Alan: DP again drew grave implications from a highly significant incident
that occured in our society. It seems that five years ago a maggot was
protected during the making of a film. The crew had to find a dead maggot
instead of using a live one to feed a pet crow. According to the story
this was due to a ruling of the Humane Society observer on the set.
List 1.
Some societies in which the short term needs or wants of human animals
come before the welfare (or existence) of non-human animals. They are
obviously on the right moral track and will form the vangard for the 21st
century.
China
Russia
Vietnam
Rwanda
Indonesia
Malaysia
Burma
List 2.
Societies recently critized by DP for their concern for non-human animals.
They are obviously in decline and are on the verge of falling apart.
United States
United Kingdom
New Zealand
In China, if it moves it gets eaten, but here, in America, even a maggot
can get fair shake. What a country!
Before I go, just a question: Why didn't DP get the Humane Society on
the air for verification and explanation? Most other hosts have figured
out by now that that approach gives better talk radio.
Soggy replies: I think your misunderstanding his concern, not hearing
the point of contention I'd still guess that the point isn't mutually
exclusive, that he does not find your list of problem countries of no
import but rather protecting a maggot is ridiculous and points to an extreme
view propagated at the expense of the practical. Without common sense
society has the ability to waste resources, energy and effort which isn't
a issue of no concern... Isn't it quite likely that he's actually saying
there's many other more important issues to be concerned with than "saving"
a live maggot?
Its seems as though you've often raised the point that there's often a
"issue" of more import than whatever tidbit Prager may speak
on....for virtually any "subject" one can find a more significant
or important situation that one party or the other would consider his
time better spent on...With his 15hrs of weekly broadcast time I'd think
he has ample time to squeeze in a few "maggot stories", complaining
about it seems like nitpicking.
2/15
Larry Hathaway:
I think was on the C-Span taping of his show last August, Prager mentioned
that he carries around something like 40 (forty?!) newspapers. Could he
try to be "in touch" with humanity by reading more than, say,
six newpapers a day? And is this the person who criticizes media bias?
He showed that open briefcase, tilting it toward the camera. I cannot
recall him mentioning any magazines, periodicals, technical or 'institute'
publications; no books; no mention of newsletters by any _peers_. This
man is isolated if he spends such inordinate attention on the newsprint
press. If that's his *hobby*, then nothing's amiss --- I find the British
"great equalizer" attitude about hobbies a fascinating and functional
approach. Possibly he's carrying around such weight for exercise, for
health purposes, but then why mention it to the C-Span audience? I thought
his comment on the briefcase implied that he thoroughly perused the newspaper
medium. He may possibly take the pulse of the newspaper industry, but
he cannot stay in touch with typical humans that way.
Dennis Prager certainly cites newspapers on KABC. Items reaching newsprint
are necessarily quite noteworthy events, rather exceptional occurrances.
Newspaper documentation is exceedingly far from a documentation of typical
normal human lifestyle, and normal human perspective. Yet nominally Dennis
Prager is addressing issues relevant to the non-exceptional behavior of
humans. By addressing issues that appear in print, Dennis Prager fosters
the perspective that such items either reflect or significantly influence
human behavior. *That* perspective constitutes pomposity --- as if to
think 'the communications industry within which some of my career lies
has a significant influence' --- the KABC studio is what, just miles away
from......_Hollywood_ ? His radio career is in _entertainment_ and considering
his strengths it's good that he's found a niche. An alternative talk radio
host would probably dwell on a less
virtuous subject.
Having now acknowledged his virtues, let the record show that, now that
I've heard him intermittently on KABC, I see SingleMom's point about him
picking out quite extraordinary items in the print medium. Some of these
items are *not* indicators of pervasive corrupting shifts in our society
--- they're novelties which have not yet permutated to "National
Inquirer" status. Sometimes, Dennis Prager makes much ado about the
not-so-consequential. Isn't that an indicator of entertainment?
The first time I caught his show was about a year and a half ago while
briefly back in LA. What impressed me, was the combination of loud commercials/jingles/traffic
reports, and his harrumphing 'interaction' with callers. Variety seemed
to come from from these newspaper tidbit "thar-she-blows" ---
that is, he's "sailed the high seas" of newsprint, stalking
that elusive prey to recover blubber. KABC can well-serve salesmen, who
while driving from place to place, need a pseudo-white noise generator
to adjust one's psyche between clients.
My first exposure to Dennis Prager, his booknotes interview, then his
book "Think a Second Time," is rather different from the KABC
talk radio Dennis Prager. The book presents a far wiser individual and
possibly a moderate. On KABC I do not perceive the perspective of a moderate.
Here's a 2/4/99 statement by Dennis Prager on KABC.
"...one of the reasons I so deeply oppose cloning, because it
will end the -- nature's terrific way of dividing talents and
dispersing all different traits."
I see good reason to approach human cloning with caution.
However, his statement is clearly false. What's the basis for
saying "end"? Can he truly mean "all" different traits?
ALL !! He's an idiot.
Perhaps Prager's words " nature's terrific way of dividing
talents and dispersing all different traits " refer to what's
called hybrid strength. Well, hybrid strength does not change
as a result of cloning. The clone will have a chromosonal makeup
derived from two parents, four grandparents, eight great
grandparents, ...... --- granted, those sources will be the
same parentage as the sources of the clone.
