| 12/12/98
Prager spent much of the last few days discussing Clinton's impeachment
(which does not mean removal) which Prager supports.
Regular listener Gil46 says: "He is interrupting people far
too often now. Prager's doing it so often that the listeners can't
tell what either he or the caller has said, and there were three
instances I caught yesterday alone where he had to ask the caller
to repeat because even HE didn't hear because of his own interruptions.
Words like not and yet were obscured, causing quite a bit of confusion.
He's gonna kill his program if he doesn't clean it up."
12/7
Dennis Prager opened his show discussing the previous show of Mr.
KABC who had many callers complaining about the LA Times Friday
front page picture of the seven year old son of the slain police
officer. Many callers thought it was in bad taste. Prager thought
it was absolutely legitimate.
Wait a minute! Prager is always the one accusing the media of voyeurism.
Prager criticized the LA Times over a year ago for running a front
page picture of Princess Di's boys at her funeral. It was voyeuristic.
Prager kept asking: "Do we need this? Is this news?"
Doesn't Prager usually say that the media is always prying into
personal lives?
I called up to challenge Prager. His screener took my call, then
at 9:15, during the commercials, she said that Dennis was going
to pass on my call.
On Thursday morning, Mr. KABC challenged Prager with my question.
Dennis responded, in essence (through gritted teeth?): "The
difference was that the photo of Princess Di's boys intruded into
their private life [I think it was coming out of church on a Sunday]
while the funeral for the police officer was public. I saw that
email. It wasn't very intelligent... Not too bright." Mr. KABC
laughed.
12/5/98
Dennis Prager spoke Saturday morning on the Torah portion of the
week - Genesis 32-36.
In preparing for his talk, Prager found the reason that Jacob was
chosen over Esau, a problem that has long troubled him. Strictly
going by the Biblical text, Esau comes off as a decent guy, perhaps
finer than Jacob.
Prager said Jacob was chosen because Jacob struggled. Jacob became
Israel, which means "struggle with God." Esau was primitive.
He was natural man. He hunted. Jacob sat in the tents thinking.
Prager says the Torah does not condone the deception Jacob practiced
on his father Isaac, and that Jacob gets paid back in spades for
that. But wily and flawed, Jacob struggled for higher values, as
indeed we must. Then Prager gave his familiar recipe of struggling
with Jewish Law. That we need to find reasons for the commandments,
and reasons for why we observe at the level we do.
IMHO, such reasons are often rationalizations. Thought follows deed
more than deed follows thought.
11/28
Dennis Prager spoke Saturday morning at Stephen S Wise on the Torah
portion of the week Va-Yeze (Genesis 28-32) where he found two supports
for his values-over-blood crusade.
One, when Rachel suggests to her husband Jacob that he impregnate
her maid servant so that "I can have a child through her."
Rachel believes that the child will be hers even though the maid
gave birth to it. Two of the children (including Dan) that Rachel's
maid gave birth to placed among the twelve sons who formed the 12
tribes of Israel.
Two, when Jews speak of the matriarchs, they speak of four - Sarah,
Leah, Rachel, Rebecca - when some of the founders of the twelve
tribes came from maid servants. Prager sees this as support for
his theory. Another possible perspective is that in ancient times,
servants did not count for much, and possibly women too, as the
children who form the 12 tribes are always of the seed of the three
patriarchs - Avraham, Yitzhock and Jacob.
Prager pointed out that on Jacob's ladder, angels ascended and descended,
meaning they went first from earth to heaven and then heaven to
earth. Prager also pointed out that the Hebrew word usually translated
as "angel" means messenger. Anyone who carries a message
from God is an angel. We could have angels all around us. Other
people become angels when they speak or give to us a message from
God.
Prager pointed out the romance in the portion, where it says that
Jacob worked seven extra years for Rachel, and they were like a
few days to him because of his love for Rachel.
