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


Dennis doesn't find the 24-hour coverage of the war on the news channels useful. He finds it a waste of time. The massive amount of information gives us a lack of perspective on how we are doing. Prager wondered who the editorial writers of the NY Times rooted for in this war. These people have put themselves on the line against the war. They have a lot to lose, as does the president.

It's interesting that Prager went back on the Chris Mathews MSNBC show HARDBALL. Mathews humiliated Prager on the show a couple of years ago, telling him not to make jokes about the holocaust.

Prager remembered sitting next to an Iraqi on a bus many years ago. The man said Iraqis were the most barbaric people in the world.

Prager wondered why the Arab world supports the butcher Saddam Hussein.


Nelking writes: Prager has been in rare form lately. On Tuesday he made a typically (for him) over the top comment that Michael Moore considers "anyone who owns a gun to be slime". Shortly thereafter, a caller advised Prager in a fairly respectful, but very firm manor, that this was a very unfair and untrue statement. he pointed out that Moore is actually a gun owner himself and also a member of the NRA. Prager hemmed and hawed for a moment, then retracted his idiotic statement.He then immediately added this great qualifier: "Well, Moore does have contempt for anyone for voted for Bush". You gotta love a guy who makes an apology of sorts for a dumb remark and then makes an even dumber remark. Does Prager really believe that Moore hates approximately half of his fellow citizens? Does he ever think before he spews this crap?

Today, he had another great moment. He was angrily babbling on about how people on the left are "fools", "Moral idiots", etc etc etc. In the next breath, he lodges another complaint against these horrible people----they're "not happy people". No, I did not make this up------Dennis Prager, one of the most pissed off, bitter people on radio does not feel that liberals are the lighthearted giddy type of person he is.

Soggy, Of course there can be (and should be) more than one reason to go to war at any particular time. Sorry, though, but, in my opinion, when a person literally spends months harping about how backward and evil a culture and religion are and then, later on, is crying alligator tears because these poor people do not have all of our rights and freedoms, that seems pretty inconsistent to me. Well, maybe you're right about Iraqis abandoning centuries of deeply ingrained religious dogma after the war and actually taking advantage of this new freedom. I doubt it though. Time will tell.

By the way, in the points you made re the advantages of going to war, you mentioned that it will probably be beneficial to the security of Israel to have a new regime in Iraq......you are hereby given 10 demerits from the Prager fan club. If you had been listening to Prager (and to Michael Medved) you would know that this war has absolutely NOTHING to do with israel. There is no benefit at all to Israel and, as a matter of fact, Israel does not really even want the US to attack Iraq because it places Israel in danger.

Sgil46: DP's expression of joy over the progress of the war is great. E.g., NYTimes war correspondent's report and his imagined effect upon the NYTimes' radicals. This is a Savage moment.
Sgil46: DP is performing psyops on the leftist. He'd never do it this much before.
Sgil46: Yesterday, while I was listening to DP, I was devising a column titled "The Gift of Michael Savage" that is not really a praise of Savage, but of his effect upon Talk radio. And DP is again making my point. Savage has gone off the deep end since I first heard him in 1997 on KSFO. But now he makes it possible for DP to sound more militant.
Sgil46: I've not listened, but I'm sure Rush has been affected, and who knows who else. Medved was already over the top (an entertainer who uses "canned" callers to make him look good and to "Archie Bunker" the left viewpoint)
Sgil46: I think I can make a 750 word piece that would help me restart my website"
Sgil46: "you spoiled idiots, you leftist morons" is definitely a Savage hewn path.
Sgil46: I'm guessing that DP is feeling young again today. Know why?
Sgil46: Ann Coulter: "It became clear the nation was finally going to war with Iraq this week when the New York Times pulled two dozen reporters off the Augusta National Golf Club story." ROTFL
Sgil46: that guy robert was the one who didn't have a clue as to what is moral and not
Sgil46: he needed a poll of Iraqi's in order to find out if a majority would rather live without terror? Sounds like another spoilt American
Sgil46: if this was Medved, the caller would have more positions, have a strange accent, and Mike would demolish him. DP doesn't need to that. They call because they are really nuts
Sgil46: I was accidentally listening to Phil Hendry the other night, and he does the Medved thing, but at least everybody except dolts know it's a put-on. Medved scripts some of his "hours" dedicated to one "good caller" he "invites back"
Sgil46: Medved even uses the same actor but with a slightly different accent each time. The clue was the halting delivery. I'm waiting for some group like FAIR to blow him out of the water and try to make conservative talk radio look bad because of Medved's tactics.
Sgil46: I just remembered the name of the first caller I identified as a Medved plant. It was "Dean" however, I don't recall the odd name of the town he allegedly hailed from.
Sgil46: The guy had all the items of Marxists in his litany of complaints, and never budged from it no matter what Medved would say, or whatever 3rd callers would say. He was the perfect foil for Medved.
Sgil46: Medved still occasionally refers to this guy whenever he wants to make a foul comparison with some new caller
Sgil46: Another time another plant whose name I haven't heard since was this same guy. the delivery was unmistakeable, as was the staunch sticking to script. The voice itself was similar though not the same. Both sounded like the actor had to strain to disguise his voice, so I'm sure he was hoarse after each session.
Sgil46: If FAIR or someone else were to use voiceprints, I'm sure Medved would be forced to come clean and say he did it because so many on the left just can't stick to their stated positions long enough for him to nail them. "I meant well."

America's deep Christian faith

By Justin Webb BBC correspondent in Washington

Our correspondent gives a personal view on the importance of faith and religious belief in American life.

My wife and I do not believe in God. In our last posting, in Brussels among the nominally catholic Belgians, unbelief was not a problem.

Before that in London it was not remotely an issue. With the sole exception of one friend who is an evangelical Christian, I don't recall a single conversation with anyone about religious matters in the years I lived and worked in the capital. Our house in London was right next to a church. We talked to the tiny congregation about the weather, about the need to prune the rose bushes and mend the fence. But we never talked about God.

How different it is on this side of the Atlantic. The early settlers came here in part to practise their faiths as they saw fit. Since then the right to trumpet your religious affiliations - loud and clear - has been part of the warp and weft of American life. And I am not talking about the Bible Belt - or about the loopy folk who live in log cabins in Idaho and Oregon and worry that the government is poisoning their water. Mr and Mrs Average I am talking about Mr and Mrs Average in Normaltown, USA. Mr and Mrs Average share an uncomplicated faith with its roots in the puritanism of their forebears. The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night According to that faith there is such a thing as heaven - 86% of Americans, we are told by the pollsters, believe in heaven.


AP: Rachel Corrie, 23, from Olympia, Wash., a member of the 'International Solidarity Movement,' burns a mock U.S. flag during a rally in the southern Gaza Strip (news - web sites) town of Rafah in this Feb. 15, 2003 file photo. Corrie was run over and crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer Sunday, March 16, 2003, while she was trying to stop it from tearing down a building in the Rafah refugee camp, witnesses said. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

Dennis Prager writes: First, the charge [that America is going to war against Iraq because of the Jews] is demonstrably a lie. There is not a single Jew in this administration's Cabinet, and the president owes nothing to Jews, the great majority of whom voted for his Democratic opponent.

George W. Bush is an evangelical Christian from Texas; Dick Cheney is a conservative from Wyoming (not a state with an influential Jewish community); Condoleezza Rice is of Jamaican stock with no discernible ties to Jews; and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was secretary of Defense under the first President Bush, in the same Cabinet as James Baker, noted for saying "F--- the Jews."

Jewish support for the war against Iraq is significant only if you consider the following to be Jewish: George Will, Ann Coulter, Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, evangelical pastors and churches throughout America, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Thomas Sowell, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page -- not to mention British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spain's President Jose Aznar. Second, Jews are some of the leading opponents of the war, especially in academia and the media.


Nelking writes: Carter has always seemed to be a very decent man who was not a very successful President. He does not, IMO deserve to be called a "fool" or his opinions called "vile" by a blowhard hypocrite like Prager, a guy who made these comments during one of his brief breaks from pushing (1) pills that will cure or prevent alzheimers,(2) hair restoration systems or (3) personal injury attorneys (Call 1-800 IF HURT).

Dennis Prager called me a liar

By Mark LeVine

Recently, I was called a liar on national radio. This is never a pleasant experience, but it’s even worse when the evidence used against you is the World Wide Web’s most popular search engine, Google.

I was being interviewed by conservative radio talk-show host Dennis Prager when he claimed that Palestinians have never staged a large protest against terrorism. I responded that in fact I had witnessed several demonstrations, that a particularly large one in 1996 received widespread media coverage. "Since I can’t find it on Google, you’re obviously lying," Mr. Prager informed me—and his listeners—as we returned from a commercial.

