Sept 7, 2000
In his first two hours of his nationally syndicated radio show, Dennis Prager discussed the Catholic Church's recent paper stating it was the one true path to salvation. DP did not have a major problem with that.
DP: I prefer religions saying they are superior, and not coercing me, to the secular liberals who coerce me through law (such as saying that restaurants may not eject breast feeders, or that cross dressers may not be fired for cross dressing).
Liberalism is a substitute religion that worships the state. And I fear it more because it, as opposed to the Church, has coercive power.
In his final hour, Prager argued that people were getting dumber. Why?
1) TV. It does not exercise the mind.
2. People are taught to not make judgements. Therefore, they don't have to think about superior and inferior because everything is supposedly equally wonderful. Hey man, it's all good.
3. Machines have taken over thinking.
4. Education requires less memorization.
People less frequently read newspapers in subways now. They get their news from TV. People listen to flabby music and non-challenging shows like Howard Stern.
P: I just talked to my wife and came up with more reasons. Children are over scheduled and thus have less time to think. When not in an activity, the kids are allowed to watch TV or videos.
At age six, I'd sit on the grass with my favorite German Shepherd and twirling her tail. And I was developing my brain by just thinking.
Sept 6, 2000
DP argued against people voting for third parties. Instead, libertarians and Greens should join the Republican and Democratic parties and work for their values from within.
In his second hour, Prager had on his friend Orthodox Rabbi Shmuley Boteach as a guest. Boteach is a friend of pop singer Michael Jackson. The rabbi says that Jackson has been treated cruelly and unfairly by the media. That Jackson is not a child molestor. The rabbi would be happy to leave his kids in the care of Jackson. That Jackson is a sweet sensitive guy who simply likes to hang out with kids.
In his third hour, DP commented, with a sardonic grin on his face, about feminist Gloria Steinem getting married at age 66. DP says that Steinem's teachings have discouraged women from marrying young. And that most women are not going to have Steinem's fame and good looks and money, and thus an ability to marry later.
Jacko Addresses Oxford On Kids
Michael Jackson will appear at Oxford University later this year, to deliver a talk on childcare. The reclusive pop star, who was investigated by police in 1993 for alleged molestation of children, will speak next February.
Jacko, who lives at a virtual children's theme park – Neverland – is renowned worldwide for his deep regard and care for children, despite the criminal investigation, for which he was never convicted.
He will be supported in the talk by Rabbi Shmuley, his new Jewish mentor, who will also address the Oxford Debating Society.
Rabbi Boteach explained: "I have never witnessed anything like Michael's work with children. The time he gives to children and his commitment to them is incredibly inspiring."
Rumdar: Luker, Isn't the good Rabbi a buddy of yours?
Luke: Yes I know the rabbi. I heard him interviewed for an hour today on the Dennis Prager show talking about Michael Jackson's love for children. Rabbi Boteach believes in finding the good in people, and he's been able to do that with folks as diverse as Michael Jackson, Susan Block and Larry Flynt. It's an endearingly naive approach.
Rabbi Boteach says he'd be happy to leave his kids in the care of Michael J.
Rabbi Boteach hosted sex therapist Susan Block and her husband Mickey at one of his Passover Seders this year.
Michael Jackson regularly appears in the tabloids. Tabloid reporters like the National Enquirer's Mike Walker says that Jackson leaks many of the stories himself, then does this 'the tabloids lie' routine. According to Jeannette Walls book "Dish," Jackson personally orchestrated the publication of stories that he wanted to buy the bones of the Elephant Man and that he wanted to sleep in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber so he could live to be 150.
Then in 1993, a boy accused Jackson of sexually molesting him. The police report was explicit and graphic. No criminal charges were filed. Jackson settled the civil suit for $27 million, "a tacit admission of guilt, effectively crippled Jackson's career," writes Walls.
September 5, 2000
Dennis Prager did not believe that George Bush's comment about a New York Times reporter was a "major league asshole" was no big deal.
Bush made the comment privately to his VP Dick Cheney and had no clue that his comment could be picked up by media microphones.
P: What the media loves even more than liberal politicians is a sensational story.
P: I don't befriend politicians, including in my own party, so that I can be objective in critiquing them.
P: I liked that Bush did not apologize. (The vast majority of politicians would've given a phoney apology.) It says to me that there may be more substance to Bush than I imagined. I'm voting for him because the policies of Democrats frighten me.
I don't know how substantial Bush is. I believe the people around him are substantial.