He would need research which shows that a genetic ancestry
that's sourced 'backward' one generation is less suitable than a
typical 'contemporary' ancestry. Of course I'm making the
assumption that he wants to base his positions upon valid,
substantiated criteria, as distinguished from opportunistic
phrases and pop-culture fantasies. Is he truly college educated?
Was he ever taught to avoid straying into areas of weakness?
Does Dennis Prager forsake discussing _any_ area until he's
knowledgable about the subject matter? He needs to discuss
issues which are grounded in speculation --- "true" religion,
those ethics which are dominated by fashion, and politics.
Following two centuries of the great plague in Europe,
human species 'genome properties' undoubtedly
changed; initial death rates were one-third to two-thirds of the
population but then fell significantly (somewhat due to die-off
of susceptible humans.) To mention this matter again --- for
such extraordinary circumstances, the changing population
resistance was significant, and a change in the gene pool would
be significant.
Does Prager now advocate that Jews breed with nonJews to promote nature's
way? There is no reason for Jews
to worry about "nature's way," at least regarding cloning.
How does Dennis Prager develop such a notion?
Is Mr. Prager simply stupid, or is he under the influence of a
cult, political faction, or New Age mumbo jumbo? Once again, we see a
pattern of Prager justifying a position with a factor
that's far less consequential than other factors.
Citing just any old reason is fatuous.
He is unable to discern important factors from the myriad of
inconsequential ones. Perhaps he's an example of the shoddy
schooling he's harped about. Did he go to NYU and Columbia?
He's an embarrassment. He needs to stick with humanities
bullshit, because such claims are harder to shoot down with
reliable information.
Hearing Dennis Prager on his radio show is rather different from
the work of Dennis Prager in publication. These are not slips of
the tongue; they are confused, false ideas.
"...I so deeply oppose..." --- something's certainly deep. He's
an idiot.
2/4/99
Larry Hathaway writes on the Prager List:
Dennis Prager on Thursday, 2/4/99, spent the first hour and a
half on his KABC talk radio show covering a medley of topics.
He replayed the previous day’s words by Jerry Falwell and
said that he got Falwell to apologize for the Anti-Christ
statement. Alan Dershowitz was on via telephone (I missed
most of this -- the internet signal dropped out at 9:50PST.
RealPlayer worked flawleesly at 2 other websites so apparently
this was a KABC problem. Do other folks experience these
problems?)
Here’s Dennis Prager (P) conversing with lawyer Alan Dershowitz
(D) Thursday, 2-4-99:
P: I beleieve that the American courtroom is a crap shoot, that
it is true in lawsuits and it is also true in criminal cases.
D: You think that the random, you think it’s random...
P: I think it is; I’ll prove it to you, by the...
D: .. random...
P: I’ll, _lemme_ just tell you, prove it to you...
D ...you mean with a crapshoot, it’s no more likely that a
guilty person than an innocent person will be convicted?
P:I believe that whether or not you are found guilty for what
you have really done is based almost _entirely_ on the amount of
money you could spend on people like Alan Dershowitz.
D: It’s preposterous. Tell that to Leona Helmsly, to
Michael Milken to Mike Tyson, to many other *extraordinarily*
wealthy people who have spent time in jail. It’s just
preposterous.
P: So you think, so you think the argument to give the case to
people know best OJ Simpson trial, the Dream Team money
that was spent on lawyers and could be spent,
is irrespective. That had there been a normal...
D: You’re engaging in a classic non sequiter.
P: Why?
D: What you’re saying is that there’s a random relationship
between guilt and conviction and that wealth *always*
determines the outcome
P: Not always
D: now wait a minute the..
P: but if it does 50% of the time, it becomes a crapshoot.
D: Let me give you an analogy. It’s like medicine. If you God
forbid got sick, and you can afford six doctors who could come
into the surgery with you, your own anesthesiologist, your own
cardiologist, your chances of success
would be far greater than the poor person. That doesn’t mean we
should deny *you* the right to have your six doctors, it means
that we should _elevate_ the opportunity of poor people to get
good medicine. The vast majority of cases will determine, will
dependent on whether you have a tumor or whether it’s operable.
The same thing is true in criminal cases, your guilt or
innocence is the determining factor, but at the extremes, the
amount of wealth you have *obviously* plays a role. That’s why
there are no wealthy people on death row today, that’s why _all_
the people on death row are poor.
P: Right. So what is that , now wai wai.. wait..
D: That’s why I do 50% of my cases pro bono.
P: So wait a minute doesn’t that totally support my argument,
if there are no poor ?peace? people on death row, that means,
and since you and I know that most of
them, 85 to 90% already committed murder, that only _means_
that if you have the money you can obviate justice in America.
D: It means if you _don’t_ have money, you are likely, more
likely to be convicted whether you are guilty or not.
P: But the rich should have been guilty.
D: Because of Republicans like you, _that_ money matters a
great deal, in health care, in legal care, I’d like to change
that, I’d like to eliminate the impact of money on legal
outcomes, and health outcomes . You won’t appropriate
money to help greater legal aid, more access of the poor...