As a professor of modern Middle Eastern history and Islamic studies at UC Irvine, I use Google dozens of times per day. But I was stunned by Prager’s remark, more specifically by the idea that a minute-long Internet search would provide sufficient evidence to pass judgment on a historical claim, let alone a person’s moral (and professional) character. But in today’s postmodern, depthless and confrontational culture, speed and stridency have become more valuable than accuracy and deliberation.

It took me several days of searching on and off the web, as well as a helpful e-mail from a journalist friend, but I found the "evidence" of the Palestinian demonstration that, according to Google, never happened. It took place on March 5, 1996, and was covered by the Los Angeles Times and other major newspapers. But for some reason, it never made it onto the web.

Luke says: I am most interested in learning more about this Palestinian demonstration against terror, so if anyone has the 3/5/96 LA Times article or anything else about it, I'd like to read it.


Dennis Prager writes: George W. Bush would surely like the world to agree with him and to like him, but, thank God, he is prepared to go it alone and to be hated -- a defining trait of a great leader. Most Democrats believe that America should never go it alone and that if America is widely disliked, America must be wrong. In this regard, George W. Bush is the antithesis of his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, for whom being loved was of paramount importance.

George W. Bush is regularly described by American and foreign critics as a "cowboy." They are right, and for this, too, we should thank God. The Europeans and Democrats use that term as an epithet, but for many Americans the image of a lone cowboy fighting bad men is a revered one. Many of us have far more moral confidence in the Lone Ranger than in Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan.

The Lone Ranger rides again. Thank God he does.


From CBSNews.com: Talk show host Dennis Prager says stars are under the misguided impression they speak for everyday Americans. "The idea that someone who has acted now has a claim on my respect for his or her opinion on the great moral issues of the day is absurd!" says Prager.



Dennis Prager writes: CBS News constantly referred to Dan Rather's interview with one of the world's cruelest tyrants as a "coup." A coup? For whom?

Was it a coup for the American viewing public? Of course not. Other than the lengths to which Dan Rather went to be obsequious to a tyrant, Americans learned nothing from his interview with Saddam Hussein. Was it a coup for the news profession? Again, no. No news was learned, nor was any likely to be.

No, it was a coup solely for CBS News and Saddam Hussein. That the world of television news (not only CBS) regards it as a major achievement shows the depths to which television news has sunk. Obviously, the industry sees ratings as its reason for being.

TUNKU VARADARAJAN writes in the Wall Street Journal about Rather's critics: They accuse him of not being hard enough on the Iraqi tyrant. Nancy Franklin, writing in the New Yorker, called the interview "Operation Desert Kiss-Up"; and Mike Barnicle, to name just one other detractor, remarked in the New York Daily News that Mr. Rather "apparently confused Saddam Hussein with Winston Churchill."

I beg to differ. I thought Mr. Rather served up an instructive hour of television and offered Americans a compelling opportunity to peer, from up close, at a ghoul (a point he hinted at in a piece he wrote for this newspaper, two days after the interview aired). Appearing on Paula Zahn's CNN morning show--in the way, so frequent these days, that newscasters are interviewed by other newscasters--Mr. Rather revealed that his next project is to get time on air with another ghoul, Kim Jong Il. If he does that, one can be certain that he will be pilloried again by the commentariat for "coddling" a tyrant.

Prager Mulls Run for Senate in 2004

Buzzy Gordon writes for the 2/28/03 Jewish Journal: “I’m still only in the thinking and talking stage,” said the outspoken Republican. “No exploratory committee has been formed. I won’t announce that until I am close to being certain. I don’t want to disappoint people who have invested hopes.”

Prager said he’s off to Washington next month to feel out senators, in order to help him make his decision. Already, he said he has “good responses” from conservative columnists Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett as well as his listeners.

When Prager first broached the subject on his show in early February, his listeners expressed support. “I also have commitments for the serious kind of money it takes to mount a campaign,” he said.

“The Dennis Prager Show,” broadcast live weekdays 9 a.m. to noon on KRLA 870AM, reaches 45 cities and is heard worldwide over the Web.

For Prager, one of his motivations in running is to garner a larger audience — even though he would have to give up the show and his syndicated column if he won the race. “In the Senate, I would be in an influential position; people would pay attention to what I have to say,” he said. “Also, if a Republican can win in a Democratic state like California, he would have to be taken seriously as a contender for national office, such as vice president.”

Prager also believes he could be a role model, for Jewish and non-Jewish Republicans. “I would serve as an example of a politician who does not have to compromise his principles. And finally, as someone who would step down from office voluntarily; I do not believe in being a career politician.”

Prager is also buoyed by political strategist and author Arnold Steinberg’s contention that he is the one who can beat Boxer.

Jerry Parsky, who ran George W. Bush’s campaign in California, and Lionel Chetwynd, the White House Hollywood liaison, are also reportedly backing Prager...

According to political consultant Allan Hoffenblum, “Prager would likely give Boxer a run for her money. He would take away Jewish voters who are concerned about the situation of Israel in the Middle East. And he is not a typical right-winger; he is more of a libertarian than a hard-core conservative.”

Prager told The Journal he’d run only “If I feel I have a reasonable chance of winning — in the primaries as well as the general election.” He insists that in the end, his decision will be swayed by his belief in not “whether I can win — since there is never that certainty — but where I can do the most good.

“In the end, it will boil down to answering these two questions: Am I cut out for this kind of life? And, can a politician run as a man of his own conscience and not be forced into unacceptable compromises by running?”

Dennis Prager For U.S. Senate

I've spoken to many people about Dennis Prager's possible run against Barbara Boxer for the U.S. Senate seat from California. Nobody I've spoken to thinks Prager will do it or can do it.

They point out:

* Prager dislikes media scrutiny, particularly of his personal life, which would ascend to a level he's never experienced before if he enters politics.

* Prager has high negatives. Even many people who agree with him, find him insufferably arrogant. If Prager read aloud from the telephone book, about a third of people would be annoyed.

* Prager likes being in charge and is not suited for the rough and tumble world of politics where things constantly spin out of one's control and compromise is constantly necessary.

Despite all that, I'd love to see Prager throw his hat into the ring and give it a shot.

Dennis said he'd put some of the email he's received about his possible candidacy on his website but it is not there. DennisPrager.com is pathetic considering what it could be. The front page hasn't changed in about four months.


Dennis Prager said on his show that at age 15, he didn't think his opinions mattered much and were important to advertise to his school. DP says he realized there was wisdom of the ages that he first had to imbibe. Prager's classmates, however, vividly recall a verbose young man eager to sound off on almost everything under the sun. Some of Prager's classmates thought of him as constantly spouting off and they find it hard to take him seriously today. Prager started his own newspaper as a teenager, so he must've had a pretty lofty view of his opinions.

Dave Berg, a producer for "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, writes in the Washington Times:

Mr. Prager has one drawback: He likes his job on the radio so much that he may not want to give it up to run for the Senate. He says he already has an audience, and may already be doing the work God wants him to do He admits he doesn't really like politics, but he's considering the possibilities.

He recently told his listeners, "I'm not naturally political. It's not the way I think. But what if it does give you a forum to touch more lives? What if it does?"

Mr. Prager is painfully aware of the political realities involved in a Senate campaign, which can cost up to $60 million. Such a heady environment tends to attract two types of people: multimillionaires, who can afford to pay for much of their own campaign expenses; and those for whom politics is a way of life. He abhors both trends, and insists that if he did decide to run, he would be the kind of candidate that the Founding Fathers had in mind: He would do it to serve his country, not his career or his whims.

Despite his reluctance, Mr. Prager has solid backing. Jerry Parsky, who ran presidential candidate George W. Bush's campaign in California, recruited Mr. Prager and believes he would make a formidable candidate. White House political guru Karl Rove is also said to be impressed, and Lionel Chetwynd, an Emmy-winning writer-director and the White House Hollywood liaison, is on board.

Mr. Prager would need to raise about $10 million for the primary, and already has solid financial pledges from members of the Republican Jewish Coalition and others.

From Chicago magazine profile of Prager's acquaintance Bob Greene, the disgraced columnist: The most famous of Greene’s crusading columns involved Baby Richard, the centerpiece of perhaps the most dramatic parental custody battle in state history. Over a period of three years, Greene wrote more than 60 columns about the child. His mother had been estranged from her boyfriend, the father, when their son was born. She told him the child was dead and signed away her rights to the infant. Baby Richard was privately adopted. Later, when the father learned the truth and reconciled with the woman, they both wanted their son back. Greene argued that removing the child from his adoptive parents at this stage would be extraordinarily cruel to the boy; most of Illinois, it seemed, agreed. The state supreme court, however, eventually ordered that Baby Richard should be returned to his biological father.

