Dr. Laura Cries Foul
Many thanks to several of our faithful readers for passing on Dr. Laura's column this morning. I will not include the full text here as the Santa Barbara News-Press has made it clear that reprinting articles is something they will not support. If you are a subscriber, you can read it in the newspaper or online...
In the article, Dr. Laura described my March 6th post on the subpoena made to Google and says that "writing commentary without full personal attribution did not demonstrate character, courage and conscience". She went on to ask why her comment wasn't published and wonders openly why this happened.
As is common with News-Press opinion columns, I wasn't contacted by Dr. Laura for my side of the story or for an explanation as to why her comment was not published. I am sure that many of you have had similar instances of this with Mr. Armstrong as well. While Dr. Laura may think that comments on a "media outlet" should be worth standing behind -- so should columns printed in the newspaper. Writing about someone without getting their side of the story, basically not doing your homeowrk -- is not living up to high jouralistic standards to which journalists like her supposedly aspire.
My explanation for not publishing her comment is that currently Ampersand Publishing has several subpoenas that they have issued related to BlogaBarbara. Why would I want to assume Dr. Laura was who she said she was in commenting on this post? Considering the state of litigation those of us that are News-Press critics live in these days, why would I want to risk her comment being made by just about anyone? Her celebrity status affords a level of caution in this situation that I believe is warranted. If she really wanted to offer her opinion, it might have made more sense to email me.
Of all people, Dr. Laura should realize the position I was in considering that she works for Ampersand Publishing and that she is a columnist who ignites opposition on a wide variety of topiics.
I've offered space to News-Press management on BlogaBarbara several times and have not been taken up on my offer. If Dr. Laura would like to offer a community post to be published, I would be happy to offer her thoughts for discussion in our community. She could simply email me at saradelaguerra@yahoo.com with a verifiable email address -- and I would be happy to afford her that opportunity. I would hope in the future, she would do the same and check her source's viewpoint prior to writing about them.
In the article, Dr. Laura described my March 6th post on the subpoena made to Google and says that "writing commentary without full personal attribution did not demonstrate character, courage and conscience". She went on to ask why her comment wasn't published and wonders openly why this happened.
As is common with News-Press opinion columns, I wasn't contacted by Dr. Laura for my side of the story or for an explanation as to why her comment was not published. I am sure that many of you have had similar instances of this with Mr. Armstrong as well. While Dr. Laura may think that comments on a "media outlet" should be worth standing behind -- so should columns printed in the newspaper. Writing about someone without getting their side of the story, basically not doing your homeowrk -- is not living up to high jouralistic standards to which journalists like her supposedly aspire.
My explanation for not publishing her comment is that currently Ampersand Publishing has several subpoenas that they have issued related to BlogaBarbara. Why would I want to assume Dr. Laura was who she said she was in commenting on this post? Considering the state of litigation those of us that are News-Press critics live in these days, why would I want to risk her comment being made by just about anyone? Her celebrity status affords a level of caution in this situation that I believe is warranted. If she really wanted to offer her opinion, it might have made more sense to email me.
Of all people, Dr. Laura should realize the position I was in considering that she works for Ampersand Publishing and that she is a columnist who ignites opposition on a wide variety of topiics.
I've offered space to News-Press management on BlogaBarbara several times and have not been taken up on my offer. If Dr. Laura would like to offer a community post to be published, I would be happy to offer her thoughts for discussion in our community. She could simply email me at saradelaguerra@yahoo.com with a verifiable email address -- and I would be happy to afford her that opportunity. I would hope in the future, she would do the same and check her source's viewpoint prior to writing about them.
Labels: Dr. Laura, Santa Barbara News-Press
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 3/11/2007 08:47:00 AM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
66 Comments:
A move in the right direction-
The "DR." now has her byline title in quotation marks. Now if the column can be moved from A2 to the "funny pages"....
"Dr." Laura is soooooo funny.
How can she ask those questions with a straight face?..... oh yeah she works for the News Press.
Should have given you a "heads up" yesterday, but it is good to know that Dr. Laura is such an active reader of local blogs. A validation of the new media. Keep up the good work, Santa Barbara's Blog.
SDLG,
Your response to Ms. Schlesinger doesn't wash on several levels.
1.) You don't deal with her comment that "writing commentary without full personal attribution did not demonstrate character, courage and conscience."
