I don't know much about Dr. Laura, and I don't like what I do know, so between her and Wikipedia it's hard to know who to believe. By now we've all heard about her Krameresque n-word meltdown (ha ha![/nelson]), but that's all water under the bridge - she's already been out in public lunching with "a black guy and a gay guy", and they all had a good laugh about that! So it's all good.

The questions then turn to her past indiscretions, which is where this gets relevant, if not actually interesting. Let's listen:



So either Dr. Laura is straight-out lying to a reporter (a "Hollywood Reporter", but still), or Wikipedia has viciously libelled a notable person. The only linked footnote I could follow led to a site called "NNDB", and I can't find anything explaining the acronym, though it appears to be affiliated with "Daily Rotten", and claims to be an "intelligence aggregator" tracking connections between notable people, because: "A person's otherwise inexplicable behavior is often understood by examining the crowd that person has been associating with." Can't argue with that!

Anyway, a pox on all houses, but I'd enjoy an epic bunfight between Jimbo and Laura, in the same way Alien vs Predator was a good premise. Too bad she doesn't seem more angry about it.

She's a right-wing media babe, right? Doesn't Jimbo put the moves on them by first stepping in to protect their BLPs (Like Rachel whats-her-name?)

Not wanting to be cruel, I'll observe only that she's not at all my type - but then, I thought Rachel Marsden was overhyped. Rachel also seemed a lot more "motivated" to catalyze a resolution. Also, Laura's far more (in)famous and has a large anti-fanbase that would surely pounce on any wikididdling, so it's just not worth it.

There's actually an alternative explanation which is probably the correct one - note that the interviewer said, "Wikipedia says you were pregnant before your marriage," and Schlessinger responds with, "it is public record when I was married and when Deryk was born at full term." But that isn't a response to what they're actually saying, because you can be pregnant and not actually bear a child as a result - there are miscarriages, abortions, etc.

The interviewer(s) are probably referring to older versions of the article that contained this text, or some variant of it:
Some of this is probably inaccurate, and most (if not all) of it has since been removed, which is good - but that doesn't mean she wasn't pregnant prior to her marriage to Bishop, and if anything, her evasive (IMO) answer to the question only makes that seem more likely, not less. Nevertheless, there are no citations in any version (of that paragraph) I saw - parts were later cited to Vicky Bane's Dr. Laura: An Unauthorized Biography, though. Someone who owns that book might be able to find out if the claims about the ectopic pregnancy came from there (though they still might be false).

It may be a "public record" when she was married, but it seems to be deep dark secret on the internet, which only seems to say "early 1985" in every source. That could be any time between Jan and May. The date of her son's birth is easy enough to find: Nov. 5, 1985. So why all the secrecy about her exact marriage date?

I'd first ask why the interest.

We hate hypocrisy. Like the disaffected Italian said to the Pope, "You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules."

My explanation for the interest in the topic is that we all love to watch the righteous fall. We love catching people NOT living up the the standards that they set for others. If you live by the indignant accusatory sword, you must die by it.

I am too flawed to ever get a radio show giving out advice.

Yup, that's extremely plausible - it occured to me, but I dismissed it thinking it was such a dangerous, ham-handed gambit; she'd be gambling the hack was lazy enough to have not done any homework beyond Wikipedia. But then, that's maybe not a bad bet.


I thought my poor thread was turning purple, so I'm inclined to let it slide. What's not to like? She's notable, she's current, she says/implies the 'pedia is wickedly inaccurate - there was a time when prominent, potentially libellous BLPs were ipso facto interesting. It's not my fault it's salacious and gossipy to boot!


Well yeah, she's a sanctimonious, morally traditional life coach, of sorts, so the hypocrisy is at least arguably relevant. What Milton said.

That's the funniest thing I heard all day!