P: So that *nobody* will be on death row. We could then, SO
D: ?? ??
P: We could pay all that money and have *no one* on death row!
We could even obviate _more_ ..
D: .. ? .... that only the guilty are on death row.
P: No, no no you don’t, you don’t want _anybody_ on death
row.
-------------------------------
I’m not very familiar with Alan Dershowitz, but the coverage of
the OJS trial led me to believe he’s a liberal activist lawyer.
More recently, I’ve seen that he’s a TV personality.
What I unexpectedly find on DP’s KABC show is that Dershowitz is
quite superior to Mr. Prager in this particular episode. Mr. Dershowitz
does not make self-contridictory statements as Mr. Prager does. He keeps
his positions in check versus Prager’s tendency to exaggerate.
1) Early on --- “ D: What you’re saying.... that wealth
*always* determines the outcome. P: Not always
This compares with, near the end,
" P: We could pay all that money and have *no one* on death
row!“
Which position is Prager taking? Perhaps Dennis Prager can
explain seemingly conflicting statements with word parsing,
Clintonian style. More damning is the pattern of Prager taking
a factor of immediate concern (wealth affecting courtroom
outcome) and elevating in to an exceedingly dominant factor. The
real world does not operate that way.
Great wealth can certainly affect outcome. It may be that for
the less *extravagantly* wealthy there is also an effect, but
then it’s not the ability to afford someone as expensive as
Dershowitz --- these people are ‘connected’ to society’s
power
brokers and the wealth factor is less direct. Poor people tend
to be disconnected (I suspect many of them are regarded by the average
citizen as somewhat dysfunctional.)
2) On the wealth issue, Dershowitz is FAR more accurate ---
" D: ...at the extremes, the amount of wealth you have
*obviously* plays a role.
YES.
That’s the role that wealth can play. And wealth affects
outcome far too often, but it still affects capital cases a
small percentage of the time, overwhelmingly because the
percentage of defendants who have such wealth is quite small.
Prager bitches about outcomes in cases that are so rare that
they can be hyped as trial-of-the-decade or *even*
trial-of-the-century. Mr. Prager looks so foolish campared with
a guest who can control his word qualifiers. I do not prefer
Dershowitz’s positions, but the man’s presentation is less
faulty.
3) “ P:I believe that whether or not you are found guilty for
what you have really done is based almost _entirely_ on the
amount of money you could spend on people like Alan Dershowitz.
D: It’s preposterous. “ Later Dershowitz gives his
position --- “ D: The vast majority of cases ... The same
thing is true in criminal cases, your guilt or innocence is the
determining factor, but at the extremes, the amount of wealth
you have *obviously* plays a role."
The vast majority of cases is as Dershowitz says. How caw
Dennis let himself get suckered into overextending his position?
4) Also Dershowitz states, “ That’s why you have no wealthy
people on death row today, that’s why _all_ the people on death
row are poor.” His use of “today” leaves open the possibility
that a wealthy person’s been on death row sometime. A simple qualifier
tempers his position. He may be literally invalid --- maybe someone wealthy
*is* on death row, but his statement is far stronger by avoiding a more
extreme statement.
A while back, someone said that Dennis Prager would be a good
debater. Perhaps he could win on his charm and emotional
approach, but technically he would lose due to
the prevalence of faulty statements. Now that I’ve listened to
more of KABC, it’s apparent that Dennis Prager repeatedly
demonstrates loss of control of his intellect. He’s weak.
5) Also, at the end, Prager seems to read Dershowitz’s
mind --- “ P: No, no no you don’t, you don’t want _anybody_
on
death row. “ Has Dershowitz stated in the past
that he’s against capital punishment? The _words_ of
Dershowitz, “ ..that only the guilty are on death row.” seemed
consistent with his previous statement. What was
Dennis’ basis for correcting Dershowitz’ stated position?
6) Dershowitz won by mentioning health outcomes. Medical
outcome is overwhelmingly dominated by the fundamental nature of pathologial
processes. However, extreme wealth can modify the health care process
somewhat. Wealth can rarely override the
dominant factor.
Prager deals poorly with exceptional cases. It's ironic that his
newsletter is named "The Prager Perspective." It's his
_perspective_ that is regularly faulty. Sense of proportion is
skewed.
In summary, Mr. Prager showed repeated signs of attenuated
judgment. I hope he can find a way of improving his performance
when he’s up against liberals.
After Dershowitz was no longer on, Dennis made a claim
about the significance of wealthy people before the law.
A caller claimed that DP treated Falwell “with kid gloves”
compared to his handling of Dershowitz. That also, Falwell’s
anti-Christ statement is surpassed by much bolder previous
claims. (A quite good point.) When DP said that he was
unaware of what the caller claimed, about Falwell saying that
the great storms of last year were God’s revenge on
Disneyland for its liberal treatment of gays, the caller
interjected “How could you not know that, after all you read
seven newspapers a day.”
DP: “There’s a lacuna in my knowledge, a real gap.”
The last hour was the best, with Charles Krauthammer
by phone. Mr. Prager repeatedly steered the issue to “The
Republicans don’t stand for anything, ... right?” Krauthammer
was thoughful, accomodating, and avoided the host’s
excoriations. What tact.
