Home


6/6/03 09/03 10/17/03 11/25/02 9/5/02 5/20/02 12/19/01 10/23/01 7/20/01 4/30/01 4/2/01 2/20/01 12/4/00 10/20/00 9/7/00 8/18/00 6/2/00 4/27/00 3/13/00 3/00

Nov. 2, 2007 Dec. 30, 2005 Sept. 9, 2004

My New Writing On Dennis Prager

August 18, 2000

Prager found Al Gore's long kiss (possibly a french kiss) of his wife Tipper inappropriate. Al grabbed her and kissed her long and hard after her speech. It seemed calculated to show what a man he was.

Prager also decried Tipper's nude photo of herself. Where's the propriety?

P surmised that many Democrats are not troubled by this public affection while Republicans tend to be more conservative.

P: As I get older, I like guitar more and more.

P's youngest son: Daddy, I want to learn to play the harp.

DP: Why?

Son: Because of Harpo Marx.

Prager spent 90 minutes about people's fixation with meeting celebrities. P says this is not an effective route to happiness, trying to elevate oneself in the glow of a celebrity.

Many people want to rub elbows with the famous. It brings an adrenalin rush, but not happiness.

Caller: Dennis, when you're on Politically Incorrect. And you're sitting there surrounded by hundreds of people watching the show live, doesn't that stroke your ego?

DP: No. What strokes my ego is getting an essay into the Wall Street Journal or having my Happniess book translated into Romanian. That's significant. Fame is insignificant.

August 17, 2000

Prager decried the liberal war on children's innocence. He played tape from last night's Democrat convention. Children talked about growing up in a world without trees. A six year old girl spoke about children being touched improperly. All sorts of scaremongering.

Prager decried the use of children for political ends. The destruction of children's innocence. Eight year olds should watch the Marx Brothers. They should not be recruited to politics.

Prager was disappointed by Joe Lieberman's speech. Joe pandered to the blacks and the liberal special interests and seemed to back away from his own values.

Yesterday all P's callers disagreed with him, but today they agreed.

P says the Democrats are a party of the scared - scared of environmental pollution, nuclear war, guns, parents rolling over in bed and crushing their kids...

P says he can tell within five minutes when kids come over to his house, whether the kids have been raised within an environment of fear (of things they should not fear).

DennisPrager.com has a new and improved design but unfortunately there's little new content. Most of the site is a catalogue of Prager products to buy. But at least it looks better and navigates more quickly.

The new site contains some highly dubious claims. Such as, "This site was launched four years ago." As I recall, DennisPrager.com launched in February of 1998, just 30 months ago.

DennisPrager.com also claims that it receives 50,000 visitors a week. I highly doubt it. According to the Netscape "What's Related" button on the upper right of the Netscape browser, my site DennisPrager.net gets more visitors than DennisPrager.com, and I do not receive anywhere near 50,000 visitors a week.

Instead of investing money in a new slicker look, why don't they invest it in content? How about accurate and in depth daily summaries of Prager's radio show?

August 16, 2000

Dennis Prager characterized the Democratic convention as childish. He referred to all the stories told. "Let me tell you about Sarah Jones, a woman in..."

To Clinton's long walk to the podium, with the cameras following him down the corridors.

To Jesse Jackson leading a chant about not "going into the bushes..."

All the media flocking around the Hollywood actors to ask them political questions.

Why are so many in Hollywood liberal?

Prager theorized:

* As a backlash to the McCarthy years.

* Out of guilt that they make so much money while leading such hedonistic and dissolute lives.

* It is better for their career.

* Actors want to be loved. And you're going to get more love, and sound more loving, espousing left of center positions. Imagine if an actress got up and said, I don't think my fellow actresses should be having children outside of wedlock.

Prager discussed why a black was not chosen as the Democratic VP. That's because there are no black Democrats with substantial crossover appeal. All the numerous black Democrat politicians come from black districts. There are no black governors or US senators. Lieberman, by contrast, has crossover appeal. He pulled in 67% of Connecticut's vote, even though only 2% of the state's population is Jewish.

Aug 15, 2000

Dennis Prager began his show with an interview with Roman Catholic Bill Bennett, a former Secretary of Education and Drug Czar. Bill, a Republican, and Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, are twins on cultural issues.

Bill: In the long run this will cause Gore trouble because Lieberman is a man of integrity who won't budge on such issues as (Joe supports the following) school choice (vouchers), Prop 209 (anti-group preference) and tort reform (trial lawyers are the Democrats biggest donors). Joe's a huge critic of Hollywood, handing out Silver Sewer awards.

Lieberman's staff has told Bennett that Bill has Joe's proxy, his power of attorney, to represent him in cultural dialogues with Hollywood.

