Maddi


the Rev. Dr. Maddi Her Kids' Mom Rev. and Founding Diety, The Little Church of the Sun, Moon, Doing the Wild Thang Outdoors and Drinking Too Much Beer Expert, What is Funny and More Importantly, What is Not One of the Two most Poisonous Bullies Here Yadda, yadda, yadda, etc, and so forth ...

Otis wrote:
> pjkorman@aol.com (Pjkorman) wrote:
> >
> > As a student of Jungian psychology,
>
> Dang! Gott dig out the Python CD and listen to the Philospher song
> now...

Double-dang! Carl Jung is not mentioned in the Philosopher song!
They did have this thing about someone named Bruce, though.

Oh! Oh! I know the answer! Oh! Oh! That's the PHILOSOPHERS
song. We need the PSYCHIATRISTS song.

Here, I found it. Same tune, even:

Sigmund Freud was a paranoid
Who repressed each Oktoberfest
Daughter Anna played second banana
And drank from here to Budapest
BF Skinner always drink his dinner,
Adler had many such meals,
And Carl Rogers outdrank those codgers,
Just ask him how he feels
There's nothing Frankl couldn't tank til the room's spinning all around
And oh those Perls of wisdom he was picking off the ground...

Abraham Maslow never set sights low,
His hierarchy started with whiskey
David Keirsey didn't understand me,
A few boilermakers made him pissy
Joseph Campbell would start to shamble
Til he saw a thousand faces
And Erich Fromm, he did quaff the rum
Down the Hall and other places
And if you're wondering why I haven't mentioned that Carl Jung,
A lovely little drinker with his archetypes of dung!

And if you send me more chocolate I won't write a physiologists song.

trdm
Suspects Scott won't understand a quarter of this

You are incorrect. By proclaiming herself as a moral leader, and bringing in the numerous claims of how SHE doesn't have friends who do the bad things her callers' friends do, she is very much a part of her message.

I wasn't aware that refusing to talk to one's mother and sister for 12 years was part of Judeo-Christian principles. I also must have missed the part in Hebrew School where they covered the importance of using filthy language on a radio show that takes calls from young children.

>>I used to listen every day until those REAL pictures of her came out. She was married to and screwing around on, her first husband when those photos were taken.

You seem surprisingly unsure of what will happen to Laura in the next life. My money's on her coming back as a blood-encrusted cat-o-nine-tails.

>>At least the Speaker of the House had the morals to step down when his adulterous past came out, why not Dr. Laura??

>He may have changed his ways, we don't know. We do know he was a political realist.

Would you like to see Laura run for office? The closets and drawers will be flung open with even more abandon.

I see. Perhaps it's a variant of Messianic Judaism, as Laura seems almost identical to a fundamentalist Christian.

Actually, given her uproarious interpretation of Judaism, that is the impression I had gotten. Perhaps it was something along the line of insulting her callers within minutes of her telling other callers to be polite to people they don't care for.

Hey, it's Hypocrite Season, and I spent a lot of money on my license and this repeating assault rifle, and I intend to get every penny's worth out of it.

>It means someone is CURRENTLY secretly engaged in conduct which is contrary to their public pronouncements that such conduct is wrong.

Yes, that's what it means. Which of Laura's CURRENT conduct that is contrary to her public pronouncements would you like to discuss? Shall we begin with her fraudulent claims that she's a licensed psychotherapist (she is not only not a psychotherapist, but her MFCC license is not longer active), her deceptive claim that she has "Post-Doctoral studies in Family Therapy" when the latter had nothing to do with the former, as her doctorate was in physiology. We could progress to her claim that she doesn't give advice when she does so all the time. We could discuss her misleading monologues that distort news stories. We could go on to her claim that the Internet is full of porn, yet she's happy to maintain a website that sells coffee mugs. Then we could discuss her false claim that the American Library Association wants your children to read porn, or the American Psychological Association is publishing junk science by pedophiles with an agenda. We could continue to her statements that the Women's Liberation Movement accomplished nothing, when Laura owes her education and career to the very existence of it. So I'm on fairly good authority when I say that Laura is a hypocrite.

This is an example of sloganeering replacing critical thinking. Note in John's posts how many times he repeats this almost verbatum.

