[Speed Gibson,
Sunday January 1, 2006 at 9:48pm]
Dennis Prager announces divorce
It was a Happiness Hour unlike any other, with Dennis Prager making this announcement:
"I have a sad personal announcement to make. After seventeen years of marriage, my wife Fran and I are divorcing. This is sad first and foremost for Fran and for me. We've known each other nineteen years, have raised three children, and assumed we would be together forever. It was not only our hope. This is a value that we shared.
But despite our values and despite years of work on our marriage, not to mention prayer over it, we could not sustain it. There are no villains here, just two decent people who have endured a lot of heartache and pain. It is also sad, of course, for our three beloved children, two of whom are in their twenties and living on their own, and the youngest who is 13. All five of us are very close to one another. While unhappy about it, our children do understand why this divorce is happening. And all of our closest friends likewise understand why it is necessary and in fact, none of our closest friends were surprised.
I am sure, however, that many of you are surprised, if not actually shocked. After all, for many years I would talk about Fran on the show, and knowing how much I make the case for marriage and family, you had every reason to believe my marriage was sound and even wonderful. When you add that to my happy demeanor, and to my dispensing of advice on happiness and male-female relations, you surely had no reason to assume otherwise.
So you, my dear listener are the third reason for my sadness, right behind us and our children. I know that many of you hold me and the values and the ideas I express in high regard. I pray that my divorce does nothing to diminish that respect. While I have always argued for divorce when truly necessary, some of you I know regard a divorce as a moral failure. For you I hope that what I call my moral bank account is large enough to withstand this withdrawal.
For the rest of you who do not necessarily morally judge those who divorce, my divorcing can still be shocking. As one prominent individual said to me, “My God, if Dennis Prager is divorcing, it can happen to any of us.” Well, the truth is it can happen to almost anybody, and that is why I work so hard on my radio show to help men and women better understand each other, and to never take a spouse for granted.
From your many calls and e-mails on this subject of marriage, I know that I have, in fact, helped many marriages. Tragically, this advice could not save my own. As my father, married to my mother for 65 years, said to me recently, “The longer we’re married the more I realize how rare it is, and how lucky, to get along with someone for so long.”
As you would well understand, this is all so private within my family that I cannot speak of any particulars. But I do believe if the particulars were known, no one would judge either of us harshly."
TRANSLATION:
Please keep buying my shitty books, reading my lousy columns and listening to my half-wit radio show so I can pay alimony.
Steve J.'s posting certainly seems to confirm this. Prager would be pleased.
Then I take it that Mr. Prager regularly condemns his fellow rightwingers Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Micahel Savage, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, etc. etc. etc. (too numerous to mention), who resort to name calling just about every time they open their mouths.
Or does he think they're liberals?
In any event, this is pure hypocrisy. Much like Prager's belief that divorce is a "moral failing" for other people, but a fault-free domestic tragedy for himself.
Move along, please. No news here.
On Los Angeles radio this morning, we have a right wing drug addict who is three times married and divorced; a phone sex pervert; and a moralizing religious Jew who just announced his divorce, who have all built their radio careers in part by weighing in on the moral shortcomings of the Left.
Meanwhile, at the same time, we have a Liberal talk show host who has been succesfully married for over 20 years and by all accounts raised two well adjusted children and is often the subject of derision of same sanctimoniously superior Conservative blowhards.
As a fan of Irony, my nether regions are all tingly today!
Regarding this post in this blog, it's strange that this subject has attracted a number of Prager-haters to pipe up and express their apparent disdain for Dennis Prager.
Finally, anyone who has ever listened to even just a few minutes of Prager's show should have a window into what a nice guy he is. Hewitt calls him a "teddybear". Not having any idea of what Mrs. Prager is like, I must admit that I'm biased in Dennis's favor. How could a woman, married to this nice guy for so many years with children in the family, turn her back on him? Without knowing any of the personal facts, I can only guess that she's at fault.
Of course, I could be wrong.
What? It wasn't the fault of Mass. or for allowing same sex marriage?
P r a g e r .
Hmm... see "honey" morph to "rager".
Having been a listener of his for many years, he is one of the most gentlemanly hosts I have ever heard. He invites dissent, never name-calls, but carries on an intelligent, friendly debate with his callers.
Those who wrote disgusting remarks are the poster kids of the left. Typical.
I guess calling liberals "immoral" all the time doesn't count as name-calling, huh. And if you have a cute cuddly radio voice, that makes up for all your hateful rhetoric over the decades in print.