Democratic radical, black congresswoman Maxine Waters, said she would not support the ticket unless Lieberman changes on vouchers.

Dennis: Does Lieberman's appointment show that there is a thirst in this country for moral probity that even the Democrats recognize?

Bill: Yes. This was a repudiation of Clinton.

If Lieberman runs away from his record, then Gore will lose the moral credibility he gained by picking him.

DP: Joe keeps the Ten Commandments up in his office, an idea derided throughout the liberal establishment.

Bill: It shows that the cultural right was not as whacko as charged.

Bill: I've met with George Bush on several times in the past few months. He's ignored me and he's doing brilliantly. He's run the best general election campaign we've seen in a long time.

If a Catholic had mentioned God as many times in his speech...

August 14, 2000

Dennis Prager Dropped in Sacramento for being a liberal on porn

Luke-- I can't tell if you love or hate Dennis Prager, but we lost him today in the Sacramento Market. Here is what happenned this morning: ---Alan C. Miller, Davis, CA

I called the station, and was told by the woman who answered the phone that Prager was dropped because Prager was not conservative on all issues. When I asked what this meant they said Prager was liberal in regards to pornography! They said their mission statement forbids them from allow Prager on the air because Prager is liberal on pornography. She implied that Prager had promised to be conservative on all issues when Prager signed up with the station, as if Prager had violated that contract.

I said Prager said that some people have trouble with it, while others don't, much like alcohol. As I recall Prager said he subscribed to Playboy. Regardless, Prager is hardly a liberal. My main complaint was that they could take such a wise, conservative man such as Prager and banish him for taking a perceived liberal stand on one issue. I said that wasn't conservative, that was CLOSED MINDED. In fact, the woman stated that it was in Pragers' own words that Prager said he was liberal on pornography. I wonder if Prager said this in a relative sense, and they just took the literal word "liberal" and that's all it took for them. From the way this woman used the word 'conservative,' it had the ring of being a knee-jerk word with no heart behind it. The word seems more important than the meaning behind it.

The woman further stated that they weren't the only station that had dropped Prager "as far as I know." I asked about Pragers' ratings, and she said they were very low, and that they had been receiving many complaints about Prager for his liberal views! I'm wondering where the people who run this station are coming from? I also thought it was odd I wasn't passed on to programming, which is who usually handles these issues. Having a receptionist who obviously didn't agree with Prager's views answering the phone is rather odd. These sound like extremely closed minded people to me. Let me share our email exchange from the day I first found Prager on KTKZ, just days after I found Prager on KABC on the internet.

At 3:56 PM -0700 8/17/99, Alan C. Miller wrote: >I became a fan when I saw you on Tom Snyder--you speak as a >conservative from the heart, not from politics. I indentify with >how you view the world, and now believe I may be more conservatively >minded myself. Last week I obtained unlimited internet access, >largely when I discovered I could hear you on KABC this way. Then I >just discovered our new station KTKZ 1380 Sacramento is now carrying >you. Finally I can hear you!

At 9:09 PM -0700 8/17/99, Dennis Prager wrote: >I'm delighted to have you. Please tell KTKZ about your feelings if you get >the chance. >Since you feel as you do, I hope you get to read some of my writings -- >newsletter and books. >Dennis

Doug Hill writes on the Prager List: Dennis is now (Monday 8/14, 10-11 am PDT) telling the story of a West Virginia 7-11 worker, Antonio Feliciano, who subdued a robber who held a gun on him, and then was fired by 7-11. He violated the 7-11 policy of not resisting robbers. As you might expect, DP is critical of 7-11's action.

To me, this looks like 7-11 following a generally good policy too literally. Telling your employees not to resist robbery is probably a good policy, minimizing fatalities. But this appears (from what I just heard) to be an exceptional case, where the robber continued to threaten him AFTER getting the money. (This was apparently a nervous robber who didn't know when to make his getaway.)

DP said that he got this story from _People_ magazine. He had Feliciano on the show and encouraged him to set up an expense fund while he is unemployed.

Luke: The woman who sells the syndication of Prager's radio show is former radio personality Stacy Ruben (benc1@concentric.net ). She publishes her views on radio etc around the internet. Here's something that was posted to Laradio.com:

Leave Dr. Laura Alone

"Enough is enough. Leave Dr. Laura Schlessinger alone. I can't believe this industry. I am including the whole media industry. You don't have to like what Dr. Laura has to say, you don't have to believe what Dr. Laura has to say.

