laura Schlesinger story:
A few years ago during her L.A. radio program, she suddenly started railing against an area "surf shop" that she had visited with her son. The reason? She claimed that she had seen outrageous and "obscene" surf magazines there. She urgerd her listeners to boycott the surf shop and close them down.
What really happened? The harmless "surf" magazines were owned by Larry Flynt publications. A few years earlier, Flynt had published sex photos of Dr. Laura that liberal talk-show host Bill Ballance had taken of her in the late 70's, when they were dating.
The upshot? The surf shop sued her for wrongful, bad faith slander, and won a big settlement against her. The pictures are still out there--they're fun to look at at. I recommend finding them-- Ballance was a genius for 'pulling the covers' off of that crazy hypocrite.
I have the photos.
Funny that she said they weren't her,..but she tried to get them banned anywat
FISHER: Well, first of all, all you have to do is look at Eliot Spitzer and he's got very high cheekbones and a very heavy brow ridge, and those are signs of extremely high testosterone. So this is a very high-testosterone man. We know he's very aggressive, and he's also very sexual.
Jeez, Laura why don't you also tell us how Spitzer is hung? ;>)
No Irony, that was anthropologist Helen Fisher with that breathtaking discussion of Gov. Spitzer's anatomy as the obvious precursor to extramarital affairs.
Wonder if anyone told Wilma, cuz that definition kinda fits Fred! :)
Now the Today show crew does go in to a real discussion for a moment after that. Here's a link to a story on NPR...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88116164
The professor on NPR discussed one interesting point...men who make this choice have ignored a rational review of risks and consequences. Ms. Fisher and psychologist Jeff Gardier get into the testosterone = bad risk assessment issue on Today. So I guess that philanderers are bad assessors of risk thus are probably poor choices for leaders! :)
Thanks, but Tommy already corrected me...for which I am immensely grateful. ;>)
BTW, a little known fact is that Fred's equipment paled in comparison to Barnie's, a fact that Wilma discovered to her delight one night when Fred went bowling alone. ;>)
a little known fact is that Fred's equipment paled in comparison to Barnie's, a fact that Wilma discovered to her delight one night when Fred went bowling alone
Links please ;-)
Nah...it's missing. :)
And it was Betty's fault for not serving as a proper wife to Barney.
Wonder what Dino thought of the whole mess. :)
Wonder what Dino thought of the whole mess. :)
When questioned by the press, Dino released the following statement:
"ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP"
:-)
Ya know, I think this whole Fred & Wilma exchange would add more wisdom to the public square than all of these Today show segments combined.
At least it would be funnier and less snarky! :)
"Discussing marital infidelity on the March 11 edition of NBC's Today, conservative radio host Laura Schlessinger said"
Conservative radio host? As far as I know Schlessinger doesn't talk about politics on her show. What exactly makes her a "conservative talk show host?"
http://www.drlaurablog.com/
Take a look around and you will understand why RINO
These topics are also discussed on air
RINO
Dig a little further, she is totally a Lib basher GOP water carrier
I'll give her the flag folding item and a few others but that's it
I've listened to her show and although she is no Limbaugh nor Hannity this is more to do with topic structure, she fits in her digs where she can
I'd also contend that since the GOP has legislaturized a lot of social and moral issues that the discussion of in biased fashion is quite justifiably comparable
Careful, Edenscape
Saying "as far as I know" means we can dismiss the rest of what you said, doesn't it?
Actually Rino, She does bash Democrats. I used to listen to her until she started bashing Democrats. I do have to say that the advice to be kind, to make your husband feel special and so forth is not bad advice to women. I personally never take my husband for granted (and vice versa). I treat him like a true friend and soulmate and we thank each other all the time for small, every day things. We have a really good marriage as a result.
That being said, you must marry the right person. I give myself credit for knowing a quality guy when I saw one.
But you need to pick a keeper.
As for Dr. Laura, I agree too. Used to listen to her when she really focused on helping people understand the impact they were having on their children by selfish choices. She treated gay partnerships with the same advice, etc. But gradually got more & more off in her own "I'm always right" mentality. It's been years since I've listened to her.
