| 3-16-98
By Luke Ford
Prager gave his understanding of the mood of the president. He
tried to explain what was happening, rather than give moral prescriptions.
The country is deeply ambivalent.
Bill Clinton has charmed his way through life. If you charm enough
people enough times, you win. Bill deeply believes that his greatest
strength is his charm, and he can charm his way through life. And
if something works for you from childhood to adulthood, you don't
abandon it.
So, the mood in the White House is: I have survived this before
and I will survive now.
Prager was thrilled that Sergeant McKinney was found not guilty
on all charges but one. DP believes that there was a link between
the McKinney verdict and the White House. Whether consciously or
not, a sea change has taken place because of Clinton.
It is one of the fascinating chapters of history, to see this
president voted in by feminists, undo all the furor over "sexual
harassment." I could never have written a screenplay on this…
What Clinton has done to undermine hysteria over sexual harassment.
These McKinney verdicts would not have happened a year ago. But
the country is basically sick of these sexual harassment witch hunts.
I, DP, feel so vindicated by my defense of Clarence Thomas. I have
never felt so vindicated in a controversial position.
The silence of Senator Barbara Boxer is the loudest silence in
America. She led the hysterical high-tech lynching against Clarence
Thomas, as though some great evil had taken place. If it is not
obvious to you that her concern vis-à-vis Thomas was all
political, and had nothing to do with women… The clarity that
this brings will help your allergies.
DP: You usually don't live long enough to see the mills of the
gods grinding. It usually takes a generation. Now, in a few years,
I see the feminist- Democratic Party hysteria undone by their own.
President Clinton has done the impossible. He has undone the hysteria.
An entire feminist movement, an entire party, telling us that if
the President of the US has sex with a 21-year old intern in the
White House, it doesn't matter because he's doing a good job.
And they happen to be right. Now they are telling the truth because
he is a Democrat.
A caller pointed out that Clinton has much more going for him
than his charm - One his high intelligence, and two his sense of
discretion on when to respond to attacks.
"You can't be charming if you are stupid. It inevitably implies
a high degrees of intelligence. Because you have to think quickly
on how to influence others. You have to think quickly about what
behavior to put on to get the reactions you want."
Depth is not an adjective that DP would use to describe the President.
A caller remembered how Boxer (with her thug Bob Mulholland) bashed
Bruce Herschonsen for attending a strip show. California's Democratic
Party is very low (though Senator Feinstein is an exception.)
Boxer deserves the nausea award, and I almost never engage in
ad-hominem attack. Thomas was accused of saying "pubic hair" and
owning a collection of Playboy magazines. What slimy irrelevancies.
These accusations against the President are so much more serious,
yet Boxer and her cohorts could care less.
What drove Boxer etc was power. And nothing undermines power like
black Republicans. The Democratic Party is composed by those who
feel victimized. When women, blacks and hispanics cease feeling
victimized, they will vote Republican.
Clarence Thomas represented a lethal threat to Democratic power.
So he had to be crushed. It was never an issue about the welfare
of women.
Liberals can never be hypocrites because they do not advocate
personal standards. Only Republicans can be hypocrites.
A caller praised Prager's latest book on HAPPINESS. He reminded
that NOW came out strongly against Clinton yesterday. They called
it a sexual assault.
DP: At this point, there is no one left who has respect for them.
NOW had no choice. To not speak after Katherine Willey, a Democrat,
etc…No consent.
DP says that almost all people have enough intelligence. It is
values, decisions, depth, character and wisdom that matter in life,
not intelligence.
3-15-98 NY TIMES News Analysis: Sergeant
Major's Shining Repute Prevails With Jury
By JANE GROSS
FORT BELVOIR, Va. -- When military jurors
here considered the sexual misconduct charges against Sgt. Maj.
Gene McKinney, they were caught in the same muddle that often complicates
such harassment cases, whether civilian or military: Whom to believe
when a woman says one thing and a man says another.