One thing you do have to do is RESPECT her accomplishments for how far she has come in this industry. Regardless of what has been said of how she got there....... SHE DID GET THERE. You won't stay on top unless you are good at what you do. She is good at what she does. Tom Leykis is good at what he does. Do I like him? No. But I have to respect that he has gone through many decades of broadcasting on the radio and been successful at each level. It really pains me to hear how advertisers are dropping Dr. Laura for her remarks on homosexuality. Dr. Laura is an entertainer first. All you listeners ... and you must be listening or you wouldn't be able to quote so well. You must realize that that is really why she is there.

Her number one job is to entertain you. Her advice is second. Her advice is really of no importance. I'm sorry but it's true. Her job is to keep you glued to that radio for as long as she can. That is the bare naked truth. And guess what, she is doing that. Is she destroying your ability to be able to go home and sleep with another man or woman.? She is not. Don't blame her if you're not getting laid! Is she making it so that your mom won't buy you a toaster when you tell her you're moving in with your lover and you are gay? No she is not. She is not responsible for the evils of the world. She is not responsible for the wonderful things of this world. You are giving her far too much power. She is an entertainer on the radio. Get a grip. Her job is to make you THINK she is a credible source. She faked you out!

I work for a competing company that does advertising. I would tell any advertiser that was canceling because of her views. YOU ARE INSANE! [of course I wouldn't say this if they wanted to buy from me]. She has the cume, she has the ratings, she has the name brand, she is recognizable, and she gets people to listen. Stop it and look at the results. If I was Premiere I would double the rates for advertisers on her show and only let the SMART ones in. The rest need to think about what they are doing to their business by not putting dollars where they have an audience. On second thought... if any of those advertisers need an outlet, I have a few shows that I think they can do well on.

That really is not my point for this letter. I'm just frustrated by the ignorance that the homosexual community thinks that Dr. Laura is spewing , they need to realize that their own ignorance is showing. Without her voice and being able to say what she wants and the ability to entertain, you would never have the chance to try and silence her. What are you doing? You're doing just what you feel she is doing to you. You're tearing her life apart. All because of her views? It's not just her life but also the company that she works for and the people who work for that company, many of which I bet are gay. Redirect your energy. Redirect your voice. If you're angry put it where it will make a difference. This is a radio show. Something I learned a long time ago in radio.... IT'S ONLY RADIO. That's all it is!" - Stacey Ruben

Wayne Mann writes on Usenet about the Lieberman nomination: I sure wish it was Dennis Prager on almost any ticket and I would vote for him in a minute, There is one smart man.

And one thing I like about him, whenever he says something in a serious discussion, he has thought out all aspects of it and is not just repeating something he heard or someone's talking points or just spouting off. If all politicians were half as smart AND moral as him, this would be the greatest country beyond any other, but we just don't have the quality of people in our leadership. Look at the very top, Clinton for example, he is undoubtedly a smart person, but he is not moral and he is not an honest person that is doing what is best for the country, he does what is best for HIM, where Prager I have no doubt would ALWAYS do what was best for the country.

August 7, 2000

Dennis Prager praised Al Gore's selection of Joseph Lieberman as his VP. An Orthodox Jew, Lieberman may be the most visible religious Jew.

Lieberman was the first big Democrat to attack Clinton for his moral lapses regarding Monica Lewinsky. Lieberman attacked the President strongly and repeatedly.

Prager believes the selection of Lieberman guarantees that Hillary Clinton will win her race for the NY senate seat.

Dennis Prager is on vacation through August 7. He's on a cruise around Alaska, lecturing to the Young Presidents organization.

7/25/00

Brian Lowry writes in the Los Angeles Times:

Television executives, who make most decisions based on what's currently hot, have concluded that the popularity of these shows reflects a hunger for morality. In addition to Dr. Laura, the new roster of syndicated series includes "Moral Court," which involves two local KABC-AM (790) radio personalities, Larry Elder--who will host--and Dennis Prager, initially penciled in for that chair and now serving as a consultant.

A check of what's succeeding in ratings, however, makes both programs look ill-conceived, because daytime television doesn't wrestle with morality or ideology in any substantive way. To thrive in this world, the issues tend to be as black as Judge Judy's robe and as white as Phil Donahue's hair. It's all about real-life soap opera, about setting up straw men to be knocked over, with the guests cast as "characters" you can instantly feel superior to and usually despise.

Trying to convey moral lessons, whether biblically rooted or not, may be possible in radio. It doesn't work, however, in the context of television, unless reduced to the kind of caricatures strewn across the daytime landscape.

SGil writes 7/21: called [Dennis Prager] today, and got the same behavior as in the past.

Gil:, "I disagree, and have a historical reference to back me."
Manya: "what do you disagree about."
Gil: "it's not an issue about sexuality, but more about modesty."
Manya says: ""okay, good; hold on, >click<"..... "please hang up and try your call again."