Stop feigning ignorance. You know as well as, probably better than anybody here that the conservative movement has won so many political battles because they have won so much ground in the culture wars.
Laura is a straight up conervative shill. She sells the conservative worldview with as much twisted delight as Hannity.
Very true, all of you who point out where Schlessinger's politics lay.
As for me, I need no further proof than that her show is on WJR in Detroit. Yes, Detroit, as city so solidly to the left that no Republican has bothered to run for mayor since the early 1980's, and its main radio station features shows by Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin, as well as Dr. Laura's. They also have 3 home-grown talents with shows, Paul W. Smith (who has substitute-hosted Limbaugh a couple of times, so you know where he stands), Frank Beckman (another conservative), and Mitch Albom (middle-of-the-road).
So much for the conservatives who keep claiming that the Right dominates talk radio because that's what the people want!
Not complaining mind you. Liberals need to win these winnable battles when it comes to getting our message on the air.
Your "proof" is meaningless. It has nothing to do with the locale, I live in LA and the top radio talk stations are dominated by conservative talk, in a city that is decidedly liberal. The reason is conservatives support and listen to talk radio far more than liberals do, which is why there are far more of them on the air - it's quite simple.
And so what, so liberals aren't as inclined to do so, one isn't right and one isn't wrong, it's purely personal preference - and has nothing to do with some nefarious plot to keep liberals off the air. That is always trotted out by whining liberals who haven't yet figured out they just don't have the huge listenership that the conservatives do when it comes to talk radio. Many liberal talk show hosts are successful, but in far smaller numbers.......big deal.
It would be like people who like westerns complaining there isn't enough "Gunsmoke" on TV, when the viewership just isn't there.
In fact, the early conservative movement set and achieved the goal of infiltrating and mastering the media. They set out to co-opt every public institution to the conservative agenda. They have succeeded, due in large part, because we lefties didn't do enough to stop them from taking over the cultural landscape of America.
Here's the playbook according to think tankers Weyrich and Heubeck.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010713152425/www.freecongress.org/centers/conservatism/traditionalist.htm
But we agree that the dominance of conservative talk radio, has little to do with ratings or what people at large want but it's more to do with the reason that, "conservatives support and listen to talk radio far more than liberals do, which is why there are far more of them on the air - it's quite simple."
Yeah, you're right, there's an efifcient funding base not a mass audience.
With the consolidation of media, voices that promote common sense views, not even neccessarily political views, are effectively locked out of equal access to markets.
I don't care if you believe the facts or not.
That is floated around here all the time, and I don't buy it. Just look at the top ten or so talk radio hosts, they all have listeners in the millions more than the top liberal host out there, whom I believe is Ed Schultz - who Limbaugh out numbers by 5 to 1.
So, the ratings speak for themselves.
Lowry Mays is the company founder and chairman of the company. He is a close personal friend of and was a major fundraiser for GHWB and GWB. Two of his sons are also executive officers of the company.
The funny thing about facts are they don't care if you "buy" them or not, they're still facts none the less.
So?
If liberal talk radio was trouncing conservatives in the ratings, yet the conservatives were still on many more stations with plum time slots, then you'd have a point.
Why are you ignoring the ratings, which are right before your eyes?
The point is that the vast majority of radio stations are owned and operated by a conservative company. The vast majority of their talk radio shows are conservative. Therefore the conservative talk shows receive a vast majority of the ratings because they flood the market with conservative talk shows. Not that hard to figure out.
How ridiculous. You just made my point, you refuse to acknowledge that ratings is why they are there, which makes perfect sense, not ideology - but liberals cling to that because they can't compete in the ratings war, I get that - you're not the first to make this idiotic argument.
And as you say the market is flooded with conservatives on the radio, wouldn't that spread the listenership around and they all would suffer as a result? Of course it would, that is why your theory is nothing but a left wing whine. But just the opposite is true.
Believe me, if the conservatives had no ratings, they would be yanked off the air, and fast, because they would be money losers. Simple economics and the way to run a business, which the stockholders of these conservative corporations are far more concerned with than who some CEO is buddy buddy with.