Prager critic Singlemom writes on the newsgroup alt.radio.talk:
Here are some examples of what some might call nutty or false shows/statements
by Dennis Prager -
1. In his post election '98 analysis he suggested that the Republicans
use racial minorities as props at photo ops so that they can win
elections. I posted his quote in this NG. He does this at a time
when
he is fond of saying - "There are only 2 races - the decent
and indecent."
2. In attempting to justify school vouchers, he suggested that a
Jew living in Santa Monica send his children to Catholic school
in Torrance, a distance of approximately 20 miles - the closest
place to Santa Monica where a voucher would pay for a private education.
3. Denies facts - When a caller wanted to discuss an outbreak of
the bacterium cryptosporidium in the Milwaukee water supply, Prager
said, "I read 7 newspapers a day. I haven't read anything about
that" and dismissed the caller's fact because he hadn't read
about it in his 7 newspapers.
4. Misrepresents facts - One example - Recently, a teenage couple
in New Jersey murdered their new born. Prager repeatedly offered
the quote
"Mistakes were made" as if it was used by the murderers
or their attorneys. The statement "Mistakes were made"
was said by the teenage boy's coach to a news reporter when asked
to comment on the case.
Prager continues to present this as if "Liberals" or "Democrats"
or "Secularists" are responsible for this statement.
5. Misunderstands or poorly researches facts. One example - Prager
recently expressed his unhappiness with a group of students in Oregon,
I believe, who, he said "called themselves the Gothics"
as if they were a
unique group or gang. As many parents can attest, teenagers and
young people throughout the world have been identifying themselves
as Gothics or "Goths" since the late 70s. It's a youth
fad style like mod, rocker, preppy, hippy, etc. Prager tried to
make it sound evil.
4. Rants on air about attorneys and litigation ruining our society
and then has his attorneys go after Luke Ford for making information
available that Prager himself had made public!
5. Prager almost daily scours the news media for ANY negativity,
extrapolates it to American society/the world, sounds an alarm that
we
are all threatened by whatever ugliness he can dig up and usually
pats himself on the back, saying that he predicted such a thing.
6. Attacks universities and American education regularly then uses
a University survey to support a position he favors - school vouchers.
(See "American Universities vs. Western Civilization"
available for $20
from The Prager Catalog).
7. Identifies, whines about and strives to fix what he calls America's
"broken moral compass" with his "common sense ideas"
yet refuses to share his wisdom. Instead he sells it to a limited,
paying audience of subscribers to his newsletter.
8. Identifies one group as "ideal" at the expense of another
group.
9. Daily dispenses his anger, disgust and gloomy worldview over
the KABC airwaves yet stated to the LA Times on 2/4/98 in reference
to his book on happiness - "Happiness is of first-rank importance.
We owe it to those around us to be happy. It's a moral obligation,so
society will be less cruel. We also
need to be happy for religious reasons. Unhappy people are an insult
to God." "Most unhappiness comes fromwithin, but we blame
society, poverty, racism,sexism, ageism, you name it," he says.
11/27
Prager discussed this column by George Will:
There is indeed a widening gap between civilian and military cultures.
And as more and more military jobs become more technical, a culture
gap is opening within the services, a gap between those whose jobs
are just jobs, and those who are warriors. In a survey of Army personnel,
32 percent of men and 55 percent of women did not agree that the
Army's primary focus should be on warfighting.
Prager also discussed this:
PLEASANTON, Calif (AP)
- A male stripper hired to perform for a group of teen-age girls
faces lewd conduct charges for allegedly fondling at least four
of them during his routine. The mother of the girl who held the
party, accused of hiring the stripper, also faces charges
"His hands were on bare breasts, under bras, down pants,"
said Deputy District Attorney Deborah Streicher.
The 39-year-old mother faces a felony charge of exhibiting lewd
material to minors. Authorities withheld her name to protect her
daughter, who was one of the 15-year-olds who were allegedly fondled.
The mother told police she watched as the stripper perform for
the nearly 50 girls who attended the Oct. 30 party. At the end of
his act he removed his G-string, encouraged by a $20 tip from one
of the girls, Streicher said.