How many times does he think we'll buy "bureaucratic snafu" coupled with the braggart's: "calls that disagree with me go to the head of the line." This operation from the man who claims to worry about America's broken moral compass. Clean up you own backyard Dennis.

While DP certainly makes a lot of very good points, Fewer and fewer as listeners get used to him. Many who know how he [DP] will support an idea only up to a point -- then will go further. For someone who promotes "think a second time," its no longer amazing to find that he draws a line at two thoughts in sequence.

Luke: I've had a similar experience many times. I invite my readers to weigh in on this and other issues related to Dennis Prager. Email Luke Ford

7/24/00 Rick writes: I heard Dennis Prager talk about this issue. Apparently there was an article on the New York Times regarding the lack of choices a man has when it comes to deciding after conception. Anyway, my point being that it looks as if this idea is at least being discussed now, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago... Of course, as soon as Dennis Prager's show was over, that bitch Gloria Allred took over the airwaves and she took up the same subject with her predictable anti-men venom that she knows how to spill so well. But..........surprise, surprise... The people who called her to comment on the subject -mostly women- disagreed with her!

7/14/00 Truthseeker writes: Dennis often comes up with some good philosophical theories, but he really loses it when it comes to practical application.

A good example was shown on today's show. The 'topic' was men & marriage, and how marriage turns boys into men. In theory, he's right. But that theory is based on a presumption of the quality of the relationship, i.e., is marriage good for men simply because a male human being is tied together with a female human being, or is the QUALITY of that bond a necessary component of the marriage's success? Dennis makes no such qualification - - both he and his psychiatrist guest, Dr. Marmer, argued only that marriage is de-facto a good thing for men.

Fast forward to America in the year 2000. In this day and age, our culture INSISTS that women look out for number one, blurt out any little thought/feeling/emotion which pops into their heads, and that they do absolutely nothing which specifically will benefit her man - - she should only do that which benefits herself. Psychology 101 (if psychology weren't whitewashed with political correctness, that is) would suggest that such relationships don't turn boys into men - - it turns men into wimpy yes-ma'ams, and that's exactly what this observer sees.

Would Dennis, for example, argue against some feminist sacred cow, if his wife didn't also believe it? Highly doubtful. And would such compromises of integrity make him more of a man? You decide...

Nelson: >Prager's tired theory about how marriage makes you a better man, etc is another in a long example of his basic contention that if your life isn't exactly like his, it isn't as good or rewarding or valuable to society or ............ <

Truthseekr: I've come to see a lot of truth in that. In the "old days" (about ten years ago), Dennis' focus was more on ideas. But in recent years, the focus has moved more towards himself and his thoughts/feelings/experiences/etc.. One little symptom of this is how he's titled his monthly newsletter. In the old days, it was "Ultimate Issues". But in recent years, it's "The Prager Perspective", shifting the focus from ideas external to himself, towards his inner experience. And for a moralist, that ends up meaning that he IS morality, rather than simply one who speaks about it.

>I've also heard him say that men who haven't been married can't possibly know women the way he does. I consider that more BS. If a person is married , ke knows THAT particular woman better than anyone, knows what makes her tick, what she likes, doesn't like , etc. I think that the guy who has had many long term relationships with different women (again. LONG TERM, not a bunch of one night stands) will understand women in general much better.<

TS: Agreed, and I'd even take it a step further. I think I've learned an enormous amount about women via female relatives of mine. Like all relatives, we go through DECADES of trials and tribulations with each other, and we're 'tied' to each other through our familial relationships. That is, there's no divorcing relatives, so while I've seen several of them go through several husbands, they and I are still stuck together, to deal with life's "messes" the best we can. The former husbands are long gone.

>As for Prager's other brilliant theories, how did you like these recent gems......... about a week or so ago, he said that there is NO DOUBT in his mind that pro abortion feminists would rather see a woman abort than give a baby up for adoption......the fact that he believes this shows me that he can't be taken seriously. I would be willing to bet that he would be hard pressed to find even a handful of "feminists" with that point of view. Right or wrong, abortion is about choice. Does Prager actually think that if a woman wanted to give birth and give the child to a loving couple who have waited years for a child, a "feminist" would prefer that the woman abort ????< A lot of complications there...

TS: Agreed, it sounds like DP flipped out an off-the-cuff opinion there, and then puffed it up with overblown rhetoric to make it sound more credible. And, while I'm anti-abortion, and view modern feminist activism as repulsive, I question the validity of such a statement. At the core of feminism, is a hatred of men (masculine men, that is), and a gang-mentality for women ("my gender right or wrong"). To be anti-adoption doesn't fit with that core philosophy. But at the same time, abortion has become such a core issue of feminism (which is a curiosity in it's own right), that it's not surprising if they dismiss adoption as a viable alternative.