Mr. Krauthammer said that Republicans stand for personal
independence while Democrats feared welfare’s return-to-work
campaign. The ICBM risk from Korea illustrates the relevance
of missile defense, despite our treaty with Russia. Republicans
also stand for something in seeking smaller government.
I’d never heard this: Mr. Prager said, “I was a Democrat until
five years ago.”
DP said something to the effect that Senator McCain’s (R.-
Ariz) suing of “American companies” (tobacco ?) was quite
noteworthy. I’ll need to listen closely to his words and tone
because it sounded as if McCain was considered either
un-American or un-Republican !
....................................
Here’s another puzzler, so I’ll have to find it and listen again
-- “If you average Falwell and and Dershowitz you get
Krauthammer.” Dennis Prager, 2/4/99. Surely he did not say
*average*.
....................................
Mr. Prager can certainly say things in a way that gets one’s
attention. His radio statements are quite different from his
usually well written words. His pieces in Think a Second Time
are even further removed from the KABC persona.
=====================
Thursday’s internet pickup had one signal loss for more than
15 minutes, beginning at 9:50 PST.
On Thursday’s internet access of KABC, there were few brief
losses identified as “Net Congestion Rebuffering” status
(“NCR”). Friday’s (Feb 5th) program had _many_ such
NCR’s. Does anybody else experience such a variable pattern?
Listener: I sometimes listen to Dennis Praeger (KABC) on the
way to work.
One day, he was talking about how to distribute
money that Jewish groups had extorted from the Swiss.
From what I gathered, "too much" money had been extorted,
and Jewish groups were trying to figure out what to
do with it all. Dennis suggested that the "extra" money
be parceled out to other victim groups of genocide or
something.
You know, just before this, Dennis was complaining about
how 50% or more of teen-agers admit shop-lifting from
stores. Now Dennis thinks it's moral to steal money,
as long as you give some of it away. I call it stealing
because the money is not going to claimants, or their
estates, but is going to pressure groups. It's just
extortion and Dennis thinks it's OK as long as he can
play Robin Hood.
On another day, Dennis was explaining how, if a city
is atom-bombed or fire-bombed during wartime, then
it's really "the fault" of the enemy leader, and not
the Americans who do it.
As if there's no rules of war, and you can do any
crime you want, and then blame it on the bad guys.
This attitude really bugged me, especially coming
from a Jewish guy who wears his morality and his
Jewishness on his sleeve.
But what really had me practically yelling in my car
was when he started coaching a female caller that
this was all correct. He asked her, "when Hiroshima
and Dresden were destroyed, then whose fault was it ?"
As I recall, she paused, but then volunteered "Tojo
and Hitler ?", which Dennis happily accepted.
Hey !, women and children are the ones that get burned
to a crisp in these air raids. Their men are all fighting
at the front. Coaching women that it's OK to massacre
them is particularly sick.
I don't know where Dennis gets this from. Is he speaking
ex-cathedra for Judiasm, or it just him ?
All I know is that it's pretty hard to take.
Dennis Praeger has been talking all week about how
high school boys are calling girls 'bitch and 'ho (whore).
Dennis says he "can't believe" that parents would not
be concerned about this.
Dennis sends his own kids to private schools (Jewish).
Now I've only listened for a few minutes on the way to
work each day, but I haven't heard him say anything
about where this language comes from.
It comes straight out of ghetto Black culture.
I think Dennis is a "neo-con", which means he is
basically a liberal at heart. I've heard him say
that he "firmly believes" everyone is equal, or some
words to that effect.
The problem is, everyone is not equal, and cultures
are not equal.
I think Dennis believes in racially mixed schools.
Well, if you put Black kids in with White kids,
the White kids are going to pick up the ghetto
behavior to an extent, because the media portrays
it as "cool".
So Dennis is screaming about this (without naming
Blacks as the culprit), and meanwhile puts his kids
in private school, but at the same time he supports
racial integration.
Do all these contradictions bother you ? They bother
me. Dennis seems to live in a state of hipocracy.
He wants to live in a liberal society, where the basic
ethic is nihilism, but he screams all day about the
effects of it. He won't face up to his own
contradictions.
I get so mad at him every day, but I don't try to call in
because the screener says "I can't take anymore calls".
2/3/99
From the Dennis Prager email list:
> I give Dennis a lot of credit because he is one of
> the few Jews in America who seems to be totally
>immersed in American life and yet is true to
>a Jewish commitment. His comments about his awakening about the decency
of other is tremendous.
As for your statement, "...Dennis...is one of the few Jews in
America who seems to be totally immersed in American life..."
Are we assessing the same person? --- Dennis Prager reached the latter
half of his fourth decade of life, about age thirty
eight, before he experienced individuals from which he
concluded that alternatives to Judaism, those religions related
to Judaism, could be respectful religions.
This indicates that, not only was Dennis Prager not immersed in
_American_ life, he was not in touch with a minimum healthy
breadth of _human_ life. He was isolated; insular; un-knowing.