Shannon Cream writes: A letter I sent to Dennis' website...realizing that he will either delete or not read it, I thought I'd post it here: (Prager played a rapturously cheering British crowd when Chamberlin announced he had signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler prior to WW2): What an astonishingly morally broken man you can be. Your playing of the reaction to Chamberlin's peace treaty with Hitler, and the deeply insulting, vulgar, cynical comments you made about Europeans preferring signing treaties to war expose a sullied character. D'ya ever consider that Britain's 723,000 battle casualties fertilizing the fields of France from a few years earlier - one out of every three British men between 18 and 35 - Had left that nation emotionally beaten down by war? Unlike you, that crowd did not have the luxury of historical hindsight to see through Hitler's mania and evil. When the USA signed SALT 1 & 2 with the USSR you were deeply dismayed? You feel that the 1953 Korean War Armistice signed by the USA was cowardly capitulation? It's noteworthy that when your opportunity to engage in warfare in Vietnam arose, you chose to avoid that option...Yet as so many of your ilk, you saber rattle so that other young men can shed their blood for your vicarious privilege. Kind Regards' Shannon Cream Ps. Can you put my letter on your webpage too?


I checked out the alexa.com ranking for dennisprager.com. It is 210,000, not a good showing at all for someone with a nationally syndicated radio show. I clicked on What's New and there's been no significant update in a year. No wonder almost nobody visits the site.


Dennis says he does not high-five kids and that adult shouldn't do that with kids, if at all. It's not dignified. We should preserve the distinction between adults and kids.

Shannon from England writes: Just peeked in on the show briefly. After running through the various historical Ages, master of witty one liners, DP called ours the Age of Stupid. And of course we all know why it's so stupid..Secularism of course. Citing the looney-bin credo of PETA, Prager asserts that PETA's brand of extremism is par for the course for us secularists. Though, I mused as I listened: I'm sure he doesn't think the Branch Davidians a fine example of contemporary theism. But hold on a mo... Give this a read: http://www.connectingwithkids.com/tipsheet/2002/104_dec25/flunk.html

Seems those stoopid secularist Swedes whup their Yankee counterparts in scholastic tests...How can this be? After all, church attendance in the USA is at an all time high...whereas in Sweden, MOST Swedes comfortably call themselves atheist. In fact an internet search of scholastic comparison tables is quite revealing. In those nations where the evils of secularism have run rampant, we see a correspondingly higher level of intellectual achievement... Religionist nations on the other hand, all far behind.

Shannon writes: Luke: I'm trying to cite show dates in which Dennis Prager remarked (on at least three separate occassions) that he felt that men who left their sons uncircumcised were more likely to molest them. This Bizarre view was apparently cultivated through DP's friendship with a psychiatrist friend of his. Can you help?

Luke says: Shannon, I've also heard Prager say this but I don't remember dates. His psychiatrist friend is Dr Stephen Marmer who theorizes that by allowing the father to mutilate the son in circumsicion, it takes some of the sting off of having a competing male in the house, and reconciles the father with the son, allows him to be accept him, and hence make the son a less likely target of the father's rage or inappropriate behavior.

Nelking writes: Shannon, I attempted to call Prager on approximately 4 occasions. I only got through one time. That was several years ago when he was talking about his son's Bar Mitzvah and how he was now a "man". I told him that I have noticed that for a man who prides himself on being a clear and logical thinker, this seems to fall away rather quickly when he discusses religion. He asked "how so?". I explained that it seems to make no sense at all to call a 13 year old a man, when, in reality, a 13 year old is just entering adolescence. As I was making my very brief point, the bumper music came on. Prager replied "I have no problem with calling a 13 year old a man"....that was the end of the conversation. OK, fine------but then, less than one week later, Prager was discussing a story about an adult female that had sex with a 15 year old male. Prager said (and I quote, word for word) "Even if a 15 year old is very mature, he's still a boy". Needless to say, I just about broke a finger trying to dial up Prager to give him a "Hi---remember our conversation last week" call. Unfortunately, I could not get through. I would have LOVED to have heard the dancing and backstepping he did on that one. I called a couple times after that but couldn't get through. I have not tried since he went nationwide----I figured it's pretty much a lost cause.

You have probably heard that one of the reasons why college professors have such slanted and unrealistic views is because they are never challenged. Prager then always points out that, on his show, he can constantly be challenged by callers on any position he takes. Of course, what Prager always fails to mention is that there is a screener who always tells Prager in advance what the caller wants to say, so he can avoid that person if he wishes. Prager also has a "disconnect" button, which he is a master of. And, in addition there are constant interruptions for commercials.


What's Dennis Prager's favorite news source? Judging by the news stories he talks about, Prager seems to get more of them from drudgereport.com than any other source. Today DP led off with a blast of Dustin Hoffman's anti-War comments linked from Drudge:

Hoffman accused the Bush administration of "manipulating the grief of the country" after the events of September 11. The president's real motives for going to war are power and oil, he said. He spoke out after receiving a lifetime achievement accolade at the Empire Film Awards in London.

"For me as an American, the most painful aspect of this is that I believe that administration has taken the events of 9/11 and has manipulated the grief of the country and I think that's reprehensible," he said. "I don't think, like many of us, that the reasons we have been given for going to war are the honest reasons.

"If they are saying it's about the fact they have biological weapons and might have nuclear weapons and that gives us the liberty to pre-empt and strike because we think they might hit us, then what prevents Pakistan from attacking India, what prevents India from attacking Pakistan, what prevents us from going into North Korea?

"I believe - though I may wrong because I am no expert - that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil".

Nelson writes: I guess I'll start with the condemnation....is there anyone else who listens to Prager who is sick to death of him bringing "university professors", "the elite on college campuses", the "well educated", etc etc etc etc into EVERY single friggin' discussion no matter what the topic is? I'd like to time him some time. I swear he can not go more than two minutes without beating this dead horse again and again and again. Ok, we get it--there are a lot of liberals on college campuses. Why the hell does he have to bring it up constantly? I've been out of college for 25 years now---I don't really give a damn what they think or do on campus. I think part of Prager's hatred of all things pertaining to college is that he was somehow unable to attain his Master's degree at Columbia so he is full of hatred and jealousy for those who do have an advanced degree. The other explanation could be just laziness on Prager's part. It's almost like he's reading a fill in the blanks script. "A family of five was killed in a fire (goes to script) I'm sure everyone was sad to hear about it except for the well educated elitist college professors who probably were overjoyed".

Now for the praise--------I will extend kudos to prager for apparently making a concerted effort of late to bring on guests who have differing points of view. It makes for MUCH more interesting radio and, by hearing both sides of any topic, we will finally be able to get some type of "clarity", which is supposedly Prager's goal.

For sure there are major similarities between Prager and Medved. And you are right on with your comment about his stupid "losertarian" line------mildly amusing the first time you hear it. By the 500th time it has run it's course. Sounds like something that came out of a think tank involving Rush Limbaugh, Jim Rome and Beavis and Butthead.

The three things I do like about Medved compared to Prager are : (1) Medved is much less inclined to try to shove his religious beliefs down everyone's throats (2) Although, as I stated in my original post, Prager has gotten somewhat better about this, Medved has always been, and continues to be much more inclined to have guests on with opposing views from his. Once he even mentioned that he does not not like having guests on who agree with him because it usually makes for boring radio. I'm not sure why this fact escaped Prager for so many years and (3) I can honestly say that I am usually quite impressed with Medved's knowledge. He has an extensive knowledge of history, politics, etc. He deals MUCH more in factual information than Prager does. So much of what Prager babbles on about is strictly his opinions, his theories, his interpretations, etc. When a caller disagrees with Medved, he is often able to put him in his place using historical facts, pointing out the names of bills, the year they were passed, etc. When Prager is disagreed with he usually just cuts the person off (permanantly), then babbles on by himself about how someone with that type of opinion must have graduated from graduate school.

I always find it interesting that Prager will crow about a study that backs up one of his theories. He accepts it as gospel........but if a study "disagrees" wih one of his opinions, not only is the study faulty but any of the "elite academics" who rely on studies are seriously flawed.

Greg writes: Nelson- I think you're pretty right on about Medved. Have you read The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, written around 2,000 years ago? If you haven't, I urge you to do so. As I stated earlier, if you just go head to head with Prager and his supporters, you play into their game. BUT, if you go around them, especially on such issues as the tobacco/children issue, you can provide documentation that blows him and his minions out of the water. NO contest. Think oblique, think oriental, it's a game of maneuvering, thrust and parry, withdraw and attack. It's not so obvious, not so much a power-driven contest like a football game; the most popular pastime in Russia is still Chess. Argue documented facts and use his weaknesses against him. Prager can be proven to be the arrogant, ego-driven bombast he is and relegated to radio history, but don't play into his hands.