Prager read the following from Mickey Kaus on Kausfiles.com:
Is Clymer a "major league asshole"? That's what Texas Gov. George Bush apparently called the NYT reporter in a whispered aside to Dick Cheney. ... I don't know whether Clymer's an asshole or not. I did think his recent ad critique was biased, and an earlier critique of Bush's child-health-insurance record (try this link) was a surprisingly blunt attempt to make the case that lack of insurance is an all-important health problem for Texas children (even though lack of insurance doesn't necessarily translate into lack of care, a point Bush's state health comissioner stressed). In keeping with standard practice, Clymer maintains a veneer of objectivity by using sympathetic experts to make his point, but like the NYT's R.W. Apple he seems so convinced that all civilized men would agree with him that he doesn't really bother to hide his viewpoint, which may be why his language is jarringly self-confident and strident. ("Texas has had one of the nation's worst public health records for decades. ... But since George W. Bush became governor in 1995, he has not made health a priority ... "). All the faded ethic of objectivity does is prevent Clymer from really making a forthright case that Bush is wrong, which might well be convincing. ... But at least Clymer lets you know roughly what the arguments are on the other side, before he trots out an expert to mock them. ... Kausfiles' prediction: To the extent it has any effect, Bush's overheard comment will help him. Finally a genuine emotion, expressed with Trumanesque vigor! It's also reassuring to know that Bush is at least smart enough to know who his enemies are. ... And it's good for Clymer too! Now he's famous! A win-win situation.
Aug 23-30, 2000
Could Dennis Prager Be Any More Out Of Touch With Reality?
Singlemom writes on alt.radio.talk: Divorced defender of marriage Dennis Prager had a caller today who discussed elderly renters who could not have pets in their apartments. He responded verbatim - "You can't rent most apartments and have a pet? I never heard that in my life." Time for a reality check (but doubt even that will help his narrow, self absorbed world view).
Ted replies: In Dennis' world people don't get cancer from smoking, no one is ever called a bad name, everyone loves pornography and we all go on cruises to the Barrier Reef with self riteous assholes who think they are a "moral compass" for America.
Bigone writes: Someone should call his show and call him a KIKE, I would love to hear his response.
Psuedo writes: This strikes me as a great thread topic--Prager is astonishingly--often hilariously-- ignorent of the society he criticises. I remember him ranting--this was a couple of years ago-- about how the only way high-school kids would know about condoms is through liberals in the schools foisting the info (and the condoms) onto the them. He hinged his argument on the fact that condoms weren't advertised on TV, although Trojan condoms was a big advertiser on MTV at the time. I haven't listened recently, so examples of Mr. Prager's gaffes aren't at the tip of my typing fingers, but I know they are plentiful. Anybody want to add to the list?
Ted replies: Well you could start with his countless statements that second hand smoke is harmless and move on from there.
Jazzy writes: Dennis Prager recently used the popularity of the show "Survivor" as proof that people were oppressed by "political correctness". Yeah, his arguments were as stupid as you can imagine. He was basically trying to bash lefties by saying that people were desparate for the freedom "survivor" represented. Prager is a idiot.
Hilda writes: What annoys me even more is his stupid giggle and gufaws. Some one once said he wa a misogenist and I defended him . I have now come to realize that he indeed does not like women.
Jazzy writes: He HATES woman, absolutely LOATHES woman. It is just so obvious by the topics he picks. I know longer listen. Is every show still about men and their love for porn and female nudity? That is ALL Prager talked about.
Hilda replies: He parades his goodness and then says smoking is ok, as well as porno. I guess he thinks his vices are ok and everyone elses are wrong-- like rights for women --abortion when necessary-- I actually used to like him, now I can't abide him. I sent him several EMails and stopped answering when he learned I was not a customer for hnewsletters. The only one he has answered now is one I criticized him. He can't stand that and wrote me a scathing answer. I used to look forward to his programs now I only listen when I have nothing better to do. He also has that stupid so called psychiatrist on who is also a woman hater. He is a real joke.
Carroll writes: maybe women should look at themselves in the mirror and ask, "what are we doing to men to inspire such hate?"
Aug 31, 2000
Federal Agency Probes Scouts Over Gay Ban
From the Washington Times: A division of the Department of Interior is gathering information on its ties to the Boy Scouts to determine whether such ties violate President Clinton's executive order banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the Scouts were within their constitutional rights in barring homosexuals from serving as Scout leaders. The gathering of information is the first known instance of the federal government questioning ties with the Boy Scouts since that ruling.
The Bureau of Reclamation "will assist [the Department of Justice] by providing information as it relates to the Boy Scouts of America to ensure consistency with the Executive Order" President Clinton signed on June 23, Nattie Silva, assistant director of diversity and equal opportunity for the bureau, said in an e-mail memo sent out Tuesday.
The memo, sent to the bureau's commissioner and its regional directors, asked that the agency officials provide answers to seven questions regarding all the "activities, events or programs" they have in conjunction with the Boy Scouts by the end of business tomorrow.
Luke: Dennis Prager says that this issue is as important as any in the forthcoming election. The Democrats appear to be making life difficult for the Boy Scouts so long as the Scouts adhere to their policy of not hiring avowed homosexuals as leaders.
DP: About one in a 100 films produced by Hollywood is morally compelling and important. You should search them out. Plays have always had the ability to serve as a moral vehicle. I saw "A Simple Plan." It will make you think hard.
A group of three men in a snowy field find a crashed plane with a dead pilot. Then they find over four million dollars. They decide, after a couple of minutes, to not tell the police.
DP: You could subtitle the film, 'When Good People Do Bad.' It was a powerful statement about human nature. How people will change their values for money.
Mostafa Hefny from Cairo, Egypt writes on Amazon.com about the movie: As Hank comes home to his lovely, soon to be Lady Macbeth, housewife, he asks her a theoretical question: "Suppose you found lost money, would you keep it?". She says that she wouldn't but has a complete moral u-turn once he spills four million dollars on their living room table. While watching the scene I asked myself if I would keep the money. I would. And I would live to regret it.
