| 2-18-98
Dennis Prager on KABC Radio, AM 790, Los Angeles.
By Luke Ford
Prager says that he is proud to be American. He feels good about
the way the US, virtually alone in the world, seeks to take on Saddam
Hussein.
When people point out Europe is not with us, and with the death
penalty, that shows to me its moral bankruptcy.
A caller pointed out that if Hitler and Germany had been bombed
when it first violated WWI treaties in the 1930s, there would have
been no WWII.
A caller pointed out that Germany retried the man who knifed Monica
Selles was retried and placed in a psychiatric institution.
The caller said countries do not act on a moral basis, but rather
in their own self interest.
Prager says that he supports the arming of Iraq against Iran in
the 1980s. He compared it to supporting Hitler against Stalin. At
that time, Iran sought to transport fundamentalist revolution.
Next caller said DP was "a moral lighthouse," to quote Dr. Stephen
Covey.
Prager says that Americans vote for the happier, nicer guy (Clinton
and Reagen). He says that the Republicans have become wimps.
DP says Al Gore believes that the greatest challenge facing humanity
is not evil, but the greenhouse effect.
A caller claimed that what stopped the first US v. Iraq, was that
Hussein threatened to unleash nuclear weapons.
DP doubted that the caller knew something that the world media
had missed.
Dennis agreed with a later caller that part of the reason for
the lack of international support for the American fight against
Saddam, is the low credibility Clinton has. DP also agreed that
Clinton has cut the military budget too much, and that we may not
be prepared for this fight.
DP says that he probably restrains himself too much from criticizing
Clinton and he apologized to his listeners for not alerting them
enough to Clinton's military cutbacks.
At 1:40 PM, Prager interviewed social psychologist Roy Baumeister
who wrote a book on evil. Prager told him that he knows of six books
written on goodness, and 50,000 on evil.
The psychologist was fascinated how 'normal' people can do evil.
He said many have written about what made Hitler so evil, including
his relation to his penis. What interested the shrink was how ordinary
people supported Hitler.
To order the book, call 1-800-288-2131 EVIL: Inside Human Violence
and Cruelty.
DP: Can we call people evil?
Shrink: Yes, but they do not see themselves as evil. It is [an
artificial] category into which we put people.
Prager disagreed.
The shrink said we could certainly categorize actions as evil,
but he was not comfortable with classifying people as evil.
DP remarked how every caller to his question "Are you basically
good?" Everyone says yes.
Roy gave four reasons for why people do evil.
#1 IDEALISM. The shrink says that people do lots of evil in the
pursuit of something good - communism for example. Many said it
represented something they learned in Sunday School.
Timothy McVeigh and those who bomb abortion clinics.
#2… Means to an end - money, power, sex… Instead of
working hard, they do evil.
#3 Shrink denied that low self esteem causes violence. He says
that many people who do evil have inflated views of themselves,
and often become violent when these inflated views of themselves
are challenged.
Prager wanted to hug the psychologist. He noted the Oliners, who
wrote a book on Altruism and Holocaust rescuers, said there was
no relation between rescuing and self esteem.
Shrink agreed. He said he'd studied self-esteem for years but
found no relationship with decency. He wished that it did, as it
would provide work for his profession.
Rather, he found narcissism a component of obnoxious people.
#4 A smaller reason. Some people can learn to get pleasure from
hurting others.
DP: You think that is learned?
[I agree with DP's skepticism. Look at how kids enjoy inflicting
cruelty.]
The shrink took a call about the substitution of psychological
categories for moral ones. Instead of calling evil evil, we call
it sick. Roy blamed his profession.
DP: What you say is contrary to your profession?
Prof: I get lots of positive responses from my peers.
Prof said he does not see EVIL as a property of the protagonist,
but rather it is a label applied by victims and bystanders.
Prof said he did not see the word EVIL as objective, as it is
a linguistic term, it must have some level of subjectivity. Roy
said most cultures through most of history have agreed that certain
things are evil - such as killing an innocent neighbor.
Prager remembered a nervous women in Colorado who in an introduction
to Dennis, stumbling through her prepared notes, said Dennis "was
preoccupied with doing evil."