After his change in position about Judaism -- "There is only one
true religion" -- did Dennis get motivated about rethinking any
other positions that he had held dear? My point: I see no
evidence of Mr. Prager employing skepticism. His book "Think a
Second Time" is an appropriate title -- he deals in thoughts
that are based upon a *single* pass-through.
Also, how does one assess the extent to which a person is
immersed in a given culture? I have given one way of assessing
the *absence* of exposure -- the existence of lack-of-knowledge, such
as that which is identified in Dennis Prager's statement. I regard Dennis
Prager's strengths as his communication skills, his strength in applying
logic that is grounded in the Greeks, and in applying certain Judaic perspectives
to contemporary issues. With these capacities Dennis Prager makes a quite
admirable contribution to the American scene. But he's not in touch with
the breadth of culture.
Not only is he limited in his cultural experiences -- he's
locked into a humanities perspective, quite weak in any
scientific perspective. The KABC website identifies Dennis Prager as a
Rennaisance man. This bullshit is probably the result of an advertisement-oriented
writeup. When Dennis touches a topic grounded in science or technology
he makes appallingly foolish statements. Dennis is the *opposite* of a
Rennaisance man. Since I rather admire the majority of what he writes,
I hope he continues to rather avoid technical matters so as to not
discredit himself. America can definitely benefit from his
talents.
So what's happened here? The person you identified as "totally
immersed in American life" doesn't appear to be the same Dennis
Prager I'm referring to. If it's the same person, what
identifies Dennis Prager as "immersed" and as "totally"
?
1/29/99
Sgil: Dennis turned at about 9:30 today to the Missouri Governor acceding
to the request of the Pope to commute the execution of 1 man.
DP took the position that one doesn't abandon principle ones truly believes
in simply because a person of high moral standing who has a differing
viewpoint of view from you simply asks you to. So far so good.
DP says the governor was kidding himself. An unwarranted assessment. DP
is letting us infer that we ought to give the governor the benefit of
doubt that the gov. isn't kidding his voters and giving a not insignificant
crumb to his Far Left.
But here is where DP REALLY annoyed me. Instead of using good analogies
or none at all, he came up with completely out-of-sync analogies, blowing
his credibility. To whit (paraphrasing): "If the Pope asked the governor
to have
an extramarital affair, he'd do it because the Pope asked? Of course not....If
the Pope asked him to shop lift, he'd do it? No way...."
As these analogies have the Pope behaving out of character, and not the
governor, they are truly bizarre. especially since DP said the Pope making
the request was as proper as should have been the governor's regretting
denial of that request. DP posed his position as (paraphrasing): "Just
as you, excellency, have your job to do, so do I. Just as much as you
believe in the sanctity of all life, so do I believe in the just forfeiture
of life by he who
takes it unjustly."
The caller at 10:15 came up with far better analogies. Maybe that is what
DP was attempting to draw out; a teacher's ploy. I certainly hope so.
(I'm sure the cynics here wouldn't give him that possible out.) At least
he commended her for them.
1/20/99
Tim Farrel: "I love how this guy is always saying he is happy and
no one else knows how to be happy and then today he was amazed that 70%
of Americans think things are going well in this country. He then went
on his usual diatribe about how he has to protect his kids from TV and
how bad society is (except for stuffy Republicans)."
Bak2zero: "I would question Dennis' happiness. I am an ex-listener
and found the man excessively maudlin and emotionally under seige. Dennis
approaches most issues with which he disagrees as though they are representative
of the breakdown of
the moral fabric of society. He even uses the happiness argument to criticise
secularists, asking how they are able to remain happy knowing evil will
have no punishment after death (yet religionists remain happy "knowing"
a "loving" god is watching the evils of the world play themselves
out?). One of the reasons I no longer listen to him is his doom and gloom-he
depresses me. I realised I was not enjoying listening to the man (and
I listen to several radio
hosts with whom I strongly disagree). Dennis is a mamoth ego struggling
with an embittered heart." (alt.radio.talk)
1/14
Larry Hathaway on the Prager List:
In Dennis Prager's 1996 Booknotes interview for his book "Think
a Second Time" he reflects on a development that I find hard to
understand. Apparently he was more than 35 years old before he
came to realize that people with a religion other than Judaism
could have as solid a grounding in a wholesome life as could
Jews. Yet Dennis Prager has claimed that he grew up in the New
York city area. I have to wonder whether he experienced a
remarkable insularity in his formative years. What sort of
indoctrination could instill such a view of mankind?
Here are the words of Dennis Prager on Booknotes --
PRAGER: "...I had my first tryout on radio at
KABC Radio on a Sunday night in August, '82, and I was so
nervous, I was dripping. And then, at 11 p.m., the program
director whispers to me or slips me a note, "Tell them you'll be
on next Sunday night" -- one of the happiest moments of my life,
because I had so ached to get my ideas out. I'm like a cow who
has milk to give and I've been dying to give it my whole life.
So I was engaged in interfaith dialogue every Sunday night with
a priest, minister, rabbi -- and usually I expanded it to
Muslims and Buddhists and every religion -- for two hours every
Sunday night for 10 years, and it is one of the things that
changed my life."
[C-Span host Brian] LAMB: Why?
