Prager returned to Clinton, the Starr Report and perjury. He read approvingly
from today's NewYork Times:
A Texas judge was convicted of perjury for declaring that he had used
political contributions to buy flowers for his staff when, in fact, the
flowers went to his wife.
A Florida postal supervisor is in prison for denying in a civil deposition
that she had a sexual relationship with a subordinate.
An Ohio youth who was arrested for underage drinking testified that he
had never been read his rights by the police. He was then convicted of
perjury for lying and sent to jail for 60 days.
Defenders of President Clinton have argued that his accusers are overzealous
in saying he should be impeached or subject to criminal charges on the
grounds that he committed perjury when he denied in a civil deposition
that he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
But a review of more than 100 perjury cases in state and federal courts,
and statistics on the number of perjury prosecutions brought around the
country, show that people are prosecuted in America for what might be
called small lies more regularly than the Clinton defenders have suggested.
Singlemom writes:
There is no question about it - Prager is, fat and
fifty plus. I am being intellectually honest when I say that. Maybe I
should have been "politically correct" and said "Overweight
and less than 80". Here's the skinny on that. Prager attacks "health"
as the new
"secular god". Prager has stated on air that "Health is
the secular god" yet he is physically unhealthy, even though he is
a paid pusher for a Centinela Hospital commercial - "Heart Check".
Here's the way I (and maybe others) see it.
Prager attacks "health" calling it the "secular god"
and what he calls "unreal" height/weight ideals. Prager smokes
pipes and cigars. Prager attacks opposition to the tobacco industry (Prop
10, etc.) Prager
attacks height/weight standards and the tobacco industry on air.
I wish I had a radio show to attack all the things that I disagree with
or to attack any challenge to my vices.
Wrapped in the flag, the Torah and the Bible, there is a boring, predictable
and crackpot formula to the Dennis Prager show.
The Dennis Prager Anger Formula - Dennis Prager daily will -
1. Scour (and I mean scour) news media looking for a print media article
he can be angry and outraged about.
2. Extrapolate that obscure article/situation/outcome to all of America.
3. Sound the alarm that all America is threatened by the obscure.
4. IMPORTANT - Tell us how he knew "it" would happen years before
it did or how he had been predicting "it" for years.
Prager clearly divides us into groups. He distinguishes then attacks "Democrats",
a group, "Liberals", a group, Attorneys, a group, Teachers,
a group, Secular Humanists, a group and now homosexuals - the "less
than ideal" group when compared to heterosexuals.
11/16
Prager spent two hours of his show on this Washington Post column by
Nat Hentoff. Prager said that the Post is now the most indispensable newspaper
for him.
Prager mistakenly said that the subject family is Jewish. According to
the Wall Street Journal article that follows, it is Catholic.
11/14 Post:
In 1996, Grace Oliva, a first-grade teacher
at the Haines Public School in Medford, N.J., allowed students who had
reached a certain level of reading proficiency to read a story of their
own choosing to the class.
Zachary Hood, then 6 years old, picked a story out of the Beginner's
Bible. From the Book of Genesis, it is called "The Big Family,"
and it told of the reconciliation of two brothers, Jacob and Esau, who
had once quarreled bitterly. This is the story in full:
"Jacob traveled far away to his uncle's house. He worked for his
uncle, taking care of sheep. While he was there, Jacob got married. He
had 12 sons. Jacob's big family lived on his uncle's land for many years.
But Jacob wanted to go back home.
"One day, Jacob packed up all his animals and his family and everything
he had. They traveled all the way back to where Esau lived. Now Jacob
was afraid that Esau might still be angry at him. So he sent presents
to Esau. He sent servants who said, 'Please don't be angry any more.'
But Esau wasn't angry. He ran to Jacob. He hugged and kissed him. He was
happy to see his brother again."
It was to be the first time Zachary had read to the class, but the teacher
said he could not read that story because it was religious. Humiliated,
the boy came home, his eyes red from crying, and told his parents.