Partygoers told authorities the mother helped hire and pay for
the stripper, although she told police her daughter hired him without
her knowledge. She said she only let him continue his act to avoid
embarrassing her daughter, Streicher said.
Angry parents who learned of the affair called school officials
and police after their daughters told them of the night's events,
authorities said. The party, billed as "Girls Night Out"
on leaflets distributed at Amador Valley High, charged $3 to $5
for admission.
11/26
Dennis Prager's friend Michael Medved was the guest for two hours
on Prager today, discussing Michael's new book "Protecting
Childhood." It's always a love fest when Michael and Dennis
start talking. It was an
uplifting show, similar to DP's time with Bill Bennett.
Dennis thanked his father for teaching him to be generally fearless.
DP related how his mother was a mother and protective, but his father
encouraged
him to explore life. His father encouraged him to fight in the Cold
War, to help Jewish dissidents in the Soviet Union in 1969.
DP finished his show contrasting the movie LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL where
a father seeks to shield his son's innocence in a Nazi death camp
with America, a
beautiful country, whose elites rob children of innocence through
death education, AIDS education, etc...
"Geoff Edwards (formerly with KFI): I am thankful I am not
the program director of KABC.
"Communication to www.laradio.com/current.htm:
(November 22, 1998) This past Thursday, longtime KABC veteran Ken
Minyard left his morning slot after a quarter of a century. Ken
reflects:
"...That brings us to 1998, a new management team at KABC.
When Drew Hayes had arrived I already pretty much knew that my days
were numbered. I had a 6-month option that had been exercised at
the lst of July. It was clear for the last couple of years that
the new wave of Disney management at our station did NOT like to
pay the kind of money I was making. On top of that, Drew arrived
in town seemingly determined to turn KABC into an
all-conservative radio station. Once, when we booked a guest who
was too friendly to Pres. Clinton, Drew mandated that for the next
5 mornings we were to talk to a right-wing critic of the president's.
(I'm not making this up!). Drew apparently believes that pro-Clinton
sentiment doesn't serve what he calls the
station's "core audience." It was clear at that point
that the station had an agenda and Peter and I didn't fit into it..."
Anathema35@aol.com: "Ever
anxious to find order and sense in his religiosity, Prager pounced
on
George F. Will's unbalanced Newsweek article to announce that atheists
"no longer have the backing of science." At his most vulnerably
silly when discussing science, Dennis would delight me, and I'm
sure many of his other detractors were he to debate in studio an
academic or literary atheist such as Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker
or George H. Smith. Science is inherently atheistic, it will consider
god(s) as soon as evidence for him/her/it/them is presented for
review. It is worthy of note that the July 1998 edition of Nature
magazine in a poll of National Academy of Sciences scientists found
that 93% do not believe in god!
Regards Shannon (The Englishman that Dennis always hangs up on:
"I never hang up on callers" DP) .
BT: "While I disagree with anethema35's tone--I don't think
one needs to frame this discussion as an attack on Prager's vunerability,
nor does it help to start the thread with the coarsely disrespectful
"Gawd"-- I fully endorse his basic point: Prager frequently
devotes hours to broadcasting views which are nutty or simply false,
he does so with considerable rhetorical
flourish, and NOBODY is introduced to answer his claims and charges.
Callers, of course, never get much of a foothold: the program is
fundamentally a monologue.
"Prager's claim that the preponderence of science now comes
down on the side of the existence of an intentional Designer of
some sort is just plain false: science has produced NO evidence
of the existence of God, while it has identified considerable evidence
suggesting the mindless, self-designing processes of natural selection.
At best, some scientific theories--like the "big bang"--
do not flatly contradict religious mythology, and the "Science
is finding God" view is supported by a tiny minority of scientists.