I *love* conservative logic! That's why I'm not a conservative any more, the cognitive dissonance and "it's okay if it's us" double standards were giving me migraines.
But seriously, I have been a fan of his show. The divorce really is going to be hardest on the youngest kid.
Too bad the adults can't suck it up and stay with each other for the kid's sake. If it takes forgiving the other for some incident or changing ones bad habits or learning to appreciate the other, so be it. They made the commitment and should keep to it.
But, one of them obviously thinks the grass is greener on the other side. It probably isn't. Funny how people will adapt for someone new, but not for their partner. I think it's mostly not willing to forgive and forget.
Don't forget a little phone sex ala O'Reilly.
Or maybe a little phone sex WITH O'Reilly.
Ew. Can't believe I wrote that. Sorry.
BTW: "disgusting remarks". Have you read the transcripts of O'Reilly's phone sex? Ew. Again.
Anyone who ever caught any of Mr. Prager's comments when he was a guest on Politically Incorrect would probably disagree with that statement. He did seem to be quite nice - as long as everyone agreed with him. After that, however, the mask usually slipped a bit. There were no intelligent, friendly debates going on then.
I have also read some of his recent columns, and I gots to say, I didn't see a whole lot of that inviting dissent, and I did see an awful lot of derogatory terms being used for those who follow a certain middle eastern religion that Mr. Prager does not particularly approve of. And he's kind of inconsiderate to the gays, too.
But I guess I'm just being a poster child of the left for pointing that out. My bad...
I here she's also the one that drove the truck with all the WMD's to Syria.
What a bitch eh?
Wow.
FYI, if this guy is the mensch you think he is, you just disgusted him a whole lot.
Me too, actually.
Marriages are complex transactions between two people. You know the public face of one of the people involved and nothing at all about their marriage, and you feel comfortable slagging the mother of his children in public just, you know, because?
Grow up.
While listening to his show last week, I missed the announcement and only heard a few subsequent calls. At first I thought I was listening to a replay from some decades old show where Dennis announced his divorce. But I soon learned it was current.
Oddly, I still haven't read the announcement here. Rather I've read the mostly snarky gleeful commentary. Having been on the left for most of my adult life, I recall this kneejerk reaction well. I'm embarrassed by it now having finally learned a thing or two about puffing up with self-righteous fumes over the personal human shortcomings of those we do not know, but only know of. About reducing a middle-aged human to a couple of adjectives that confirm our negative preconceptions of who the hypocrites must be if they are on the right. Hahaha. They have human flaws! Hahaha.
So have at it, if it gives you some sense of "community" or temporary superiority. Whaddever. It's kinda creepy and juvenile. A fleeting thrill, I'd imagine.
Myself, personally, I AM disappointed. I don't know any of the particulars but a divorce at this stage between two adults who met and married well into their adult years seems to me surprising to say the least. It's hard to imagine a sufficient reason that is weighty enough to merit moving on.
Still enjoy the show though the Happiness Hour is the one I tend to turn off. I'm happy enough without hearing about Dennis's second impending marital split.
Susan
Conservatives need to be more compassionate on divorce
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1102/prager111202.asp
(Written in 2002)
I respect Mr. Prager and am thankful for his well-chosen and thoughtful discussions. It is an embarrasment to those of you would cannot formulate coherent and respectful thoughts regarding the matter. Your name-calling and contempt negates everything you write.
I literally never heard of Dennis Prager in my life until about three hours ago when a good friend mentioned how much she liked him and how MORAL he was. I came home from her house, found his website online, and read every post he's written since 2002.
Wow.
What an unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable guy. To read everything he's posted in three years really gives you a feel for someone. I only happened upon THIS website accidentally, and you can imagine my shock when I read that this morally superior, self-righteous, God-fearing man--whose entire body of holier-than-thou work I'd just consumed in a couple of hours--is getting divorced.
All I can say to those who bemoan the schaudenfreude (glee at someone's misfortune): IT ONLY HAPPENS WHEN A HYPOCRITE IS INVOLVED!