His mother, Carol, complained and, she says, the teacher explained: "It's
a public school, and the Bible is not allowed." Carol Hood later
told the Rutherford Institute -- which initially brought the case to court
-- that the principal, Dr. Gail Pratt, then said the story was "prayer"
and prayer is not allowed in the public schools. She suggested to the
mother that the boy should be put in private school and added -- Carol
Hood told her lawyer -- "I have enough trouble with Jews." Michael
Reilly, a teacher in the district, told me that Carol Hood repeated to
him the principal's reference to Jews. The principal denies she said that.
Federal District Court Judge Joseph Rodriguez ruled against Zachary Hood.
The other kids, the judge said, might have thought the teacher was endorsing
the Bible.
The judge may have been unaware of the U.S. Department of Education's
guidelines on religious expression in the public schools, which state:
"Students may express their beliefs about religion in the form of
homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments -- free of discrimination
based on the religious contents of their submissions."
Nonetheless, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals -- without hearing oral
arguments -- affirmed the lower court's decision that Zachary Hood should
have been silenced.
In a remarkable amicus brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals supporting
the school, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the
Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress gravely charged:
"Zachary Hood alleges a deprivation of what amounts to a constitutional
right to proselytize his classmates in class regardless of the teacher's
considered judgment that the selection was educationally inappropriate"
(emphasis added).
There are times, and this is one of them, that certain institutions zealously
intent on keeping public schools religion-free become mirror images of
Pat Robertson's insistence that this is a Christian nation.
There is no mention of God or miracles in the story that Zachary wanted
to read. And there is not even a mite of proselytization in that story.
Zachary is now represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
If the Supreme Court takes the case, I hope it reminds the nation of what
Justice William Brennan -- a firm adherent of the Establishment Clause
-- said in his concurring decision in a school case, Abington School District
v. Schempp (1963):
"Not every involvement of religion in public life is unconstitutional."
Michael Reilly has been a teacher for 28 years in Zachary Hood's school
district. Last summer, he was the union's chief negotiator for the new
contract. Reilly wrote to local papers saying Zachary should have been
able to read his story because it was about a universal theme -- forgiveness.
The president of the local teachers' union sent a letter to the entire
membership saying he was "appalled" at Reilly's decision to
"go public" and "not be supportive of one of his fellow
members."
And teachers from Zachary's school told Reilly he would be purged from
the union if he does not recant and apologize. Reily tells me he will
not comply. "I thought," he said, "the issue was religious
censorship. Now I realize it is free speech itself that is fundamentally
under attack."
Gil writes on the Prager List:
Below is another story on the same subject that appeared a day earlier.
It comes from DP's favorite paper (and mine), The Wall Street Journal.
It's printed in the very same space that DP's last contribution to the
WSJ was published.
DP made not a single reference, even in passing, to this piece -- which
also discloses a bit more (the opposition's legal observations) that may
be
contrary to DP's programming interests.
Now although I agree with DP's stated sympathies, I have to wonder what
political game he thinks he's engaging by playing up the publication by
the
leftish paper over the rightish one? And what game, each, was the Washington
Post and the WSJ playing? Hentoff's piece left out some rather important
points that Schaefer's piece revealed, and vice-versa.
The issue of free speech should trump the slippery slope argument that
is necessary to completely preclude ALL biblical source material EVEN
if the
bible is not directly credited. Nobody seems to be playing up this angle
to the extent our republic deserves. Downright annoying.
A Bible Story
By NAOMI SCHAEFER
"Faith is not something you leave at the door," says Carol Hood.
"Especially when you're little, you take it with you
wherever you go." Mrs. Hood has a lot to say about faith. It's something
she thinks the public schools in Medford, N.J., are taking away from her
young
son -- and she and her husband are suing them for it.
Zachary Hood's first-grade teacher had a policy of
rewarding students by letting them read a book of their choosing to the
class. In February 1996,
it was Zack's turn. As he was getting ready for school, his mother saw
that he was carrying Dr. Seuss's "The Cat in the Hat," all 63
pages of it. Mrs.
Hood thought that might be a little long, so Zack ran up to his room and
grabbed the children's Bible from which his mother read to him every night.
At school, Zack proposed reading the tale of Jacob and Esau-- from the
Old Testament, about Isaac's sons -- but his teacher had reservations.
She asked Zack to read the story to her privately. "It's too
religious," she told the five-year-old.