>Another of his recent boneheaded comments was that educators (referring to school board, superintendents,etc) HAD CONTEMPT for teachers.............really Dennis--you think that school boards actually "hate" teachers????? What the hell planet does this nimrod live on?<

While I've made my criticisms of Dennis, I think that "nimrod" is too strong. But on the issue of teachers and superintendents, it does sound in keeping with my overall complaint about him. Surely there are superintendents who look upon teachers with disdain, but: 1. There are plenty of teachers who look upon superintendents with disdain (one of my cousins, for example, who's a public school teacher). 2. There are plenty of teachers who DESERVE to be looked upon with disdain. Between the rules of tenure, teacher's unions, and the like, there are plenty of public school teachers who are sitting mighty fat, while they dish out what is little more than fancy day care. And the superintendents' hands are tied to do anything about it. In short, it's O.K. to make generalizations, but those generalizations need to be adequately tempered to reflect a knowledge of exceptions to the rule. Dennis tends not to do that.

Singlemom writes: One of my favorites from a while back was a show where lover of truth Prager was attacking Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) teachers and LAUSD sex education saying teachers were throwing condoms at "the children" and calling it sex education. Prager stated teachers were not teaching abstinence

He got a call from a LAUSD sex ed teacher who was very upset with Prager's depiction. The caller went into detail about how he teaches his class - teaching abstinence and not throwing condoms. Prager congratulated him and said "I want to come to your class" The caller became even more upset telling Prager that he had called before in response to Prager's erroneous attacks on sex ed teachers and that Prager then said the same thing - "I want to come to your class" and that Prager never called back and never went to the class. Prager began mumbling and quickly went to break.

So Prager was 1. lieing about LAUSD sex ed 2. got caught lieing about it 3. then Prager lied again about LAUSD sex ed some time later and 4. got caught lieing again by the same sex ed teacher Now that's entertainment!

7/22 Truthseeker writes: Nelson, I started this thread, but now I regret it. Compared to Mr. Prager, you are a pathetic, angry, idiot.

Your desire to paint Mr. Prager as the equivalent of Ted Baxter is proof that your quest in this thread is a result of your personal problems, NOT a mature, thoughtful, critique of his work. For example, would Jonathan Glover, a famous debater of atheism from Oxford university, spend the day debating the equivalent of Ted Baxter, the way he did with DP? Glover's opening statement in the debate (following Dennis' opening statement): "I was warned that Dennis would be a formidable debater and so he's proved." Apparently Jonathan Glover also is the equivalent of Ted Baxter.

And what's more, you apparently spend hours of every day listening to, thinking about, and writing about his work, all of which you consider the equivalent of Ted Baxter. And you say that you find that entertaining?!?! Well, genius, that's pretty weird & scary, to say the least.

I salute Dennis Prager. It takes immense courage to argue such opinions in this day and age. He is a top-quality man. Does that mean that he's perfect and doesn't make mistakes? Not even. But take a look in the mirror hot rod. What have you done in the past week/month/year to improve the world around you? Anything?

It's easy to tear things down. If YOU were on the radio 15 hours per week, how do you suppose you'd hold up to a microscopic analysis of your every word (presuming, of course, that your words, and their context, were accurately interpreted)? Well, kids, the internet is free and open to anyone who wishes to express his views. Sadly, it virtually always ends up deteriorating into a haven for the lowest common denominator - - a refuge for crazed maniacs.

Doug Hill writes on the Prager List: On DP's show monday, 7/17, Dennis spoke about how he'd just seen the old movie _High Noon_ (starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelley) and how impressed he was with the movie and with its moral messages. Among the things he liked about it: 1) a model of a man doing his duty 2) a critique of pacifism 3) no pollyannish view of humanity.

Toward the end of his show, he asked for recommendations of morally uplifting movies, especially ones to show children. Some of those mentioned are: 12 Angry Men, A Man for all seasons, Shane, (which I've seen and recommend) and especially for girls, A tree grows in Brooklyn, and I remember mama (neither of which i've seen).

Singlemom writes on the Prager List: Divorced adulterer Bob Barr and adulterer John Hyde support the Defense of Marriage Act and divorced defender of marriage Dennis Prager goes to Washington to speak in favor of it. I guess there is nothing incongruous with that.