It's precisely CONSERVATIVES who are consistently judgmental about others' lives and misfortunes. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PRAGER'S COLUMNS AMOUNTED TO ALL HIS LIFE--one big judgmental pile. So, when they inevitably fall (Interestingly I JUST SAID to my husband, like two minutes ago, before I read this news: "He too will fall; they all do.")-- Anyway, when they fall, it's almost too hard to resist a little satisfaction. For no other reason than to offer up the tiniest hope that this person might now be not quite so hard on other human beings who have failings. Perhaps he will act just a little bit more enlightened than to preach to others how wrong they are. It never happened with Bill Bennet and Rush Limbaugh, but who knows?
PS: I simply cannot understand, even more than the purveyors of this kind of hate-filled judgmental pseudointellectualism, those who subscribe to it like eager sheep. How can you take seriously a man who preaches about happiness and then turns around and makes intellectual arguments for execution, revenge, and hoping someone goes to hell? Yes, several columns were devoted to that kind of negative argument.
And how can you take seriously someone who berates the passion of the breast-feeding crowd, not because he's against breastfeeding but because it indicates a misplaced emphasis, and then watch him go ballistic on swearing and college campus antics? As if THOSE are the real problems of the world.
I feel like I've spent the last few hours being preached to, and it's nothing less than human to know that the preacher is not perfect. I suppose all of us have had our know-it-all moments and have had to eat crow. It's humiliating, and when I really think about it, I honestly do feel sorry for him because his comeuppance is so public. I actually do know what that feels like, and I don't wish it on anyone. Unfortunately, that instinct is what makes me liberal, and that instinct is one which he and those who follow him do not afford others. Let's see if he becomes a little more empathetic with us little people in the future.
The preoccupation with Bill Bennett's gambling has reaffirmed something I long ago realized: Only conservatives can be hypocrites.
Can you think of one prominent liberal ever labeled a hypocrite in the mainstream press? President Bill Clinton was labeled many things for his extramarital affairs and his lying, but never a hypocrite. But when the press discovers flawed behavior in the personal life of a prominent conservative, he is discredited as a hypocrite.
Why is this? Because you can only be a hypocrite if you violate standards that you promote or judge, and liberals rarely promote or judge personal behavior. Their moral preoccupations almost exclusively concern social positions. Liberals judge people by their positions on global warming, not by how they behave.....
Some of you Dennis haters need to simmer down and grow up
The preoccupation with Bill Bennett's gambling has reaffirmed something I long ago realized: Only conservatives can be hypocrites.
Can you think of one prominent liberal ever labeled a hypocrite in the mainstream press? President Bill Clinton was labeled many things for his extramarital affairs and his lying, but never a hypocrite. But when the press discovers flawed behavior in the personal life of a prominent conservative, he is discredited as a hypocrite.
Why is this? Because you can only be a hypocrite if you violate standards that you promote or judge, and liberals rarely promote or judge personal behavior. Their moral preoccupations almost exclusively concern social positions. Liberals judge people by their positions on global warming, not by how they behave.
That is why conservative Bill Bennett was dismissed as a hypocrite for gambling while liberal Jesse Jackson, though a clergyman, was almost never labeled a hypocrite after the public learned that he had committed adultery, fathered a child out of wedlock and misappropriated funds earmarked for civil rights work. Jackson has the right liberal positions on social issues. Likewise Woody Allen, Norman Mailer, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and many other liberals who committed far worse sins. None is labeled a hypocrite.
This is not to say that conservatives cannot be hypocrites. Of course they can. Had Bill Bennett railed against gambling or argued that a public figure who gambles forfeits his moral authority, he would qualify as one. But everyone acknowledges that gambling was never one of Bennett's issues, and that he had acknowledged doing so long ago.
But what about Bennett's book attacking former President Clinton for his personal conduct (The Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals)? Doesn't that book make Bennett a hypocrite?
No, it doesn't. Most of the book is about a president lying to the country and under oath, and in the chapter on Mr. Clinton's sexual infidelity, Bennett makes it clear that even adultery does not necessarily render a person unfit for leadership. He repeatedly notes that in assessing character and trustworthiness, context is king. It is within the context of a lifetime of infidelities, smearing the reputations of women who spoke of their affairs with him, groping a woman who sought his help in the Oval Office, using state troopers when governor of Arkansas to procure women, and lying, that Bennett criticized President Clinton. Bennett even defended past presidents (of both parties) who had extramarital affairs as individuals worthy of holding the nation's highest office.
But none of that matters to those who wish to label Bennett a hypocrite for gambling. What matters is that he is a conservative, advocates virtue, judged President Clinton guilty and gambled too much.
It is surely much easier to be a liberal in our times. You aren't judged.