PRAGER: "I'll tell you exactly why. At about the four-year mark
something dawned on me that is a very powerful dawning -- for
some others, it may elicit a yawn, but for me, remember, I come
from a very religious Jewish background. And this would be true
for anyone in any religion, if they come to this realization --
how important it would be. And I said it on the air. I said,
"You know, the moment you realize that there are people in other
religions whom you consider to be at least as good as you think
you are, at least as intelligent as you think you are and at
least as religious as you think you are, you will never be the
same." When I would meet Christians and Muslims and Catholic,
Protestants and so on, and people whom I so respected and who so clearly
were God- and decency-oriented, I could no longer say, "There is
only one true religion." And so it in no way lessened
my own belief in Judaism, but I now see other religions as
vehicles to God for other people, and that's a very powerful
thing." (Source: www.booknotes.org
Under 'Transcripts' search for 'Prager' then about one-fourth through
the interview.)
Dennis Prager mentions that his description of this change in
attitude would elicit a yawn in some persons. It elicited a gasp
from me. When I heard this on Booknotes I probably thought that
I misunderstood what Dennis Prager said. However, now that I
have read his words, I see that he held an attitude that I've
witnessed in a few highly opinionated individuals from rather
fundamentalist-oriented religions.
When someone like Dennis Prager holds such an erroneous view
far into adulthood, is it any wonder that countless
civilizations have waged war against people who are even minimally different
from their own? Fascist progression to Nazism would have been easy for
a "Prager-like" household that was nonJewish Kaiser-oriented
in the 1920's instead of Jewish-oriented in the 1950's.
Could Dennis' childhood have included exposure to an
indoctrination box?
Dennis Prager describes a naivete, an insularity and an attitude
of superiority that reminds us of another reason why we live in
a dangerous world: Pogo was right, the enemy is us.
1/11/99
Eltonfan28 on the Prager List: "As much as I like Dennis Prager,
I have to admit that there are things about him that have bothered me
more and more lately. One thing in particular, I've realized that Prager
has been hypocritical and inconsistent on many occasions. Some examples
include:
"1. Prager always complains that parents are too focused on getting
their kids into high ranking universities and that these schools are no
better than the average community college. However, it seems that Prager's
best friends are Ivy Leaguers. He has repeatedly had two Harvard students
over for dinner at his house. He is also good friends with other students
at Harvard. Additionally, he took a day off from radio recently to speak
at the University of Pennsylvania. Prager himself attended Columbia.
Prager has high regard for other good schools as well. He recently made
an appearance at Clairmont College, one of the most prestigious liberal
arts schools in the nation. Also, word is that his son may attend the
University of Southern California.
2. Prager claims that people are too focused on their careers and the
accumulation of wealth instead of being focused on their family, and that
money shouldn't matter . Again, Prager does not live by what he preaches.
As if the $150,000 a year he makes at KABC weren't enough, he has added
extensively to his income by frequently traveling across the country to
promote his books and make speeches at $5000 a shot (mind you that Prager
has a six-year-old son). Prager lives in a deluxe estate with lots
of land in the beautiful city of Calabasas.
3. Prager claims that academia, the media, and the press have the wrong
concept of diversity, stating that they are only focused on a
diversity of skin color but not a diversity of opinion, since they all
hold the same liberal views. The fact is Prager had a strong
influence in getting both a black talk-show host and a gay talk-show host
hired into the station who both hold views almost identical to those of
Prager.
4. As Single Mom has pointed out -- Prager always lambastes attorneys
for filing frivolous lawsuits that contribute to "the bringing down
of America", yet hires his prominent Beverly Hills attorneys to go
after a loyal fan merely for writing summaries of his show on the Internet.
12/31
At ten AM, a female caller described herself as a Pragerite. Prager wondered
what were the characteristics of a Pragerite (as his thought is so diverse)?
David Burstein writes on the Prager List: I would like to contribute
part of an article that I wrote that was published in Sh'ma in October
1995. It was dedicated to Dennis with thanks
for all that he had taught me.
PASSION FOR THE MIDDLE ROAD
Harold Kushner, the author of the book "When Bad Things Happen to
Good People" once wrote that the four most religious words in the
English language are "I may be wrong."
The humility of the statement not only applies to religious faith, but
how we approach the issues of everyday life.
To struggle with the ideas we hold is healthy. It leads to growth. It
forces us to acknowledge that there are many contradictions with life.
However, how we react to these contradictions determines whether or not
the growth will lead to good results.
In dealing with these issues, the middle road provides guidelines which
can give an ethical foundation to understanding the world. Remember the
following:
1) It is all right to admit that you struggle with ideas.
2) Are your greatest battles in life are with yourself or with society?
3) Celebrate differences. We need each other specifically because we are
different. Be secure in yourself to be able to recognize the individual
greatness of others. Yet be able to realize the need to help up lift those
who do not have it as good as yourself.
4) Have perspective. Whenever we complain about how much better things
could be, take the same amount of time to acknowledge how worse they can
get. Have ideals, yet only make comparisons to reality. Talk and images
are cheap. The real world is very messy.
5) Understand context.
6) Human nature is essentially neutral. We have a will to do good and
a will to do bad. Be aware of the evil that has been done in the name
of good intentions or idea, and of the good that has been done by recognizing
our less noble sides.