Visibly upset upon returning home that afternoon, Zack told his mother
about the incident. Mrs. Hood called the principal, Gail Pratt, and asked
why her son was barred from reading the story. As Mrs. Hood
remembers it, the principal said, "[The story] is prayer." After
a brief conversation, Ms. Pratt told Mrs. Hood: "Maybe you should
think about
sending Zack to a Catholic school."
The Hoods are, in fact, Catholic, but such advice was not what Mrs. Hood
was looking for. She wanted an explanation -- or an apology. But a letter
to the teacher, two more conversations with Ms.
Pratt and one with the school superintendent brought no satisfaction.
What to do?
Mrs. Hood says that she had no intention of taking legal action, that
it was the school principal who raised the possibility in her mind by
citing legal
precedent in defense of the teacher. Eventually, Mrs. Hood called the
Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil-liberties organization known for
its defense of religious freedom, to ask about her son's rights. They
agreed to represent her in a suit against the school system. Almost three
years later, the suit is still going on (although with a different legal
team).
The lawsuit cites the Bible-story incident but also a
larger pattern of behavior. For example, when Zack was in kindergarten
the year before, his teacher had asked the class to celebrate Thanksgiving
by making a small poster telling what they were thankful for. Zack wrote
that he was "thankful for Jesus," a sentiment that didn't surprise
his mother. "I have
always wanted him to know that God is his friend and the awesome creator
of the universe."
Zack's poster was displayed next to the others, but when his teacher was
out sick, the poster was removed. His teacher was later informed that
the
religious message was inappropriate; the poster should be moved to a less
conspicuous location. Another parent told Mrs. Hood that when she tried
to bring a menorah to school for decorations during the holidays, Ms.
Pratt told her: "Only snowflakes and snowmen, please."
The school system's lawyer, John Dyer, denies that his client said any
of this. "A finder of fact would discern that Dr. Pratt is not the
type of woman who would make the statements attributed to her." In
fact, Mr. Dyer claims, Ms. Pratt did her best to handle Zack's Bible story
problem in a nonconfrontational
manner. But "[Zack] and his mother must have talked about this at
home after looking at the story," he says. "This was bound for
a lawsuit from the time the child
walked into the classroom."
The legal backdrop to all this is of course the separation of church and
state -- a doctrine derived by the courts from the First Amendment's
establishment clause. In recent years this doctrine has
come to mean the elimination of religious content in public schools --
most notably prayer but
even traditional Christmas decorations. Some people think the courts have
gone too far. But the question remains: Does Zack's desire to read a children's
Bible story, or to give thanks to Jesus in a kindergarten poster, really
threaten the doctrine even as currently understood?
So far the courts have sided with the school system.
District Judge Joseph Rodriguez argued that the students "could have
construed the presentation
to be an endorsement of the Bible by the teacher," a
violation of the establishment clause. He further noted that it is "irrelevant
that the story had no overt religious theme" -- God is not even mentioned
in the story -- "the speech was the book itself." In other words,
the very fact that the story came from the Bible made it taboo.
Mrs. Hood reports that Zack is afraid to mention God in any of his assignments.
She tells him "not to feel ashamed of his religion," but he
seems ambivalent. As for the assertion that young children will not be
able to tell the difference between what other students believe and what
the teacher is endorsing, Mrs. Hood claims that this is plain wrong --
a story is a story, as even Dr. Seuss could tell you. Furthermore, she
believes, this is exactly the age when children are "spiritual beings."
"By the time they reach
fourth or fifth grade, there is a lot of peer pressure.
It's not cool to believe in God" -- a lesson the courts seem to be
teaching them even earlier.
11/14/98
Dennis Prager's son Aaron pranced around SSW today letting everyone know
that it was his (sixth?) birthday.
Screenwriter Alan Estrin gave a witty ten minute summary of this week's
Torah portion, calling it "Two Funerals, A Divorce and a Wedding."
This freed Prager to go off on a topic unrelated to the portion.
DP spoke about the kneejerk Jewish tendency to dismiss anything Christian
as not-Jewish. Because Christians believe that abortion is murder, Judaism
must view it as ok. Not true. Because Christians talk about God all the
time, Jews should be more sophisticated.