"I think that bringing a scientist or humanist who has a Prager-like
level of practice in public speaking to debate Prager would serve
Prager's stated aim ("Think a Second Time"), not merely
delight his detractors as anathema35 suggests. On the questions
of science and religion, Dawkins would be a fine choice, as would
the philosopher Daniel Dennett.
"In other words, not only would such a debate promote responsible
thought, I think that it would make for better radio--I suspect
such debates would
compel the usual Prager listeners to tune in, and it would attract
new listeners as well."
George Will wrote today about the anniversary of the birth of C.S.
Lewis:
When Lewis came to see the world -- the sky, a grain of sand, friendship
-- through the spectacles of faith, he felt completely at home in
the world. And alienated from his time.
In Lewis's light masterpiece, "The Screwtape Letters,"
a seasoned devil warns a novice devil that their work is frustrated
by great moralists. Such moralists, the devil says, do not inform
men, they remind them. Lewis's deceptively modest mission was to
remind readers that they -- their natures; their susceptibility
to the numinous -- are among life's constants. Evidence of which,
his millions of readers might say, is the continuing hunger for
his adversarial stance toward life in our time.
11/25
Prager began his show discussing his many emails. He felt exasperated
that many don't understand him. DP repeated himself on Nicole Kidman.
Boring.
DP said he felt more committed than ever to writing a book on sex
given how much confusion there is on the topic. P said he subscribed
to Playboy, as his father had done.
P. criticized Tipper Gore for refusing to appear on ABC's Nightline
program in support of the Communication Workers union. P. said the
Democrats are in the pocket of the union.
A reasonable young man phoned at the end of the first hour asking
Prager the basis for his statement that Tipper had refused to appear
on Nightline because she'd been asked not to by the President and
Vice-President.
Prager replied by rereading, in a matter of fact "isn't it
obvious tone" the USA Today article from last week. The young
man pointed out the article said nothing about the president and
VP asking Tipper not to go.
Prager was caught. He admitted then he'd made an assumption. P
then lashed out at the young man at the value P focused on - that
the Democrats were in the pocket of the unions.
Prager's main point was a worthy one but he came across badly and
his reaction illustrated a human trait - when people catch us saying
or doing something wrong, we respond by lashing out at them instead
of going inside to figure out why we went wrong.
Prager often demands immediate answers to sometimes difficult questions
on topics that the person did not call in. Prager seems to filter
most of his strong calls through the narrow filter of whether or
not they agree with his point.
I've called Prager on the air about 50 times over the past ten
years and half the time he asks whether I agree or not with his
point. Usually I (and many callers) simply want to challenge him
with a different perspective rather than a black and white agree
or disagree.
Prager spent the last half of his show discussing divorce.
11/24
Dennis Prager opened his show discussing this article in the New
York Times:
PARIS -- The French invented perfume because they had to. In the
17th century, even Louis XIV seldom bathed.
In the late 20th century, 96 percent of the French live in homes
equipped with showers or baths, even more than those with bidets.
But only 47 percent bathe every day, according to a roundup of national
surveys published in the daily Le Figaro last week, just before
a cold wave began and probably drove the average down even further.
Washing their dirty linen in public like this is something the French
seem to do every two or three years. In the latest survey, only
60 percent of Frenchmen were found to change their underwear daily,
the same percentage of all French people who said they regularly
washed their hands after going to the toilet.
This last figure led Bernard Pivot, host of a popular literary television
program, to wonder publicly on Sunday about the wisdom of the French
custom of shaking hands with co-workers at the start of the day.
In particular, Pivot worried about what advice to give employees
who faced the hazard of running into the boss just outside the office
bathroom. Underlings not knowing what the hand that feeds them might
just have touched, he suggested, would be best advised to forestall
a handshake by picking up a voluminous file.
Le Figaro assured readers that 85 percent of them said they washed
their hands before meals. But 6 percent said they never washed them
at all, perhaps explaining why the per-capita consumption of toilet
soap in France was four to five bars a year, compared with a little
more than twice as much in Germany and a lot more than twice as
much in Britain.