Instead, you engage in the form of rebuttal many of us resort to when our positions are indefensible.
You find fault with Ms. Schlesinger on an unrelated topic –her failure to contact you for your side of the story as to why you didn't publish her comment.
Putting aside the issue of whether journalistic ethics require an opinion columnist to do so, what does your response have to do with her comment? Shouldn't you address it?
2.) As to her question regarding why you didn't publish her comment, you maintain that
"[c]onsidering the state of litigation those of us that are News-Press critics live in these days, why would I want to risk her comment being made by just about anyone?"
This begs the question as to why you risk publishing any "comment being made by just about anyone?" All might open you to further attempts by Ampersand Publishing or anyone else to pierce the veil of your nom de blog.
Furthermore, if, as you state, you are already subject to "several subpoenas that they have issued related to BlogaBarbara" from Ampersand Publishing, what's one more? You could join all of them in an action if Ampersand Publishing ever figures out your nom de birth.
3.) Finally, you maintain that
"[i]f Dr. Laura would like to offer a community post to be published, I would be happy to offer her thoughts for discussion in our community. She could simply email me at saradelaguerra@yahoo.com with a verifiable email address -- and I would be happy to afford her that opportunity."
This brings into focus the unsustainable position you have maintained as to the need for anonymity in what goes on at Blogabarbara.
What is "a verifiable email address?"
Is saradelaguerra@yahoo.com "a verifiable email address?"
I have just added DrLauraSchlesinger@cox.net to my email account at Cox. Is that "a verifiable email address?" And if I email you from it, will you publish what I send you.
At the end of the day, I suspect the comments you publish will lash Ms. Schlesinger for who she is, but few will deal with the substance of her criticisms as to what goes on here at Blogabarbara. In times like this, it should be recalled that the message, not the messenger, is what's important.
The law of unintended consequences may just have kicked in here, by giving a free plug about blogabarbara to every N-P subscriber and reader left. The good "Dr." might want to be a more careful about reconciling her public behavior with her "writing." A relative of mine, formerly a huge Dr. Laura supporter, recently felt humiliated after her encounter with Dr. Laura at the Crystal Cathedral. When the Church Lady relative finally got to the front of the line to have her book signed, she attempted to exchange a few words with the woman she previously admired to the ends of the earth. The only reply was Dr. Laura waving her arms and yelling, "Keep the line moving." Not what this nice Church Lady expected from her (now-former) hero, who told me, "She doesn't care about people, she just cares about selling books."
Mic -- thanks for writing and asking those questions. Luckily with a blog you can get a response that is public and with some speed. Do you think I will get a response from Dr. laura in her column next week? Maybe, but my response is below:
1.) You don't deal with her comment that "writing commentary without full personal attribution did not demonstrate character, courage and conscience."
I'm not necessarily opposed to this statement -- it is her opinion and there is nothing wrong with taking that position -- so why would I need to comment?
The Federalist Papers were written without personal attribution but displayed character, courage and conscience-- does that make what some of our founding fathers had to say less relevant? Some things need to be written anonymously...and we have that right as Americans.
2) Why not get another subpoena?
Ummmm, I'll have to think about that one and get back to you....what do you think the answer should be considering their propensity towards litigation?
3) Verifiable email addresses...
Clearly, if she sent a proposed comment from a newspress.com email address I could be much more likely to assume correctly that she was who she said she was....I have never seen her email address in print with the News-Press so further verification might be necessary on that one. The one you could make up at cox.net or yahoo.com or whatnot would have to be suspect, no?
Here is perhaps a better example -- If Travis Armstrong sent me a community post from tarmstrong@newspress.com --- I could be pretty sure it is him as his email address is printed many different places.
Hey Sara, it's your blog! You can do whatever you want!
Mic,
1.) You don't deal with her comment that "writing commentary without full personal attribution did not demonstrate character, courage and conscience."
Dr. L is a paid commentator and a very wealthy one at that. It is easy to show "courage and conscience" when it works in one's financial interest. Not to mention these same comentators may be able to use the legal assets of the publisher to protect themselves from frivolous litigation that while proving them in the right, may also financially drain them. "Courageous" indeed.
One might argue that SDLG could sell a column to local media and has chosen not to (as far as we know)demonstrating a certainly admirable "selfless" character.
Congratulations!!
When they criticize you, that means they are afraid.
Look for one of those idiotic propaganda pieces as a full-page house ad during the next week.