DP: I've always treasured inner peace more than anything. I don't want to live with constant tension and worry, hiding something. You can't keep that money and have inner peace.
Luke: In his third hour, DP discussed therapists. In a recent court case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cleared a psychiatrist for damage he did...
The discussion question - should therapists be held accountable for damaging beliefs they instill in their patients.
DP: I worry about the chilling effect this would have on therapy, even if individual therapists deserved to be sued.
Despite what millions of Americans have been told, Joseph Lieberman - Democratic Party candidate for vice president - is hardly the first Jewish candidate to be nominated for that office.
The Libertarian Party beat the Democrats and Republicans to that - by almost 30 years. Tonie Nathan was the Libertarian Party's first vice presidential candidate -- in 1972. She comes from a strong Jewish background; both her parents were Jewish.
(Tonie was also the first woman in American history to ever win an Electoral College vote - preceding 1984 Democrat vice president nominee Geraldine Ferraro by 12 years.)
But that's not all. Andre Marrou, the Libertarian Party's 1988 vice presidential candidate and 1992 presidential candidate, is Jewish by conversion. And Nancy Lord, 1992 Libertarian vice-presidential candidate, is also Jewish.
Aug 30, 2000
Dennis Prager dissed the media for sensational headlines about the new book on Richard Nixon. Nixon has been called a "wife beater" because the author reports one incident that occurred in 1962 when supposedly Nixon hit his wife.
Then P tackled the ADL for their attack on Joe Lieberman for talking too much about God and religion. What does Lieberman talking about God have to do with defamation and bigotry?
The ADL was particularly annoyed by Lieberman quoting George Washington who declared that morality could not be maintained without religion.
From the AP: WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Anti-Defamation League has urged Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Lieberman to avoid expressions of religious values and beliefs in his campaign.
``Candidates should feel comfortable explaining their religious convictions to voters,'' the league said in a statement. ``At the same time, however, we believe there is a point at which an emphasis on religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse society such as ours.''
The statement was signed by Howard P. Berkowitz, national chairman of the league, and its director, Abraham H. Foxman. The league's focus is fighting anti-Semitism.
Lieberman, the first Jew on a major political party's ticket, told an interfaith breakfast in Chicago on Monday: ``This is the most religious country in the world and sometimes we try to stifle that fact or hide it. But the profound and ultimately most important reality is that we are not only citizens of this blessed country, we are citizens of the same awesome God.''
The league cited specifically Lieberman's remarks Sunday to the congregation of a church in Detroit. He said he hoped his candidacy as an Orthodox Jew would reinstate ``a place for faith in America's public life.''
``As a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes,'' Lieberman said.
The Anti-Defamation League responded: ``Language such as this risks alienating the American people.''
``We feel very strongly, and we hope you would agree, that appealing along religious lines, or belief in God, is contrary to the American ideal,'' Berkowitz and Foxman said in a letter sent Monday to Lieberman, a Connecticut senator. ``The First Amendment requires that government neither support one religion over another nor the religious over the nonreligious.''
P: It is stupid for the ADL to tell a politician what will sell to the US public. Politicians are usually sensitive to what the public wants.
What most annoys secular liberal Jews is that finally a Jew makes it to a major ticket and it is a religious Jew and a Democrat.
The ADL is a secular organization and is therefore uncomfortable with a religous person expressing his religiosity publicly.
In Prager's second hour, he interviewed the MIT professor (Arnold Barnett, a professor of management science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) who wrote this piece in today's WSJ:
For example, in the controversy over whether innocent people are being executed, a 1-in-7 ratio has attained prominence. Newsweek sought to explain the ratio when it stated that "for every seven executions nationwide since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, one death-row inmate has been set free." William F. Buckley Jr. probably reflected the common understanding of this statistic when he wrote that "if the figures work out retroactively, then one out of seven (of the 640) executed Americans was, in fact, innocent."
Greatly upset by the ratio, the Economist noted that "if an airline crashed once for every seven times it reached its destination, it would surely be suspended immediately." A bit of probing makes clear, however, that the ratio makes no sense.
Doug writes on the Prager List: Dennis had 3 interesting topics on this morning.
1st hour (I came in late on this): DP defended some of J. Lieberman's recent speech saying morality depends upon religion. DP made his argument that while the nonreligious clearly can be moral, we need religion for a moral society. Am I stating his position fairly? If so, then I have a question: how do we get a moral society if not by creating moral individuals? That is, is there something else to a moral society other than the cumulative moral behavior of individuals? If so, then is DP's position defensible?
2nd hour: DP spoke with Dr. Arnold Barnett about his article on misleading and mistaken statistics in today's _Wall Street Journal_ (0/8/30, p. A26). The article is very good. (They didn't cover much on the show that wasn't already covered in the article.) So if you missed the show, just read the article.