But society is paying a terrible price for the quick dismissal of conservatives caught sinning. Fewer and fewer people will provide moral leadership, and fewer people will teach character development because the price of having one's private sins exposed is devastating. Bill Bennett's many books on virtue and character education are immensely valuable to America. Even in my most cynical moments, I do not believe that all liberals would like that work nullified.
But there is also a challenge to conservatives, especially religious conservatives who may likewise be tempted to dismiss Bill Bennett. They need to consider two matters.
First, even if you believe gambling is a sin, there are gradations of sin. While all sin may be "rebellion against God," God surely regards some sins (murder, for example) as worse than others (gambling, for example). That's why He isolated Ten Commandments above all others. So even those who believe that Bill Bennett has sinned can put his sin into moral and religious perspective.
Second, Bill Bennett has helped many people sin less. That he has sinned (if indeed he did) in no way alters that fact. It only makes it obvious that he knows how much we all have to struggle with temptations, and that actually makes him a better advocate of virtue and character.
That is why Bill Bennett still deserves to be read and heard. By conservatives as well as by liberals. By sinners as well as by saints
Naming all of Bill Clinton's foibles, along with Norman Mailer, etc. is simply missing the point. Liberals do not claim to be perfect and, more important, tend to be sympathetic to the failings of others. Hence, the word "hypocrite" doesn't come to mind when they fail. Call them what you will, but hypocrite simply does not fit those who aren't judging others' personal failings to begin with.
I honestly think the world is divided into two camps, both of whom want pretty much the same things in terms of happiness, a good family life, good health, and fulfilling work. The one camp judges everybody else's ability to do the right thing to get all those things, and the other camp (who, you should remember, wants the same things) completely recognizes that it's hard work and humans have failings. They frankly make better friends, because who on earth wants someone judging you when you're down?
I myself happen to have very high standards on just about everything (so that blows some of your comments about the low standards of liberals)--I aced through school, had a great career with all kinds of awards, am now raising three kids, all of whom are in gifted programs. I hold none of this up to others as a beacon, but mention it only because of the consistent remarks about liberals' standards.
Anyway, I have almost perfectionist standards about all kinds of things, and I also have the knee-jerk tendency to observe things about myself and other people. This will always translate into a more critically-oriented person, but note the difference between someone NOTICING someone's failings versus JUDGING THEM FOR IT.
Whether you like what I say or not, you should appreciate it as an honest reaction to this man and his message. His divorce is frankly incidental, and I was outraged by his negative messages before I learned about the divorce. I frankly am exactly the kind of person who conservatives hate for their moral relativism because I have always thought divorce was complicated and, often, there are "no villains." One would be a complete moron not to notice the irony that Prager himself uses the very language conservatives mock royally as morally relativist.
As a last note, every single one of my conservative friends have come to me privately for support regarding their personal woes--a son in jail for DUI, a kid who routinely gets in trouble for ADHD behavior in school, a secret affair outside the marriage. They know to come to a liberal because they know they will not be turned away or disapproved of, and they know they simply can't handle the harsh judgment of their conservative friends or relatives. These friends with the troubles have now "given a break" to others in the SAME EXACT BOAT they are in, as Prager will now do for divorcees, but, and this is the key, fail to extrapolate from the experience that others' problems, WHILE DIFFERENT FROM THEIR OWN, are equally rife with pain and good intentions. This is truly the crux of the entire discussion: Why does Prager think HIS DIVORCE is a tragedy, that he and his wife are "not villains" because of their good-faith attempts at reconciliation--but not transfer that kind of empathy to others in different situations, like drug users or criminals or immigrants or whatever? Does his imagination fail him so utterly that he thinks it's not possible for someone to be as well-intentioned, as morally good as he and his wife are and still fail in some arena or other?
Didn't Jesus say "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, so you do unto me?" Who but for the pedophiles or murderers are the "least"? And Prager would hunt them down and kill them.
As for your outrage about the tone of glee about Prager's divorce: You are one hundred percent correct. It is, in fact, wrong to feel anything good about someone else's misfortune. The fact that Prager himself is guilty of it, the fact that his very shortcomings mirror those of the people he's been so judgmental of in the past, have nothing whaysoever to do with what is right at the moment, and that is clearly to have sympathy and understanding for this man and his family, and especially his youngest child who still lives at home. That is the right way to be, and that is the liberal way to be, and I'm not proud of the momentary satisfaction I felt on hearing the news of his divorce.