Prager spoke (about kavanah - intention) last week to a meeting of Conservative
rabbis in South Carolina. Prager noted that the only parts of Jewish life
that are God intoxicated are parts of orthdoxy. Conservative Judaism is
intoxicated with Ph.Ds.
Prager noted that Jews pray by rote while Protestants do it more spontaneously.
Prager says Jews can learn from such spontaneous Christian prayer. Jews
should not fear talking about God. And there is no need to always substitute
"HaShem" or "G-d" for God.
Prager said that YULA high school graduate Zach Schrier (sp?) pointed
out to the him that Maimonidies, in his philosophic works, used the word
"Allah" for God.
Prager's 25 minute talk elicited a flood of comments from the generally
subdued crowd of 100.
11/9/98
From 9 - 10:30AM, Dennis Prager ridiculed the anti-smoking movement.
Then he discussed New York mayor Rudy Giulani's description of strip clubs
as "sick, perverted places."
Luke called in at 11:14, the first time I've gotten through to his show
since I've started writing on Prager.
I began by saying that I had sympathy for the mayor's remarks. DP wanted
to know if that meant I agreed with them.
I said not necessarily, I simply thought they were one of several valid
ways of looking at a question.
Prager is much more into making pronouncements and sharp divides between
agree and disagree and taking words literally than I am (at times). As
a reporter and as a personality quirk, I mainly seek to observe and understand
(though I will certainly judge as wrong and evil many things).
I argued that strip clubs are not healthy places and that they are perverse.
I agreed with Dr. Robert Stoller's thinking on sexual excitement. Dr.
Stoller points out that the desire to harm, to transgress, to pervert,
is an essential ingredient in sexual excitement.
Prager said that he'd read several of Dr. Stoller's books and he had not
come across such thinking. Well, Prager should look at Dr. Robert Stoller's
book "Observing The Erotic Imagination," copyright 1985 by Yale
University Press. The first chapter is entitled "Perversion and the
Desire to Harm."
Gil wrote to the Prager list:
Luke made in on DP despite my misgivings. Here is our online chat. <G>
DP devoted a section of his show to Rudy Guiliani's "method"
of riddding the city of sex clubs. Ever alert, I IM'd Luke....
Sgil46: You're Ears just picked up, didn't they?
Luzdedos1: lol
Luzdedos1: i am on hold to talk to him
Sgil46: under what name?
Luzdedos1: luke
Sgil46: you're a hard case. lol
Sgil46: c'mon luke. hangup and call back as hitler.
Luzdedos1: :)
Sgil46: rotfl
well, contrary to my ribbing of Luke, he did make it on.
Luke said he agreed with the previous caller, referencing a source that
DP holds in high regard.
By the time Luke's time was "up," DP had turned the comment
into support of his position by saying that it was perverted in the moral
sense, not the psychological one.
11/7/98
Dennis Prager spoke today to 150 persons at his temple Stephen S Wise,
following an energetic enthusiastic ten minute summary of the week's Torah
portion by his peppy preppy assistant Laurie Zimmet.
Wearing a long white dress shirt, dark tie, dark slacks and draped in
a long white prayer shawl covered with multi-colored stripes, Prager selected
one story from Vayera (Gen. 18-22:24), which will be his son's Aaron Bar
Mitzvah portion in seven years.
Prager discussed the implications of Abraham arguing with God over the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, drawing these conclusions:
* It's ok to argue with God. But Judaism does not stop there. You argue
with God, you try to figure out God's will, and why he wills things, but
then you must go on to do God's will (mitzvot).
* Arguing with God indicates that it is good to try to rationalize why
God does things or why God demands certain behavior.
* If it is ok to argue with God, it is ok to argue with your parents,
but like Abraham, you should do it respectfully. There comes a time eventually
when you stop arguing and obey due authority.
* We argue with those we care about.
* Abraham argued with God on behalf of strangers. Perhaps Abraham should've
argued with God on behalf of Isaac before the Akedah. Certainly Isaac
should've argued with Abraham.
11/4/98
Prager critic Singlemom writes:
Prager's post election show was a fascinating exposition of a True Believer.