Coming back from a commercial, Prager called KABC "the center
of intellectual life in Los Angeles."
DP says that a review in the Washington Times alerted him to the
book.
I, Luke Ford, called in at 2:28PM: "I recall an FBI study which
found that the most distinguishing characteristic among murderers
was love of pornography. What role does porn play in triggering
evil?"
Roy: "Not much."
Luke: "What about violence in the media?"
Roy: "It might stimulate a few, and over time, desensitize many
of us."
Prager called the notion that porn causes violence a big lie of
the Right.
[Between 2:30-2:44, I was lathering up and rinsing off in the
shower. So what happened?]
A woman, Tina, called up at 2:44, to push the case for porn causing
violence. She thought it degraded women. The prof destroyed her
argument, so she tried to rephrase it.
She said women don't like porn.
DP: So what?
If porn caused violence, said DP, then gay porn would cause gay
men who watched it, to commit violence, which the woman couldn't
answer.
Prof said that self control was the biggest thing that kept people
from doing evil. Roy said to forget the self esteem movement and
replace it with self control. It makes you a better employee, husband,
neighbor, friend… and it helps you better achieve your own
goals.
DP: "I'm falling in love."
DP: Are bad people more or less happy?
ROY: Less happy. Grumpy obnoxiousness is a stable trait, and such
folks are not happy.
On the E-mail list which discusses Dennis Prager, Rhonda
wrote:
Luke, your recaps of Dennis's programs are interesting, but almost
every day, you get some kind of a jab in at Dennis. Usually it's
very petty. Yes, he's a passionate centrist. Centrist does not imply
dead and passionate is the key word here. The baby Richard debacle
was an outrage. Once again the courts put the feelings of an adult
above the needs of a child and probably ruined the child's life.
And this is standard procedure in our Ameircan courtrooms.
Dennis' passionate feelings and words were very appropriate.
If you have a criticism of Dennis, you should call him and tell
him to his face instead of using this forum to constantly pick at
him. His screener doesn't weed out people that disagree with him.
In fact, he usually puts people who have a disagreement ahead of
the others. If the screeners aren't letting you on, maybe they feel
that your criticisms are so petty that they wouldn't be of interest
to anyone or would put everyone to sleep.
I think what bothers me about your criticism of Dennis is that
they aren't just honest disagreements about what he says. You pick
apart the way he says things, trying to trip him up, pointing out
even the most mild (what you perceive to be) inconsistencies and
blowing them out of proportion. Maybe in your quest to improve the
world, it would be more effective if you took that microscope of
yours off of Dennis and turned your attention to that man in the
mirror for a while.
...You are an excentric, obsessive psychopath. If Dennis were
a woman, he could have you arrested for stalking.
2-20 Mike Dang:
At first blush of this series [by Luke] of posts I thought
"How petty." But as I read further I came to appreciate Luke's pursuit
of restitution of his newslist image. I haven't seen his site, I
haven't actually read the individual posts referred to. Snowboarding
called me away for a week. So I don't know about the slander. But
I like to see a person pursue proper restitution and it seems like
Luke's doing so appropriately. I also have to respect Chris's nutting
it up in terms of membership. Since my roommate's membership in
a local synagogue costs him $800 a year (and he says that's inexpensive)
I can appreciate what Chris is willing to put up.
This whole thing is pretty entertaining. Like must see TV. I hope
Rhonda will likewise nut it up if she's guilty as charged.
Sarcasm aside, all I know is I've immensely appreciated Luke's
daily recaps. I can't listen to Dennis most of the time so his recaps
really help.
Errors of material public facts about Dennis by Luke should be
easy to point out. I assume they have been by David. But to sling
so many outrageous swords and arrows at Luke seems excessive. Sounds
like sour grapes to me, Mr. Uva.
"Ungrateful"? What the heck is that. Is DP "His benevolency"?
DP is a man like many. Yes, like many. DP's the one that regularly
talks about his sexual fixations. DPs just a regular dude that happens
to distinguish himself by thinking with impressive singularity and
clarity.