7) The human capacity for perverting the beautiful is endless.
8) Reason does not insure morality.
9) Cultural greatness and moral greatness have nothing in common.
10) Do not take democracy for granted.
11) Life is too complex to expect law and government to answer all of
our needs.
12) Cherish the goodness of those around you. Government can pass laws
to prevent criminality. It cannot legislate decency between individuals.
13) Doing good is more difficult than just not hurting anyone.
14) That which makes an individual or a society great is also its Achilles'
heel.
15) Before making a decision, ask yourself "What is the down side?"
16) Read articles by people with whom you disagree.
17) Be careful when you label people. It tends to decrease the desire
for meaningful dialogue.
18) People with whom you disagree usually have good intentions.
19) Remember the quote: "If I am not for myself, who will be for
me? But if I am only for myself, what am I?"
20) Do not do unto others that which you would not want done to you.
The competition of ideas keeps us honest. It motivates us to clarify the
doubts of living. It may even help us create a better world.
12/30
Chris Bolton writes on the Prager List:
I was disappointed with Dennis' comments about his experience with United.
His longing for the "good old days" of regulated airlines smacked
a little of elitism. He correctly pointed out that during regulation,
airlines could only compete on service. This was great for those who are
wealthy or were traveling on other peoples' money (business travelers).
In the final hour of his show, he was complaining about the cost of basketball
tickets and that he couldn't afford to take his family to a game. If his
finances are that tight, he surely couldn't have afforded flying his entire
family back to NY under regulated pricing. He admitted that he got a great
deal because he booked so far in advance. That wouldn't have happened
under regulation.
For those who are frequent flyers, regulation was good since most of these
people flew on company business or their flights were a business expense.
Since they spent so much time on planes, the good service made the hassle
of travel much more bearable. Since deregulation though, airlines could
compete on price AS WELL AS SERVICE. Most people are choosing price since
most people travel infrequently and don't mind the occasional hassles
of the poorer quality service.
Any airline could act as if deregulation didn't exist and simply offer
the higher service at the higher fares. If there are enough people like
Dennis who would gladly pay the higher fares for that service, it would
work and all would be happy. He claimed that the free market maximizes
profits rather than quality. The market can offer quality if doing so
is profitable. There are several high quality items whose companies are
very profitable since they occupy the high quality/high price marketing
mix niche. Dennis' complaint is that there is no airline doing the same.
Actually, there are. They are called charter airlines. He's just not willing
to pay the price.
Dennis shouldn't moan too much though since frequent flyers like him still
get perks like frequent flyer miles. My boss buys a lot of equipment from
vendors for resale on his American Express card and has enough miles for
8 round trip flights to Asia / Europe. They also get upgrades to first
class, private lounges at the airports, etc....Those would vanish under
deregulation. If Dennis hadn't lost his luggage, we'd be singing United's
praises.
I think the trend toward cheap prices over service can be seen everywhere.
Look at self serve gas, People going to K-mart and Walmart as opposed
to Robinson's or even Sears. Sam's Club and Costco are thriving. Local
mom and pop stores are going under. Most people would rather save the
bucks than have their hands held. Those that want their hands held pay
through the nose for the privilege. This process is allowing middle class
people the opportunity to have goods and services previously available
only to the rich. I think it is a good thing for the vast majority of
society.
Larry Hathaway writes on the Prager List:
After reviewing the 1998 issues of The Prager Perspective, I have chosen
the following as, what I consider, one of Dennis' significant portions
of propaganda in 1998.
DENNIS PRAGER'S DISTORTION
"Prior to the Jews, throughout the world all was a circle,
and therefore nothing a person did mattered; no person, except
of the god-kings mattered; and life itself didn't matter.
Everything will all happen again. In order that our actions
matter, they must be able to influence the future, but the
future cannot be influenced if everything happens over and over.
"If, on the other hand, the Jewish view is adopted,
everything matters. Every act I engage in matters, and I matter.
And because we shape events, everyone of us affects the future
by every act in which we engage."
July 1, 1998 The Prager Perspective
...........................................
Mr. Prager's MEANING
First, I do not doubt that a set of "communicators" in the
days of the Sumerians may have promoted the idea that the
king/royalty differed from the rest of the population by the
notion that, for nonroyalty, "nothing a person did mattered; no
person, except of the god-kings mattered; and life itself didn't
matter." This is a seemingly endless item of propaganda
throughout recorded history: 'I am something;
other people are nothing.' Dennis Prager's words are a
testament to the power of wishful thinking, and of the human
penchant for a pecking order where oneself is on top.
However, I don't interpret Dennis Prager's paragraph as
ascribing that meaning to the words.
Instead, I interpret Dennis Prager as claiming that his words
describe the generally held world view in the ancient world. He
implies that it's a view held by the typical adult; by
essentially "everyman." He does not describe these words as
a
form of propaganda to intentionally fool everyman.
What we must remember is that, since this view of "the circle"
is among the earliest writings that have been found, the words
were written by someone using the cutting-edge technology of
his day. Therefore it would have been written with the
approval of those in power, since only those close to power
would have had access to such a new tool as durable writing
materials. In fact, it is quite likely that such writing was
made, not just with approval, but at the behest of the powerful.
