All Episodes
Previous Next
April 19, 2023 - Dennis Prager Show
01:20:53
Dressing Down
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day, become a member of PragerTopia.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
subscribe at prager-topia.com.
Hello everybody, I'm Dennis Prager. .
A thought on civilization.
An aspect that people don't give much thought to.
Not in the terms that I will be offering some thoughts, but nevertheless, I think it's significant.
I broadcast when I am in Southern California, where I live.
I broadcast from the home studio in an office building.
And obviously, when I take the elevator, which is every day, I often share it with other people.
And I marvel at the way they are dressed to go to work.
These are all people going to offices.
It's an office building, after all.
And the dress code is apparently non-existent.
If you want to wear a t-shirt, if you want to wear a polo shirt, if you...
I think the only thing I have not seen, and that's significant given that it is Southern California, which has warm weather, good part of the year, I have not seen people go to work in shorts.
Have you?
I think it's the only thing left.
And I wonder if that...
Don't some teachers in warm weather cities, which is every place when it's summer in North America, I think some teachers have worn shorts, but I'm not certain about that.
And I'm sure that for many of you listening, this is a non-issue.
People want to be comfortable.
What's the big deal?
Okay.
I think it is a big deal, and it is for that reason that I raise the issue.
If you take a look at photos of people attending a baseball game in the 1950s, it is not possible that you would not be struck by the most obviously striking fact, how well dressed they are.
In other words, people went to...
Baseball games in the 1950s and earlier, obviously.
Much more formally dressed than people go to work in the 2020s.
70, not even 70 years later, because I think they dressed that way.
I think they dressed that way all through the 50s.
Yeah, so the 60s upended it like everything else.
So what do you think when you see a photo of people, of men at a baseball game, for example, wearing a jacket and tie?
Do you think, whoa, oh man, that is so weird.
I can't believe it.
Or do you think, as I do, well, there's something ennobling.
Elevating about that fact.
When I was a kid, my mother, on the occasions that I would go on an airplane, which happened every so often because I would visit my beloved Aunt Chippy in Miami Beach where she lived.
I lived in New York City, Brooklyn.
And she would really tell you, you know, you're going on a plane, you know, dress nicely.
I don't have to say what people wear.
People wear on planes now, and I'm on a plane every week of the year on average.
I'll be on a plane today.
People wear on airplanes whatever is comfortable.
And obviously shorts are totally okay.
As part of the equation, which they may not yet be at work.
Why do people dress formally?
And you can start calling 1-8 Prager-776-877-243-7776.
Why do people dress formally?
It is...
There are two reasons.
For society's sake...
That is for others' sake and for your own sake.
I'll begin with the latter, for your own sake.
There have been so many studies which, and you know my attitude towards studies, studies either confirm what common sense suggests or they're wrong.
I don't recall.
An exception to that in my lifetime.
And what does it do to you?
You see yourself differently.
This is most dramatically attested to in school uniforms, wherein when students are asked to dress more formally, there is less violence, less cursing.
Less attitude, as they say, toward teachers, the children or the young adults at the school act better.
They take their school more seriously, they take their work more seriously, and they take themselves more seriously.
That is why we have uniforms.
When a policeman dons a policeman's uniform, A change comes over him and comes over the way we see him, or her, if you will.
Clothing has a tremendous impact on the individual.
As is often noted by people who study their Bible, the first divine intervention after the Garden of Eden episodes, Is that God made human beings clothing.
Now, we presume they were not formal clothing, I acknowledge, but after all, Adam and Eve didn't go to the office, as there were no offices to go to at the time.
So it affects you, and it affects others.
Why do people dress formally?
I hope they still do.
For a wedding.
I mean, think about that.
Why not go to a wedding the way one goes, dressed to the office today?
Do you have a good reason?
You just sent me a story apropos to that?
Yeah.
Let's see.
Oh, how interesting.
Wow.
From, where is it from?
Yahoo!
David's Bridal Files for Bankruptcy.
Here's what it means for brides-to-be.
What does it mean?
Brides-to-be are not getting...
No, it means that the biggest bridal...
This is the biggest?
Yeah.
The biggest bridal retailer is out of business.
It's going out of business.
Well, they filed for bankruptcy.
Well, all right, but in colloquial, that's the way we put it.
Well, I'll read that afterwards during the break.
But why, at least until now, at least to the best of my knowledge, and I may well be wrong after all, maybe the weddings I go to are weddings of a certain type of people, but people do dress up formally.
And the reason is it honors the occasion.
