| Subj: Prager-L: Note from Dennis Prager
Date: 98-03-04 04:56:36 EST
From: TPPMAIL@aol.com (TPPMAIL)
Sender: owner-prager-l@email.csun.edu
I have been inordinately busy - virtually every minute - over
the past two months: traveling around America, making radio and
TV appearances and doing booksignings for my new book, in addition
to my winter teaching at the University of Judaism, writing my newsletter
and, of course doing three hours of live radio each day, not to
mention being preoccupied with my family. I have therefore read
few of the postings by Luke and of the responses to him about me.
This is literally the first evening I have had the time to write
a public post.
Moreover, as I try to live by the rule of not publicly commenting
until I actually know what I am commenting about, I have been unable
to respond to Luke's request that I tell him whether I approve or
not of his writings about me on the web or his "biography" of me.
I still have not read enough to precisely react to all his postings.
Of what I have seen, some are fine and some are offensive. Those
I find offensive, I find so not because he disagrees with me. If
I found all disagreements with me offensive, I would be a depressed
man, and one, furthermore, who has no business doing public work.
What I find offensive are intrusions into my private life for
Internet publication. Why, for example, must the world know about
a private conversation Luke had with my son? My son feels, understandably,
taken advantage of. He can now wonder whether because his dad is
well known his talking to anyone but a trusted friend or family
member might now lead to publication of that conversation. It is
irrelevant that Luke reported nothing offensive from that conversation.
It was a private chat. Every reporter I have ever known tells people
whether a talk will be reported or is off the record.
I still believe that Luke meant nothing malicious, but I am not
assessing Luke's character here, I am reacting to a wrong he committed
from whatever motive.
And why must the world learn about any miscarriages or physical
ailments in my family or among my friends? That I once years ago
wrote in my own newsletter of miscarriages (and as I mentioned this
but once in all my writings, I had entirely forgotten about having
written about it. I therefore had my belief that this was never
made public communicated to Chris Donald when Laurie Zimmet, my
assistant, asked me. I, not Chris Donald, am therefore entirely
responsible for Chris writing that this was factually wrong). (One
day, hopefully, Luke Ford will marry and will understand a husband's
desire to protect his wife's privacy.)
And then there are the inaccuracies that matter little to me except
when they are used to hurt my name. For example, I received $250,000,
not $500,000 as Luke wrote - and the man who gave me the money did
so solely to help me further my career and work. Instead of using
the money for my own work, however, I used it to set up the Micah
Center for Ethical Monotheism. And I am enormously proud of the
movie on goodness that Micah made. Tens of thousands of students
and employees (like the police leadership of Phoenix, Arizona) have
watched what I believe is the most effective video of the importance
of being a good human being ever made. If Micah only did that, it
would have been worth its creation. As I have to make a living,
I have not been able to do more with Micah since that film - which,
incidentally, I hope will ultimately fund Micah so that it can engage
in more such projects.
Luke writes of his love for me. I value this, as I believe it
to be sincerely felt. On those occasions when we have met, I have
never felt any hostility. I just don't understand how this love
is occasionally expressed - as in the inaccurate and defamatory
description of Micah. Nor do I understand how it is loving to post
details about my personal life, even if, in isolated moments of
public talks, I have alluded to these matters. I often open my heart
in lectures or in personal newsletter writings in ways that I never
expect to see distributed to wider audiences. So, if Luke needs
to hear from me that I do not authorize his work in these arenas,
here it is. Presumably words to that effect from my trusted and
enormously valuable assistant, Laurie Zimmet, did not suffice.
When Luke offers accurate summaries of my radio shows, on the
other hand, these can be quite valuable - to me and hopefully to
others as well. If he wishes to expand that endeavor, this might
prove to be a real service. And his other participation in discussions
of ideas that I raise are certainly welcome. But if I have affected
his life and values as much as he says, I want him to know that
in my writings and on my radio show, I have said far less about
the private lives of figures that are far more public figures than
I, than he has said on the web about me. Judaism's strict laws against
gossip prohibit me - and Luke - from doing so.
I wish Luke only happiness and good, and I still believe that
that is all he wishes me. I do not wish to write on this again.