If no one's mentioned it, Dr. Laura could easily publish an "EM de guerre" in the SBNP so there would be no doubt it is her.
Sarah,
Your blog is a free-flowing exchange of ideas, opinions and even ridicule. Much of its value arises from instantaneous responses and fluid dialog, both of which are not possible with traditional media outlets.
Everybody reading your blog knows, or should know, that it's unlikely that you're a billionaire divorcee that has decided to sit home running your blog without monetary compensation. It should come as no surprise that you are not spending day and night checking the identities of your posters and verifying their posted "facts". Should that become a requirement we will see blogging disappear.
IMO, this blog is a community benefit and is one of the few examples where we get much more than we pay for!
We read the good with the bad, agree with some, and agree to disagree with others. I am usually entertained and occasionally prompted to re-think my positions.
This back and forth dialogue doesn't happen in "traditional media outlets" where the content is strictly controlled & edited by paid minions who decide which dialogue will best serve the public.
"Dr." Laura misses the point with her comment "I disdain media outlets which permit anonymity." Look at the good "Dr.'s" "blog" on her website. No published comments or responses. Why? Because name & email are required in order to remark on her holier than thou ramblings and amazingly, either nobody has remarked or the "Dr." has decided none of the remarks are worthy or will benefit her financially.
Given what many folks post publicly (and anonymously) about the "Dr.", I would imagine a free flowing dialogue would not bode will for her marketing machine.
Thank you SDLG, and, yes, if you're reading this "Dr.", feel free to email me direct with your response.
I wonder how she feels about the Angry Poodle, or other "anonymous"
Would anonymity be OK, if Sara De la Guerra were an anonymous column in a dead trees publication?
Let's be honest. A good news organization should get many anonymous letters, every year. What happens when they do? I would expect that if it is as juicy as the NewsMess, the they would investigate, look for comments from the source, dig deep, publish, and accept letters to the editor.
In the newsmess, the only thing going on is dig deep, stick head in ground, publish, and wave buttocks in the air.
Thanks Elvis -- who loves you baby?
12:50 AM don't know about the buttocks vision but I see your point....
Re Mic Deniro:
Re your suggestion that
This brings into focus the unsustainable position you have maintained as to the need for anonymity in what goes on at Blogabarbara.
You comment really ignores the litigation happy predisposition of Ms McCaw over any criticism of her and her financial ability to drive anyone such critic into bankruptcy associated with the cost of defense irrespective of whether their is merit in McCaw's litigation position.
This environment very much establishes a need for anonymity, and to say one lacks character, courage or conscience for posting anonymously is to ignore the unique and unwarranted threats associated with any critical posting nevermind its rectitude.
As for why wouldn't Sara need to verify the identity of all posters, you ignore that Schlesinger's posting apparently cites herself as the writer and her employer's propensity for litigation. As I recall, case law protects a blog producer from liability for the libel of others posting to the blog, i.e. the blog producer can not be expected to fact check all such postings. But where a poster indicates they are a specific prominent person, and that post is published, the posting may aruably be libelous by reason of its apparent bias, lack of insight (hypothetical examples), or other attributes placing the alleged poster, i.e. Schlessinger, in bad light. As the blog producer can require, as Sara indicates she does, verification of the identity of such a prominent poster the basis for immunity from liability is diminished. Hence, Sara's response is a quite reasonable response to the litigation happy environment present in De La Guerra Plaza and places little burden on Ms. Schlessinger should she truly wish to post to the blog under her own name.
Lastly, as for the message, not the messanger, being the only subject worthy of comment, frankly that just isn't true. The identity of the messanger and their actions related to their statement of position all give context to the substance they publish. Thus, when Schlessinger tries to pass herself off as entirely fair and above board in opinion piece, Sara my be called upon to respond substantively, but is also entitled to place Schlessinger's comments in the context of failing to seek Sara's comment, and further place it in context of comparing Schlessinger's lapse with the practice of others in the employ of Ampersand.
History will record which side the "Dr" was on open and honest dialog.
Thanks Dr. Laura, for assuming the position as PR consultant to this blog. New readers: this is where you come for no-spin community news, not the SBNP.
Careful nomdecrayola,
I reserve the right to spin it and plant it anyway I want (ain't that right Dick?), but I do appreciate the sentiment...