You think the only reason there are so many conservative talk radio shows and that they receive higher ratings is because there is a bigger demand for them. I'm not going to try and dissuade you from that opinion, it's an impossible thing to accomplish.
I happen to be of the opinion that the right has for decades been trying control the information that average Americans are exposed to and the examples are numerous. Monopoly ownership of TV, radio, print media and let's not forget the ever popular Permanent Conservative Majority that would insure that monopoly stays in place.
Just because you don't believe this is the case doesn't mean it's not true.
I can see by the way you label me a whiney liberal (nice assumption BTW) that you consider yourself the opposite, I guess, a conservative. Do you really think those in the leadership on the right give a rat's arse about you or any other average American for that matter, liberal or conservative? They don't. They've ruined the country all for the sake of more money for them and less for you and me. But I guess you rather give em' a pass because you somehow identify with them, maybe you think you're one of them. You're not.
You can't be that clueless? Advertisers respond to listenership, that is how rates are determined. You act as if one has nothing to do with another. Wow.
When I listened she mostly just talked about cultural issues that weren't political.
But thanks to the neo-cons, all those cultural issues of years gone by are now political issues, Rino Hunter.
When I listened she mostly just talked about cultural issues that weren't political.
But thanks to the neo-cons, all those cultural issues of years gone by are now political issues, Rino Hunter.
Conservative radio host? As far as I know Schlessinger doesn't talk about politics on her show. What exactly makes her a "conservative talk show host?"
Let's put it this way:
1. Laura Schlesinger is a radio host.
2. Laura Schlesinger is a conservative woman, who advocates a conservative agenda.
Therefore,
3. Laura Schlesinger is a "conservative radio host".
Was this concept a bit beyond your comprehension level, Rino Hunter???
"Schlessinger made her first appearance during the second hour of the show in a panel discussion with Vieira, psychologist Jeff Gardier, and anthropologist Helen Fisher. During the same segment, Fisher said of Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY): 'Well, first of all, all you have to do is look at Eliot Spitzer and he's got very high cheekbones and a very heavy brow ridge, and those are signs of extremely high testosterone. So this is a very high-testosterone man. We know he's very aggressive, and he's also very sexual.'"
So, it really has come to this! You've got a Nancy Grace regular spouting off about his pop psychological mumbo jumbo (Gardier); a silly twit who somehow extrapolates from evolutionary evidence dicta about the modern behavior of our species (Fisher), and a dim-witted crypto-fascist woman who regularly rants against premarital sex, porno, and homosexuality (Schlessinger), and what do you get? The dumbing down of talk TV. The silliest waste of valuable time not worth in a half hour on the subject of Eliot Spitzer what Nightline gave us in three minutes with Heidi Fleiss.
Heidi pointed out that if we did the intelligent thing, we'd legalize prostitution and put an end to all this sordid spying on peoples' personal lives. Spitzer is a victim of an administration that ran on promises to keep government out of our affairs. It did just the opposite, politicizing the Justice Department to the extent that there is no separation of powers between the two branches of government: Spitzer is a sad example of creeping intrusion right out of Kafka.
Really, now, O'Reilly has his body language guru. What's next? A phrenologist? The Ghost of the Amazing Criswell reading Spitzer's mind? Shame, shame, shame on the pundit programs!
Yeah, it's getting to the point where you can't tell Nancy Grace from the rest of them.
Whatever happened to Mike Douglas or Jack Parr?
being a bad wife doesn't give the husband the right to be unfaithful at all
She doesn't say that it does. She is pointing out that both partners in a marriage are accountable to each other. Sin leads to sin - it becomes a downward spiral. Marriage requires spouses submit to each other first. When one submits to children or a carreer first they have abandoned their vows and are living in sin. That may (not always) lead to further sin (adultry in this instance) to satisfy needs that have been abandoned. Some spouses are strong enouhg to weather the storm - some are not. Such is story of human nature and sin.
Though her initial presentation of her points my be faulty - she hit the nail on the head in her follow-up.
Sorry, she's bankrupt in my eyes.
Tommy,
I disagree. It seems to me she is simply defining the underlining cause for the unfaithfullness.