And thank you to all who have desired to protect my private life
and name. It means a great deal to me.
Dennis Prager
I, Luke Ford, replied:
The biggest matter here is that I have caused Dennis pain and
annoyance. I am sorry I have done that.
My apology does not back away from my decision to write on him,
as inflicting pain is inherent in that task. Pain is inherent in
all human relations, and I will not stop from writing something
solely because it hurts the subjects feelings.
DP writes:
> And why must the world learn about any miscarriages or physical
>ailments in my family or among my friends? That I once years
ago wrote >in my own newsletter
I understand and respect a husband's desire to protect his wife's
privacy.
That you would publish your thoughts to 9,000 subscribers, thoughts
that are then passed around to tens of thousands of more people,
removes legal and moral rights to privacy on this matter.
>For example, I received $250,000, not $500,000 as Luke wrote
- and the man who gave me the money did so >solely to help me
further my career and work.
DP received 250K from one man, and money from hundreds, if not
thousands of others. YOUR description is not honest.
All I wrote was that the Micah Center had accomplished little
beyond producing the video FOR GOODNESS SAKE, which sells for $700.
> just don't understand how this love is occasionally expressed
- as in the inaccurate and defamatory description of Micah.
I still don't see anything inaccurate or defamatory in my description
of Micah.
>Nor do I understand how it is loving to post details about
my personal life, even if, >in isolated moments of public talks,
I have alluded to these matters. I often open >my heart in lectures
or in personal newsletter writings in ways that I never expect to
> see distributed to wider audiences. So, if Luke needs to hear
from me that I do > not authorize his work in these arenas, here
it is.
Words said publically to hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands
of people are public. Part of DP's appeal is his openness, which
he reveals daily on the radio for hundreds of thousands. There are
difficult areas here, and I will admit that they are not always
clear.
For instance, I have known Dennis to say things publically at
synagogue that he did not want taped. I am open to not reporting
such details, if that is his fervent wish.
>Presumably words to that effect from my trusted and enormously
>valuable assistant, Laurie Zimmet, did not suffice.
What is most disappointing in DP's post is no apology for the
campaign of defamation against me by his assistant. And if there
were things I wrote in his biography that he did not want published,
his assistant should've conveyed that. She only gave a blanket opposition
(first in December than here on this list) to my writing on DP.
> him to know that in my writings and on my radio show, I have
said far less about the private lives of >figures that are far
more public figures than I, than he has said on the web about me.
Judaism's strict >laws against gossip prohibit me - and Luke
- from doing so.
That is true and only partly relevant as DP is not a journalist
and does not write or speak about people. He is a commentator on
the great issues of life.
And virtually everything I have written about him, he has said
publically.
The other META issue here, aside from my sorriness for causing
DP pain, is the difficulty and pain of seeing oneself, and seeing
what one has said publically, repeated and rephrased. I find that
difficult, DP must find that difficult, etc...
Regards David Prager, that is a fair challenge. I wrote that he
planned to go to film school, something which dozens if not hundreds
of people already know.
It was already public information, not just something said to
me.
Though DP's note disappointed me in many ways, I still feel affirmed
in my love for him, for his gentleness in dealing with these messy
interpersonal issues, and his love for God, goodness and his friends
and family.
Dan Aronson calls
for a boycott of KABC radio during the hours of noon - 7PM
when Prager and Larry Elder are on the air. He writes:
THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION
The time has come for rational people of good will, those of us
who have had it up to our eyeballs with the radical rightwing agenda
of conservative talkshow hosts to call for an end of their hatemongering
on public airwaves.
The Problem:
KABC Talkradio has chosen to reinstate 7 hours, back-to-back,
of right-wing conservative broadcasting over the airwaves here in
Los Angeles by Dennis Prager, a conservative Republican followed
by Larry Elder, a conservative Libertarian. While I defend their
right to broadcast their political viewpoints (even though I am
diametrically opposed to 75% of what they "hold as true"), I am
adamantly opposed to KABC's policy of allowing these two radio radio
programs to be broadcast back-to-back. Separate them. Prager &
Elder care only about their right-wing agenda, and nothing for the
working poor and the oppressed. They are two very selfish and self-centered
individuals whose only compassion is for "small government". Tragically
they have lost the humanity of which they sometimes speak.