Faced with conflicting testimony, little
physical evidence, six female accusers whose credibility was questioned
and a defendant with an otherwise shining reputation, the jurors
concluded they could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that the
crimes had been committed.
The eight jurors, four officers and four
enlisted soldiers, exonerated McKinney on 18 of 19 charges, finding
him guilty of one count, obstruction of justice. In keeping with
practice in courts-martial, the jurors did not make themselves available
for comment.
The sergeant major was on trial here for
many offenses that would not be crimes in the civilian world. But
the Uniform Code of Military Justice sets higher standards of conduct
to maintain an orderly fighting force and prevent abuses of power
in a hierarchical system where men and women live and work together
24 hours a day.
The higher standard is necessary, legal
experts generally agreed, because the stakes are higher: life and
death for the soldiers themselves and for the defense of the nation.
But in cases like McKinney's, where an unwanted kiss is considered
assault and a provocative remark a solicitation of adultery, a court-martial
may be too blunt an instrument for determining right and wrong,
some legal scholars said.
In this whole Clinton controversy, DP says that he feels sorriest
for America's children. I want my kids to venerate their president,
whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. [Why would he want that?]
DP says he can't dislike Clinton. He just seems pathetic.
DP keeps saying that he is not happy with the whole situation.
I do not want my party to win because of scandal. "I liked being
able to grow up venerating my presidents. I vaguely remember Eisenhower.
Most people respected him as a liberator of Europe."
There are gradations of sin and adultery. There is a difference
between a congenital skirt-chaser and one who slips up.
DP feels bad for Chelsea Clinton, the President's daughter.
DP couldn't believe the trial of McKinney for kissing a few women
on the cheek. It may be stupid and boorish, but you should not court
martial someone over it.
"Zero tolerance could be the stupidest term since the self esteem
movement."
How about zero tolerance for stupid laws?
DP has now seen all the movies Oscar nominated for Best Picture,
except THE FULL MONTY. He recently saw AS GOOD AS IT GETS, and he
thought the acting excellent, particularly the dog. DP thought it
specist, discrimination based on species, that dogs do not get Oscars.
DP believes that it is more than possible that race was a factor
in one or more of the accusations against McKinney, a black man.
Given the trivial nature of those accusations, I believe that may
have been a factor.
A caller called Prager on not calling Bill Clinton a liar. Both
my political and religious convictions on gossip make me choose
words gently. I do not believe that Bill values truth. Compassion,
empathy and political victory.
DP says that according to station surveys, listeners most enjoyed
commentaries, rather than listener phone callers. I, LUKE, agree.
But the same caller persuaded Prager to do more open lines, and
DP agreed that if someone called with a provocative subject, Manya,
the screener, would accept the call even if it was on a different
topic than Prager raised.
A female caller asked DP why people should listen to him: DP said
he did not advertise himself well. One. He offered a strong values
core. Two. His clarity.
DP says that his religion affects his search for clarity, such
as gossip. He will not report on individuals caught in sexual situations.
DP reported that his wife cheered the McKinney verdict and was
angry at the high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas.
If a woman goes to court because a man gave her a kiss she did
not want, how will she deal with an enemy who wants to blow her
brains out? These are supposed to be soldiers. They are wimps.
DP says the Republican Party now stands for nothing. But that
is better than a party that stands for big government.
Prager alluded to this article in the Washington Post.
By Dana Hull
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 7, 1998; Page D01
The criminal assault charge against Carol
Comstock, the Virginia teacher who trimmed a fourth-grader's fingernails
without her parents' permission, was dropped yesterday.
York County Commonwealth's Attorney Eileen
Addison moved to dismiss the case based on lack of sufficient evidence
to prove criminal intent, and a judge granted the motion.
"Justice was done," said Jim Elliott, Comstock's
attorney. "This case never should have been brought into criminal
court."
The incident occurred Feb. 27 at Mount Vernon
Elementary School in Yorktown, a small community a dozen miles east
of Williamsburg. Comstock cut the fingernails of 9-year-old Savanna
Merrill because the teacher thought they were too long.