3rd hour: DP talked about hazing by youth groups. The article he was citing (anybody catch the reference) mentioned many groups doing it, e.g. fraternities, sports teams, & even religious groups. DP expressed some skepticism about the last one. DP wonders about the appeal of hazing. This is a good question, as it seems to be a fairly universal phenomenon. This is often common in professions. For an example you might not have thought of: TBMK, new medical interns are forced to serve horrendously long shifts, without sleep if things get busy. Is there a medical reason for doing this? I suspect not, rather I'd guess the training doctors figure "I survived this to become a good doctor, so you can too!" To be fair, this example lacks the humiliation in many of the examples on the show today. A caller now suggests that these are coming of age initiations that have lost their meaning.
August 29, 2000
Dennis Prager discussed the growing trend of legally protecting cross dressers from discrimination.
From today's New York Times editorial headlined "Transgender Rights":
People who have had sex-change surgery, cross-dressers and others whose gender identity does not conform to societal norms are often targets of violence and bias that force them to live in fear for their safety or the loss of their jobs and shelter. A bill now before the New York City Council would give this marginalized population basic protection against discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.
The city's human rights law has long barred discrimination based on gender. Since the 1980's, the law has also prohibited discrimination based on "sexual orientation." But that provision focuses on issues of heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. It does not protect those who identify themselves as transgender. The new legislation, which has 28 sponsors in the City Council, would broaden the definition of "gender" to include not only a person's sex, but also a person's expression of gender identity, self-image and appearance. Similar anti-bias laws have been enacted in nearly two dozen cities, including Atlanta, San Francisco and Minneapolis.
Dennis Prager: This is very bad news. This legislation protects men who want to dress like women at their workplace from being fired. So your kids could be taught by some guy wearing a dress. Note how it is Democratic majorities that are passing these types of destructive bills.
DP: If I were to write a book about my social struggles it would be "I am on the losing side."
Caller: Who cares what somebody wraps himself in?
DP: In part because of a silly book called the Bible, which says that men should not dress like women.
Caller: Where do the urges come from to push people to wear transgender clothing?
DP: Some pathology from childhood that causes the individual to more identify with the opposite sex parent.
Caller: So no healthy person has ever wanted to dress like the opposite sex?
DP: Correct. What if my kink is whipping women? Can I do that in public?
Caller: No because that is sexual behavior.
DP: And a man dressing in women's clothing is not?
DP: Civilizations tend to decline as is ours. If you are a man who wants to wear a dress, I should be allowed to not hire you.
Though there are city departments that will not hire people who smoke.
Caller: I'm a liberal. I work for a large internet company. We have a man who dresses as a woman. It was highly disconcerting going into the Ladies room and finding him there.
DP :But you'll still vote Democrat.
The transgendered have access to whatever bathroom they want to use.
August 28, 2000
Why do single women overwhelmingly vote Democratic? Married women vote Republican at the same rate as married men.
The more functional a nuclear family is, the more likely it is to vote Republican. The more family breakdown there, the more single women, the better for the Democrats.
If everybody was happily married with kids, Democrats would not get elected.
Dennis Prager says his hunch is that single women get their needs for a psuedo-husband from the government. Thus Democratic rhetoric - we will take care of you. We will look after you.
Women look to their husband to meet certain primal needs - financial and emotional support, comfort and protection. Just as men look to their wives to meet certain primal needs.
Think about federal funds supporting daycare - a popular Democratic idea. Single women love this because they get someone taking care of their kids on taxpayer money.
Men vote Republican because of its emphasis on a stronger military, stronger justice and the notion that individuals should take care of themselves.
Young Female Caller: You DP say that women must depend on something - either a husband or the government.
DP: There is a primal urge in women to be taken care of. Which is why women who make a lot of money want a man who makes more money, so they can feel taken care of.
Caller: The primary reason for the gender difference is abortion.
DP: Baloney. Women oppose abortion more strongly than do men.
Caller: Democrats represent the all loving mother - let us take care of you, infantilize you. Republicans are like the father - we have standards and rules and moral demands on you.
DP: Men and women who marry and have kids are matured by the process and do not seek to be taken care of. Therefore they vote Republican.
Doug writes on the Prager List: Monday morning (0/8/28), DP mentioned a poll talking about the "gender-gap".
Anyway, he said that the women's support for the Democrats is strongest among single women. DP asks "Why?" DP proposes that these single women are somehow "married to the Democratic party" or to "the government." He also concluded that these women getting married would be bad for the democratic party.
Two comments: 1) I suspect a simpler explanation is just the abortion issue, one issue where the candidates and their platforms clearly differ. 2) Correlation is not causation! There's no reason to suppose that these women would become republicans if they'd just get married. I suspect they'd take these values with them into their marriages. It would be interesting to take a closer look at these numbers, and see further breakdowns by age and other demographics.
Mike writes on the Prager List: I suspect that another reasons Democrats would have more single women than married women is that "marriage" as an institution is thought of as a fraternalistic institution that suppresses women. I know of a few women who refuse to marry their SO's solely because they consider marriage repressive. I suspect that most of these women would be more socially leftist than conservative. Lesbian couples may also be a factor, but I suspect not as much of a factor than repression fearing leftist "womun".
Columbus writes Luke: I can't believe that you have this hero-worship thing for Dennis Prager. Dennis Prager is a light weight intellectually. The word "sophist" comes to mind. Most of what he says is not taken seriously by any real thinker in this country. The man is a total fraud. All he has is "chutzpah". And lots of it.