Sorry to be slow here but given that I don't read the NP (and haven't since the Wendy bought it) I don't have full access to what's going on.
Did the "dr." claim that she wrote a comment to this blog that wasn't published? Why does she care about Wendy's subpoena? Why not comment about Wendy shacking up with that bottled water dude? Why not comment about Wendy being another loser divorcee?
Dr. Laura criticizing anonymity?
Maybe now we can find out who wrote the anonymous letter in her column, dated Nov. 23, 2006, titled, "At Thanksgiving, let's focus on gratitude."
========================
The excerpt:
" Dr. Laura's Letters: "I believe that the News-Press has become a much better, and more objective paper since the 'transition' began several months ago. The biggest improvement is your Thursday and Sunday columns. As a retired Air Force officer, there are few qualities I admire more than courage. The honest, direct manner in which you tackle politically correct dogma is courageous, particularly in liberal Santa Barbara."
" My response: I am very grateful for your comments and support. "
========================
I'd like to know the name of the retired Air Force officer.
As Dr. Laura wrote in her column Sunday, "writing commentary without full personal attribution did not demonstrate character, courage and conscience."
If she is going to publish commentary in her column, she should verify that the people are real, and identify them according to the rules of letters to the editor.
As she also wrote Sunday: "I disdain media outlets which permit anonymity. If their words aren't worth standing behind, they aren't worth being heard or read."
The exception to that rule would be for advice columnists who have tolerance for people's diversity and are trying to help them with sensitive problems. Those people should not have to be identified. The advice can also help others with similar problems.
I'd like to buy that officer a cup of coffee and find out what facts were used in the thought process to come to that conclusion. Maybe I can learn something.
Thanks in advance, Dr. Laura!
@Mic,
clearly anything@drlaura.com would be verifiable. you are an idiot.
@emily, "She doesn't care about people, she just cares about selling books."
Don't forget $30 talking action figures.
@SDLG, re:Federalist Papers
Right on! Beautiful response. Dr. Laura is hilarious.
@Anon. 1:13pm, "As I recall, case law protects a blog producer from liability for the libel of others posting to the blog"
You're absolutely right. Websites are protected from liability from third party content under Section 230. Sara's requirement of verification for posters claiming to be prominent figures is simply a courtesy.
"Dr." Laura doesn't get the nature of the blogosphere, and the importance of anonymity. Forget her ever waking up to the evil that is right in front of her in the predations and infliction of pain and suffering committed on others by her employer. But it is good that she's drawn attention to this corner of the SB world. Rock on, SDLG!
I was a little concerned this morning that this could go a few places and I've declined a couple comments and accepted some that I wince at a little...let's try to keep from calling each other or the people we talk about names!
Liam -- didn't know about the action figure. I guess you know you've made it when...also, glad you looked at the EFF site. All of us should.
6:13 PM -- thanks and party on, Garth!
Oy, Ms S is a piece of work alright. Anyone with an ounce of eductation about the human psyche is acutely aware that anyone who so loudly criticizes others for their lack of "character, courage and conscience" is surely lacking the same in spades.
Her life has hardly been any of the above & she & Ms M so richly deserve each other.
Remember this quote? "Media has its own agenda. Facts are sabotaged in favor of a slant, a bias. Today's journalism is mostly just junk." This was the quote attributed to 'Anonymous' in the News-Press' full page ad addressing the purported bias in the newsroom.
When I read this kooky ad (full of typos, no less), I found it silly that the N-P's marketing folks would use an anonymous quote to bolster their half-baked unsupported accusations of bias. Craig Smith reported on trying to find the source of this quote. He couldn't find it's author. Did anyone?
Now it's even sillier - bordering on hilarious - that their highest-profile columnist would write "I disdain media outlets which permit anonymity. If their words aren't worth standing behind, they aren't worth being heard or read."
Didn't think anything could make the News-Press or those ads look any stupider. Leave it to "Dr." Laura!!
Laura Schlessinger returns from her book selling hiatus and resumes her usual bullying. Ah, to be rich enough to wave away basic First Amendment rights as lacking "character, courage and conscience." Sounds a little unamerican to me.
But what does her commentary suggest outside of the commentary itself? It suggests that Ampersand is still very much after the little guy and any little morsel that they have the ability to threaten or belittle through their publication.
It suggests that the publication is still not capable of producing news reports and lacks the journalistic integrity to conduct the basic courtesy of research and investigation of both sides of an issue.