Then Prager switched to Levi Strauss's plan to decorate a Christmas
tree with condoms. Prager thought that no matter how noble the intent
(to save lives by preventing AIDS) it was in terrible taste, sacrilegious.
From today's New York Times:
A plan to raise a Christmas tree adorned with condoms in the Central
Park skating rink for an AIDS-prevention event was canceled Monday
after a Catholic group urged the rink's private operator not to
allow the tree, the group said.
The city's Parks Department, whose approval would have been needed,
had also expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the event,
which was to include a concert and a tree-lighting ceremony next
Tuesday at the Wollman Rink, parks officials said. The event was
to have been sponsored by Levi Strauss & Company.
William A. Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious
and Civil Rights, said he was delighted when officials of the Makkos
Organization, which operates the rink, told him they would not allow
the event. Makkos officials did not return numerous telephone messages
last evening seeking to confirm that the event had been canceled.
Levi Strauss officials said they had not heard from the Makkos Organization.
They said another venue for the event would be found if it were
not allowed to be held at Wollman Rink. "This is not about
Wollman Rink," said Cassie Ederer, a spokeswoman for Levi Strauss,
which is based in San Francisco. "It's about AIDS awareness."
For his final hour, Prager laughed about this article in the Wall
Street Journal about speed limits. In 1995 the federal government
lifted federal limits on highway speeds (previously limited to 55
since the Carter energy saving years). The federal highway safety
agency said that lifting the ban would causes 6400 deaths a year.
Four years ago Prager believed them for he then had the naive belief
that government agencies would tell the truth having no reason to
lie.
It turns out that allowing states to raise the speed limit saves
lives.
Eric Peters, a nationally syndicated automotive columnist, writes
on the opinion section of today's WSJ:
Remember when Congress abolished
the federally mandated 55-mile-an-hour speed limit back in 1995
and various "safety experts" clucked that this would entail
a dramatic rise in accident and fatality rates? Well, the facts
are in. But you probably haven't heard very much about them, since
they tend to refute everything the experts said would happen.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration predicted that
an additional 6,400 motorists would die annually as a result of
rising speed limits. In fact, fatality and accident rates have declined
since the repeal of the national speed limit; 1997, the year for
which the most recent data are available, had the lowest traffic-death
rate in the nation's history. NHTSA has been less than vigorous
about acknowledging its erroneous prediction, perhaps because the
55 mph speed limit gave the federal government considerable power
over the states and provided a raison d'être for the continued existence
of NHTSA's bloated bureaucracy.
These higher speeds are safer because they reflect the normal flow
of traffic--what highway engineers call the "85th percentile"
speed. This is the speed most drivers will maintain on a given stretch
of road under a given set of conditions. When speed limits are set
arbitrarily low--as under the old system--tailgating, weaving and
"speed variance" (the problem of some cars traveling significantly
faster than others) make roads less safe.
11/23
Prager discussed this 11/22 NY Times piece:
It will come as no surprise to Nicole Kidman's screen admirers
to learn that she also looks sexy and beautiful on stage, not least
when scantily dressed. Yet this unremarkable discovery threw British
newspapers into a veritable swoon this fall when she made her first
stage appearance in 11 years.
A few theater critics did actually notice her performance ("she
can act"). But far more space was dedicated to poetic, erotic
and clinical ("no -- repeat, no -- cellulite") ruminations
about her body. The normally staid London Daily Telegraph was quite
overwhelmed. "Pure theatrical Viagra," it gasped.
True, sex is the theme of the play, "The Blue Room," David
Hare's loose adaptation of Arthur Schnitzler's turn-of-the-century
play "Reigen," or round-dance, now better known as "La
Ronde."
Ten characters (Ms. Kidman and the British actor Iain Glen each
play five) engage in a daisy-chain of sexual encounters. Copulation
is suggested every time the stage goes dark, with surtitles coyly
offering how long each of the 10 couplings supposedly lasts. And
yes, for the briefest of moments, the tall, lissome actress does
stand naked, her back to the audience, as her partner dresses her.