Laura writes: So Dennis Prager believes the more dysfunctional families and single women there are the better it is for Democrats? Were there more dysfunctional families and single women in the '30's and 40's when FDR was president or in the '60's when JFK and LBJ were elected? What Prager is saying is a load of crap. It just so happens a good number of nuclear middle class families vote Democratic because they know the GOP is concerned more for the wealthy, more for the pharmaceutical industry and the health insurance companies than patients, is in the pocket of the oil industry, the gun lobby among other things. There's also a good reason why single women vote Democratic, first of all abortion rights, secondly the GOP opposes women's equality just to name a couple. Dennis Prager is a shmuck.
Unsure writes: Luke, I believe it is true that, demographically, in general the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote for a Democrat. Since more educated women tend to marry later and less, I believe it is also true that, as a group, single women are better educated than the general population. Maybe this also accounts for why, as a group, they tend to favor Democrats?
RugPony writes: Regarding Laura's comment that an America full of nuclear families supporting JFK disproves Prager's thesis:
Laura is obviously ignorant of the major changes that have occured in the Democrat party over the past 40 years. Of course nuclear families voted for JFK - he was for a strong national defense and promoted induvidualism. A major theme of JFK's campaign was that Eisenhower and Nixon had been weak on Communism and had failed to keep up with the Soviets militarily. JFK's answer to a recession was to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. If not for his abysmal civil rights record, JFK would have been a viable candidate for the Republican nomination this year. He would have been found running somewhat to the right of George W. Bush.
As I'm sure you know, Luke, Democrats are no longer "liberals" in the classic, 19th century sense of the word (as JFK was and Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are) - they are socialists. It was the socialist agenda of LBJ and his successors that destroyed the society that elected JFK and the socialist Democrats have thrived on that destruction ever since.
Regarding Unsure's comment: it is not quite true that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. Voters with batchelors degrees are more likely to vote Republican - voters with graduate degrees are more likely to vote Democrat. People with graduate degrees work disproportionately for government and they know where their bread is buttered.
From the New York Times Ethicist column in the Sunday magazine:
Standing in the supermarket checkout line, I left briefly to get a drink at the nearby fountain. When I returned, my cart had been pushed aside and my place had been taken. I said to the offending lady, "I believe I was ahead of you." She replied, "You left." I then proceeded to push her cart aside and tell her that I do not go for that garbage. What is your opinion? -- Scott Bodin, Suffern, N.Y.
Randy Cohen: My opinion is that if you try this sort of thing with, say, a couple of burly guys at a junkyard instead of with a woman at a supermarket -- well, I hope your health insurance is paid up.
This sounds more like a matter of social custom than ethics, and as I understand the folkways of the supermarket, that lady you bullied was in the right: unattended carts may be moved. It's not a bad rule; she had no idea how long you'd be gone or if you'd be back at all. Without it, shoppers would be tempted to reserve a place in line with a half-filled cart while they strolled through the produce department, inconveniencing all. While that woman would have been generous to let you back in line, she was not obliged to. And if everyone responds to such small slights as belligerently as you did, picking up a little broccoli will become a lot riskier -- and the inspiration for a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie.
Dennis Prager: The man was a bully. He would not have pushed in front of some burly guy. I would not have done what she did, but I support her because we should not foster people leaving their carts in line while they go shopping.
Now Sit Ingvar
Young women in Sweden, Germany and Australia have a new cause: They want men to sit down while urinating. This demand comes partly from concerns about hygiene -- avoiding the splash factor -- but, as Jasper Gerard reports in the English magazine The Spectator, "more crucially because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity, and by extension, degrading women." One argument is that if women can't do it, then men shouldn't either. Another is that standing upright while relieving oneself is "a nasty macho gesture," suggestive of male violence.
A feminist group at Stockholm University is campaigning to ban all urinals from campus, and one Swedish elementary school has already removed them. In Australia, an Internet survey shows that 17 percent of those polled think men ought to sit, while 70 percent believe they should be allowed to stand. Some Swedish women are pressuring their men to take a stand, so to speak. Yola, a 25-year-old Swedish trainee psychiatrist, says she dumps boyfriends who insist on standing. "What else can I do?" said her new boyfriend, Ingvar, who sits.
Prager was saddened that Survivor winner Richard, the only openly gay person on the show, chose to be the only person who walked around naked.
P says he was raised to consider how his behavior would affect people's view of his group. If I were gay, I would not want to advertise that this is what gays are like, i.e., hyper sexual.
P: We reflect our ethnicity, our parents, our religion, our country, our friends... That's real life.
P was raised by religious Jews who often drummed into him that he reflects Judaism, Torah and God to the world.
P: Nudists do not parade around naked in front of clothed persons. Thus, if you visit nudist colonies, you're expected to take your clothes off.
Lesbian Kiss At Dodger Stadium
One of the "lesbians" kicked out of Dodger Stadium Wednesday night for "kissing" is porn star Nico Treasures - identified as Meredith Kott.