>>You are incorrect. By proclaiming herself as a moral leader, and bringing in >the numerous claims of how SHE doesn't have friends who do the bad things her >callers' friends do, she is very much a part of her message.

>She is a distinct entity from the messages (moral advice) she gives to callers. She could be an evil person or a hypocrite and still give the correct advice to her callers.

There's an adage that says the same thing: a stopped clock is right twice a day. That's how I see Laura.

Her supporters either refuse to believe the inconvenient facts about her, or, ostrich-style, profess that they are but trivial matters. I actually respect Ted's point of view quite a bit more than John's, because Ted can see that even though Laura supports most of his politics, she's still dangerous.

>I am only >concerned with the moral opinions she gives callers, and >I am usually in agreement with her moral opinions.

Good. Let's discuss some of her moral opinions that left me somewhat gasping for breath. Since you're usually in agreement with them, I'd be interested in how you can justify this advice. Here's a few for you.

1. Caller (male) is concerned about ex-roommate, who has been repeatedly accused of groping women. Caller wonders whether to warn other women of the man's reputation. Laura instead calls the women sluts for sleeping on the couch; doesn't address the man at all, warns caller not to say anything because that's gossip. (See my article Bad Advice From Laura, last year)

2. 16 year old male caller is interested in Buddhism over the Catholicism he is being raised in. Laura, already proven to have little practical understanding of Catholicism, berates him for not studying his religion enough before rejecting it. I posted on this one too, search for me and "Buddhism"

3. Eric mentioned Laura's comment that living in a co-ed dorm was tantamount to murder. Do you agree they are equal, or are co-ed dorms worse?

4. Young caller has concerns about her stepfather's behavior and Laura suggests stepfather is sexually attracted to her. 5. 14-year-old girl is interested in Wicca; mother forbids the interest, does not allow her to bring home books on the subject. Caller asks if mother can force her to not believe "what she believes." Laura sides with the mother. I read a transcript of this call on http://www.magickalcauldron.com/laura.html but the site is going down the end of this week.

6. Atheist caller is disturbed that his wife has gone back to her evangelical Christian roots, despite the promise she had made earlier that their children would be raised as atheists. Laura has usually held couples to their vows to each other, but attacked caller for his philosophy and said he had no right to it. (Look for my July '96 post on this.)

7. I cannot fathom when Laura will encourage a caller to report bad behavior and when she will discourage it, calling it gossip. Often, to me, these appear to be the exact same situations (cheating spouses seen necking in public, etc). Would you be so kind as to explain the vagueries for me?

8. Laura usually advocates reporting drug use by children to the police. Do you agree with this? Are you aware of what will happen to your child if this happens? If you are aware of it, do you agree with her advice? Should recreational drug use lead to ten-year prison sentences? Why does Laura believe that the anti-drug laws must be upheld for the good of society, but the great evil of abortion must be wiped out by any means possible? Do you agree?

>Focusing the debate on he personally rather than her views does not surprise me.

>After all, many people vote for the candidate's personality rather than their views.

Are you saying that a candidate's personality is completely independent of her views?

>>I wasn't aware that refusing to talk to one's mother and sister for 12 years was part of Judeo-Christian principles.

>I stated that she is reflecting Judeo-Christian principles >in the moral opinions she gives to callers.

Read the list I posted above and say that again. Bear in mind what Fred has posted here about Jewish principles, since Laura shouldn't have anything to do with the Christian ones anyway.

>I don't have the time to investigate every aspect of her past personal conduct, like you apparently do.

I assure you, I probably have even less free time than you do. Some of us, however, are able to use our limited time her more efficiently than others.

Why? If someone tells you you're a slut if you engage in a certain behavior but engages in the same behavior, how is that advice not questionable?

>I reserve the right to disagree with any advice she may give a particular caller, and I sometimes do.

Most Laura supporters say that at some point. Please let me know of at least two examples.

>> I also must have missed the part in Hebrew School where they covered the importance of using filthy language on a radio show that takes calls from young >children

Should I take that to mean that the terms "slut," "skank," "warm place to put it," and even, once, "shit" are perfectly acceptable? How about the gratuitous anatomical terms when the call had nothing to do with sex? The comments on young girls' breasts and periods for no reason.