It suggests that Ampersand and their handful of "loyal" employees are very much watching and reading the alternative media outlets they claim are not worth reading.
It suggests, as noted by commentary above mine, that blogabarbara has the attention of Santa Barbara's "newspaper of record."
It suggests, again and again, the hypocrisy of their accusations. "Dr. Laura" quotes anonymous comments without noticing much lack of character, courage and conscience when they support her point of view, as noted by Bob Guiliano's comment above. The News Press likewise quoted "Anonymous" quite gloriously in support of the newspaper for a full page ad about bias. Remember this? "Media has its own agenda. Facts are sabotaged in favor of a slant, a bias. Today's journalism is mostly just junk." Who made such a lofty statement to justify Ampersand's accusation of bias? Anonymous. Where is Schlessinger's wagging finger of criticism over the low character, courage and conscience printed by the paper she works for?
It seems to me that Ampersand's publication of "Dr. Laura's" column exmplifies that whenever they point a finger, three point right back at themselves.
Thank you, SDLG, for being an inviting source of open discussion on both sides of Santa Barbara's current events.
Here's another thought on the steaming pile of a statement "...writing commentary without full personal attribution did not demonstrate character, courage and conscience":
Wouldn't it be a pretty accurate assumption that people that call into her radio show (she still has one, right?) use fake names? You don't see her forcing her callers to state name, ID, and rank. Or does she? That would be quite twisted.
Thus she's saying, "anonymity for her lackeys, arse-kissers and callers who hike up her ratings, and consumers who buy her books", but "no anonymity for anyone who disagrees with her or her Queen Supreme Ruler". Wow, does the insanity ever stop?
It reminds me of a teacher I highly disliked in junior high that would say without sympathy, without explaining herself, without listening to other opinions, "Do as I say. I do not have to explain myself."
Which in my mind is the same as saying, "I am laying down the law. Why? I'm not quite sure, but I'm fearful and hateful of anything that doesn't coincide with my narrow mindset. I don't need to think rationally, because what I feel in my gut is right."
Truthiness is in full effect, folks.
If peoples' livelihoods weren't at stake, it would be one heck of a bizarre, zany comedy.
Well, there is a little bit of fear that makes us use pen names, I think. Fear of repercussions.
But we also give up a lot... credit for our good ideas, for example.
It is just another method of discussion, with good points and bad points.
But the big point is: Dr. Laura spelled your name right, SDLG, and the only bad publicity is your obituary.
Is the posting on Santabarbarasblog true?
Was that really Dr. Laura announcing her return to the NP through a blog??????????
Does this makes any sense if it is true??
Many of the posts on Blogabarbara about Dr. Laura over the past six months would have been newspaper letters to the editor in most communities, or, since most other newspapers now recognize the digital age, would have been posts on the newspaper's own blog. They would have been part of the healthy (cease-and-desist-less) public dialogue.
However, since that voice is not available in this community -- since McCaw will brook little "disloyalty," even on the opinion pages -- people have no choice but to turn to other publications and to blogs.
Dr. Laura, thank Wendy McCaw for the adverse blog attention you're receiving, since opinions opposed to yours can't be published in the News-Press.
In fact, a long-time columnist was reprimanded after even mentioning you. He quit, like most of the others.
Now that you're back, how about giving a signed copy of your new Marriage book to the most famous non-married living-in-sin couple in town -- your employers.
Please stop refering to PhdLaura as "Doctor Laura". She is not and she should not present herself outside an academic environment as one.
Plus was it not Wendy's own decree that NO ONE other than a medical doctor be allowed to use "Dr." by their name in her newspaper - something about a Pulizter convention or something.
And PhdLaura ain't no medical doctor. Cease and desist giving her this unearned honorific.
Please don't tell me she is copyrighted trade name as "Doctor Laura" -- don't think you can do this.
Nope she is and always will be "PhdLaura" and even that is a stretch in polite company.
10:13 pm: A whois search for the owner of the blog brings says that the owner of the domain has chosen a "discreet" option so that we cannot know who it is. A simple review of their contact page shows simply editor@santabarbarasblog.com. Their about page says they are a group of reporters, photographers and social commentators....seems, however, like one person.
The blog has peppered this blog and others with marketing links -- I'd say this was a publicity stunt. Not so sure it will get them readers though.