If you went in a polo shirt or a t-shirt and jeans or shorts to a wedding, would it not be regarded, even today, as somewhat insulting to everyone going and especially to the bride and groom, assuming that those terms are allowable today?
And if not, I will use them with greater vigor.
That's the reason that people dress up.
So you have to answer that question.
Why do people dress up for a wedding?
What else do people dress up for?
The Academy Awards, right?
I mean, there's...
And what else?
Weddings, Academy Awards.
Oh, you know one else?
No, they don't dress up for funerals.
It's not true.
I'm sorry.
I've been to my fair share.
People don't go...
They don't wear a jacket and tie, I don't think, the men.
You think they do?
That's interesting.
Okay, fine.
Alright, fair enough.
I hope that's true.
I do.
So, okay.
Weddings and funerals.
I could say bar mitzvahs.
Jews do dress up for a bar mitzvah.
Is that fair to say?
Job interviews?
Oh, that's another...
Well, you're right.
There is an irony in that.
And you know what else?
If you're a defendant in court...
They're unbelievably well dressed.
Natural disasters.
Airline cancellations and runway near misses, supply chain issues, inflation, rising interest rates, and sky-high government debt.
This is Dennis Prager for AmFedCoin and Bullion.
There's a lot in the news about what consumers cannot control.
So let's talk about what you can control.
You can control how you choose to invest and protect your wealth.
That's why I choose to do business with Nick Grovich and his company, AmFedCoin and Bullion.
Now is a great time to own tangible assets like gold, silver, and platinum.
With over 41 years' experience and tens of thousands of satisfied clients, Nick will help you make informed decisions and show you smart choices, which have been proven winners time and time again.
Amphetcoin and Bullion.
We'll sell you the right types of precious metals to get the maximum value for your money.
Take control of your investments like I did.
Call Nick and his team at Amphet Coin& Bullion at 800-221-7694.
Americanfederal.com.
Americanfederal.com.
So I'm talking to you about a subject that is dear to me.
The subject being the...
Decline in dress from suit and tie at baseball games to suit and tie on very rare occasions or jacket and tie.
And same with women's clothing.
If it's comfy, that's all that counts.
Getting dressed up for work honors work.
Just like getting dressed up for a wedding honors a wedding.
Getting dressed up for a funeral honors the dead.
We wear clothing to honor the place in which we wear the clothing.
That was the belief.
You also honor yourself.
It means you take yourself seriously in the best sense of the word.
There was an article in the New York Times by one of their columnists who writes on, I guess, popular culture.
And it wasn't a political piece about the decline of the tie and how he defies that and wears a tie to work.
I have worn a tie all through my radio career.
And 90% of it was without video.
Nobody listening could possibly know that I was wearing a tie, but I knew that it said to myself, take this work seriously, and that it said it to anyone with whom I worked, I take this seriously and it said it to any guests that I had on my show.
I consider it a characteristic, a sign of a decline.
me.
That's how seriously I take it.
And it's really across the board, because this is not so much a left-right issue.
The number of people who attend church...
Christians who attend church each week, or at least regularly, who have said to me, when I have raised the issue about wearing nice clothing to church, God doesn't care what we wear.
And I don't believe that for a second.
God doesn't care what we wear.
Thank you.
Really.
It's fascinating.
If you read the book of Leviticus, which the founders of this country were very familiar with, a verse from Leviticus is the only thing written on the Liberty Bell, aside from the bell company's name.
See how detailed...
Why?
Why would God give detailed, really detailed, instructions as to what the priests in the temple would wear if he doesn't care about clothing, doesn't care about what people wear?
You ever see the Mass from the Vatican?
I'm sure many of you have.
I try to watch it every year.
I find it moving.
And the way everybody is dressed.
Now, what if everybody showed up in a t-shirt and jeans?
It's St. Peter's, correct?
I mean, it would be unfitting, wouldn't you think?
It's part of the decline, the...
That's the way I would put it.
It's not, oh, what difference does it make?
It does make a difference.
All right, let's see here.
Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Jeff, hello.
Hello, Mr. Prager.
I just want to say, I love the topics you bring up.
But I just want to let you know, my son is 18 years old.
He loves dressing in three-piece suits.
He has a fedora.
And listening to you, you could have said it better yourself.
I could have said it better when you said that you take pride in yourself, how you appear.
But my son, he goes to school sometimes in his suit.
He just dresses up to dress up.
And he said, Dad, it's more acceptable to wear sweatpants hanging half down your butt than it is to dress nicely.