Outraged, Savanna's mother turned to local
authorities. A York County magistrate agreed to issue a warrant
for assault.
"There was never any intent to embarrass
the family," Comstock said yesterday. "I'm really glad that it's
going to be resolved and that school will be getting back to normal.
The girl is the sweetest child and a pleasure to have in my classroom."
Prager said he has not seen a party dissipate its passion and
sense of purpose like the current crop of Republicans.
DP said the notion that Clinton was good for the economy was fellatious.
In his third hour, Prager discussed how high school guidance counselors
are reluctant to report honestly on students for fear of being sued.
Alcoholism etc is now covered by the Americans With Disabilities
Act (1990).
From now on, you are not allowed to ask guidance counselors about
discipline problems, chronic illness, etc… (thanks to the federal
Department of Education).
Parents now have the right to read the recommendations by counselors.
When Prager taught at college, he was afraid to write anything
negative about a student.
This is part of the war on truth, and the breakdown of standards.
We are siding too much with compassion over standards.
Parents ache to get their kids into prestigious colleges and will
do almost anything.
A caller said that private detective companies will be hired to
give breakdowns on students. This now happens in the corporate world.
Do you want guidance counselors to be able to report on your kids?
A caller pointed out that this will provoke more resorts to police,
as schools are less able to discipline students.
Next caller questioned why colleges should learn anything beyond
GPA?
So your character is irrelevant?
The message in all of this, says DP, is that only GPA will be
considered. We don't care if you burn down the gym or teach retarded
children.
Callers need to understand how we form a moral record in our lives.
We develop reputations. That is how it works in the business world.
People develop professional reputations.
We develop moral bank accounts.
Do you blame your kid or do you blame your teacher? In my home,
said DP, when I got in trouble at school, my father believed the
school. That may have gone overboard. [Prager often got into trouble
at school.]
Caller said that 19 times out of 20, the school is correct. Prager
wished that on those one out of 20 times that he was right, that
his dad had sided with him. But DP says that he is a better person
because of his dad's attitude.
Graduating from Harvard no longer means you have accumulated more
knowledge, than if you graduated from Northridge, says DP.
Think of the lessons we teach our kids today. That the guidance
counselor can't tell colleges what kids do. That all that matters
is grades. Drug addiction, mental breakdowns are irrelevant?
This is all related to the notion: We don't care about the President's
character. Just is he doing a good job.
DP says the idea that only your work matters, not your personal
behavior, can be taken too far.
Our society could collapse even though most people got good grades.
An Israeli caller said that to get into college in his country,
you needed to maintain a good Ethics grade.
Prager said that in America he would've received a D in ethics.
DP does not trust the folks who would grade ethics. They would be
too politically correct.
If they had ethics grades when Larry was in high school, do you
know where Larry Elder would be today?
END
Luke Ford responds to a post on the Dennis Prager E-mail
list:
> Whenever I try to lie it's as though I carry a neon sign
on >my forehead that announces it to everyone. My intuitive impression
>of Carter is that he would have similar difficulty lying believably.
I think this is at least one scenario which demonstrates that the
ability to not only lie, but to lie well, is an important asset
to the Presidency and the inability to lie well could have severe
consequences. I can think of numerous other sorts of cases such
as trade agreements where this could also be true.
LUKE: Lying, though it deeply bothers DP, or he believes it to,
is only one sin among many, and not necessarily heinous.
I lie very well. I am not proud of it, and I almost never do it,
at least not in a way that does more harm than good.
I developed the trait as a kid to escape punishment from strict
parents.
I also have a genetic disposition (and am a Gemini) to have many
personalities, which may mean that I genuinely say something that
is true to me at the time, but is not true to other of my personalities.
I am an actor, and a fairly good one. I enjoy goofing on people,
and trolling, and provoking. I enjoy flitting in and out of different
personas. I also do undercover journalism work that requires hiding
my identity.
I am a walking textbook case of cognitive dissonance - I write
about porn and Dennis PRager, ethics and filth. For a living i write
about porn, and for most of my spare time I participate in orthdox
Judaism.
