ometimes, the profound is inextricably tied to its simplicity.  So it is in the case of Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s views regarding soldiers in the military and their wives.  At the outset, it has to be said that she is extremely proud of those women and men who are willing to risk their lives for the idea of democratic freedom.  What is more, she thinks that the war in Iraq is unquestionably related to defending these ideals.  Obviously, there are those who disagree with her.  Just as obvious, however, is that there are many who do.  

Now, the fact that she is so unabashedly proud of those who risk their lives in the Iraq war should more than suffice to set the moral tone for all that she says regarding soldiers.  In general, if we know some quite significant things about a person, then it is possible to make sense of other things that the person says or does, even if one has to do a little filling in from time to time.  If, for example, one knows that Smith frequently travels to France and has a home there, then one can reasonably guess that Smith is going to France when he takes off for Europe again.

Is Dr. Laura extremely proud of military folks?  There is simply no way to listen to her radio program and think otherwise.  Not only that, she has lent her name to various programs that provide support to military families.  She holds what is surely the morally right view here, namely that whether on agrees with the war or not, those who have suffered great loss owing to their sacrifices should receive our support.  Only the morally callous could think otherwise.

This brings me to the controversy.  See the article in The Salt Lake Tribune entitled “”Dr. Laura to G. I. Wives: No Whining”.  What might she have possibly meant by “I don’t want any whining”?  Certainly, this is a "Duh" moment if ever there was one.  What she meant can be succinctly put as follows:

When people are risking their lives for the greater good of society, then they need the emotional support of their loved-ones—and not a bunch of whining from their loved ones. 

How is it possible to miss the truth of this point?  I mean who would want to climb the Himalaya Mountains with someone constantly complaining about the cold and the wind?  Better that the person not go at all, since his presence would be bad for the morale of the group. 

Applying this reasoning to military wives, Dr. Laura’s view is manifestly plain: Soldiers need strong and affectionate wives—not wives who are exhibiting fear and anxiety at every turn.  Certainly, she did not mean that one should not grieve the loss of a fallen hero—a slain soldier.  She could not possibly have meant that.  Her son, Deryk, is in the military.  Of this, she is most proud.  Still, there is no doubt at all that she would grieve his loss if, God forbid, he were slain in the line of duty.  A modicum of reflection, then, makes it unequivocally clear what Dr. Laura meant by her remarks to the wives of soldiers: “I don’t want any whining”.

On 24 April, Dr. Laura read an email about a plane landing in Big Bear, Montana carrying a slain soldier—Jared Landaker.  The captain asked everyone to remain seated while Landaker’s body was escorted to the gate.  The depth of emotion with which she read that email could not have been greater.  The point here, though, is that Dr. Laura was profoundly appreciative of Mrs. Landaker’s pain and loss.  What is more3, one of the deep, deep points of her reading the email is that all of the passengers on the plane, regardless of ethnicity, showed their respect.  In the words of the airport director:

I have finally seen the silent majority.  It is deep within us all.  Black, Brown, White, Yellow, Red, Purple, we are all children, parents, brothers, sisters, etc . . . we are an American family.

These words were read by Dr. Laura with unparalleled grace and majesty and poignancy.

You see, Dr. Laura holds a very simple view regarding this war, namely that if the terrorists win, then we all lose and it is about time that all of us, regardless of our ethnicity, grasp this truth.  Thus, she thinks that the stakes are exceedingly high.  Surely she is right.

I have been listening to the Dr. Laura Program since September 1996; and I have never heard anyone show more respect and appreciation for the military than Dr. Laura.

On her own blog, Dr. Laura writes the following in response to the controversy:

I am so deeply sad and disappointed that this out of context comment appears to have caused hurt and pain to military spouses—people that I’ve spent so much time helping.  I am frustrated that people who haven’t heard my program would be misled as to my attitude and intent.

With regard to this issue, Dr. Laura has shown herself to be a truly remarkable person.  Her critics here strike me as morally bankrupt.  Here is why I make this latter claim.

On the absurd assumption that what Dr. Laura meant by “No whining” really was incomprehensible, it would have taken no effort whatsoever to get clarity about her remarks, given the extraordinary means of communication that we have at our disposal.

In this regard, I hold a very basic moral principle, namely that when one can effortlessly obtain clarity with respect to a person’s remarks, then it is morally reprehensible not to do so and to go forward with a reprehensible interpretation of what the person said.  This is a principle of basic moral decency.  It does require that we make great sacrifices to help another or that we put ourselves at considerable risk.  The principle is none other than an interpretive implication of what is called the Golden Rule: Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

We all know that context is everything.  There is hardly a sentence that a person can utter that cannot be taken out of context and put forward as an utterly malicious remark.  I have on the stage at the end of a very moving lecture said to my 400-student class “I love you”.  I wasn’t hitting on anyone.  I wasn’t even trying to do.  Why, nothing could have been further from my mind.  But all it takes is a “sick” student to insist that my remarks were intended only for her or him.

When we are so eager to advance the malicious interpretation of a person’s remarks that we do not even make a meager effort to obtain clarity, then we reveal ourselves to be despicable human beings.

Dr. Laura has in fact said things that might be considered inappropriate, even with a charitable interpretation.  But “No whining” is not even close to be an example of this.  Quite the contrary, “No whining” is a call to moral excellence in a most majestic way.  First of all, it is a call to moral excellence on the part of those who have loved-ones in the military, wives especially.  Second, it is a call excellence on the part of every member of society to do her or his part to be supportive of those who are risking their lives for our safety—military folks, in particular.

“No whining” stands as none other than a powerful note issuing forth from Gabriel’s trumpet—a righteous clarion call to all of us to rise up and being strong in the face of evil, each according to his or her station in life and means.  May we have the courage, strength, and fortitude to answer the call.