Podcast with Laura Ingraham
Radio host Laura Ingraham joins us today to talk about her new book, Power to the People.
Ms. Ingraham discusses why people stereotype big families, why getting involved in local politics is important and her thoughts on the 2008 elections. And don't miss the heated discussion about whether or not porn is destroying the culture. You can listen to the show directly -- no downloading needed -- by going here and taking advantage of the gray Flash player. Or you can download the file directly by clicking right here and listen at your leisure. As always, there's a free subscription available via iTunes -- you can't beat free!
This podcast is brought to you by Volvo Automobiles. Music is by Doktor Frank's band, the Mr. T Experience.
posted by Helen at 9:00 AM
18 Comments:
Meh. Porn has always been. Its nature, availability and popularity probably reflects certain social mores of a society, and almost certainly is a result of several other societal factors; but it's a symptom, not a cause. Laura's position is neither uncommon nor correct, both of which may be fairly easily proven.
Not every person choking the chicken in the basement at 3AM while viewing Internet porn is a head-of-household with 3 kids. I would assume at least some of them are single people who are fighting off insomnia, or are people who aren't interested in dating or using adultfriendfinder in search of a one-time fling where they could contract an STD or a stalker.
Porn isn't for me, but for some people it is great fun. Now if you are in a committed relationship and are keeping your porn addiction a secret you may has some issues, but otherwise I really don't care what other people choose to do in their own homes out of my sight-line. If you like porn, go for it. Aren't there better things to worry about?
And now for my next comment...
Regarding large families. Ms. Ingraham misses the mark completely. Yes, I have no problem with large families if the parents are willingly able to feed, clothe, educate and medicate said offspring. However, not all couples who have large families do so simply because they love children and want lots of them.
Ms. Ingraham might be surprised to learn that some couples have large families because of a variety of selfish reasons....the ability to extract money from family members, hatred of employment, an excuse not to do pretty much anything since a large family won't fit into a car, the ability to have your mother-in-law come over to your house on a daily basis to clean it, feed your kids and do your family's laundry while you spend your days on the sofa reading a book, the excuse to ask your parents to buy you a new house because your ever-growing family can no longer fit into the small 3-bedroom house that you can reasonably afford, and the excuse to whittle down the savings of your parents who are still working in their 70s while you laze around all day doing absolutely nothing except telling your mother-in-law not to miss the corners while she cleans, the excuse to run to the Medicaid office to get medical assistance, the excuse to get food stamps and God knows what else because your husband's meager salary will never be able to cover the costs of raising so many children.
Yeah, for some people large families ARE definitely other people's business.
Interesting show Helen--thanks. I heard the last part of a debate that Laura and a news commentator were having on pornography and family and it was beneficial to hear an expanded version of her arguments.
Regarding the effects of pornography--do you know what the psychology literature says about the links between pornography and sexual abuse? I assumed that the proliferation of pornography through the Internet has encouraged offenders to commit sexual crimes, but decreases in reported sexual offenses (taking into consideration the concerns regarding official stats and reported sexual offenses)over the past decade hasn't seemed to support my belief.
Further, my psychologist wife challenged my assumption stating that the frequency of child sexual abuse cases, even in the current environment with plentiful access to pornography, may be similar today as in previous decades--just the reporting of the crime has improved. I have filed the discussion away for a rainy day research project.
On a totally unrelated subject, I heard that Jane's Defence published some information back in July that I find alarming. Evidently dozens of Syrian scientists and numerous Iranian military officers were killed when attempting to mate scud missiles with chemical warheads, and a massive explosion occurred. All I hear on the msm is about the latest OJ arrest, and nothing of this very important and distressing news event.
Supposedly, the missiles were furnished by Iran, and the chemical agents and warheads were furnished by Syria. It evidently happened in Syria.
Isn't Syria mentioned (about a million times) in the recent past, as the place the CIA thought that Sadam's chemical weapons pile was sent to before the U.S. attacked?
Is it NOT being mentioned on the msm newscasts because it could possibly be used as an "I told you so" by the Bush administration? Is it not more important to know if these type rockets of mass destruction are in fact being made, which can kill millions, than to keep this quiet so the Bush administration doesn't "look good" because there may well be weapons of mass destruction after all?
An open question - just who is our enemy these days? Radical Muslims, or radical msm?
It's not like Jane's Defence isn't respected around the world, or anything.