Where to Tune-in instead of KABC?
Try one of these stations:
Instead of the Prager show:
Radio station KFI - 640 on the AM dial.
It airs the Dr. Laura Schlessinger program... or
Radio station KLSX - 97.1 on the FM dial.
It airs the Jonathon Brandmeier program.
Instead of the Elder show:
Radio station KLSX - 97.1 on the FM dial.
It airs the fabulous & dynamic Tom Leykis program... or
Radio station KFI - 640 on the AM dial.
It airs the highly entertaining John & Ken program.
The History:
Prager
For years, Prager has ranted and raved about numerous topics ranging
from radical-right this, to radical-right that. I remember him yelling
at his audience and pounding his fist when his personal friend Bruce
Hershensohn was running for the US Senate. Prager ranted and raved
how he couldn't understand why Hershensohn was so far behind in
the polls. "It's just beyond me."
Similarly, there was the time when Prager yelled at his audience
about the fact that the majority of Californians were not in favor
of 'School Vouchers'. "I just can't figure it out folks!" was his
reply. . . a reply he frequently uses when common sense prevails
and goes against Prager's perceptual problems. In the case of school
vouchers, he just could not comprehend the magnitude of the importance
of fixing the public education system rather than destroying it.
Year after year we have been subjected to Prager's arrogance,
intolerance, and simple-mindedness. He lives his life deep within
quirky little syllogisms and hides squarely behind his bizarre logical
theorems. To Prager, life is to be lived by squeezing reality into
tiny compartments which fit snugly into a Prageresque 'sociological
explanation' which is the infrastructure for his cryptobigotry and
narrow-mindedness. Prager's humanity has been severely compromised
by his highly intelligent but distorted views of 'what the world
really is about and what it will take to fix the problems therein."
Prager has the chutzpah to call himself "a passionate moderate".
This is like calling Rush Limbaugh a centrist of the Republican
Party ... or Jesse Helms, the centrist of Conservative Republicans.
Prager's blatant homophobia (oh yes-he has gay friends), his blaming
of the "liberals, democrats, and the legacy of the '60's" as the
cause of our societal problems, his constant mis-statements of the
truth, the twisting of facts to fit his narrow minded, self-serving
'proofs' of what's wrong with our culture. For those of us who have
had enough of him, it is time to stop. Tune him out. Now.
Elder
Larry Elder, whose daily tirades against the President, praising
the special prosecutor who has waged a 5 year campaign to bring
down the Clinton presidency, constant screaming about Monica Lewinsky,
Jennifer Flowers, Whitewater and anything which smacks of imperfection
in the human spirit, his yelling at callers, one after the other
who simply disagree with his perspective on any one issue, his lack
of compassion for those in society who are less fortunate then he,
as he offers only one simple-minded solution to nearly all of society's
problems: "Get off your ass and get to work - no matter what they
pay you!" We've had to listen to his crap for years. He continues
pound on the eardrums of those of who of us who also care about
the problems facing Angelinos, but have productive, more effective,
and more tolerant solutions than the standard Elderism. So join
with me folks, tune him out. Now.
Action:
Tell you friends, tell you neighbors, tell your church and synagogue
groups to join me in tuning-out KABC's 7 hours of continuous right-wing
hate-mongering. Bring reason, rationality, and fairness back to
KABC. Bring the Michael Jackson's, Susan Estrich's. Carol Hemmingway's
of the world, back to an audience which deserves more than it's
currently getting from KABC management. Bring KABC back to the days
of greatness when Ben Hoberman was VP of the Station...when George
Green took the station to the heights it so richly deserved.
Please join me in spreading this good news.
Thomas Arena replies: "Dennis Prager? Of all the conservative
personalities to have a problem with, you choose Dennis? He is not
very extreme, and is quite a pleasant host. Granted, I am a conservative,
But Dennis Prager is pretty mild. By the way, what you want to do
sounds a lot like denying their freedom of speech. Just because
you don't agree with them does not mean they don't have a right
to say it. Just don't tune in to them if it bothers you so much.
I hate the liberal bias of the network news, so I don't watch it."
|