P.S. to SDLG -- I'm surprised someone knew who I was....kudos to you.
10:13 PM --Sounds like it's true. Good for them! I'm sure it will do a lot for whoever is moderating the blog. Great scoop for them -- although I don't think I would have taken it.
If Dr. Laura wants to do more than a book promotion on BlogaBarbara, I'd be happy to allow her space as a guest blogger.
Had to keep on looking. There's an abandoned wordpress blog called blogabarbara.wordpress.com whose masthead says Santa Barbara's Blog. Any relationship there? Wierd.
For the remaining Laura naifs, see Vanity Fair's definitive 1998 piece by Leslie Bennetts (available on Google).
Above all, it explains how the woman who once wrote a book about the 10 Commandments has violated just about every one of them.
I got bored a long time ago reading Schlesinger's column. She has a very trite format.
She picks some red herring issue to get her knicker all in a twist and then self-rightously pontificates as if she had a legitimate grievance, which she had not.
I think this is what depressed people do to self-medicate themselves for endogenous adrenalin rushes. But it soon put me to sleep once I caught on to her tiresome ploy.
Let's not give her more attention here than she deserves. (Zero)
Let's not get our own knickers in a twist over her unwholesomely pious rantings, because she is just a tiresome old meddler who will say anything for entertainment's sake.
Take a snooze, Schlesinger. You are boring.
I stole off to a coffee shop to borrow (so as not to buy) a News Press to read our local pious and pithy commentaters statement. Below is my comments to her.
Dear Ms. S.
As Liam (3/11 5:40) provided us with a link to the real personna of Dr. Laura it reveals just how clear it is that you are not a person of "courage" but of cowardice.
"He Got Murdered" You blame Matthew Sheppard for his own murder? Is anyone really responsible for their own murder. That was bad enough because then you go on to make a statement that women who find themselves in a similar situation as Mathew Sheppard, and are tortured raped and murdered women would not be considered victims of "hate crimes?" If anything that would be a flaw in the law and your thinking.
Even though the www.stopdrlaura.com website chronicals your beleifs up till 2000 all the quotes are an indication to me of something seriously wrong with you. Perhaps your quotes stopped as you had your greedy financial finger in the wind.
As for the question of anonymity...While I admit I am a bit cowardly, please keep in mind we all a evel of cowardice and have means of protection. Two tons of steel and tinted glass, guns, guards dogs, secluded house on the hill complete with a state of the art security system. So whats a little anonymity when it comes to little liberal constituionally guaranteed free speech?
After 19 years, I've dropped my SBNP subscription entirely. I can't support a newspaper that is so small-minded it would go after an anonymous blogger who really said nothing that damaged SBNP's reputation. Watching the SBNP in action is like watching someone kill themselves with a knife and then complain about the mess.
Whoops, didn't mean to be uncivil. All are welcome to their opinions and I certainly do not want to discourage anyone from participating here. My apologies to Mr. DeNiro.
At the risk of beating a dead dog, I'll say Laura S is just a hanger on in the hypocritical world of right wing "family values" crowd. Have you ever seen a bigger bunch of buffoons as O'Reilley, Limbaugh, all the political sex scandlers, the corrupters, the deceivers, the excusers? We should demand more of our public officials and outspoken blogging (our form of The Federalists) is one way to get the point across. I'm fed up and I can't take it anymore!! What's happened to our collective responsibility to "do the right thing"? We certainly need to look into our own hearts and motivations. We've become a culture of greed and excess and we're reaping what we've sown thoughout the world.
As all politics are local, let's hold our local public officials and limelighters to a higher standard. There's no doubt that SB has an over abundance of the powerful and influential. Let the voice of freedom ring loud and clear! God Bless America. (sniff, sniff).
Thanks Liam -- no big thing, I just have to occasionally reel people in!
So I wonder if we'll ever get some of our public reps to comment here. Sure would be nice to hear from Pedro, Lois and Tom on our (er, Sara's) turf. Not to mention our other public officials and luminaries.
Mic DeNiro (is that his real name?) seems to think he's clever, but all I see is intellectual dishonesty. All his "points" have been answered by Sara or others; does he have the courage to admit that he was mistaken about Sara's response not "washing", and that his sophistic attack not only doesn't demonstrate character, courage, and conscience, but demonstrates their *lack*", as the hypocritical Laura Schesinger has demonstrated many times on her part?