Different people have different personality tendencies. My tendencies
can be, and are, used for good and ill. The moral challenge is to
do more good than ill.
Many people are not conscious of the many times they dissemble.
Prager often says things that are not true, because he has so
deeply taught himself certain values, and so aches to achieve good
things, that truth becomes secondary.
Examples are numerous: His line, "I always give callers the last
word."
"I never hang up on callers."
"I never talk about President Clinton."
"I have never met a man who likes breast jobs" [He talked to me
about it once and I told him Iliked some breast jobs.]
"I have never heard someone in my personal life use the word nigger."
"I have never encountered antisemitism."
Also, a few weeks ago, DP was quoted on this list as calling something
that I wrote, based on one of his newsletters, "an unbelievable
lie." It turned out that what I wrote was indeed based on one of
his newsletters and he had forgotten.
Do I think Prager deliberately dissembles? No, not really. But
he frequently makes sweeping statements that are not true for the
sake of establishing a mroe effective debating position.
When he talks about how incapable he is of lying, I don't think
he is fully in touch with himself.
Overall, I think DP has one of the highest commitments to truth
of anyone I know. And I think Clinton has a low commitment to truth,
and that is a flaw in his character, but I am as ambivalent as Sharon
as to whether that flaw bodes ill for a president.
I do not agree with DP that he wants his kid to venerate the president.
The president qua president (any president)is a political hack.
Americans have combined head of state with head of government.
From Dennis
Prager Web Site
Monday, March 16, 1998
Last night Kathleen Willey appeared on the CBS television show,
60 Minutes. She spoke of unwanted sexual advances by President Clinton.
She said that she was a vulnerable widow when she went to seek his
help and that he took advantage of the situation by groping her
and placing her hand on him. According to the ratings, much of the
country was tuned in to hear her. It was reported in all the major
newspapers today. Dennis began the show by reacting to this latest
news.
Dennis said that he had really not dwelled too much on all the
investigations into the President's alleged sexual misconduct but
that the situation is getting to the point of being impossible to
ignore. He wondered what the mood was in The White House. He said
that he understands the mood of the President to be the following:
President Clinton has essentially charmed his way throughout his
life. In his adult life he has had one job, politics. Dennis said
that in politics if you charm enough people in one life you win.
He deeply believes that his greatest strength is his charm and Dennis
agrees with him. Dennis said that the President believes that he
can charm his way out of every problem. Dennis said that when something
works for you from childhood to adulthood, you never abandon it.
The assumption is, charm will work again. Dennis doesn't know if
it will work this time for the President but he believes that this
answers the question, what is the mood today in The White House?
The mood is, I have survived this kind of situation in the past,
I will survive now.
Dennis said that the country is ambivalent in the deepest sense
and that he understands and identifies with that ambivalence.
Dennis went on to say that he was delighted with the verdicts
by the jury in the sexual misconduct case against, Sergeant Major
Gene McKinney. All 18 charges of sexual misconduct he was acquitted
and he was found "guilty" by the court martial jury on the one charge
of obstructing justice. The jury did not believe one of the six
women who testified against him. Dennis said that he was convinced
that there was a link between these verdicts and what is going on
in The White House. He said that the country would have looked ridiculous
if he was found guilty while the President was forgiven on the more
serious charges he is being accused of. Whether consciously or not,
Dennis said that a sea-change has taken place thanks to President
Clinton. To see this Democratic President voted in with feminist
fervor single handily undue all the feminist hysteria over sexual
harassment. Dennis said that he does not believe that McKinney would
have received these verdicts a year ago. He said that the country,
from the military to the rest of us is generally sick of the sexual
harassment "witch hunts" in these last years since the hearings
of Clarence Thomas. Dennis called those hearings, electronic lynching.
Dennis said that he has never felt as exonerated/vindicated in any
controversial position he has ever taken as he does in his defense
of Clarence Thomas.
