|
6/6/03
09/03 10/17/03
11/25/02
9/5/02 5/20/02
12/19/01
10/23/01
7/20/01
4/30/01
4/2/01 2/20/01
12/4/00
10/20/00
9/7/00 8/18/00
6/2/00 4/27/00
3/13/00
3/00
Nov. 2, 2007
Dec. 30, 2005
Sept. 9, 2004
My New Writing On Dennis
Prager
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.
Aug 24
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.
Robbing
Children Of Innocence
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
Flying Solo
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").
|