Dennis Prager

2-16-98

Dennis Prager on KABC Radio, AM 790, Los Angeles.

Prager delivered his show from Syracuse, New York. He is giving lectures there on happiness, to promote his new book.

There is a sense that the President is losing his authority in Washington, says DP. Then Prager moved to the topic of Iraq.

There is a mantra from the Left, religious and political, that we have to solve our problems (with Iraq) without war. They constantly invoke the names of Gandhi and Martin Luther King who confronted decent democracies.

DP: "I want to tear my hair out when I hear these people. Do they understand the difference between Saddam Hussein and others? Do they understand that evil are not negotiable with? They are sinfully naïve. What is there to negotiate with a man who has used chemical weapons against fellow Muslims (Iranians)?

If we have difficulties with England (or other essentially democratic and moral societies), you speak.

Why don't these people say that no matter how many people Saddam murders, or countries that he wipes out, you always talk. And if the talk does not work out, you just leave evil alone.

Prager opposed, when passed, the legislation outlawing the assassination of a foreign leader. He believes that if it saves innocent lives, assassination is a good idea.

Darkness is a lousy metaphor for evil. It is too bright. Like the sun, it is too bright to look at. It hurts your eyes.

Prager notes that the three countries most opposed to American intervention in Iraq are France, China and Russia. Let future generations note the moral company that France keeps. "I love Europe and European culture, but morally, the continent has been retarded. You'd hope that Beethoven and Goethe would have a moral impact. And France is the worst."

2:08PM: Prager agreed with the following editorial:

Sunday, February 15, 1998

It is no surprise that heavy, high-riding sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks inflict more damage and injury than cars in a collision...

The institute found that the bulkier vehicles had considerably higher death rates than did cars for occupants of other vehicles that they crashed into...

As ever-bigger versions of these vehicles fill the road, more consumers may feel compelled to buy them so as not to be disadvantaged in a crash...

...One way insurance companies might encourage auto makers to develop safer designs is to raise liability rates for light trucks that tend to inflict heavy damage on others during collisions. Modifying rates may cause consumers to choose the models among the light trucks that are marginally safer.

...By charging sport utility and pickup owners rates that more closely reflect their claims experience, the insurance companies may be able to lower liability insurance rates for cars and sensitize drivers of bulkier vehicles to their real costs.

Dennis owns a sports utility vehicle. Yet he supports the editorial.

A caller said that such vehicles make women feel masculine, and men more masculine. Prager said his wife mainly drives the sports utility vehicle and he does not notice an increase in her masculinity.

A caller asked Dennis if he bought the sports utility vehicle for his wife for its extra safety. Prager thought about it for a minute, and then said that safety was a factor.

The caller pointed out that motorcycles should have the lowest insurance rates, and that was ridiculous.

DP: Larry, why do I think you have utter contempt for my position?

LARRY: Not utter contempt, just contempt. Utter contempt I save for Saddam Hussein.

It is up to the insurance company, not Dennis and Larry, to decide prices.

I agree with the last caller. It is in the insurance company's interest to insure safer cars. You are advocating the insurance company acting against its self interest.

Elder opposes making car insurance mandatory, for it is one of the reasons that we have high insurance rates. Insurance companies have a captive audience.

PRAGER: What about if someone who doesn't have insurance hits you ?

Larry: "I am going to carry insurance on myself. I will take responsibility for Larry Elder."

Dennis: "Larry, great points. We have to talk. You are truly a libertarian in your bones."

LUKE: This final hour is another example of how Prager gets into trouble when he discusses economic issues. He doesn't understand much in this area. His show would also benefit from having more guests (as long as they are sharp, quick witted and suited for the medium of radio).

LUKE: I received this thoughtful E-mail from Gil in Echo Park.

Dear Luke,

Beginning last April I've mostly been away from LA on assignment. Ever since I've found your postings on USENET I've been reading your Prager summations.

Even though it can never replace Dennis live, I can't tell you how much I appreciate you allowing me to keep up. (To hell with the jerk who told you to get a life).

Some comments on your dennisprager.net comments:

DON"T STOP CRITICIZING DENNIS. Coming from you it's bound to be constructive.

I've only been allowed to praise him on-air (well deserved), and even that was difficult because I could tell it made Dennis feel awkwardly. My guess is he'll take constructive criticism more easily than compliments -- but his screeners, certainly Pat Berman, and now maybe Mania (I guess) wouldn't permit it. Kept putting me off.

Re on Dennis Being Attributed: My guess is the others don't attribute because unless it's a direct quote it is usually inappropriate. Their is an anonymous quote that states, "Its remarkable what you can accomplish if you don't worry about who'll get the credit." Dennis has built on things I've said on-air without attribute (most recently his article in the WSJ referred to people being afraid of being called judgmental), and I'm simply grateful I was able to broaden his ken.

My biggest criticism of Dennis: Too overwhelmed (surprised?) by his own influence to stop and listen a second time <g> about some of his comments that are off-key.

For example when he says of Baby Jessica (at first) and Baby Richard (again later) that it was as if the courts had killed them [MY PARAPHRASE - but very much what he said] he is making the extremist type of statement of which his "passion moderate" is normally very critical. As far as I know his screeners have never let this point reach him. The only time they hung up on me was within 10 minutes of one of his Baby Richard comments. I identified myself, than asked "Dennis often says words mean something. Could this be the type of hyperbole Dennis derides?" They probably felt he was being exceptionally provocative - "just what programming wants" - and here I was about to put out the fire! <G>

What Dennis is Fighting:

Dennis is attempting to awaken us all to our sense of conscience. It is difficult. Here is a reason why.

Casuistry (originally the study of cases of conscience) - in the 1650s it was discredited cleverly by Blaise Pascal because by then the good idea was taken to extreme by those in power. It was the PC of its day. It was twisted so that the Jesuits often condoned really awful behavior by either themselves or their patrons. They were the lawyers of that day. It's a long but revealing story.

Pascal did such a good job that today casuistry is synonomous with sophistry.

The difference: sophists lie for selfish ends, casuists lie for what they think are selfless ends. Thus, they both may subscribe to "the ends justify the means." Casuists are often the unwitting dupes of sophists.

"MY POINT: Fighting sophists (and modern casuists: statists, the greens, the anticapital punishment crowd, etc.) has fallen to Dennis. We must applaud him for it. His management wants to treat him like just another entertainer. They are going to be able to put more pressure on him than us. It falls to us to alert him, to keep him aware when we hear someting off-key, i.e., when we think he has stepped over his own line. His "screeners" won't.

Thanks again,

Gil from Echo Park (and thanks to the screeners who try their best to keep Dennis from remembering us, also one of many Gils from Glendale and Gils from L.A.)