A word about courage: it would be courageous of Laura Schlessinger to volunteer for the local fire and rescue squad. It would be courageous for her to donate a kidney to someone in need. It would be courageous of her to write a column critical of Wendy Mccaw, and of the uncivil rants of Travis Armstrong. There are many many courageous things that Ms. Schlessinger could do, but who am I to demand that she do them? What can one say of the character of someone who berates others for not doing this or that courageous thing? What does Ms. Schlessinger know of the risks that Sara or any other blogger might take in revealing their identity, and who is she to demand that they take those risks? Given her employer, her complaint is a bit like a mob boss complaining that an informant is anonymous, making it difficult to contract a hit on him. Those are crocodile tears she sheds over this lack of courage, and and they are low in character and lacking in conscience.
Editor Bird writes "it is good to know that Dr. Laura is such an active reader of local blogs. A validation of the new media."
That's a fine bit of irony, EB, when Ms. Schlessinger uses your anonymous blog to announce a column in which she writes "I disdain media outlets which permit anonymity. If their words aren't worth standing behind, they aren't worth being heard or read." That's validation?
P.S. This just in from Craig Smith (http://www.west.net/~smith/blog/): "In a decision dated March 8 , Judge Willam L. Schmidt of the National Labor Relations Board upheld the overwhelming September 27, 2006 election victory won by the Graphics Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. This decision confirms to the union the legal right to represent the newsroom employees at the Santa Barbara News-Press. Judge Schmidt presided over a two-day hearing in Santa Barbara January 9 and 10, and heard evidence from the newspaper's management and from the union. After briefing by the parties, he has now determined the News-Press' four objections to the election do not warrant overturning the Union's resounding victory."
Yay!!!
I wouldn't get overly excited over the NRLB decision.
"The Nation" dated March 12, 2007, reports at page 18, "Sixteen years after a successful union election at the Roanoke Rapids mill, union members finally forced J.P.Stevens to the bargaining table."
I know we talked a lot about home ownership recently. Off topic here but this is a great article in the WSJ. You might need a prescription, uh subscription but it's probably in todays paper copy too. Here's a tidbit.
"• If you bought a house in Los Angeles in 1990, just as the real-estate market turned downward, you would have had to wait a decade for your home's value to return to what you paid."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117329581356629863.html?mod=hps_us_at_glance_most_pop
jqb - great news!!! Congratulations to the pro-union journalists!
Oops, I'm writing this comment anonymously. I guess my congratulations lacks character, courage and conscience.
OK, you caught me.
My real name is JQB.
And I don't think this is clever.
Honestly.
Wendy Ampersand is not J.P.Stevens. That's old repeat of troll.
Phd Laura is seen in photos for a Yatch Club event wearing an "Arny Mom" tee-shirt. She is therefore courageous at least by surrogacy. Any mother sending her child to Iraq knows courage.
Or, maybe he just wanted to get away and live his own life. A DI was better company than a Phd.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Dr. Lew Bishop raised a warrior. Their family values books and theraphy have been helping others. She admitted she should have home schooled him. It wasn't easy. He is hyper.The school caused his problems. Some kids get straightened out in the military. She is proud of him now. If you are civil she might do comments and open up more of her mistakes. I don't understand why she wouldn't want anonymous because she can see people are mean.
Thanks orangstar -- I'm humbled.
I should be clear, however, that if someone chose to do this they would of their own accord...I would want little involvement in it for ojectivity and legal reasons.
That being said -- this would make an excellent fundraiser. Perhaps proceeds could be donated to either the Electronic Frontier Foundation or the employee legal fund -- or both.
One option is to make it available at zazzle.com....
I'd love to buy and wear that shirt around town... but I'd cross the steet if I saw a black van. I am a coward after all ;-/
We'd have to add "Coward" in a circle with a line through it somewhere, or "No Fear" might be better :-P
Okay, enough.
What did Dr. Laura say?
What questions did she raise?
What is everybody talking about here?
I don't subscribe to the News Press and I don't currently intend to. I can't read her column.
Since you're apparently being talked about, YOU have the right under the law to reprint the allegations and respond, don't you?
I like what the EFF webpage has to say about the critical historic value of anonymous dissent far better than "drlaura's" hypocritical rejoinder.
Isn't her stage name a fake persona too? I don't get it.
How could she be complaining when she refuses to sign her hit pieces with her full name and uses that fake made up title instead.