Lets say the husband beats the wife until one day the wife shoots the husband. The headlines are "wife kills husband". She did it and no denial. Now, why did she do it? Is not the now newly deceased husband partly to blame?
AA,
I just don't accept that line of thinking, if you're offered crack from a drug dealer and you smoke it, is it the drug dealer's fault, or yours? If you are a bank teller and walk into the vault with wads of unattended money and you steal it, is it the bank's fault or yours?
It goes to character and choices, we all make difficult ones every day where we are tested and tempted. It's about doing what is right regardless. If the man, or woman cheats, nobody forced them into it, they did it, they made the choice, people are responsible for their behavior, not some external force that "drove" them to it.
Tommy,
I agree that the cheating man, or in my example, the murderous wife is 100% at fault.
The point I think Dr. Laura is making is that something in the marriage caused the cheating husband to wander. Should he have wandered, no. But why would the husband stray? One reason stands out is that he was not satisfied with his wife. Of course there may be many reasons why the husband is disatisfied, some may be legitimate, some may not. (He may simply be a philanderer.) But to dismiss the underlying cause, which may be in part a shared responsibility of the wife, is to simply ignore the elephant in the room.
AA,
Perhaps you misunderstood me, I wasn't dismissing anything, I am talking about accountability and responsibility - it is entirely on the shoulders of those who did it, nobody else.
Of course there are always circumstances which lead to the choice, etc.....and those would be addressed if the parties involved entered counseling - but the 100% responsibility is with the person who made the choice.
Whatever, it's a two way street you'll argue. The man must also attend to his wife's every fantasy. Sounds nice but it's a phony existence. Give me an equal partner who is honest with me and we'll go from there.
Your propensity to categorize every ill in our society as being a result of the embrace of conservatism is not only misplaced, ridiculous, unfair, and shortsighted, but slightly paranoid as well.
Fine, you are a proud liberal, but if you want to reduce everything to liberal vs. conservative thus blaming conservatives for eeeeeeeeeverything, well, it just comes across as a little nutty.
I think he essentially culled out the meat of the conservative cultural conception of the American family. Rightly so because progressive family values are entirely different, see? We value equality in all things not least of which, is how marriage, or a life of togetherness works.
Tommy,
I think we're in general agreement, just emphasizing different aspects.
Would you agree that, all things being equal, if the husband were satisfied, (for lack of a better term,) he would not be looking for gratification outside the marriage?
Tommy,
The crack dealer in your example does bear some culpability, the same as the bartender who serves drinks to an obviously intoxicated patron. So I think your analogy does not hold up. The crack dealer would indeed be arrested for providing the drug to the user. Is the user at fault? Yes. Is the crack dealer also culpable? Yes.
Any marriage partner that is not satisfied is mostly from their own doing, and even if not, it is incumbent upon them to work through it with their partner, in whatever way they can, to salvage it before cheating on their spouse.
Being dissatisfied with a relationship is no excuse for anything. Fix it, work on it, do what it takes, or get out of if.
Tommy,
We are in general agreement. However, is it not possible for one marriage partner can do everything right and still have an unfulfilled marriage if the other partner for some reason does not hold up their end of the bargain?
Again, I am not excusing Spitzer. I can just see where a flawed husband, might try to seek to fulfill one of his needs if the wife were to, (for whatever reason,) reject him.
I'm 100% in favor of equal partnerships in marriage. I am not in favor or prostitution, legal or otherwise.
No - she was not excusing the adultry in any way. She says he is wrong. What more can she say? The conversation is about cause and effect. The concept of marriage in our society is based in theology. In the eyes of God no one sin is greater than another. Humans are sexual beings. The woman who abandons her husband sexually, or the husband that abandons his wife sexually, allows temptation into the marriage. They are just as guilty of sin as the spouse who commits adultry due to a lack of self control.
Too many armchair quarterbacks with advice about just about everything!
It's a shame so many decent people believe conservatism is decent.
This is not a conservative or liberal issue. It is about the fundamentals of marriage which has it base in theology.
You have peaqued my curiosity though. Would you share your liberal view of the family and differintiate it from the one I presented earlier?