Temp writes: While DP certainly makes a lot of very good points, he also tends to get out of control, and, well, full of himself. A few examples:

1. A few years ago, the topic of discussion was a recent forum President Clinton attended at a high school. At the forum, a teenage girl asked the president what type of underwear he wore, and the President dignified the question with an answer. DP reacted to this by saying "eh, doesn't matter to me - - if anyone wants to know what type of underwear I wear, then just call in...". Callers to his show then responded with something to the effect of "can you imagine if Harry Truman had been asked such a question? Would he have dignified the question with an answer?" DP then hemmed and hawed, and essentially moved on to another topic. The following day or two, presto-change-o, DP thought that the president was wrong for dignifying the teenager's question. But there was no reference to his mistake the day before, having been corrected by his listeners, and ever since then, he's referred to the issue with "I have ALWAYS been opposed to the president describing his underwear..." (with a special emphasis on "always").

2. Progressively over the years, he increasingly begins sentences with "me", "I", or with numerous "my"s - - a sign of someone who's quite self-involved.

3. Recently, the topic of discussion was the rats being eaten on the show "Survivor" (animal rights groups were up in arms over rats being killed and eaten on the show). DP was arguing that it's O.K. to kill animals, as long as it's for purposes of survival, not entertainment, and therefore the reaction was nothing but animal rights fanaticism But as one caller pointed out, the show "Survivor" is pure entertainment (no one, but no one, is at risk of starving), ergo, the killing of the rats is being done purely for entertainment. But DP thoroughly ignored the caller, choosing to drive through his bigger point of the danger of caring more about animals than people (which is true).

Again, the point here isn't that DP's work is worthless. On the contrary, he says and does a lot of things that no other media personality does, and for that he's to be commended (a good recent example was how he clarified the John Rocker issue). But like most everyone who has achieved a level of fame and fortune, I think he tends to become rather full of himself, and therefore tends to miss a lot of important details along the way of making his larger more 'macro' points.

SGil writes on the Prager List: While I'm unfamiliar with that original call -- and I could see from the way you worded it he could've been sarcastic in that initial response, doing the Mr. Not-Dennis thing -- it also wouldn't surprise me if he denies having done even if he were in earnest as you perceived. DP can get hard-nosed about being told he said something when he's made a decision that his original position were a bad idea. There is a notable exception to that observation of him. If he felt that an idea he previously held would be helpful in turning others to his direction now, he will admit to error. What you are complaining about is him making a mistake out of character, and that I cannot imagine him ever admitting to on air. Keep in mind that may also be a station decision. My opinion is DP WILL NOT say anything of which his bosses really disapprove.

He does that quite a bit. Anything that put a stop to his thrust he ignores without comment. It's partly the blame of the talk show format. He and others in his position scan newspapers and mags and the Internet for stories upon which to polemicize. If some smart Alec comes on and gets past the screener with the coup de grace to the issue, the talker has to kill it or he's got 45 minutes of air time to fill, not to mention looking bad or foolish.

Sometimes that best answer leads to issues that, again, the host doesn't want to touch. It's happened to me. I called in 3 or 4 years ago with an observation to which he said "that's it. you win the cigar." Whereupon I tried to "smoke it" by trying to parlay that into a related issue. After thirty seconds I heard my side of the line get quieter (what happens when they cut off your microphone, but you can still hear the show in the phone because your line is still hot) and DP say "thank you for the call," and proceeded to launch on my "cigar" line without any comment to my follow up observations.

Temp writes: Well, I have no intention of harrassing DP. If I were a caller and I suspected that my calls were not appreciated, then I'd stop calling, simple as that. But I've never called the show, nor would I ever. I've seen too many callers whom I perceived as credible and insightful, treated in a rather rude and insensitive manner (something DP probably does in order to keep the show interesting and entertaining - - keeping the discussions from getting too deep and/or complicated).

Not to sound like DP-bashing, but one more point of "reservation": As you suggested, despite the rhetoric, DP makes a lot of consessions in character/integrity/and even morality, to appease the media ratings folks. Case in point was the TV show he did several years ago, where a large percentage of his shows were on some sexy/tidilating issue. As he mentioned in his radio show, he did that, despite his best judgement, in order to boost ratings (which it did), so that his show would be a success. But the end results of this decision was that: the show was canceled after one short season anyway; and he ended up looking like little more than a sophisticated Jerry Springer. On a personal level, I persuaded a long-time friend to tune into the show, telling him that "this guy is different - - he discusses important issues...". But after he and his wife watched three shows, all of which were about lingerie and other Springer-type topics, my friend gave up on it, and was wondering about my judgement (by suggesting that he tune into the shows in the first place).

Oh well. I guess that it's a case of what DP calls "cognitive dissonance" - - recognizing a conflageration of the good, bad, and ugly, something that is true of all of us.