As I said before, Dennis Prager does not claim that those
'communicators,' (the counterparts back then of Dennis Prager),
were attempting to put a sham of ideas into the heads of
their everyman. Dennis Prager is indeed arguing that the
worldview of everyman was that nothing mattered,
reflected in Mr. Prager's words "...nothing a person did
mattered; no person, except of the god-kings mattered; and life
itself didn't matter. Everything will all happen again. In order
that our actions matter, they must be able to influence the
future, but the future cannot be influenced if everything
happens over and over."
I see no reason to believe that the general population even
remotely accepted such a view.
In fact, even if people wanted to accept such a view, it would
not have been possible. Here's why.
--- The Futility of Prager's Claims --
Let's not even work with Dennis' word "nothing."
(as in "...nothing a person did mattered") "Nothing"
is a gratuitist word-of-extremism, a word often used by propagandists.
Let's just consider a less demanding situation --
" *very few* things that a person did mattered."
Five examples consistent with this view might be:
1) A sick child does not matter (while perhaps a sick sibling
would matter.)
2) An injured foot or hand does not matter
3) Diligent harvesting of crops does not matter (perhaps
attention to planting of crops would matter)
4) Care of one's fragile possessions does not matter
5) Basic sanitary habits do not matter.
Now consider, as an example, a sect five millenia ago which
began functioning according to a dozen rules which were
comparable to these five examples. Living according to such
rules would be quite disruptive. Lifestyle would be
dysfunctional enough that a sustained lifestyle would not be
possible. So a world view which included the concept that : "very
few things matter" would not be successful, would not be consistent
with cultural viability at that time.
Consequently, a belief that "...NOTHING a person did
mattered" is not possible within a such culture.
============================================
You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No
ordinary man could be such a fool. ---- George Orwell
============================================
SOURCE of Mr Prager's Claims
The answer to this puzzle is that Dennis Prager is citing a set
of ideas put forward by people who, in a certain sense, were
"DENNIS PRAGER Back Then." Down through the ages there were
lots of purveyors of untruth --- sometimes they harvested
the ideas of their predecessors. Ultimately this process
continues, as we see, in the untruths of Dennis Prager in 1998.
Also, it's not like Dennis Prager's ideas are not followed
today, by at least a few exceptional individuals outside the
intellectual set that George Orwell refers to. The words
"nothing a person does matters; life itself doesn't matter"
is
sometimes sincerely believed by persons in western culture ---
by persons in a state of clinical depression. It is not at all
coincidental that these unfortunate persons face a risk of
suicide that is far greater than the population's baseline risk
of suicide.
Now consider the world-view ideas of "...everything matters.
Every act I engage in matters; everyone of us affects the future
by every act in which we engage; nothing a person does matters;
life itself doesn't matter." One group of persons who can be
heard voicing such ideas, or even a subset of these ideas, are
people with schizophrenia. They are burdened with a
psychological illness in which concepts are advanced to
unreasonably extreme conclusions.
A person who would truly operate on the principle of "everything
matters" would become dysfunctional, by becoming absorbed in
relatively unimportant matters. The "everything" criterion
would create extraordinary distraction and immense attention
overload. An often unrecognized blessing of sentient common
sense adulthood is that innumerable ideas can be *ignored* or
*prioritized.* The idea "everything matters" if not moronic
is at least exceedingly impractical. I can think of TWO places where such
an idea is practical: in a philosophy course examination, and in publishing
where a person writes to those who are vulnerable to
such distortion.
"...everything matters. Every act I engage in matters.... And
because we shape events, everyone of us affects the future
by every act in which we engage." --- This is a doctrine for
someone who is not obliged to function in the real world.
==================================
You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No
ordinary man could be such a fool. ---- George Orwell
==================================
Much of propaganda, when it is interpreted literally, does not
make sense. This is one of the reasons that propaganda can be
considered a form of art.
Dennis Prager tries to make headway on the fiction that mankind
has operated at various times upon the principles of "nothing
matters" or "everything matters." His action demonstrates
that
he is not a moderate.
When considering the "nothing matters" and "everything
matters"
tales, if a person employs common sense, he can see the illogic
of such ideas.
To go over this point again --
The armor to deal with such ideas is . . . .
common sense.
Such is the occasional writing of Dennis Prager.
12/19
Dennis Prager delivered the Saturday morning sermon at SSW. He noted
how this week's Torah portion (MiKaietz) said that God was with Joseph
when he was thrown in prison. DP extrapolated that God comes around when
we are down, but we have to be open to him.
Also, the portion says that Joseph credited God with his gift for interpreting
dreams. God gives each of us gifts. We should then use them to glorify
God. That we have a gift is no credit to us. How we use it, is a credit.
Then Prager threw open the discussion to ask the SSW congregants what
are their blocks to becoming more religious. Prager only had time to take
four responses, all from men and all on a theological - philosophic level.
Prager spent the previous weeks lecturing to Jewish audiences in Charlotte,
South Carolina, Texas, Chicago...etc...
12/18/98
Dennis Prager was angry at those who saw any comparison between the Speaker
of the House, Livingstone, admitting to previous affairs, and Bill Clinton's
lies under oath about his affair with Monica.