Shannon writes: I have often felt that Dennis' radio show is a far more "freeform" Prager than the academic or larger media community sees or hears. This man holds oddball and frequently extreme beliefs in certain areas (as I have noted). He is a public figure, author and a well respected lecturer. He correctly holds to ridicule left wing academicians who make outrageously stupid and thoughtless statements...But the rub is, he MUST to be held to the same standards. I have called his show numerous times in my sporadic listenings when he has gone out on left field... And I make no apologies for the fact that I think he has some dark areas of character peculiarity that I have poked fun at, and challenged. That said, I have never felt that Dennis is a bad or indecent man...on the contrary, I admire and concur with much of what he says, especially regarding the treatment of children. The moral decay that takes our society in an ever downward spiral of decline, the lack of respect for truth and decency...these things I care about just as much as he does...But hey, he sets himself up for criticism, and I am happy to oblige. In truth, I'd probably like Dennis very much in real life, though I suspect he doesn't feel correspondingly warm towards me.


Prager opened his show discussing his idealistic reasons for considering a run for the US Senate against Barbara Boxer. He wonders if he can do more good as a Senator or doing what does now.

DP said he'd lose three-quarters of his income if elected and he would have to sell his house.

Bruce Bialovsky from the Jewish Republican Coalition phoned to make an eloquent case for Prager running.

In the past two weeks, Prager's nationally syndicated radio show has been picked up in Cincinnatti, Cleveland and Boston. He's on 45 stations.

DP: My father hopes I'd run and lose. It'd be best for me personally and still get my ideas out.

The CA Democratic Party is known as the most vicious in the country. They put pitbulls in their party to intimidate people from running. This makes me want to vanquish the bad guys.

Nelson writes: What the hell is it with Prager and his obsession with the words "tragic" and "tragedy" being used in conjunction with 9/11? He still rants about this. I remember that, shortly after it occurred, he was all pissed off about an ad (possibly from the Red Cross) that referred to the "tragic events" of 9/11. If Prager does not personally like those words and prefers to use other words, more power to him.

My problem with Prager is that he is adament that the use of the word "tragic" is incorrect. He angrily chastises those who use the word, insisting that 9/11 was not "tragic" or a "tragedy" ----because it was an intentional act. Great, but since when does Prager determine the actual meaning of a particular word. I checked both webster's dictionary and dictionary.com. I looked up both "tragic" and "tragedy". Some of the phrases I found were "involving calamity, trial and suffering", "involving death, grief or destruction" and "involving distressing loss or injury to life". I did not see, anywhere, any indication that a "tragic" event can only be accidental or natural.

I know that Prager has a massively bloated ego but he might want to stop assigning his own particular meanings to words and then chastising people who do use the words in the "proper" manner. His insistence on re-defining 'tragic" and "tragedy" is almost as bad as his misguided contention that nicotine is not a drug---but television is.

To be honest, one of the main reasons I do listen to Prager is for the unintentional humor. You just have to love a guy that is so impressed with himself. A while ago he made me laugh out loud when he was complaining (in a very serious, not tongue in cheek manor) about how it is often painful to be the only person who can clearly understand issues. Also, I was greatly amused a few weeks ago when he was discussing home schooling. He was babbling on about how there was such a difference in the children he had met who had been home schooled. A teacher then called in and, in a very respectful manor, told Prager that he had been a teacher for over 15 years. He then went on to explain how home schooled children did lag behind in certain test scores (he actually named the tests) and also stated that they often did not match their (public school) peers in various social skills (again, he was specific). Prager listened to him for a while and then, before ending the call, said "well, you have your experiences and I have mine". In other words, Prager knows as much about the subject based on his certainly very brief dealings with, what, 5 home schooled students? 10? 20?, as this professional educator with 15 years experience does. Again, you just have to love that type of intense narcissism.


Dennis Prager on his return from his vacation cruise, said he'd discuss his possible run for the US Senate later in the week.

Dennis Prager Considers Running For U.S. Senate

From Drudge Report: The dearth of clear Republican frontrunners to challenge California Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) in 2004 has prompted several wild-card candidates to consider making the race, ROLL CALL is reporting.

Conservative radio talk-show host Dennis Prager is now pondering a bid! His popular radio program has been a fixture on Southern California airwaves for 20 years, and has been nationally syndicated since 1999. His main focuses are Judaism and moral issues, and his official biography features a quote from Buzz magazine calling him 'one of the 10 most powerful people in Los Angeles.'

But Prager is not the only talk-show host pondering a Senate run. In an unsourced item, United Press International's Capital Comment column reported last week that Michael Reagan, son of former President Ronald Reagan, "may be considering a bid."


It sounds like Prager's friend Alan Estrin, the screenwriter, is Prager's new producer of his radio show.


I heard Prager repeat the falsehood that nobody has ever asked him where he went to college. I heard a man do it around 1987 on Prager's radio show and I believe more than that have asked him on air. I think even more would do it except that Prager has so often said on air that he went to graduate school at Columbia, a prestigious Ivy League school, and went to Brooklyn College as an undergraduate. I've heard Prager say that hundreds of times.


Dennis Prager read from this George Will column: But judging from the way 2002 ended, with North Korea swiftly elbowing aside other menaces competing for America's attention, 2003 may usher in an era of potential lethality without precedent in seven centuries.

Secretary of State Colin Powell spent the last Sunday of 2002 spreading a self-refuting message. Making the rounds of television interview programs, he insisted that North Korea's aggressive dash toward possession of more than just a few nuclear weapons is not a crisis. The fact that North Korea's government, the full loopiness of which is difficult to estimate, has nuclear arms to supplement the world's third-largest standing army means that the world's only superpower has not much more immediate influence on North Korea than Denmark does. Hence Powell's urgent denials of urgency.

There are essentially three U.S. options toward North Korea. Each is alarming.

SECOND HOUR: Prager read from this Jim Rutenberg article in the 1/1/03 New York Times:

Worried that their party has been outgunned in the political propaganda wars by conservative radio and television personalities, influential Democrats are scouring the nation for a liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh and the many others on the deep bench of Republican friends.

For years, Democrats have groused about their inability to balance what they see as the increasing influence over the electorate by advocates of Republican policies. But they say their concerns have taken on a new urgency because of the rise to the top of the cable news ratings by the Fox News Channel, considered by many to have a conservative slant, and the loss of the Senate to the Republicans in November. Some Democrats say the election outcome enhanced the influence of Fox News and personalities like Mr. Limbaugh.

The efforts among influential Democrats, particularly liberals, range from a grass-roots talent search for progressive radio hosts to the creation of research organizations to provide a Democratic spin for the news media, to nascent discussions by wealthy supporters about starting a cable network with a liberal bent.

"If you start from the premise that the message was right, which we do, then the problem was that it wasn't getting out to the people," said one official of the Democratic Party who spoke on condition that his name not be used.

DENNIS: Why would an official of the Democratic Party not want to be quoted that the party believes in its message?

Why isn't the word "progressive" put in quotes? "Progressive" means you are for progress. But the NYT likes to use the word "progressive" as a code word for liberal, a term now widely disdained.

DP described the article as "hilarious." Article talks about the tough search for "angry liberals," as though it is tough to find such. "Angry liberal" is redundant. Liberals are angry at the Boy Scouts, sexism, homophobia, etc...

Democrats believe they are losing the media war because they don't have the editorial pages of the WSJ, Washington Times, Fox Cable News and talk radio? But they have almost all newspapers and other news media, almost everyone in Hollywood, PBS, to academia and the ACLU? The Democratcs dominate almost every propaganda vehicle in the US.

The article claims: "Liberals and conservatives said they believed this was in part because the most prominent liberal hosts have tended to present policy issues in all of their dry complexity while refraining from baring fangs against conservative opponents."

DENNIS: Which conservatives? Not enough angry liberals? Where are liberal positions more complex than conservative ones? The problem Prager has had syndicating his show is because station owners fear it is too intellectual. The Democrats don't present complex ideas. They scare people about racism and prescription drugs and the Christian right. They scare people that Republicans don't care about the environment, about dirty air and dirty water.

THIRD HOUR: Prager gave suggestions on how to stop complaining excessively. A chronic complaining woman phoned. Prager said to her, as he often does, "Just between you and me..."

I remember a few years ago Prager ripped into Connie Chung for interviewing George Bush's mother about Hillary Clinton, and leaning over and whispering to her, on camera, "Just between you and me..." And getting the woman to say Hillary was a bitch. Prager called Chung manipulative, taking advantage of an old lady.