Luke: In the July 18, 2000, Wall Street Journal, Dennis Prager writes an essay defending Hillary Clinton from charges of antisemitism. Here are the last three paragraphs of his essay:

It is highly misleading to probe private comments for evidence of anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry and sexism. The present trend emanates largely from a lethal combination -- the totalitarian temptation inherent in contemporary liberalism, and the media's sensationalism.

As the media's penchant for hyping the trivial is well known, let's explain the role of post-1960s liberalism. Liberals ask society to monitor citizens for signs of bigotry. Those who are uncovered face grave consequences. To liberals, it was important that Justice Clarence Thomas read Playboy in college. This was a sign of a sexual harasser. To liberals, it was critical to cast John Rocker, the baseball player, as a pariah for comments he made in a car to a reporter, such as disparaging remarks about Asian women drivers.

Perhaps the inane discussion of Mrs. Clinton's "anti-Semitism" will teach liberals just how dangerous this practice is. But don't count on it. In the meantime, non-liberals must take the high road and defend an icon of liberalism, even if neither she nor her fellow Democrats would defend a non-liberal icon against the same charges.

7/18/00

DennisPrager.com: On Tuesday, July 18th, Dennis interviewed Christina Hoff Sommers about her latest book. It was a riveting interview on how we as a society are hurting boys today by not allowing them to be boys and not raising them to be good men once they're adults. Dennis is encouraging all his listeners to read this important book [The War Against Boys]: Hardcover - 320 pages (June 2000) Simon & Schuster; ISBN: 0684849569

From Kirkus Reviews : A repudiation of the fashionable claims of girl advocates by controversial social critic Sommers (Who Stole Feminism?, 1994). It's a bad time to be a boy in America, the author (a mother of sons) declares. She spends much of her time in this contentious study establishing and documenting her thesis that, contrary to the declarations of Harvard educator Carol Gilligan and her myriad followers, it is boys, not girls, who are languishing academically and socially. Sommers produces convincing, even devastating evidence of the academic dishonesty practiced by those who support the opposite thesis--the so-called girl-crisis writers. Gilligan and her colleagues, according to Sommers, base their alarming conclusions on insubstantial and shoddy research. (Gilligan, for example, has neither published nor released to the public in any other form her three studies that were the foundation for her 1982 bestseller, In a Different Voice.) Sommers also assails other widely publicized gender studies sponsored by the American Association of University Women and the McLean Hospital of the Harvard Medical School, showing that they are at best biased and at worst (in the case of the McLean study) vitiated by outsized claims and lack of evidence. Sommers recognizes that the disturbing results of these flawed studies attract journalists, many of whom prefer disseminating sensational claims to looking for dissenting voices; she knows, too, that apocalyptic alarms about looming mental health disasters . . . sell well. Sommers argues that what alarmists have characterized as crises are often simply the evanescent traits typical of adolescents--of both sexes. Sommers is much less convincing, however, when she offers her remedy--a simplistic package of back-to-the-basics instruction and moral education to overcome the socially crude, disrespectful, and untoward behavior in the public schools (whose permissive teachers and administrators she blames for crimes ranging from intruding into . . . children's psychic lives to the shootings at Columbine). A sharp study that raises troubling questions about the integrity of the research underlying much current educational polemic--and the policies that these polemics have inspired. -- Copyright 2000 Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

From: Peter Hankwitz

Dear Dennis, I would like to ask a favor of you.

I've been a long time listener -- 5 years, to be exact. We have spoken many times on the air about various issues and topics, and, although you and I don't always see eye-to-eye, my respect for you and your positions could not be greater. Your ideas, arguments and thoughts tend to be very well constructed and researched, many times including personal reflection and exhibition. I respect that particular fact immensely.

The favor I am requesting is that you try and re-train yourself to all but remove the word "interesting" from your vocabulary.

This summer a dear friend and very successful writer, George Furth, pointed out to me that my "default descriptive" was usually the word "interesting." He said by using that word it gives the listener no insight into my actual feelings about a topic. Listening to you today about the NBA coach who's retiring to spend more time with his family, I found myself sitting on the edge of my seat, hoping you would use a word to describe your real feelings about it. You kept saying over and over it was so "interesting." A man with your lexicon should be able to insert other words, such as: fascinating, frightening, exciting, horrifying, illuminating, titillating, infuriating, or saddening, to describe how you feel about something. It would help us all get to know you better.

Offering accurate descriptions of my feelings has changed my life in a very positive way -- I feel more freedom to have the feelings I have. Food for thought.

