|
Moral Courage (2/6/99)
Ala67 wrote:
One of the themes that recurs among Laurettes is the idea that DL
exhibits courage for taking the stands that she does, that
somehow she is bucking against the tide of immorality and risking
all to express her unpopular views. Some of Joan Deaver's
comments, for example, reflect this common attitude.
There is nothing morally courageous about the stands that DL
takes. They are totally bereft of any bravery whatsoever.
It takes zero intestinal fortitude to denounce nameless, faceless
single mothers. It takes no more bravery than Leno or Letterman
demonstrate five nights a week to shred Bill Clinton to pieces
(without any of the wittiness they demonstrate when they do it.)
DL doesn't take on any targets that could fire back and cause
serious damage. Even her reversal of position on homosexuality
shows a degree of flabbiness. One of the things her supporters
point out is that she doesn't gay bash. What she does is walk up
to the edge of gay bashing without actually doing it. Her
position is that society should not legitimize anything about
homosexuality but it is wrong to bash them. Why? If
premarital sex shouldn't be legitimized, if single mothers
shouldn't be legitimized, if it is perfectly ok to bash sluts who
get knocked up by shack up honeys, then why not just call them a
bunch of fags and openly display contempt for them? If
women who put themselves in compromising positions and get raped
got what they deserved, why not say the same about Matthew
Shepard*? The answer, of course, is that she knows she can't. To
take that position would make real enemies. It might affect her
ratings. Goodness knows, Jacor might actually get upset. So, she
mouths the right words--don't hate homosexuals. mustn't do
that--while taking positions that reveal her true feelings.
DL has openly stated her support of the death penalty, stating in
one of her newspaper columns that she found "abhorrent"
(her words) positions opposing the death penalty. So, did anyone
see a single criticism by DL of the Pope for asking for clemency
of the MO man whose life Gov. Carnahan spared based on that Papal
appeal? Has DL called John Paul II abhorrent, or immoral,
and risked offending Catholics? Would she, who displays her
Judaism for all the world to see, ever attack Sen. Lieberman of
CT, the only Orthodox Jew in Congress, and call him immoral for
not demanding Clinton's impeachment as opposed to censure? (She
was perfectly willing to state on Larry King that she was ashamed
of Monica Lewinsky because she was Jewish, after all.) For
that matter, on her appearances on Larry King, did she ever look
him in the eye and criticize him for being married and divorced a
billion times? Or, when she was on Oprah, criticize her for
shacking up with Steadman? Or would those things have cost her?
Would they have risked alienating chunks of her core audience,
and taken away media outlets to spread her message?
DL's actions demonstrate the same degree of guts as it takes to
hurl softballs at a dunk tank. They risk nothing. She
claims she wants to be treated as not merely an entertainer, but
as someone who is trying to change the world. The last time I
took notice, prophets rarely study focus groups.
Mitch
* she did, in fact, blame Shepard for causing his own death on
April 14, 1999, just a few months after this post was made. see: http://www.cbsc/ca/english/appendix/000510a.htm
Moral Convenience
In response, TJ wrote:
There is also the hollowness and convenience. As I
put it in a post quite some time ago:
Laura is sort of like a recently naturalized citizen blaming
immigration for our problems and calling for the total closing of
our borders.
And how about her taking a little of her own
medicine? She demands that others acknowledge their
wrong-doing, do everything possible to repair the damage done, be
genuinely sorry for having done wrong, and ask foregiveness.
It's all very fine to demand that young people, full of
hormones and lacking in experience, resist doing what they are
inclined to do, and to demand that others sacrifice.
However, considering that she now has a family which is a main
focus of her life, is presumably no longer interested in messing
around (and doesn't want Lew straying, either), her ethical
stance supports what she has now chosen for herself.
It requires no sacrifice on her part. How
convenient. And how convenient that she was
unencumbered by these ethical views when she acquired her
relationship with Lew. While she carps about the
ethics of convenience, it seems basically that her ethical
history is a series of ethical views that support her doing
whatever it is she wants to be doing at the time.
--
TJ
|