And people ask, you know.
Even from his relatives, they'll be like, why are you dressed up today?
Where are you going?
He's like, nowhere.
I'd just like to dress up.
But in society where it's more acceptable to wear your pants half down to your ankles than dress nicely, like you said, it's a decay in society, I believe.
Well, you've got a great son.
I'd love to meet him.
Yes, it must confuse them.
It's really a fascinating thing.
If he wore his pants very low, that would be perfectly acceptable.
Nobody would ask him anything.
But if he's wearing a suit and tie...
I've had so many men comment on that.
Oh, I feel like I'm being strangled.
It's interesting.
I'd like to know in my father's generation how many men said, I feel like I'm being strangled.
I wear one every day.
I don't feel like I'm being strangled.
To be honest.
You know, Charlie Kirk, I have great admiration for and affection.
Colleague, the brilliant founder of TPUSA, Turning Point USA. He has evolved in this direction, and it is very touching to see how often he will wear a shirt and tie, which is not his inclination.
He's still in his 20s.
I want to have him on to talk about what changes have happened in his life since he's adopted a dress code, as it were.
You know?
I think people need to know that.
So, you know, people ask me all the time, so what can I do?
What can I do, Dennis?
The decay of the civilization.
So here is an immediate suggestion.
Dress nicely.
That'll be a big deal.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell with MyPillow is launching the MyPillow 2.0.
When Mike invented MyPillow, it had everything you could ever want in a pillow.
Now, nearly 20 years later, he discovered a new technology that makes it even better.
The MyPillow 2.0 has the patented adjustable fill of the original MyPillow and now with a brand new fabric that is made with a temperature-regulating thread.
The MyPillow 2.0 is the softest, smoothest, and coolest pillow you'll ever own.
For my listeners, the MyPillow 2.0 is buy one, get one free offer with promo code Prager.
MyPillow 2.0 temperature regulating technology is 100% made in the USA and comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Just go to MyPillow.com and click on the radio listeners square to the buy one, get one free offer.
Enter promo code Prager or call 800-761-6302 to get your MyPillow 2.0 now.
I'm Dennis Prager.
I talk about everything in life, as you know, because everything matters.
So today, it just hit me.
Very often, it hits me what I'll talk about literally as the theme song goes on.
Sometimes I know a day in advance.
Sometimes I don't know until it's the curtain opening.
But it just hit me again today in the elevator, sharing it.
With two individuals, a man and a woman, both young, both going to an office to work, and both dressed.
Well, actually, I can't say it about the woman.
I don't remember how the woman was dressed.
She might have been wearing a jacket or coats I couldn't see.
But the man was dressed the same way he would dress if he were going to a friend's house to watch a basketball game.
It's a terrible loss.
I'm asked every day, virtually, every day, what can we do?
What can we do to address the decline of the civilization?
Here's a little thing, and it would make a big impact, because people would all ask you why you dressed up, why you dressed up, and answer, I'm going to work.
Answer, that's it, I'm going to work.
I'm going to church.
You know, here's a little anecdote.
Because I happen to be immersed in both Jewish life and Christian life.
I have a very blessed life in that way.
And I attend synagogue every week, where I teach Torah every week.
And I'm one of those who founded this synagogue, and I do my own.
I've conducted Jewish High Holy Day services, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
New Year and Day of Atonement for about 15 years.
And from the first year, I sent out a letter of a dress code.
This is what you are expected to wear if you are a woman.
This is what you are expected to wear if you are a man coming to my service.
If you can't afford, if you own no jacket and tie, we will put up the money.
It makes a difference.
So the anecdote, as it were, is that it's the only arena that I know of that the average Jew, or at least Jew who attends synagogue, is more conservative than the average Christian who attends church.
Because Jews do dress up for Sabbath services and any other service that they will attend.
Most Jews don't attend services, so it doesn't apply to most Jews, but the Jews who do.
Do dress up.
It is inconceivable to me not to dress up for synagogue.
It's inconceivable.
We have a call on that.
Where is our person here?
Oh, this is interesting.
Tom in Arcadia, California.
Hello.
Hello, Dennis.
Pleasure talking with you.
I'm excited.
A little shaky.
It's okay.
Thank you.
And you are my rabbi.
It's funny.
Last week I was traveling through Beverly Hills and there were a group of several instances on several blocks.
There were groups of people walking to synagogue.
I forget what day it was.
And they were all dressed to the nines.
Well, yeah.
It would have been on Passover then if it was the weekday.
Okay.
Okay.
That's right.