He continued his bizarre support of tobacco and registered his outrage
at the tax on cigars. I believe Dennis has stated that he
smokes cigars as well as pipes.
He blamed the loss of the Republicans on - the Democrats! He said that
Republicans were forced to go with Independent Counsel's report because
the Democrats created the Independent Counsel. So if there were no Independent
Counsel report for the Republicans to politicize, there would not have
been a rejection of the Republicans for their shameless
politicization of the Independent Counsel's Report.
He called on Republicans to be "Compassionate Conservatives"
- kinder and gentler in their attacks - to choose their words more carefully
so that others won't know what you they really are up to, choose battles
that can be won then go for the rest of your goals and to position minorities
so that they are visible to the media. Funny that he didn't recognize
that Americans reject conservatives who come across as mean
spirited BEFORE the election.
Like his sock puppet, Rantell, he said in effect, Let's see what happens
with an all Democrat state government, then attacked it before any Democrat
was
even sworn in to office.
What was particularly revolting was Dennis Prager's focus on race in the
elections. He often says that there are only two races - the decent and
the indecent. In his post election analysis, Prager gave clear advice
to the Republican losers. Go after the racial votes. He gave George W
Bush's win in Texas as an example of how this callous strategy could prove
successful for the Pete Wilsons of the Republican party as you can
see in the quote below.
"Maybe now they will wake up and realize that you can not ignore
those groups (Hispanics & blacks)and win in alot of places And so
George W Bush, this was very telling to me, you know when they give their
talks
"thank yous" on, uh, you've seen em, you know, on any of the
TV shows, not shows, TV reports, news reports you have the candidate flanked
by his family, her family, and behind them you see a few people. On George
W Bush, Governor George W Bush of Texas, everytime I saw him speak to
his supporters at his hotel where he thanked Texans for electing him,
re-electing him, the only faces I saw behind George W Bush, Republican
Governor of Texas, were black. That's the way you win big as a Republican.
The Republicans already have whites. All they need to do is get blacks
and Hispanics - Hispanics in the majority and blacks to
rethink their 95 to 5 allegiance to Democrats. And in my opinion, it could
be done easily, easily."
A man called in challenging Dennis on his support of school vouchers.
The caller said that he could not send his kids to any private school
for the value of a voucher, $250, and asked Dennis to name one private
school in LA that charged $250 per month or less. Dennis told him to send
the kids to Catholic schools. The caller protested and said "I'm
Jewish!"
Dennis stammered and said "So what! So what! I'm going to make the
case to you that the public school's values are further away from Jewish
values than the Catholic schools' values are". Prager went to break.
When he returned, Prager rambled on about how a "compassionate conservative"
is unbeatable and never did explain his Catholic school values/Jewish
values statement. Prager went back to the caller and
tried to control the conversation. The caller wouldn't let him and stopped
Dennis and told him that he called several Catholics schools in his area
(Santa Monica) while on hold and that the monthly fee was $355
to $550. He asked Prager to name one private school in LA where he could
send his children with a $250 voucher. Prager couldn't. The caller told
Prager that it was unfair of Prager to advocate a program which
would give parents $250 for a private school when there is NO private
school in LA that costs $250 per month or less. Prager was clearly flustered,
responding - "Wait, wait, wait, I know you told me you're
Jewish and we Jews are known for answering questions with questions."
Prager referred to voucher programs in the vague "inner city"
and tried to dodge the caller's request to be specific to LA. The caller
then said that vouchers would only benefit those who already could afford
to
send their kids to private schools. He asked Prager if his kids were in
private school and how much that cost. Prager said that both his kids
were in private school and the annual tuition for one was about $10,000
a year. The caller said that people like Prager who could pay $10,000
for one kid wouldn't need the $250 voucher and would just pocket the money.
Prager tried to make his argument again that poor people would
benefit. The caller expressed his doubts. Later in the show Prager said
someone called and said Catholic school tuition was under $2,500 annually
in Redondo Beach and Torrance. So I guess Prager is suggesting
that a Jewish family in Santa Monica send their children to Catholic school
in Torrance - on a bus maybe? Even with Prager's interruptions, stammering
and attempts to change the subject, the caller clearly and succinctly
pointed out that Prager was not supporting vouchers as much as he was
attacking the LA Unified teachers, the teachers union and ultimately the
teachers' union's support of the Democratic party.