Here are excerpts from the LA Times article:
A kiss is just a kiss--unless it occurs in the seventh inning of a night game in Section 53, Field Level, Dodger Stadium. In that case, it becomes a reason to get thrown out of the ballpark, the basis for a threatened lawsuit and finally the motivation for an unusual public apology by Dodger President Bob Graziano.
Danielle Goldey and Meredith Kott celebrated the home runs by kissing, apparently with too much exuberance to satisfy stadium security guards, who descended on Section 53 en masse.
Goldey estimated that as many as nine guards appeared in the aisle of the row where she and Kott were seated and demanded that the two women accompany the guards behind the stands.
While one fan videotaped them and others lustily hissed and booed, the guards demanded Kott's identification and initially refused to say why, she said.
Kott and Goldey were vindicated Wednesday when Dodger officials at a news conference in West Hollywood apologized to the couple and all other gays and lesbians, announced that they would give 5,000 tickets to gay and lesbian organizations and said all stadium security personnel would undergo sensitivity training.
The Dodger actions were part of a negotiated settlement to avoid a civil rights lawsuit the women threatened to file.
Luke: Dennis Prager called the lesbian kiss another example of behavior that degrades our society. Prager admits that if it was a heterosexual couple kissing, it would not have mattered.
Does society have a right to discriminate on behalf of heterosexuality?
Most parents would've been offended to see a same-sex kiss in front of their kids.
One of the lesbians told a newsconference that those who do not like to see same-sex public affection, they can leave the stadium. If so, then most parents will probably not want to go to Dodger Stadium.
P: If you showed young girl a regular dosage of attractive women kissing each other, many of the girls would model that behavior and enjoy it.
Luke: On Howard Stern's show, Nico Treasures said she refused to work with blacks. She said that there are "those in the porn industry who frown upon this" and that "if those people were offended, it would set my career back significantly".
She later changed her mind and had sex with blacks on camera.
Prager says that he has a much more difficult road to walk to argue for public propriety than do homosexuals who argue for acceptance of public displays of affection.
P condemned Al Gore's famous long kiss of his wife at the Democratic convention as inappropriate.
Dennis Prager writes in Wednesday's LA Times: On the third day of the Democratic National Convention, five children who appeared to be between 5 and 11 took the stage.
Here is what they said:
* The first child: "When I grow up, I wonder if people will be more afraid to cry than they are to die. Will I be able to see a rainbow in a smog-filled sky? Will there be any trees alive? If not, how will the plants survive? Will the Internet have a Web site at www.lifetime-air-supply.com?"
* The second child: "When I grow up, if I got bored and had nothing to do, and me and my son built a canoe, would water that used to be blue be so polluted it would give us the flu? Will $1,000 be enough for a shoe? Will I have to be like you, letting money make every decision for everything that I do?"
* The third child: "When I grow up, will the existence of dolphins and whales just be a story I tell, starting with 'Once upon a time,' ending with 'Where did we fail?' Will adults be the hammer and nail? Will schools be next door to jails? Will the truth be illegal to sell?"
* The fourth child: "When I grow up, will anyone be on the news for anything besides killing? Will those drug dealers still be standing in front of my building? Will they ever learn how to love or stay afraid of the feeling? Will TV and music videos still raise America's children?"
* The fifth child: "When I grow up, will innocent kids still be wrongfully touched? Will students go home from school in a bullet-proof bus? What if children don't have anyone to trust? That would hurt me so much. And I want to be happy when I grow up."
Using children to make political points is objectionable in itself. These children, especially the younger ones, should have been home playing with toys, with other children or with their parents, not spouting lines they could barely pronounce placed in their mouths by political activists. But by far the worst aspect of this exercise--and the one that is most revealing of the liberal Democratic mind-set--is its assault on children's innocence by instilling their own fears, cynicism and pessimism in them.
When I saw the film "Titanic," I was amazed to see that some parents had brought children to a film that not only featured a topless scene but also depicted in absolute realism the true story of a thousand people going to horrible deaths in the ocean depths. Even I, a middle-aged adult, didn't sleep well that night. Read On
Doug writes: The Dems were simply being polite to give an "enthusiastic ovation." When adults are performing, we may save our enthusiastic ovations for performances that deserve it. But when children perform, we should show a lot of enthusiasm and applause, even if the performance is bad, even for children. But I agree with DP about teaching the children to be afraid.
Dennis spoke in his first hour Wednesday about a move (in the Calif. legislature as I recall) to outlaw condominium associations from having rules (CCRs) outlawing pets. DP argued that this was meddlesome of the legislature: people should be able to form their own organizations with their own rules.
I'm sympathetic with DP's point. But I've often thought that Americans put up with rules from Condominium and neighborhood associations that we'd revolt against if they came from the government. We do have a principle in this country of having higher order laws (e.g. the constitution and the supreme court) outlawing laws that lower bodies might pass.
An example that's been around for a while is outlawing such associations from prohibiting children. Years ago I bought a condo that in its voluminous CCRs (Covenants, Contracts, & Restrictions?) had a clause prohibiting CHILDREN. This would've been a deal killer, but my realtor assured me that such clauses were illegal. I think these became illegal because families with children were having a hard time finding housing.