Dressed to the nines.
That's right.
A term that is no longer used, but that's exactly right.
Well, we're about the same age, so there you go.
I'm dating myself.
My wife and I attend the Society of St. Pius X Church, the same parish that sued Governor Nuisance over the Wuhan church attendance and won.
He won that case in the California Supreme Court.
And the same one...
The same Society of St. Pius's Act that Marylis Garland wants to attack.
Our pastor once said that he admires the Jewish faith and that they are steeped in tradition and ceremony, and so should the Catholic faith.
And so that's why my wife...
I was an altar boy in the early 60s before the Catholic Church changed.
Yes, that's correct.
And I remember reciting the Mass in Latin as an altar boy.
And so I appreciated that.
Also, we also do all of the marches around the neighborhood during High Holy Days in the Catholic faith.
We actually do a procession, and we still do that around the neighborhood.
And I remember doing that in the early 60s when I was a little child.
All right.
Forgive me.
I must take a break.
But that, I salute you, and I am very honored by your call.
Hello, everybody.
This is the Male Female Hour, second hour every Wednesday.
Most honest talk I know of about men and women.
I am not a man fan, and I am not a woman fan.
There are good and bad in each sex.
One of the basic propositions of the male-female hour is that there are only two sexes.
Certainly never anticipated I would ever have to say that, and that to say that would be regarded as hate speech by a segment of the American people.
There are two sexes, man and woman.
Period.
Yes, and only women get periods.
Since I mentioned period, I thought I would mention that.
So my subject today is one I've never actually covered.
It is the result of my knowing a couple for some years to whom the following happened.
And...
They couple two, to the best of my knowledge, wonderful people.
And even committed to their faith.
And she left him after many years and their children for a woman.
She left the marriage for a woman.
So, I am very curious.
If that happened to you, there are three types of calls I would like.
If it happened to you, that your spouse or partner left you for a person of the same sex, please call me.
If you did it, please call me.
Or if you know of a couple wherein that happened.
Please call me.
In many cases in life, we have a sense of how we would react to a certain event.
But I have to admit that this one is a tough one to imagine.
And I specifically mean...
That it's hard because of a person leaving for someone of the same sex.
The number, by the way, is 1-8-Prager-776.
877-243-776.
It's bad enough when your spouse leaves you, obviously, for someone else.
It's a very painful thing, I have to believe, by definition.
So the question is, is it more painful, less painful, or the same if they leave for someone of their own sex?
That I don't know.
That's hard for me to answer because it's, I think, different.
But maybe it isn't different.
They left you for someone.
Whether the person is of the same sex or the opposite sex may not change things much.
Also, how did your children react?
Or how did the couple you know wherein this happened, how did their children react?
Is it better, worse?
Maybe better and worse is not the way to word it.
Is it more or less?
Painful or the same pain if mommy leaves the marriage for a woman or mommy leaves the marriage for a man or daddy leaves the marriage for a woman or daddy leaves the marriage for a man.
Here's another question that arises if I can get to talk to anyone to whom this has happened.
Did you ever have an inkling?
About that.
Which raises another question that I would like to ask you.
How do you explain it?
Do you believe in the case that I know of where she left for a woman, was she a lifelong closeted lesbian and simply suppressed it?
It's a very hard thing, it would seem to me, to suppress for decades in a marriage.
Would you say so?
1-8 Prager 776. I don't know.
The question of the children, I think I'm going to do...
Some time on the program.
This is not what you should call it on now.
But when I think of adults who undergo a transition and become trans, how do children react?
People don't discuss that because the focus is so on, oh, we should, of course, Welcome and be happy for the person being authentic to him or herself.
He has become a woman and we should all celebrate that fact because this person is no longer in denial and is expressing a true self here.
But how do kids react?
Is that not a valid question to ask?
My dad is now a woman, and am I expected to celebrate that fact?
Even the most proactive trans folks, if they have any modicum of empathy, have to empathize with a child whose father becomes a woman.
Or claims to be a woman and acts it out.
Anyway, that's a separate subject.
Don't call in on that.
If you know of or it happened to you or you did it, leaving the marriage for a person of the same sex as you are or as she is or as he is, that's the question on the table.
And I have a lot of questions.
All right, let's see here.
Well, this is perfect.
Bob in Arizona.
What city are you in, Bob?
Dewey, Arizona, just outside of Prescott.
Okay, great.
Thank you for calling.
So go ahead.
Yeah, I met my wife.
She was an Army officer.
I was a Naval officer up at the Defense Language School in Monterey.