There is the catch, its base is in theology.
Lots of people beleive that marriage should be based in love and respect for one another.
Sex is the LEAST of the requirements for love and respect.
Some liberals believe you can have sex....and you can love a person in a marriage, and they are not mutually exclusive.
you said...
No - she was not excusing the adultry in any way. She says he is wrong. What more can she say? The conversation is about cause and effect. The concept of marriage in our society is based in theology. In the eyes of God no one sin is greater than another. Humans are sexual beings. The woman who abandons her husband sexually, or the husband that abandons his wife sexually, allows temptation into the marriage. They are just as guilty of sin as the spouse who commits adultry due to a lack of self control.
For one thing, sex is not a sin, well it is not to me anyway. Temptation? Will you explain that please.
I have explained myself in other posts. Sex is just that, sex. It is not an indicator of love or of respect for your partner.
Perhaps the woman in question knew her partner was having sex with other women and it was ok with her. (the same as it might have been for Mrs. Clinton) Perhaps it did not diminish his love or respect for her.
Not having the ins and outs of these peoples marriages we have no insight into how their marriages worked for them.
Now, the guy got caught publically, and may have used gov. money to pay for all his extra-marital fun, but that is what is the issue.
It makes NO difference what his spouse "MIGHT" or "MIGHT NOT" be thinking or doing.
For one thing, sex is not a sin, well it is not to me anyway. Temptation? Will you explain that please. ...Sex is just that, sex. It is not an indicator of love or of respect for your partner.
OK - now I see where you are comming from. Her points are being made based on a Judeao-Christian model of marriage. From that point of view sex outside a marriage is sin, and the exclusivity of it in the marriage is indeed a sign of love and respect for your partner. Your view of marriage is based on secular humanism so I can see why her points are lost on you.
Television is a business first - the pundants they engage will address the majority opinion knowing that there are not enough in the minority to matter to their ratings.
Temptation - When sex is exclusive to a marriage and one partner is dissatisfied the temptation to stray outside the marriage may be hard to resist.
Thats part of what I think too, it's all a front.
Don't you think it's great that all their "own" sins are forgiven by a loving god tho? 8-)Thats part of what I think too, it's all a front.
Don't you think it's great that all their "own" sins are forgiven by a loving god tho? 8-)Conservatives tend to subscribe to what could best be described as a father knows best concept of the family. They believe in a male centric scenario of authority and hierarchy.
Not so with progressives. Equality and openess are valued in the progressive family.
Pre-eminent progressive thinker, George Lakoff, outlines the contrast in this way:
Conservative Meaning
Obedience and discipline are the core values of the family. Sex education in schools, the right to abortion, and gay marriage undermine obedience and discipline. They are an affront to the family.
Progressive Meaning
Empathy and responsibility for oneself and others are the core values of the family. Respectful, loving, and supporting parenting promotes healthy families. Health care, education, food on the table, and social systems are essential for the well-being of the family. Loving, committed, and supportive individuals define the family, not gender roles.
Notice how the conservative meaning narrows any discussion of family values to things that threaten the traditional family model. The progressive meaning is open-ended and includes consideration of all components of healthy family functioning.
schlesingers son joined the military to get far, far away from the crazy lady....
nuff said
Bacc,
So you are saying all 2.9 million of our active military are trying to get away from their mothers?
Round,
It was meant to be ridiculous. Tommy explained it perfectly. (Thanks Tommy.)
I would be more likely to buy Dr. Laura's reasoning, at least partially, if the guy had a fling with a co worker or something along those lines, but he didnt, he got a hooker, repeatedly. No excuse, no one to blame but himself. He didn't get seduced or caught up in the moment finding something he was missing at home. He made a calculated decision to cheat, repeatedly. No sympathy, this implies men cant control themselves, it's the same logic that puts the blame on victims of rape instead of the rapist themselves. Dr. Laura is a self righteous blowhard and her advice has no connection with reality.
Yep, if you are wearing a rolex you are asking to be robbed.
If you wear that sexy outfit you are asking to be raped.
If you have a dick, it is asking to be used.....repeatedly....by many different people....
8-O