DP regrets he never went to Times Square in NY on New Year's Eve. He feared he'd get robbed.

DP doesn't like going to parties. The only point was to pick up girls. Now he's married and can't do that.

DP regrets he's never kept a diary. He has a close friend who has (Rabbi Telushkin?).

Prager is recycling his material again in his weekly column. This is about human nature - are people basically good. Not when they repeat themselves endlessly.

Nelking writes: Does Prager's hypocrisy and double standards EVER end? You've probably heard Prager bemoan the fact that when speakers with conservative ideas speak at colleges they are often shouted down, booed, etc. I actually agree with his contention that such people are rude, close minded and whatever other adjectives you wish to use. Fine. Then during Monday's show, with obvious glee, Prager announces a "hero of the week" award he made up. He wants to give it to students (in Scotland, I believe) who were angered by a speech given by a member of PETA and ended up throwing milk on her. It apparently got bad enough that police had to come and lead the speaker away to safety So that's how it is in "Prager land"---if it's a speaker that Prager agrees with, you'd damn well better let him speak without any interruption...BUT.... if it's a speaker that Prager doesn't agree with, well, then it's "heroic" to literally assault the person.


Dennis castigated USC football players who invited double-murderer O.J. Simpson to practice recently and flocked around him and posed for pictures.

DP spoke Sunday at a small black church in South Central Los Angeles. DP praised the pastor for teaching people to be grateful.

DP say the situation in North Korea is serious. South Korea is so spooked by what the North is doing vis-a-vis nuclear weapons that it is taking the North's side against the US.


I found this article by Dennis Prager (who frequently speaks for Chabad and is honored by Chabad) in Moment magazine:

David Berger, a Modern Orthodox Jew who is a professor of history at Brooklyn College, published an attack on Chabad in a recent issue of Commentary magazine. The attack was based on Berger's new book, The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference. As a great admirer of Commentary for more than 30 years, I read the article with much anticipation. It was, however, the only article I ever read in that journal that was unworthy of it. Not because the subject is unworthy of exploration and certainly not because any Jewish group should be immune from sharp criticism, but because Professor Berger built his case largely by quoting unnamed Chabad sources.

Nevertheless, the attack, as irresponsible as it may have been, is an important one that needs to be addressed. Professor Berger argues that if we are to take Judaism's beliefs seriously, all Jews (especially Orthodox Jews, whom he accuses of sinful silence regarding Chabad beliefs) must confront Chabad for believing that the late Chabad leader, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, "the Rebbe," was the Messiah, and deeming him a divine being. In essence, he accuses Chabad of having beliefs as alien to Judaism as those of Jews for Jesus.

As I intend to defend Chabad, full personal disclosure is necessary. I am not a member of Chabad, I am not an Orthodox Jew, and my regular synagogue is Reform. I do, however, have extensive experience working with Chabad. I have lectured for Chabad in many communities around the world and I am on the board of directors of the Conejo Jewish Day School, a Chabad-run community school in Agoura, Calif.

In all my years dealing with Chabad rabbis, I have never heard a hint of the beliefs Professor Berger accuses Chabad of espousing. Of course it is possible, in the sense that almost anything attributed to unexpressed beliefs is possible, that all or some of these scores of rabbis I have worked with believe the Rebbe was or still is the Messiah or even divine. But since neither I nor any other non-Chabad Jew I have talked to has ever heard their local Chabad rabbis say this, the charge is meaningless and irresponsible. What some unnamed Chabad rabbis in Brooklyn say is of no significance in the day-to-day Jewish programming of Chabad houses around the world.

As a Jew who has devoted much of his life to making the case for ethical monotheism, I am very sensitive to any Jewish deviation from monotheistic beliefs. But if there are any Chabadniks who so deviate, they are so few and so ostracized that they merely represent the proverbial tree that fell in the forest.

As for the belief that the Rebbe was or is the Messiah, it may well be true that this is not a fringe belief among Chabad rabbis. But, again, I have never heard this in decades of involvement with Chabad. Among those Chabad rabbis who believed this or who still believe it, this belief is entirely personal and plays no role whatsoever in the outreach work of Chabad. Chabad teaches Jews about Judaism, not about the Rebbe as Messiah. There is no parallel between Chabad and Jews for Jesus. Drawing such a parallel is as immoral as it is intellectually dishonest. Chabad believers in the messiahship of the Rebbe have been utterly silent about it in the presence of other Jews, while the very essence of Jews for Jesus has always been to proselytize other Jews—to bring Jews to belief in Jesus as God as well as Messiah, and thereby to make Jews into Christians. If you do not believe in Jesus as Messiah and as the son of God, you cannot be a Jew for Jesus. Is there any analogous criterion for membership in Chabad? Of course not. Shame on anyone who likens the two groups.

Nevertheless, it is fair to assume that the belief in the Rebbe as Messiah may well motivate some Chabad couples to leave their homes, their culture, their families, and their friends to cheerfully live among largely irreligious Jews and non-Jews in the remotest areas of the world. And if so, more power to them. Obviously there is no equally compelling belief among members of other Jewish groups to make similar sacrifices for Jewry.

But isn't this belief Jewishly sinful? Not in my opinion, and not in the opinion of many Orthodox Jewish sources and some leading non-Chabad Orthodox rabbis such as Rav Ahron Soloveitchik, who has defended Chabad Jews' right to their beliefs about the Rebbe.

I cannot help but think that part of what animates some Orthodox Jews to attack Chabad (and remember, most Orthodox Jews do not attack Chabad, which is precisely what bothers Professor Berger) is old-time misnagdish antipathy to another expression of Orthodoxy. Since the beginnings of Hasidism, some Orthodox Jews have resented the "worship of God through joy" and mysticism that permeates Chabad: "You mean how many pages of Gemara a Jew knows is not of utmost importance? Heresy!"

Envy may be at play as well. Just about anywhere there are Jews on this planet, there is a Chabad presence thanks to the ubiquitous Chabad House. Other Orthodox Jews greatly outnumber Chabad, but Orthodox rabbis and lay people overwhelmingly live only among other Orthodox Jews. Indeed, there is often suspicion and bewilderment among many Orthodox Jews about Chabad rabbis moving their families to places with virtually no other Orthodox Jews, no kosher food, no mikvah, no Orthodox minyan. Yet, these young Chabad men and women move anywhere and everywhere, often to be utterly alone, and do so with big smiles and unrelenting enthusiasm.

I have come to deeply admire these Chabad shlichim (emissaries). I admire their happy and non-judgmental dispositions. I have never met a dour Chabad rabbi. These couples are personable, funny, vibrant, happy, and, given their largely fundamentalist beliefs, remarkably non-judgmental of others. After spending 10 years writing a book on happiness, I have come to value happiness as a moral, not just psychological, necessity. Happy people do a lot more good for humanity than the unhappy and whining. And these people tend to be happy—and remarkably accepting. They see other Jews as fellow Jews, not as non-halachic sinners. For years I wondered how Chabad can so frequently invite this non-Orthodox Jew to lecture for them, especially since the Orthodox world of Professor Berger almost never invites non-Orthodox Jews. One day I realized the answer: The Orthodox ask, "Does he drive on Shabbos?" while Chabad asks "Does he help us bring Jews to Judaism?"

In sum, though I do not share Chabad's Orthodox halachic observances or the messianic claims some of its rabbis hold regarding the Rebbe (though what Jew would not at least hope that they are right?), along with many other Jews, I acknowledge the great things Chabad does for Jews and Judaism. Chabad deserves Jews' gratitude, not vitriol.


Andrew writes on speakeasyforum.com: Well I finally got around to doing this - transcribing a tape of a radio interview between LA talk show host Dennis Prager and Stanton A. Glantz, who needs no introduction on these boards. My dad made this tape - he is agnostic on the smoking issue but he has a peculiar (for him) animus toward Prager; I think he made the recording because he'd heard Prager and Glantz go at it once before - they are old enemies. I've tried to capture the parry-and-thrust of their dialog - the two men speak over each other much of the time, which made typing it a real chore, but in the end it's worthwhile ... I don't think there's any question that Prager comes out on top here - deservedly so ...

Wednesday, June 20th [2001?], 9AM

... in the movie "Pearl Harbor" nobody smoked, which is particularly bizarre because everybody smoked. I think the ad is actually a disservice to America, but that is why I'm having the person on it to defend it, I appreciate it, Dr. Stanton Glantz of the University of California School of Medicine, he's in the Department of Medicine. Dr. Glantz is the head of many organizations that fight tobacco - is that fair to say Doctor?