Warmest regards, Peter Hankwitz

PS -- I am loathe to mix subjects in one letter, however as I went to write this note to you, I noticed your email address was at Mindspring.com. Were you aware that Earthlink.net have just merged with Mindspring.com, and Earthlink's founder, Sky Dayton, is a very vocal Scientologist (Sky Dayton's Home Page http://home.earthlink.net/~sky/)? I bring this up because I know we tend to share similar views on the Church of Scientology's practices and wanted you to know from whom you were receiving email/ISP service. (My God! I sound like a conspiracy theorist, which I am not...forgive me!)

6/21/00

Luke: Prager spent his first hour discussing a woman jogging along Pacific Coast Highway in a bikini while Dennis was driving to work. He thought it was immodest. What was going through that woman's mind? She saw everybody staring at her.

Erasing The Thin Blue Line

Dennis Prager writes in today's Los Angeles Times: Ever since the Los Angeles riots of 1992, I thought I would never again see police standing by as criminals smashed windows, looted stores, burned cars, terrorized people in their autos and set police cars on fire. But I did, just Monday night.

After the Los Angeles Lakers won the National Basketball Assn. championship, roving bands of young men challenged civilization as most of us understand that term.

While that is awful, it is unworthy of much attention. Every society has thugs.

What is worthy of immense attention is the absence of police intervention. While media people, City Hall and police headquarters are all telling us that the police should be commended for a wonderful job, the fact remains that for hours people were terrorized, stores were looted and police and other vehicles were destroyed and burned--all within a block or two of hundreds of police personnel. Yet the police did not stop one criminal and arrested a mere 11.

6/20/00

Dennis Prager devoted his show to the rioting outside the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles Monday night after the Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA championship.

Prager wondered why the police sat back and watched people burn cars, break into shops and intimidate people.

P: I saw the moral underpinnings of my society undermined last night and the police did nothing. Correct that, they congratulated themselves for doing nothing.

P: What about inner city kids who try to do the right thing and they see their peers on TV get away with burning a police car? They have no sense of society supporting them. Of society supporting the good guys.

Police no longer protect people. They come by to clean up after you've been hurt.

People should own guns so they can protect themselves.

But at least none of the rioters were smoking. Drinking yes, but liberals be proud. Not only have you emasculated the military and police force, you've made smoking taboo. Yes, the NBA finals telecast was filled with beer ads, but there were no smoking ads.

P: Police now in NY and LA and other cities seem to operate with restraint when the rioters are black and brown.

Email: Dear Dennis Prager: Thank you for your use of Orwellian on today's show. I am the scientist who in 1974 identified 137 items or "predictions" in the book "1984" that when all came true would represent the de facto coming of totalitarianism to America. Year by year I have updated and upgraded the list. At last count about 118 had already come true (that cluster on depression in America have failed to materialize as yet). Can I fax or e-mail you a list of 43 items for your comments that recently appeared under my byline in a Washington DC newspaper? Please respond. Sincerely, David Goodman, Ph.D.

6/17/00

New York Times columnist Frank Rich writes: The other conservative tack is to play the victim card and argue that Dr. Laura -- and her current companion in trash talk, John Rocker -- are victims of political correctness run amok, martyrs to "McCarthyism of the left." The Rocker flap, according to a Dennis Prager rant in The Weekly Standard, is "a case study in liberal hysteria." I don't disagree that some of the response to this baseball player's ignorant ramblings has been over the top, but no more so than the right's the-sky-is-falling reaction to an Off Broadway play like "Corpus Christi" or a sitcom like "Ellen," both case studies in conservative hysteria.

Political correctness is always in the eye of the beholder. Conservatives and liberals use the same arguments to defend the free speech of their un-p.c. ideological bedfellows: Dr. Laura's demeaning remarks about gay people are justified as arising out of her deep spiritual convictions, much as liberals cited Chris Ofili's Nigerian heritage in accounting for his ritualistic use of elephant dung in "The Holy Virgin Mary." As the right makes the excuse that John Rocker is the half-innocent product of his hick background, so the pop-music press portrays Eminem as the tortured product of his harsh urban childhood.

Luke: Prager did not see the resemblance between Rocker's remarks and the play "Corpus Christi" which portrays Jesus having sex with his disciples.

In his second hour, Prager interviewed an economist from the University of North Carolina who says that a child's cognitive development is hurt if a parent is not home fulltime in his first six years.

GREENSBORO, N.C., June 15 (UPI) -- Mothers who work outside the home may hurt the cognitive development of their young children by being absent, according to a study published Thursday. University of North Carolina at Greensboro labor economist Dr. Christopher Ruhm said that three- and four-year-olds tend to have lower verbal ablities if their mothers worked during the child's first year. Ruhm said an increasing percentage of single or married women with children under age six are working. "These changes suggest that parents have less time to invest in raising their children, with potentially harmful effects," Ruhm said.