Thus I'm torn here. I want to let private groups make their own rules. But frankly, I don't want to be at the mercy of a homeowners association that could pass a bunch of dumb rules. So are rules against children reasonable? What about pets?
August 23, 2000
I found an essay by Prager on Jews For Jesus on usenet. Here's an excerpt:
I believe it is time to try a new approach to Jews-for-Jesus. Though they are hardly the numerical threat to Jews that they are often made out to be, they are also not disappearing, and our unrelenting war against them has not been particularly successful. I therefore suggest that the Jewish community try this:
Divide and conquer the Jews-for-Jesus by separating them into two distinct groups. One group is Jews-for-Jesus who have renounced Judaism and embraced Christianity by believing Jesus is God. The other group consists of those who believe Jesus was the messiah, but not God. These people have not abandoned monotheism, and can be embraced as Jews who have an erroneous messianic belief. In Judaism there is an enormous difference between erroneously believing that a certain man is the messiah and believing that this man is God.
There is, after all, a belief in Judaism that someone will be a messiah, and, at different times, many Jews have believed that someone was the messiah without being read out of the Jewish people. At this very moment, there are some wonderful Chabad Jews who believe the last Lubavitcher rebbe was the messiah and no one is calling, nor should anyone call, for their removal from the Jewish people. On the other hand, there is no Jewish belief in a man as God or in a Trinity. That belief is a tenet of Christianity.
August 22, 2000
The latest Time magazine cover story is about women staying single. Here are some highlights from Time.com:
More women are deciding that marriage is not inevitable, that they can lead a fulfilling life as a single. It's an empowering choice, but for many not an easy one...
The single woman has come into her own. Not too long ago, she would live a temporary existence: a rented apartment shared with a girlfriend or two and a job she could easily ditch. Adult life--a house, a car, travel, children--only came with a husband. Well, gone are the days. Forty-three million women are currently single--more than 40% of all adult females, up from about 30% in 1960. (The ranks of single men have grown at roughly the same rate.) If you separate out women of the most marriageable age, the numbers are even more head snapping: in 1963, 83% of women 25 to 55 were married; by 1997 that figure had dropped to 65%. "Are you kidding? An 18% to 20% point change? This is huge," says Linda Waite, a sociologist at the University of Chicago.
To be sure, the rise in single women encompasses some other important trends. An estimated 4 million of these unmarried women are cohabiting with their lovers, and a growing number are being more open about gay relationships. Nevertheless, single women as a group are wielding more and more clout. A Young and Rubicam study released earlier this summer labeled single women the yuppies of this decade, the blockbuster consumer group whose tastes will matter most to retailers and dictate our trends. The report found that nearly 60% of single women own their own home, buying them faster than single men; that single women fuel the home-renovation market; and that unmarried women are giving a big boost to the travel industry, making up half the adventure travelers and 2 out of 5 business travelers.
Equally important is the attitudinal change. The dictionary once defined a spinster as an unmarried woman above a certain age: 30. If you passed that milestone without a partner, your best hope was to be seen as an eccentric Auntie Mame; your worst fear was to grow old like Miss Havisham, locked in her cavernous mansion, bitter after being ditched at the altar. Not anymore. "We've ended the spinster era," says Philadelphia psychotherapist Diana Adile Kirschner, who has made single women a focus of her practice. "Women used to tell me about isolation, living alone, low level of activity, feeling different. Now there's family, lots of friends, they're less isolated and more integrated into social lives."
Luke: Dennis Prager points out how all the women pictured in the story look fabulously happy. And as most people will only look at the pictures rather than read the article, Time presents a distorted and destructive vision.
DP: What comes through most is how these women love themselves. They're unable to bond with a man, but many still feel capable of raising kids. I love myself, I'm fabulous. I'm free to do what I want, even raise kids without a father.
Men only get married if it is the only way they can get sex. Single women may be putting up a brave face.
The women in the Time article are more representative of the type of women that Time reporters meet, rather than the typical single woman.
The longer one stays single, the more incapacitated they become from forming a relationship. It is easy to make love but it is not easy to create love.
The longer women put off marriage, the bigger the mistake. The longer they wait, the worse their chances to marry.
Time: "It would be great if I found a relationship that allowed me to be as I am and added something to that," says documentary producer Pam Wolfe, 33, sitting in her one-bedroom condo in New York City. "But I'm not going to do anything to attract a person that means changing. I've worked long and hard to be myself."
DP: To the extent that this article (which shows lots of happy single women) is accurate, it is pathetic.
Half the women in the article had seven to ten year relationships. Why didn't they insist that they marry?
DP believes in a two year rule for relationships. After two years, either get married or move on.
It is not enough to want to fall in love. One must believe in the importance of marriage (not only for oneself but for society). You can not be in love and marry.
The idea that I owe society something is foreign to the post-60s generation. But it is better for society if people commit formally to take care of each other.
August 21, 2000
Dennis Prager discussed this from worldnetdaily.com: Homosexual activists jeered and taunted young Boy Scouts at the Democratic National Convention last week, and today they escalate their campaign with protests in front of 36 Boy Scouts of America offices around the nation.