Well I'm not the head of them, I mean I cooperate with alot of them.

Alright, you cooperate with alot of them, alright... You devote alot of your life against tobacco, is that fair to say?

That's true.

Okay. Let me ask you - I don't agree with your ad, as I think you know, for which reason I deeply respect your coming on with me.

Um hm.

Why do we have ads from equally endowed groups as yours - you have two foundations that you mention at the end of the ad that are funding this and that it's one in a series, you note ...

Um hm.

What if somebody endowed - and I don't mean this at all sarcastically - that since smoking in movies will lead young people to smoke, why should we have movies with drinking, with speeding, with fat people eating desserts ...

Um hm.

... with kids by swimming pools. with unleashed dogs, with people talking on cell phones while driving, or people driving without a seatbelt?

Well the first thing that I would say is, I'm not calling them in-, what I'm asking Hollywood to do is not to eliminate all smoking in all movies...

Well I think you are but go ahead.

The thing you have to understand though is that this is not happening in a vacuum, and the tobacco industry has spent tens of millions of dollars over the years working Hollywood, giving them free cigarettes, paying people off, really infiltrating Hollywood to get this tobacco use in the movies, and if you read the secret tobacco industry documents which have become available, and some of which I've posted on the web site, Smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu, which goes with the ad campaign, they view getting smoking in the movies as advertising, and as a way to promote tobacco use in a way which is very similar to, and where the people watching it don't know what they're, you know that they're really being advertised to. That's why some years ago they paid $350,000 to get a pack of large cigarettes into one of the James Bon-

Right, but this became, this became - even your ad notes that it stopped in 1989.

Well, they claimed they've stopped it, but no-one is better than the tobacco industry at hiding things.


You have to look at what I'm asking Hollywood to do, I'm not asking for any censorship...

Sure you are.

No I'm not! I'm saying...

Well let me read, let me read, let me read, you say "Rate any smoking movie R". That, in other words ...

Alright, that's not censorship.

So they should...

They do that like right now. If people want to have alot of sex or alot of violence in a movie, they're allowed to do it, it just gets a R rating.

Right. So you equate smoking, a figure smoking, with sex and violence.

Probably it does more damage in the long run...

Uh huh, okay, alright.

...and, you know, people want to put it in, and then, it's just, it's just, you know, right now, if you use, if you have a movie that uses the f word alot, it gets an R rating.

How many cigarettes ...

No one's shown that that's hurt anybody...

Would you want a movie that showed Winston Churchill with his cigar to be R rated?

That's a documentary. You know that's not...

So documentaries ...

What we're talking about...

No-no-no-no-no, meaning movies - wait, Doctor, you haven't answered any of my questions. I asked you, why not ban speeding, drinking, nonmarital sex, fat people eating dessert, and then you went on an attack...

I'm not banning anything, I'm not, you're putting, you're putting words in my mouth ...

I will let my readers decide, my listeners decide.

I'm not banning anything...

You are. Rate any smo- in a, you will ban young people from attending movies that have any cigarettes in them. So that is, that is, that is exactly what you're doing - now I want to know why you would not want R-rated movies to be any one that showed people speeding in a car, drinking alcohol, fat people eating dessert - we now know that obesity is a greater danger to health than smoking - why wouldn't you want those to be R-rated?

Well because th- Well first of all, you know there's, alot of movies that show alot of speeding and violence are R-rated.

Well alot of them are.

The thing you, the thing that you keep missing, and the thing that you're not willing to accept, is that this is a form of advertising, and it's a form of subliminal advertising...

Every time a Mercedes ...

Look, look, you asked me a question...

Yeah I know, but you give me very long answers.

When you, when you asked, p, people speeding in a movie may be an important part of the story or the action, it's not part, and it's part of the escapism. It's the smoking that you see in movies today - and it's very different than what you saw in movies thirty, forty years ago - it's not realistic, it looks like cigarette advertising, and it has generally nothing to do with the plot, nothing to do with the character development, nothing, it's, it's completely extraneous...

Yeah, but that's, that's, that's your call, you're, you're telling Hollywood what...

Well that's right, and that's why I would suggest...

Yes that's right, and that, you're - oh, I didn't say you're not allowed to express this, I'm saying that you are calling for censorship because you're a zealot on tobacco ...

...no, I'm not calling for, I'm...

...when there are far worse things...

No-no-no-no-no, censorship...

But I give you a chance to give answers, but you don't give me a chance to ask questions...

No, censorship, censorship would be for me to say there should be no smoking in movies.

That's exactly what you're saying, for young people to see ...

No I'm not...

Where young people can go in, that's exactly - what does "Rate any smoking movie R" mean?

That means that if the smoking is supposed to be something for adults, if you believe the tobacco industry...

Then why don't you want it.

...and if people want to put, if people want to put activities glamorizing it, promoting tobacco use in movies, then it should be treated...

Right, do you ...

...the same way we treat any other movie ...


...which promotes drug use...

Um hm.

That gets an R rating.

Well what, what about...

If you have a movie that promotes alot of violence...

Well "promotes" is a funny term. That's your term. Does that mean, you don't care whether a film...

That's not my term.


It's the cigarette companies in Hollywood endangering others...

What about drinking? What about drinking alcohol? Should any figure drinking alcohol in a movie be an R-rated movie?

I haven't thought about that one.

Well that's odd. You're a doctor. You're in a medical school. You know what alcohol does to people. You've never given thought to ...

Well I...

...alcohol's effects on people?

Well I think that movies that promote, that heavily promote drinking are...

Not "heavily promote" . You're, you're, you're throwing in adverbs that were not in your -


...you want any smoking in a movie to make it an R-rated movie. Do you want any drinking in a movie to make it an R-rated movie? Or do you actually think that smoking is much worse than alcohol?

It's very much worse than alcohol.

Okay fine, so those that are - we have different value systems, that's clear. But now I know why, now I know why at least.

Well, smoking kills about 500,000 people

Yes, at what, at what average age doctor?

And smoking...

At what average age?

Well, if the, if you're, if you're an infant, an infant exposed to second-hand smoke and you die of Sudden Infant Death you're pretty young...

Oh, oh my God is that demagogic, I can't believe you said that...

It kills, it takes, smoking takes, smoking, smoking knocks about fifteen years off of people.

Okay so fine, and the average age of life is what in the United States?

I don't remem, I don't know.

Okay, okay fine. So in other words, fifteen years at the end of the one-third that actually died - you acknowledge that two-thirds are not killed by cigarettes ...

Oh God.

That is a Cancer Society statistic, that at the most, one-third of cigarette smokers die, the other two-thirds lived a normal life...

No, about one-third of the cancer deaths...

No, not at all, alright, this is a new statistic, so what, what, percentage of people that smoke do you believe lose life?

Well the thing, you're, you know, you're raising a bunch of issues that in my view are totally extraneous.

You mean how, how much is extraneous?

The fact is, the fact is ...

How much years people lose on their life?

Could I, I mean, I mean, you invited me on your show...

That is, yes - yes, no, listen, you've talked alot and I want you to talk alot.

Okay, the fact is that nicotine is an addictive drug. The fact is that the great majority of people who start smoking do it as teenagers. The fact is that the, the, probably the most effective channel to reaching these people is the movies, and the fact is, there's a great deal more tobacco use in movies than there were ten years ago, it's higher than it was in the sixties before the Surgeon General's report, and the way it's portrayed in the movies today is much more associated with glamor, and the imagery of cigarette advertising, than it was thirty years ago. Now what I'm just saying is that if Hollywood - and we also know there are tremendous ties between Hollywood and the tobacco industry.

We don't know that at all.

We know it...

Your own ad said, you're - historically, that's very different...

We don't have anything past about the mid-nineties that anybody's been able to turn up, but we know, you know, it's like, I'll tell you, a fellow I met once who's a director in Hollywood told me, "We don't make movies, we make money," and you don't see any brands of anything on ...

Yes you do

...the screen...

You see them all the time.

...on the screen today, unless...

Yes you do.

...unles it's done, with at the very minimum...


...the permission...

When somebody drives, when a star drives a Mercedes Benz, do you think Mercedes has given the movie money?

At the very least they've given them the permission to use it.


Dennis was disappointed by this news.

ORLANDO -- Walt Disney World doesn't advertise its theme parks as the holiest place on earth -- just the happiest. Still, some religious leaders are dismayed and disappointed that, after today's popular Christmas services at the Contemporary Resort, the next organized Christian worship at the resort will not take place until Easter.

Citing space problems and concerns about fairness, the giant resort has stopped the regular Sunday services for Protestant and Catholic visitors that had been held at the Polynesian Luau area since 1975. Christmas and Easter services will continue.