I hope the above cleared this up. I almost suspect you haven't listened to the show in the past year.

She said the s-word just a few weeks ago. If anything, her language is getting coarser.

>How large are those of the people whose opinions you do listen to?I don't really care.

>If I had to investigate the personal life of every person I know to determine whether I should listen to their opinions on issues, political and moral, I wouldn't have the time to respond to emails like yours.

I'm not asking you to investigate her personal life, I'm asking you to pay attention to what should occur to anyone with enough caloric consumption to warm up a chocolate bar.

>Judge not lest ye be judged. Don't look for a splinter in someone's eye when you have a beam in your own.

Interesting advice. You might find Laura's take on that aspect of Scripture most enlightening. One of Laura's maxims is that we must indeed judge who we trust, who we will associate with, and who we will support. She claims what Jesus was actually referring to was that we can't judge what treatment any given person will ultimately receive from "God." Your comments on this would be most appreciative, since your use of these verses are in opposition to Laura's advice.

>It appears to me too that she is too rough on some callers, but they don't seem to mind.

How would you know this? She's got a mute button and a seven-second delay to smooth over those, er, incidents. Nonetheless, a few squeak by on occasion.

> >We could progress to her claim that she doesn't give advice when she does so all the time.

You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Otis has documented her statements in this regard over the past few months. You, basically, either have a very short memory or don't listen to the show.

>She claims she doesn't >do therapy on the radio. She tells people when she thinks they should seek therapy. She obviously gives advice.

Yes, but, and pay attention John, she CLAIMS she doesn't give advice. Of course she gives advice. My point exactly; she's also a liar.

You're so cute when you're that naive. Where does she get the news stories, sweetums? Evangelical World Wire? Whacko Rightwing Web Ring? And furthermore, John, she never reads the stories verbatum. She always adds her little comments, with much rhetorical flourish designed to mislead, misinform, and malign. Perhaps you remember her calling Hillary R Clinton "The Wicked Witch of the East"?

Look. She said there was NOTHING on the net but porn. THEN she started a website. Do you understand the concept of self-interest? Laura is quite good at illustrating it.

>>Then we could discuss her false claim that the American Library Association wants your children to read porn, or the American Psychological Association is publishing junk science by pedophiles with an agenda.

I'm sure you accepted her statements in the same thorough and critical manner in which you've demonstrated here.

>>We could continue to her statements that the Women's Liberation Movement >accomplished nothing, when Laura owes her education and career to the very >existence of it

>Did she have a scholarship from a feminist organization? Was she an affirmative action hire on the radio?

Are you really this stupid or are you playacting? Laura, like most women who came of age in the early 1960s, was part of the first wave of women who got to go to college without a struggle. She was able to attend graduate school. Her mother's generation could not do this. Until 1974 it was perfectly legal to not hire a woman for a job BECAUSE she was a woman. The newspaper want ads reflected this in the headings Help Wanted-Male and Help Wanted-Female. The only careers available to women, no matter how accomplished, were secretary, teacher, or nurse. You ever hear of Sandra Day O'Connor, who is maybe ten or so years older than Laura? Graduated from Stanford Law School, third in the class. Not one firm would hire her. You have absolutely no idea of how ignorant you sound when you ask if Laura had a scholarship from a feminist organization. Laura's attack on feminism is identical to Clarence Thomas' attack on civil rights, as both were direct beneficiaries of policies they then claimed did nothing.

>There may be valid cause for some criticism of her, but I am more concerned with the moral opinions she gives callers.

Good. Go through my list and then we'll give you some more examples of her supposed "moral opinions."

But if the advice is good for the wrong reason, then it's a bad idea to pay attention to that person or her advice.

So you keep telling us. Laura's message is almost as bad as she is. Let us discuss that. To begin with, we can talk about her distortion of that valedictorian who wasn't allowed to give his Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus speech. Laura claimed it wasn't prosletyzing. A local radio host, Ronn Owens (KGO San Francisco) supposedly got ahold of the text and read it, and surprise, it sounded like it to him and to his listeners. (I apologize, I have tried to get it but it's not on Owens' website.)

What makes you think it's a cult? For one, we venerate free speech and freedom of thought. That's something you don't see in cults, such as fundamentalist Christianity.