Dennis Prager and I on the Paula Zahn Show (CNN) Tonight:
Dennis Prager, another guest, and I are scheduled to be on CNN's Paula Zahn Show tonight some time starting around 8:20 Eastern, to talk about oaths of office and religion — or so I'm told; television appearances sometimes get canceled at the last moment.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Words from the Becket Fund,
- John Quincy Adams' Oath of Office:
- Dennis Prager and I on the Paula Zahn Show (CNN) Tonight:
- Justice Arthur Goldberg Swore His Oath of Office on the Hebrew Bible:
- What the Koran Says Vs. What an Individual Muslim Is Likely To Do:
- Multiculturalism, Dennis Prager, Keith Ellison, and Me:
Vice versa.
Link
Perhaps you can ask him about that.
Prager is the same man, btw, who declared that it was completely and absolutely unforeseeable that the US would see or face any sort of guerrilla insurgency using terrorist bombs... because you know, Bush should never be faulted for anything, even lack of foresight.
Prager did show an admirable talent for asserting things and then dancing when you pointed out the flaws.
Did anyone else catch the part where she cut Eugene off mid-sentence with the line "We've lost Eugene", implying that his the sat feed went down. Meanwhile, Eugene was still talking and we could still hear him.
My guess is there was some CNN producer yelling in her ear "Get the camera back on the raving lunatic Prager, he's good for ratings."
It's possible that they had lost Prof. Volokh, since there is a time-delay issue. It's also possible they just lost the video and not the audio.
In any event, why does anyone take a buffoon like Prager seriously?
That's just the point, they didn't lose the good Professor at all. Paula was so obviously cutting him off it wasn't funny.
It is at www.hotair.com
Anyway, I appreciate Professor Volokh's efforts, but this is a fine example of how screwed up media dynamics are in this country. Prager is being a sensationalist, and not even a clever one. And yet CNN is piggybacking on Prager's efforts. Paula Zahn's obvious impatience with Volokh's contribution was likely produced by the fact that he was calmly exposing this as a non-issue (rather than yelling insults at Prager, which I am sure she would have preferred).
Oh well. I might as well be complaining about how deliberately controversial campaign ads ("Call me!") get free air time on "news" shows--the media is just so easy for the ruthless to exploit.
EV said many correct things and said them as quickly as he possibly could. But he if he'd interrupted Ariel Huffington the way he interrupted Daisy we would have heard a smack down on camera. ( No offense intended to EV; I just want to point out that Paula's job isn't all that easy. )
The problem with the segment is there is simply not enough time provided for people to make their points. (Prager however, says so many ridiculous things I'm not sure rebuttal is required. Letting him say them may have been the best way to let the audience see how ridiculous his points are.)
The broader question is why the supposedly liberal "mainstream media" insists on treating extremist, practically crypto-fascist (and as a Jew, I don't use that term lightly) types such as Prager, Coulter, etc., as legitimate commentators.
"Poor Mr. Prager. Does he know you're appearing, too? Because if not, I'd bet on cancellation by him, if no one else!" mls
The notion Dennis Prager would ever back down from an honest and forthright fight is positively risible. Prager, and arguably more consistently than any other commentator on the scene, argues his various positions thoughtfully and in a manner that is considerate of the other person and that person's avowed, contrary position.
"The broader question is why the supposedly liberal "mainstream media" insists on treating extremist, practically crypto-fascist (and as a Jew, I don't use that term lightly) types such as Prager ..." JosephSlater
Shameless, positively and absolutely shameless. Noam Chomsky's an ideological secularist/extremist and is Jewish. Lazar Kaganovich was an ideological secularist/extremist and was Jewish.
Dennis Prager takes positions and argues the issues, he argues the subject matter, he forwards a rational argument and does so transparently and without guile - and he decidedly resists using demonizing labels and other ad hominem devices. I disagreed with Prager as pertains to this issue, at least so prior to the point where he attenuated his argument as described above, but the notion Prager would shirk an honest and transparent argument is deserving of no respect whatsoever. Prager's a mench, and those using demonizing labels and similar devices are something else, entirely.
As I alluded to Noam Chomsky and Lazar Kaganovich as ideological secularists/extremists, I'd like that clarified w/o any ambiguity whatsoever.
Give me a break. He invoked the NAZIS in trying to smear a Muslim (who he had no problem saying was emboldening terrorists: nice!), and said that anyone: even Jews, who don't bow down to the almighty Bible are UNDERMINING CIVILIZATION. That's calm, measured thoughtful rhetoric?
You really have no credibility.
As pertains to your in-the-face contempt - I care little indeed about such sneering disdain and dismissiveness. Imo you don't understand the gist of the argument made in the first place, and likely don't care to make the attempt, which is a different set of topics than whether or not you agree or disagree. For example, when you assert "[h]e invoked the NAZIS in trying to smear a Muslim", you're simply wrong. What Prager said, vis-a-vis the Nazi allusion was "Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not?" That was said not at all to "smear" a Muslim, it was a rhetorical question invoked to question, if one person is allowed to choose their own "favorite book," then why shouldn't another person, with a different set of interests, be allowed to choose their own favorite book, even if it is "Mein Kampf". If you fail to comprehend the difference, that's your problem and no one else's, and it further reflects your inability to comprehend, further still, the gist of the concern voiced in the larger sense. You fail to comprehend even one specific aspect of the general argument made, much less the gist of the broader argument made. Despite that, or perhaps even because of that, you don't hesitate to offer your sneering contempt.
Charlie,
That, or I believe the gist of the argument, the primary concern, to be different than you assume it to be. (I specifically noted I didn't agree with Prager prior to the point where he attenuated his argument, from one of forced proscription to suasion/advocacy. And yes, for me, this would also imply a difference in tone and altering other aspects of the language used; I would have written it up differently than Prager did.)
Too, I have little sense as to whether it's "popular" or not, whether with his audience or others (my impression is otherwise), but why would popularity per se have anything at all to do with whether or not guile is involved? Guile, or the lack thereof, involves a subjective judgement ultimately (even if some more objective facts will also be involved), since it involves an assessment of motives. What do you assume, or judge, Prager's motives to be? And why? (Also, when subjective assessments are involved, either in whole or in part, then I believe there is a tendency to project our own trust or mistrust upon what is being assessed, depending upon various subjective and objective factors which each person brings to bear on the person, the topic, etc.)
As for the factual inaccuracies, for that to represent any guile it would need to involve inaccuracies which were consciously known as such, when they were forwarded. Do you know it to be such? (Perhaps too, depending upon the intention of the argument, the inaccuracies would need to be more than outliers or anomolies and would need to be substantial and critical, though that admittedly is a more nuanced and debateable aspect, depending upon those specifics.)
Also, in making the (general) statement Prager forwards rational arguments, I'm not stating or taking the position he is infallible, it's a general statement, not a statement of belief in his omniscience, infallibility or any other type of perfection.
Hot air archive page with video
Video player only
Direct link to FLV video file, if you have an FLV player in your computer software, and can spoof your referrer link.
As far as I can tell, this is really a tempest in a teapot. The only group who could even try to dis"allow" Ellison's use of a Qur'an for the ceremony is the House itself; short of expelling him (which would take a 2/3 majority), there's not much they could do to stop him. Given the current composition of the House (53% Democrat), there is no way that will happen, and given the Republicans current fragile position, there's no way they'd even try.