"It no longer seemed appropriate to only offer two options for worship to our guests," said Rena Callahan, a Disney spokeswoman. "As our guest population has grown, so has the diversity of cultures that visit our theme parks," she said. "Places of worship that have grown up around our property are best suited to meet the wide array of spiritual needs of our guests."

But the Rev. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, had a different interpretation. "This is just one further step away from what was once a core constituency of religiously motivated, `family values' clientele," he said. Disney's decision, he said, is "more a matter of indifference than hostility," reflecting "a lack of comprehension of how the real country lives and what's important to them."


DP picks up many items from the Drudge Report, including this one:

A young Norwegian mother who took a litter of puppies to her own breast when her dog died giving birth remains proud of her unusual move. Now, six weeks later, both her infant son and eight of the puppies that survived are crawling around the family's Christmas tree in Siggerud, west of Oslo.

Kine Skiaker, her son Emil and eight puppies are celebrating Christmas at the Skiaker home west of Oslo.

"I've had lots of reaction, mostly positive," Kine Skiaker tells newspaper Aftenposten. But Skiaker also had to tolerate some less-than-flattering remarks.

"No one has complained to me directly, but I've heard from others that some people thought it was disgusting that I would nurse Emil (her son) and the puppies at the same time," she said. "I just have to tolerate that, and can only say that I washed myself thoroughly after I'd nursed the puppies."

Skiaker says she's also been told by experts that she helped save the puppies' lives. "That makes me feel good," she said. "Then I can accept that some think what I did was nauseating."

SECOND HOUR: What's wrong with this picture? Three Jews sit around and discuss the most meaningful Christmas films. Isn't that like Muslims discussing the tastiest pork chops? Doesn't a Jew by definition not finding meaning in Christmas?

Prager's two guests were the husband-and-wife friends of Dennis - movie buffs Susan and Alan Estrin.


Dennis asked: How could someone offer his opinions on a wide variety of topics and not be considered conceited?

DP: The greatest problem facing this country is not terrorism but understanding how this country is different.


"As Dr. Stephen Marmer points out, one plus one equals two."

Dennis didn't say that on the air today but I half expected him too, given his rash of attributing on air and in speeches truisms and commonsensical insights to the UCLA psychiatrist. I guess Prager is polishing the mitzvah of crediting a source.

Dr. Marmer was the guest in hour two. They are longtime friends and great together on the radio. I once suggested to Prager that Dr. Marmer should be his guest host.

Prager calls it the Marmer Theorem that if parents can only bequeath one half the neuroses to their children that the parents received from their parents, that are giving a big gift to the world and to their children.


Rick Salutin writes in the Toronto Globe and Mail: I had a note this week from one of Dennis Prager's minions saying Dennis had read a piece of mine with interest. "As you know," it said, "Dennis is not confrontational. His main goal is to clarify issues for his listeners." Actually, it was news to me, but I guessed Dennis might be American since his staff assumed Canadians knew him and his m.o., something media personalities here would not take for granted.

So I went on Dennis's show yesterday for an hour. It comes from L.A. and is opposite Dr. Laura's brutal, abusive phone-in (toward her listeners, never the reverse), which outdraws Dennis, but then he offers mere clarity, not delicious punishment.

Dennis took the last word to prove his point about the purity of American motives abroad. He used the example of Israel, and I think it's telling. He said there were no interests that could explain U.S. support for Israel beyond altruistic faith in a doughty little democracy. I'd say that ignores a raft of geopolitical, military and other strategic calculations, as well as domestic political pressure from American Jews and fundamentalist Christians. Yet Israel is at the centre of U.S. thinking about the world, in an amazing way, considering its size and heft. At the least, it provides a splendid justification for American delusions about the moral purity of its policies -- as Dennis illustrated.

I've had some mail from his listeners, all pointing out that he made mincemeat of me and some containing the (sounds to me) strain of a new, virulent anti-Canadianism. "WE HAVE MORE POWER AND HAVE USED IT LESS THAN ANY OTHER SUPER POWER IN THE WORLD. . . . I TRULY FEEL YOUR SHELTERED, ENVIOUS, OR STUPID. . . . I WISH WE WOULD SEAL OUR BOARDERS BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH. HOW ABOUT WILL TRADE YOU CLINTON AND STREISAND FOR A COUPLE OF CLEAR THINKERS. PLEASE NO ARTIST, ACTORS. . . . WE WOULD BE SAFE, YOU CAN SING CUMBAYA!!!!!!!" rsalutin@globeandmail.ca


Last hour. Dennis Prager discussed this 12/11/02 article on speed dating in the USA Today. He noticed a picture of four women in the program. All four wear pants. Prager prefers women in skirts.

DP understands two reasons why women wear pants: They are more comfortable and many women feel uncomfortable with their legs.

DP said he didn't understand why many at his singles events look like they are stepping out to pick up a newspaper, rather than dressing to impress.

DP laments the loss of the skirt.

Khunrum writes: I like it. I am a firm believer in Internet dating. I have tried to interest Chaim but he scoffs.....It is cheaper, faster and by observing a few Rum Rules you can cut the cost even further. I always meet them for coffee first because 9 out of 10 are unacceptable for one reason or another. Rule number one (as I have mentioned before) is to arrive 5 or so minutes (trendy) late, By that time the prospect has (usually) paid for her own latte' . You've saved an extra five clams.....


Doug writes: DP's guest this morning is J. Martin Rochester, author of Class Warfare: Besieged Schools, Bewildered Parents, Betrayed Kids and the Attack on Excellence. You can read about this book here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893554538/

Rochester claims that "creative spelling" and "fuzzy math" (where errors are not corrected) are running rampant in the public schools. Does this jibe with any of you who may have children in school?

Shannon writes: I live in the Los Angeles area and have two kids in public school. This is not something my kids have experienced, though that does not mean it is not a part of curricula in other school districts. As far as it "running rampant?" Sounds like hyperbole to me...I routinely mix with many dozens of parents from all of the region, and have never heard anyone mention this oddball teaching methodology. Personally the sooner the government gets out of the education business, the better I shall feel about it... Like DP currently does, I would prefer to send my children to a school reflecting my own values.


Dennis Prager started a great new feature on his show in the first hour - the weekend in review. Prager did a bunch of quick-hitting items on the weekend's news.


Dennis Prager spent his first hour on Howell Raines's New York Times, and how they spiked two columns disagreeing with the paper's editorial stand against the August Golf Club, which does not allow women members.

Nelking writes: Prager's show today (Friday, 12/6) exemplifies most of his annoying, close minded and narcissistic habits. He's babbling on about how it is virtually impossible for members of the opposite sex to be close friends because one of them "wants something from the other" 99% of the time. After making that absurd statement, he brazenly said "That's a fact". NO IT'S NOT A FACT----IT'S YOUR OPINION!!!!! Later in the show he "Upped" his "fact" to 99.9999%. To put it bluntly, Prager is full of crap.

Sure there are guys hanging out in singles bars with open shirts and gold chains offering to be a woman's "friend" but, it is not NEARLY as uncommon as Prager thinks it is for males and females to be true, loyal, close and long lasting friends. Just my opinion (I don't have a big enough ego to claim that, because I happen to believe it's a "fact"), I would say that AT THE VERY LEAST, 25% of such friendships are pure friendships and that the woman isn't secretly in love with the guy and/or the guy isn't concerned with bedding the female. I feel that Prager lives way too isolated a life and really doesn't know much about relationships, friendships etc. The problem is, he somehow convinced himself that he is some type of an expert on relationships (along with just about any other topic)


DP says doctors and firefighters are the last people to make decisions about public health and safety because these professionals spent all their working hours with those minority of people who are sick/injured in fires.

Second hour: Humorous anecdote from Prager about bringing two Catholic priests to synagogue on Saturday morning. After 40-minutes, one priest said to Prager: "When do the services start?" The services had been going the whole time. Jewish prayer is much more informal than Christian services. Jewish prayers are required of Jewish men three times a day and will last three hours typically on Saturday mornings while church lasts 90-minutes.

Acaller asked about how Dennis could reconcile the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God with animal suffering? Luckily for the caller, Dennis said he'd "grappled his whole lifetime" with such issues... Dennis spent ten years writing his book on happiness and it was based on a "lifetime of thought." These statements strike many as pompous.


Dennis Prager said his worst two votes were for Jimmy Carter for president in 1976 and for John McCain in the California Republican primary in 2000.

Prager critiqued this 12/4/02 NYT article on Bill Clinton:

Former President Bill Clinton said yesterday that the Democratic Party had lost the midterm elections because its candidates had failed to offer a convincing case that the party could manage national security during dangerous times.