Dennis said that the silence of Senator Barbara Boxer is the loudest
silence in America. Dennis said that Senator Boxer lead the hysteria
against Clarence Thomas as she charged up the steps of Congress
as if Mr. Thomas had committed a genocidal evil - as if he had committed
rape and men were ignoring it. He said that she won the Senate seat
thanks to the hysteria at that time. Dennis said that it is so obvious
that her concern was political. He said that her concern for women
was minimal and that her main agenda was to unseat a black conservative.
Later on in the show, Dennis was telling a caller that the worst
thing Sergeant McKinney was accused of was kissing a woman on the
cheek. Dennis said that his wife, Fran, asked a great question.
She pointed out that these were military personnel. If these women
brought the sergeant to court due to an unsolicited kiss, how will
they react when in times of battle the enemy is trying to do much
worse including blowing their heads off?
In the third hour, Dennis discussed a New York Times article that
stated that many high school counselors are afraid of reporting
honestly to a student's prospective college for fear of being sued.
But this is a catch-22 for the counselors because now colleges are
starting to sue them for not reporting pertinent information. The
article noted that parents are suing counselors if their reports
to the colleges reveals a less than appealing review. Even if it
is accurate, the counselors are being sued. Also, under the New
York laws covering people with disabilities, counselors are not
allowed to report to universities whether or not the high school
student has a drug/alcohol addiction problem. The counselors say
that their hands are tied. But now universities, who are experiencing
a growth in violent crimes on campus, are suing these counselor
for not reporting about a student's troubled past. One example given
was a counselors who did not report that a student started a fire
on his high school campus. He later went on to cause trouble at
the university.
One caller told Dennis that universities should care only about
a person's GPA. Dennis said no, character counts. It is not fair
to the many students who are well rounded. Dennis said that he was
so happy when his college application asked for outside activities.
On his own, he learned foreign languages, how to read music scores
and much more. Reputation, character, and being a well rounded person
should be taken into consideration.
Dennis Prager anticipated by a couple of weeks this opinion piece
in the 3-31-98 WALL
STREET Journal.
An End to Harassment Hysteria
By STEVE SALERNO
Those desperate to find redeeming social
value in the steamy novel the Clinton presidency has become can
take comfort in this: If nothing else, the distasteful mess may
be reversing a pendulum swing to the outer limits of common sense
in our perception and prosecution of sexual harassment.
Ever since Catharine MacKinnon and other
hard-line feminists evolved their watershed concept of a "hostile
environment," sexual harassment has been an eye-of-the-beholder
offense: It's up to each individual to set her own standards for
what constitutes harassment (or his own standards, now that the
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the law also applies to same-sex
harassment). Effectively, as defense attorney Brenton Bleier points
out, this elevates the mere accusation to the status of proof, and
saddles defendants with the burden of proving that they didn't do
anything wrong.
Regardless of what one may think of President
Clinton's so-called nuts-and-sluts counteroffensive, his recent
aggressiveness in selling that defense reminds America of a principle
that too often gets cast aside in harassment cases: that the accused
is entitled to the presumption of innocence. No matter how much
smoke there is, it remains up to the accuser to prove there was
a fire.
The Clinton scenario is sure to affect public
perception of harassment claims filed elsewhere, thereby reshuffling
a legal deck that has been stacked against men for too long. Further,
if Mr. Clinton succeeds at fending off allegations of groping staff
members or soliciting oral sex from various women he has met along
the way, it is unlikely that some of the more lunatic hostile-environment
cases--such as the woman who filed suit because she was offended
by a colleague's desktop photo of his wife in a bathing suit--will
ever again be taken as seriously.
This is no small matter. Over the years,
bureaucratic America has lined up squarely behind the MacKinnon
camp. For example, a 1993 New York state report claimed that half
of all women, at some point in their lives, would be sexually harassed.
More than 60% of respondents once told Working Woman magazine that
they had been harassed. In theory, this means some 70 million women
could bring sexual-harassment lawsuits--a sobering prospect, given
that the average sexual-harassment plaintiff who wins her case in
court is awarded $256,000, according to the Jury Research Institute.
|