Additionally, Prager quoted from a Harvard survey which, he said, supported
vouchers.
Strange - on any given day, he would attack ANYTHING from any campus because
it could only be dishonest and liberal if it was produced by the
American higher education system. On this day, Dennis embraced the output
of an American university because it supported him.
Other quotes from the show -
"Elections and Abortion - It should become clear to people in the
pro-life movement that they will not win in elections on that issue so
you have really not many choices you can continue to advance your moral
position and continue to lose elections to people who are as passionate
about the non-moral nature in other words there is no moral question at
all about aborting, it's a non-issue it's like a woman taking out a
decayed tooth and they will dominate or you could try to win people over
by persuasion and leave it out of the political process now."
"I do believe people are going to have to make a choice on the Republican
side - do we fight for everything we believe is right or do we win and
then fight on the stuff we can win on."
"Americans seem to be pretty tired of right and left."
"You can sell some difficult ideas if you talk gently and if you
talk decently. It is not helpful to speak for example about homosexuality
and kleptomania. It is not a helpful form of rhetoric when Trent Lott
compared those two. It's quite sufficient to say as I have for years
here, and have an enormous gay listenership, that the society needs to
protect its heterosexual ideal, that we want to preserve the male female
bond as our primary bond in our society. You know that Hawaii, the most
liberal state in the Union, I said it was Massachusetts, it may well be
Hawaii, voted to amend its constitution I don't know if they ever did
amend a constution by popular vote in Hawaii history in order to define
marriage as male female. It was passed That's Hawaii."
"Americans want their fellow gay American to be treated no differently
than anybody else because he is another human being who is an American
-
end of issue. But they're not prepared to redefine marriage, they're not
prepared to say it doesn't matter if a male has sex with a male or a female.
That is where people can be intellectually honest, not offensive and not
come across as angry and hate filled."
"The Republicans in the mind of Americans don't seem to stand for
anything except for not being Democrats."
"Conservatives who speak beautifully will win in America. That's
the new idea of compassionate conservative and I believe George Bush of
Flor.., of Texas... he has come up with the idea of compassionate conservative
which really means you have conservative principles and you show that
you care about people, which is not hard to do by the way, that's the
irony, it is amazing to me how often conservatives come across as mean
spirited when the principles are not mean spirited, that is a turn-off
to people but I tell you this when you have a conservative
who lights people's fires like Ronald Reagan or George W Bush, I don't
believe that they're beatable I think that that is the most powerful combination
in American politics, a conservative who shows that he cares
for people."
...Dennis Prager did not say one word to Michael Jackson on Michael's
last weekday on KABC as
Michael ended his show. Local, state and national political and entertainment
leaders of both parties were calling all week, showering Michael with
well deserved accolades and Dennis Prager said nothing -
not goodbye, not good luck - nothing. Shameful behavior in front of the
goyim!
Imagine that a talk radio host often said that Christianity
was the "ideal" or that Caucasians were the "ideal"
or that Judaism was the "ideal" - not on some small low wattage
Southern radio station but on an ABC outlet in one of the largest cities
in the country. Would you
be comfortable with that?
While you may be compassionate and sharing with your love and lifevest,
some others are not. The statements of authority figures - priests, ministers,
rabbis, teachers, parents, talk show hosts etc. carry weight,
sometimes more weight than they should with others who think less critically
than you. If those authority figures distinguish between groups with words
like "ideal" or worse, the door is open. Disturbed,
less rationally thinking followers of the authority figure can easily
justify negativity towards the "less than ideal" - be that a
dislike, a slur or a homicidal pistol whipping.
No one is saying that Dennis Prager ordered the slaying of Mathew Shepard.
What he and some authority figures do is 1.) divide us into groups and
2.) qualify those groups as "ideal" and by default, less than
ideal. Dashes of Judeo Christianity are often thrown in by the authority
figure. A disturbed member of the "ideal" group can justify
to himself an attack on the "less than ideal" by pointing to
the statements of the authority figure who said that one is less ideal
than the other.