Mr. Clinton said the Republicans were benefiting from the support of an "increasingly right-wing and bellicose conservative press," which he contrasted with "an increasingly docile establishment press."

"What was done to Tom Daschle was unconscionable, but our refusal to stand up and defend him in a disciplined way was worse," he said.

"We cannot wilt in the face of higher negative ratings for our leaders," he said. "They have a destruction machine. We don't have a destruction machine. Somebody has got to lead the Democrats, in the House and the Senate, and running for president. And the rest of us have got to stand up for them and stand with them when they are subject to these attacks."


Dennis Prager held another of his single events in Orange County Sunday. Admission was $30. The average age of participants was about 45. Few women under 30. Most of the participants were older women. Few Jews. Prager gave another one of his oft-told speeches about happiness.

Dennis Prager talked about Australia's Prime Minister John Howard who's calling for pre-emptive strkes against terrorism. Prager called Howard, the leading of the nation's conservative party, a leftist. Completely wrong. Prager called Australia a socialist country - only partly accurate. In some ways it is as capitalistic as the US.

DP: It's one of the bad traits of human that until they're hurt, they don't empathize with those have been. Now Australians have been hurt by terrorism (about 100 of them were killed in Bali).

From the NY Times: CANBERRA, Australia, Dec. 1 — Prime Minister John Howard said today that he would like to see the United Nations Charter changed to allow pre-emptive action against terrorists, one of several such statements in recent days that have alarmed countries in the region.

"It stands to reason that if you believe that somebody was going to launch an attack on your country," Mr. Howard said in a television interview, "either of a conventional kind or a terrorist kind, and you had a capacity to stop it and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity, then of course you would have to use it."

DENNIS PRAGER really embarrasses himself here. Prager wonder if Howard ever made any comments on behalf of Israel, which has suffered so terribly from terrorism. Well, Howard has long been a staunch supporter of Israel and an advocate of an aggressive response to evil.

SECOND HOUR: Sandy Banks writes in the LA Times: At Pasadena's Muir High School -- as on many urban campuses -- black students are cited more often than others for disciplinary problems. And they score worse than others on standardized exams.

What was shocking was how the white teacher argued -- when he connected the dots with his public proclamation -- that unruly black students were responsible for his school's failure to make the grade.

"It has absolutely nothing to do with teachers or curriculum," Scott Phelps wrote in a letter to fellow teachers at Muir, warning that test scores were likely to nose-dive. "Standards of behavior, or the lack thereof" are to blame.

He didn't hesitate to point the finger: "Overwhelmingly, the students whose behavior makes the hallways deafening, who yell out for the teacher and demand immediate attention in class, who cannot seem to stop chatting and are fascinated by each other but not with academics, in short, whose behavior saps the strength and energy of us on the front lines, are African American."

The fracas over the letter created such tension that Phelps was escorted off campus and put on two weeks' paid leave -- not as punishment, district officials said, but for his protection. At the extremes, outsiders viewed him as either a martyr on the altar of political correctness or an example of racism infecting public education.

Would the uproar have been the same if Phelps had been black? Probably not, said USC professor Todd Boyd, who studies race, culture and communication.

Consider African Americans a family, Boyd said. Phelps was "out of place" in speaking so bluntly. "It's one thing for a member of your family to scold you. That comes from a history of love and support, knowledge and understanding," he said. "You take that comment differently if it comes from someone off the street."

DENNIS PRAGER INTERVIEWED Todd Boyd, who sounded black.


Dennis Prager writes 11/26/02: To understand the threat the non-Muslim world faces, you need to understand the way in which Western news agencies report Islamic violence. Blame is almost never placed on the Muslim rioters. Rather, the passive voice, "violence broke out," is regularly used, and Muslims and Christians are simply reported to be killing each other in "sectarian violence."

The Voice of America news report actually identified with the Muslim rioters: "The riots were sparked after a newspaper published an article mocking the Islamic leaders' protest."

It is crucial to identify this each-side-is-at-fault reporting. It characterizes world news organizations' descriptions of Arab-Israeli violence as well. Just as in Nigeria, where the press blames "sectarian violence" rather than Muslim rioters, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the press blames a "cycle of violence" rather than Muslim terrorists.

Yet in all the statements made by Nigeria's leading Muslim officials in the Nigerian press, I could not find a word of condemnation of the Muslim murderers. The Muslim leaders called for calm after accepting the newspaper's abject apologies.


Dennis Prager critiques this New York Times article by Mark Lacy: KADUNA, Nigeria, Nov. 28 — The beauty queens are gone now, chased from Nigeria by the chaos in Kaduna. But there are no celebrations in this deeply troubled town, which has become a symbol of the difficulty in Nigeria — and throughout Africa — of reconciling people who worship separately.

Nigeria's president, Olusegun Obasanjo, arrived in Kaduna today to begin reconciling his country's population, which has shown itself to be devoutly religious but also quick to kill.

DP: What drove the beauty queens away was chaos. There's no aggressor. Nobody is at fault - Africa just doesn't know how to get along with those who are different. No mention that it was muslims who started the murdering over an alleged insult to the prophet Mohammed.

It's like reporting that chaos caused the Holocaust.

According to the New York Times coverage, all the religions kill equally. These are implied lies.

Prager read approvingly from New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman 11/27/02:

To: Leaders of the Muslim world

From: President George W. Bush

Dear Sirs, As you approach the end of Ramadan and we approach our Thanksgiving, I thought it would be a good time for me to share with you some concerns.

Let me be blunt: I am increasingly worried that we are heading toward a civilizational war. How so? Well, let me point out just a few news stories in recent days: Imam Samudra, the Indonesian Islamist accused of masterminding last month's Bali bombing — in which nearly 200 tourists were killed — reportedly said during his confession that it was a "holy bomb" that ripped apart that disco, and that it was aimed there because it was full of foreigners — i.e., non-Muslims. There is nothing "holy" about a bomb that kills 200 people just because they are foreigners.

Friends, unless you have a war within your civilization, there is going to be a war between our civilizations.

DENNIS PRAGER spent the second hour chatting with his producer Charlie Richards who's leaving the show and moving to Georgia to do a show outlined at www.lifeatthepond.com, where I found this about Charlie: "He's written everything from commercials to news to Adventures in Odyssey to prime time sitcoms to speeches for Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. It's a resume only an oddball writer could have. And it all boils down to this - The Pond - the first creation of his own. Charlie lives in Pasadena, California with his wife Michele and two children, Noah and Macy."

Charlie, 37 years old, does not have a voice made for radio.

Dennis mentions he speaks in French with his future son-in-law Jared, who's from France.

Dennis holds another singles get together Sunday in Orange County. He promised to give a different talk and to not repeat himself. I doubt it. He didn't say anything I hadn't heard from him before at the last talk. He's extremely repetitive, in speeches and on the radio.


My Big Fat Greek Wedding

Dennis loved My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the most wholesome movie out of Hollywood this year and the highest grossing independent film of all time.

A friend of DP's saw the film in New York in a theater filled with Orthodox Jews. And the Ortho Jews loved it.

The movie could've been My Big Fat Jewish Wedding or My Big Fat Italian Wedding or any immigrant group. The movie celebrates America.

Professor Alan Estrin at the American Film Institute writes: The message of the movie is that the woman has to make herself over to attract the man. When she puts in contacts and puts on make-up, she makes herself over.

There are no feminists in this movie. The protagonist's Greek heritage innoculated her against the brand of feminism that says a guy should just be attracted to my inner beauty, how I look on the outside does not matter.

How many women have condemned themselves to loneliness because they bought the line that it didn't matter what they looked like.

Female caller: She attracted the guy, not from the make-over, but from feeling good about herself.

DP: She got happy when she attracted the guy.

Caller: Not because she got the guy, but because she felt good about her life and becoming who she was.

DP: A reason the movie was so successful was that it was so true. Do women get breast implants to impress other women?

The death of skirts is one of the tragedies of the modern age.

Rick249 writes on Imdb.com: Nia Vardalos tour de force, more about courtship with My Non-Greek Boyfriend than a wedding per se. Vardalos plays frumpy Greek who meets the love of her life and turns things around (or vice versa) despite expected family complications. Very cute love story, all done before in one way or another with some ethnic group but pleasant nonetheless. Nia's delayed, cross-eyed responses (and often non-responses) to boyfriend, particularly early on, are effective and very endearing. Similar in concept but not sombre tone to early Hanks "Each Time We Say Goodye".

Mark writes: "From the feminists who think that it's an absolute crime to make a film where the woman isn't truly happy until she meets "Mr. Right" to those of Greek heritage who somehow feel insulted, some people just can't lighten up and have a good laugh."