DP thinks better than most, and not as good as some, not unlike
other modern day sharp thinkers, like Frankl, Herzberg, Nozick,
etc. Let's not begin worshipping him just yet.
Chris Donald:
I have no problem with the 'recaps' for the most part. They usually
to do more good than harm.
If Luke is willing to abandon ship on the unauthorized Bio and
Web Page, as he said he would after DP asks him to do so, I will
largely agree with you.
But not until then. Descency demands that.
It has been one issue - the world wide publishing of an unwanted
(by DP and co.), unauthorized, and factually fractured "biography"
with a running commentary by a writer criticizing a moral and scholarly
figure beyond his league. That is the only significant area where
we part ways, at least publically.
Luke is one of those rarities where you have enormous talent buried
beneath a dung-heap of poor decision making, coupled with an inability
to process moral criticism of his activities as anything other than
Persecution. Even when it comes from numerous and responsible directions.
He has moments of genuine sweetness and clarity, but they soon
lose all luster, sanded down by the impish, adolescent recklessness
he bestowes onto others' (and his own) dignity.
Alan:
I have been critical of Luke in a previous post for a lack of
journalistic ethics and what frankly seems to be a psychopathic
approach to dealing with DP and his retainers. However, you have
also crossed a line here. This is still the US of A and we have
the First Amendment. DP has gone to considerable lengths to make
himself a public person. It is Lukes choice to publish or not; neither
you or DP or any one else has a say in that. He has a moral responsibility
to be accurate. Dennis and company have a right not to be stalked.
We all have a right not to read what we don't want to read.
Mike Dang:
If DP asks Luke to abandon ship as you mention then I would hope
Luke would comply if only out of respect for DP. While I support
Luke's free speech right to publish regardless of DP's request,
and while I support a person wishing to pursue proper restitution,
I firmly believe fans of DP should share DP's general respect for
others as well as DP's other general values. That sharing of values
such as respect should extend to complying to a request from DP.
Certainly that would shed the brightest light to indicate where
Luke stands.
CHRIS:
I hold that writing an unwanted book about someone's private life
is Gossip.
THAT is immoral in my religion, of which Luke is a member. I never
said he didn't have any legal standing. Like the right to shed unwanted
babies into a sink until the last moment, he has the legal right
to publish whatever comes into his head- with few legal conditions.
He is not morally allowed to.
Gossip is a close kin to murder in the Torah. Spreading it is
a large sin. We have a belief that you can murder a man's character-
even in reporting the truth as you see it. If it is unwanted, you
don't publish it if it is private-even if the person revealed it
to someone else in another public forum. DP has the right to not
want what he's said spread further than it is now. His private life
is not completely yours to peruse -morally- just because Luke wants
to compile from various, often obscure, sources- including but not
limited to personal memory.
I wouldn't accuse you of being immoral were the BIO yours. I would
accuse you of ingratitude, and try to morally suade you, as I am
Luke. I just wouldn't have as firm a footing with you, as I have
no idea what God or code of ethics you follow. I know where Luke
gets his rules...and he's not justifiable witin them at all. Not
in my opinion, and not in the opinion of any Rabbi I can imagine.
Claiming innocence because "My profession is a higher calling
than doing as God asks me (not to spread gossip)" does not exempt
you from moral judgements.
A Jew is to carry God into every endevour. And I couldn't see
God writing this book, Alan.
In a message dated 2/22/98 5:46:12 AM, Luke wrote:
>Such a media rep would not last in >the real world. I have
dealt with media reps since about age 14, and have dealt with hundreds.
CHRIS DONALD:
Funny..... she [Laurie Zimmet] makes about 4 x YOUR income (Luke
the Professional Journalist), and seems to be doing reasonably well.
DP's career is *still* flourishing- even as a religious mole in
the secular media. She is responsible in LARGE MEASURE for much
of the content of each show.
Perhaps all those Pulizer Prize winning articles and near bestsellers
that you've written -while dealing with all those More-Professional
Media Reps" - just needed more......advertising or something...
I recommend you leave her out of your criticisms from now on.
You don't match-up real favorably. (She doesn't even write, and
she's managed to publish just as many books as you have.)
|