Slamdunk,
I can tell you what the literature says about child sexual abuse in general--an analysis of maltreatment cases from 1991-1998 found child sexual abuse reports declined 26% and substantiated cases declined 31% (Jones and Finkelhor, 2001). Currently there are over 3 million children in the US reported to state child protection services as alleged victims of physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect. About 1 million of these reports are substantiated and 12% of the substantiated cases involve child sexual abuse. These figures, according to several sources are underestimated. Also, the false allegations for sexual abuse are said to be as high as 23% to 35%. This information is from "The Forensic Psychology Handbook" edited by Goldstein and Weiner. As far as direct stats on the correlation between pornography and sexual abuse, I don't have that information at my figure tips but if I find it will post on it at a later time.
Thanks Dr. H.
Dr. Helen,
Thanks for the interview with Laura Ingraham--you and the Professor have quite a podcast! I had not heard much of Laura Ingraham's views and this has given me a chance to "broaden my horizons." I actually do think she makes a lot of sense.
Will
Hi Will,
Glad you found it interesting and thanks for listening! I also like a lot of Laura Ingraham views--although we differ a bit on the porn issue, I still think she has much to say about the culture and how it affects our families and young people.
Personally, I'm with Ingraham on the porn issue. If it were just wankers in their basements, I'd never think about it. But it's at the point now where the Missus and I cancelled our cable subscription because we simply weren't able to find anything that we wanted to watch, let alone anything that was appropriate for the little one. Even if the show was appropriate, the advertising usually wasn't.
The only mistake I think Ingraham makes is couching it all in terms of protecting the children. Frankly, I'm sick of the smutting up of fill-in-the-blank because I'm sick of seeing it, not just because it might give my daughter the wrong ideas. I'd love to be able to go through a supermarket checkout lane without being confronted with "400 new sex tips to please whatever man you're sleeping with this week!" or "Who's got the hottest bod, who's got the nottest?"
I feel assaulted by it, in a way. The message for women is bad enough, but the message for me is "this is what you should want in a woman! This is what they're good for! ISN'T THIS WHAT YOU WANT YET?" Well, no. And it never will be. But they keep trying to tell me it is, and it's very annoying.
That's a big mistake the pro-porno people make. I don't object to the existence of porn. I'd just be a lot happier if it were possible to switch it off. You know, once in a while. Your right to see it doesn't trump my right to not see it.
Oh, and I am emphatically NOT calling for government intervention in this. I'd just like a little more discretion on the part of the disseminators.
I realized that my last line might have sounded statist, and I wanted to clear things up.
greg....
RE. the porn issue.
The ONLY thing that will constrain the proliferation of porn is evangelical fascism.
For Christ's sake, porn has capitalized the proliferation of full-frame video on the 'Net.
Now you can watch archival speeches by Ronald Reagan, with pop-under ads for "Republican Girls Gone Wild!"
It's called the free market, dude.
Laura Ingraham is cuter than Anne Coulter.
rudebwoy:
I have no problem with the free market, and good for the porn industry for colonizing the internet. I'm happy for them.
What I object to is the fact that I can't turn it off if I don't want it. The constant airing of the Britney Spears debacle on early morning TV shows, Alicia Silverstone trying to revive a dead career by getting naked on TV, the magazines at the checkout counter promising a better, "blended orgasm" to women who opt for physical connections because they can't get emotional ones. It's freaking everywhere.
I don't want it, and I refuse to walk through life with my eyes shut just so the wankers don't have to go five minutes without seeing teh b00b135. You can beat off all you want. Just leave me out of it.
I reject your assertion that the only thing that will end the pornification of society is government intrusion. Maybe if enough people like Ingraham make enough noise, and do a little more voting with their wallets, then we'll see some changes.
It's called the free market, after all.
If not, well I can always move to a cabin in Alaska. Land's still cheap up there.
Bugs, I've never seen Laura's legs. And Anne's legs, well they certainly can speak for themselves.
Yes, it is the last Monday of the month. Sexist pig day for me.
I need to add, that Laura Ingraham is a very bright individual, and makes all kinds of sense. I'm not in her league by any stretch of the imagination.
But still, I've never seen her legs.
85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費Ａ片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院一葉晴貼影片區546視訊聊天室一葉晴貼影片區一葉晴貼影片區一葉晴貼影片區聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費ut13077視訊聊天聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費
Post a Comment
<< Home