But what is it with the Brits? This was theater, not live sex.
"I think there's an element of the British that is kind of
pathetically grateful for a glamorous star gracing our boards,"
said Sam Mendes, who directed the play at the 250-seat Donmar Warehouse
in Covent Garden. "Even those who have seen the play have written
about something that isn't really on stage. This is not the kind
of violently erotic 'Oh, Calcutta!'-style review that has been reported
here. They wrote about the wrong things. They didn't write about
the play."
Dennis Prager attended his temple Stephen S. Wise in Brentwood
Friday night, 11/20/98, along with 1000 other Jews and was deeply
moved by the service conducted by Cantor Nathan Lamm and Rabbi Eli
Herscher, who'd just returned from a trip to Eastern Europe. Prager
wished that the service had been videotaped so that it could be
distributed to traditional Jews who had a negative view of Reform
Judaism. Prager said Saturday morning 11/20 that the service was
emotionally and religiously moving, powerful and glorious.
Prager taught this week's portion to his six year old son Aaron
Friday night and they both found it absorbing. Prager said Aaron
kept saying, "more," which indicated he found it as interesting
as his other favorite story, Godzilla.
As usual, Prager delivered the Saturday morning sermon at SSW.
He spoke on this week's Torah portion Toledot (Genesis 25-28) and
demonstrated how the Pentateuch supports values over blood. How
the Torah goes out of its way to say that it is individual character
that matters, not genes and birth order. Frequently in the Bible
it is the younger children who rise to prominence over the older.
Frequently siblings are enraged with each other, as in Cain and
Abel, Jacob and Esau.
Prager noted how many of the leading rabbis of the Talmud came
from nefarious backgrounds. That Jews were the first group to allow
outsiders to convert to it.
Prager said his view of "yichus" (Yiddish for one's pedigree,
for one's prestigious ancestors, as in "his grandfather was
a great rebbe") was "yich." Prager said "yichus"
was an example of how Jews did not live up to Judaic ideals.
During question time, Prager was challenged by Biblical precedents
that seem to place great weight on blood line. For instance, the
Jewish priesthood, the Kohenim, is solely inherited. And the Torah
commands Jews to hate Amelek and his descendents. Prager said that
it was genius to keep the priesthood hereditary because it keeps
people from fighting to be priests. And that the Torah's injunction
to hate Amelek should be taken metaphorically.
Prager could not name any traditional Jewish commentators who explicitly
support his "values over blood" interpretation.
Singlemom writes:
If Prager so desperately wants to fix our "broken moral compass",
if he so wants to save the world, the most efficient way to accomplish
that would be to remove his demand for a buck and post the Prager
Perspective online.
The World Wide Web is one of the most effecient means of communicating
information. If Prager continues to withhold his wisdom from a world
which needs it, then his true motives are clear. $$$$$
If he wants to profit from his "wisdom" while witholding
it from those who don't pay for it, he is like so many other money
grabbing gurus before him.
Would Jesus Christ charge for His message of love?
If all needed food, food banks would offer all food. If our society's
"moral compass is broken" as Prager so often states, why
wouldn't he offer the fix for free to our society?
***
Luke: "I usually write about Prager as a critic, seeking flaws.
I sit in judgement.
"As a human being, I have a different reaction to Prager.
I listen humbly, seeking what I can learn from his words, how I
can apply them to my life, and where I must change. Listening as
a human is humbling. I am intimidated by his moral depth. Much of
what he says demands painful changes in my behavior and attitude.
Because this is so personal and shattering, I rarely write about
this side of my reaction to Prager's words. It exposes too much
of me.
"This dichotomy pervades most of my meaningful interactions.
To truly listen deeply to someone you have to assume that what they
are saying is true. You must seek to understand how what the person
says can be true. In what instances and from what perspectives.
It verges on the impossible to deeply listen to people and actively
disagree with them."
|