8:24 pm -- Do I hear an ouch? Sure, it is okay to come out and breathe a little here. The give and take is bracing. Each has a little to say and we all learn from each other.
It is hard living in a shell forced on you by others and by your own design that might have gotten away from you.
Where and how does one breathe on their own when they created themselves as a public personality?
Just like Wendy has gotten stuck in a sad charicature of herself that once was a loving wife and a lovely younger lady, even L.S. must have some real aspects that hurt below the surface as well, yet have no normal outlets.
Look what happened to Britney because she had no place to cry for help.
I wouldn't get overly excited over the NRLB decision.
Of course you wouldn't. But people of character and conscience understand why it's good news.
"The Nation" dated March 12, 2007, reports at page 18, "Sixteen years after a successful union election at the Roanoke Rapids mill, union members finally forced J.P.Stevens to the bargaining table."
A nice bit of conscientious selective anectdotal reporting there. That case isn't typical, and if unions were completely ineffective, Ampersand wouldn't have fought them so hard.
My real name is JQB.
And I don't think this is clever.
Then why write it at all? jqb is a nickname (derived from my actual initials) by which I've been known for 38 years.
8:24 says "Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Dr. Lew Bishop raised a warrior. Their family values books and theraphy have been helping others."
Wiki says:
re: Schlessinger- "While working at USC, she met Dr. Lewis G. Bishop, who was married with dependent children. According to the subsequent divorce filings, they began an affair."
"Schlessinger is an outspoken critic of practices that she feels have become too prevalent in contemporary American culture. These include: sex outside of marriage (sometimes referred to by her as "screwing around")..."
Re: "We should really set up a t-shirt design that says:
"I am Sara De La Guerra" on the front and maybe BlogaBarbara.com on the back?" Nice idea, Orangstar, but if you do it be sure to get the URL right--"Blogabarbara.com" isn't it. Sara, whatever happened with the guy who acquired that domain? I seem to recall you mentioning (a long time ago) that you'd communicated with him & that it was a positive experience...but I see that the "site" he set up with your misappropriated blog name is one of those strange "sponsored listings" things.
harping -- thank you, I missed that key point. It has to say blogabarbara.blogspot.com. The person that purchased blogabarbara.com and I corresponded a few times but he has not responded to my request that we could come to an arrangement where blogabarbara.com could redirect to the blog.
Unfortunately, I wasn't sure how I could protect my anonymity and still purchase the URL at that time...perhaps he expects Blogabarbara to shut down at some point where he could then begin a blog there...it is a free country but it's hard to know what his intentions are.
Thanks again for pointing that out.
Sara,
There are services like domainsbyproxy.com that allow you to register domains through them without having your personal information as part of the whois registry.
I've never used such services, so I would fall short of recommending them. I do know they exist and that several forums and anonymous blogs I visit used them.
PhdLaura cries foul again in today's NewsPress (3/15/07) but she does have a point.
She is willing to put her fake trade-name and heavily air-brushed photo along with her opinions right out there for all to view. Which some of us posting as "anonymous" do not. Self included.
So I do have to bow to her willingness to put her identity and opinions together in public, even if I don't most often agree with them.
She did learn how to keep her readers in a state of addicitive faux outrage for fun and profit and I am not so jaded to not respect her as a self-starter entrepreneur.
She found a need and she met it. And she did it under her own name. Kudos Laura S., but just for that. And it is scary making a living poking sticks at the darkside of others.
Anonymous 10:36 AM
Actually, Laura S. didn't do it all "under her own name". As more is revealed about her, you'll see if you don't already know. I see you like Anonymous, hee hee.
She has two points, one on each side of her forehead :) "She found a need" Now she is taking on her rival "self-starter entrepreneur", Rev Phelps and his nearly 100 craven relatives that can't get enough media time. Stage these two together and he'll win more idiots to his fanatism. Do courageous fallen heros need those to exploiting them for publicity?
Looking forward to reading and participating in your blog. I just discovered you a week ago. Thanks for the guidelines and sensible positions.
Okay, one thing is getting me a bit hot under the collar here. I went to school 9 years to earn my PhD and I damn well earned the right to have "Dr." published before my name. A PhD has exactly as much right as a medical PhD to use the title "Dr." in any fashion that we desire.
Dr. Kathy Schofield
Austin, Texas
Post a Comment
<< Home