Last week Eagle Scouts from the Los Angeles Council of BSA participated in a ceremony on stage at the Democratic National Convention. Delegates at the convention waved signs and booed at the six boys and one adult leader. Homosexual activists said such protests against boys who participate in Scout activities would become more frequent until the group of 6.2 million boys changes its policy prohibiting homosexual Scouts and leaders.
"Fair-minded Scouts who have expressed outrage over the intolerant BSA stance toward homosexuals will have the opportunity to renounce their badges, which will be gathered and returned to the BSA in protest of the organization's biased membership policy," said Scouting for All in a news release about today's national protest.
DP: This should be an election wedge issue. The Boy Scouts have a don't ask, don't tell policy towards homosexuals like the military. But those who announce that they are homosexual do not fit in with the Boy Scouts' ideals. And the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Scouts can discriminate against hiring homosexuals as scout leaders.
Caller: Isn't accepting gays the same as accepting blacks?
P: There's a difference between sexual orientation and skin color. There's no parallel to bisexuality with race. I have a values basis for discrimination. Whether a black or white raises a child is no matter but it does matter if a child has a mother and a father or just two fathers.
P discussed Russia's fumbling of the sunk submarine (over 100 sailors drowned eventually). Russia did not ask for help until it was too late. Norway and other countries probably could've helped and saved lives. P said this incident will mark a key transition in Russia from totalitarian to a more democratic atmosphere, as the Russian people will be infuriated with their government's ineptitude.
In the August 21, 2000 edition of US News, the magazine reports that Al Gore reported when asked what guided his decisions, WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?).
How come that didn't get reported nearly as much as George Bush's answer to the question (who was his favorite political philosopher), Jesus Christ.
P believes there are two possible reasons: One, the media does not question liberals who invoke God and religion not nearly as much as conservatives. Two, nobody believes Al Gore. It was just something he said.
Prager thought Gore's response was particularly stupid. What would Jesus have to say about balancing the budget, Social Security, etc...
One area where Jesus probably would have something to say would be partial birth abortion. Does any Christian, no matter how far left, believe that Jesus would not oppose partial birth abortion? Yet Gore and Lieberman have voted to keep it legal.
In his third hour, Prager discussed the case of a male teacher who was suspended for 20 work days for saying "hi good looking" to a female teacher.
P suspects that men treated women more respectfully 50 years ago, before all the sexual harassment movement. Men today push for sex very quickly and feel more free to use foul language. Fifty years ago, men gave women more formalities such as opening doors.
A 38 year old woman caller said she wished she was back in the '50s. From looking at those older movies, she yearned for that type of chivalrous behavior.
Prager On Crossfire
Dennis Prager appeared on the TV show CROSSFIRE 8/10/2000
PRAGER: They are going to do the same thing for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman because their party is the Democratic Party; 99 percent of the people -- at least who have come out of the closet -- let me explain that -- are liberals in Hollywood. A guy called my radio show -- I swear this is the truth -- a guy called in a few years ago. He said Dennis: I'm an actor in Hollywood and I'm gay. And it's been absolutely nothing to come out of the closet as gay. But I'm also a Republican and I remain in the closet. I will not let anybody know that I'm a Republican.
So, Hollywood understands -- these people are not dummies -- they understand that it is very difficult to be a Republican or a conservative in Hollywood. And they will support the liberal party. And so it doesn't matter who heads it. But it will not be the same, because Al Gore does not love to be in the same room as an actor or actress as much as Mr. Clinton. Mr. Clinton would rather be with a Hollywood group than, I even believe, Arkansas politicians.
PRAGER: You see, the irony is it should be at the center of me as a parent's life. I -- it is inconceivable to me that Hollywood will stop producing junk. And it doesn't only produce junk. It also produces some decent stuff. But it is not going to happen. You know, if Rome produced gladiator fights, America will produce "Survivor." All right, I mean, that's just the way it is. That's human nature.
It is my task to imbibe minimally. I'm a believer in moderate vice, so that one can restrict television viewing to an hour a night. There's no harm in it. Beyond that, as you get higher and higher in numbers, you get lower and lower in happiness, in satisfaction and in success in life.
Bob NOVAK: You know, the reason that entertainment industry swallows Bill Clinton when he criticized them -- even Joe Lieberman, after all the nasty things he said -- is that they don't think they're on the level. They don't think they really mean it. They think -- as Jack Valenti says -- they are pandering, pandering to the American people, I guess. And I think they're right.
LA Times 7/7/00
Executives at Disney-owned KABC have reason to be introspective. The station finished the recent Arbitron ratings for January through March with its worst showing in 40 years, a 1.9 share of the listening audience. By May, soon after the numbers were released, KABC's program director of two years, Drew Hayes, left. His departure followed a series of on-air shake-ups this spring--liberal comic Stephanie Miller was ousted over "creative differences" ("I was creative, they weren't," she said on her way out), and conspiracy theorist and late-night host Art Bell retired. Radio talk show veteran Michael Jackson, now at competitor KRLA-AM (1100), had made an exit shortly after Hayes arrived.
On the talent side, mainstays Larry Elder and Dennis Prager , the station's top-rated personalities, will remain at the center of the lineup. Other strong performers likely to stay: Al Rantel, Mr. KABC (Marc Germain) and John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou ("The John & Ken Show").