And eventually she reverted back to, she'd had a lesbian relationship in college in her freshman year.
And she met her soulmate on the Internet and ran off and left her.
And at present I've found out that she has changed her pronoun.
She now goes by he.
Wait, you said left her.
You mean left you?
Yes, left me.
Sorry.
Okay, that was the confusing part.
How long were you married?
About six years.
Six years.
Did you have a child?
No.
I had three daughters from my first marriage.
I see.
Okay.
Which was my second.
She was very butch, and my third wife says, didn't you see that she was that way up?
Well, no, I didn't.
I don't know if you could even answer this.
Is there a different level of pain, or is it basically the same if your spouse leaves you for the same sex or the opposite sex person?
Actually, for me, I... I did not take it as a rejection.
It was just...
Right, because you felt, look, I had no chance because she doesn't want a man.
That's correct.
Yeah.
Okay, so that is very interesting.
That's one of the reasons I'm raising the question.
The level of pain is there if you loved somebody and they leave the marriage, period.
Whether they leave it for nobody, same-sex or opposite sex.
Within the parameters of that pain, is there less, perhaps, for the reason I just said, well, I wasn't rejected because of me, I was rejected because of my sex.
There's nothing I can do about that.
Well, it happened to him.
But his, what is it, his new wife asked?
She was butch.
Didn't you see that?
I would ask the same question, to be perfectly honest.
We'll be back in a moment.
This is the male-female hour.
Or...
Did your spouse leave you for a person of the same sex?
Did you leave somebody for a person of the same sex?
Do you know of a couple wherein this happened?
This is my topic here.
And let's go to Palatine, Illinois.
Jennifer.
Hello, Jennifer.
Hello, Dennis.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Great.
Thank you.
Listen, I have a couple that we've been friends with for years, and I've known both of them since I was a kid.
They've been married for 30 years, and the husband left for another man.
And it totally took us all by surprise.
So are you still friends with the woman, with the wife?
I am, for sure.
Much more.
I talk to her more.
For sure.
Right.
So, if I were to ask her, which I wish I could, were there any intimations of this for 30 years?
What would she say?
You know, looking back, I think that there's some red flags, intimacy-wise.
And, you know, I think that would be, you know, she started, she's the one that really called them out.
They just grew apart and tried to pull it together, and he wasn't willing, and then just noticed thousands and thousands of text messages to a certain number, and followed up, called him out.
And then, yeah, that's what happened.
But the whole thing for her is, was my whole marriage a sham?
Was it just pretend?
Oh, I didn't think of that.
That's why I said I... This is an area where I can't quite figure out, not figure out, I can't imagine a reaction that I would have because it's so unique.
That's a very, very legitimate question.
Right, and it's like, did he ever love me?
And the thing is, in this situation too, you have to know the couple, but he almost...
Doesn't really even interact with her.
You know, they have kids together.
They're adults, you know.
And that was even weird for them, too, that, okay, this is bad now, right?
And the whole thing was he's really kind of erasing her from his whole history.
So that's even more devastating, too.
If he said, you know what, I've really tried.
I just can't do it anymore.
You know, she can kind of, it still would be devastating, but could at least have some sort of relationship.
But, no, it's bad.
Well, I don't understand.
Why wouldn't he have a relationship that's totally platonic?
He was married to her for 30 years.
She's the mother of his children.
Yeah, right.
How does he get along with his children?
They get along fine.
Some of them are more accepting than others as far as...
The bottom line is he cheated on her, so I don't care who you cheat with.
He still cheated on their mother, and that's an issue.
Yeah.
Did she remarry?
No.
This is pretty fresh still.
Oh, I see.
He is going to get married, from what I understand.
Yeah.
He is.
Yeah.
Well, thank you.
That's a story.
Yes, that's very interesting.
See, this is what I mean.
I learned so much from doing this show.
She really fears, or she really asks, not fears.
What was I doing for 30 years?
If I were to speak to her personally, I would ask her not to think that way.
If there was a period of love, the love was real.
The only part, I guess, well, that's not the only part.
There are so many questions.
I guess he would say he married a woman.
Because society expected him to 30 years ago.
Although that's not entirely accurate for 30 years ago, certainly 50 years ago and more, I would totally agree.
But the interesting, or an interesting, not the, an interesting question as well is if you are Do you not owe it to an opposite-sex person,
A, to tell them that, and B, to perhaps just not marry one, since it's very hard to imagine a happy ending here?
All right, let's continue.
This is just truly fascinating.
Well, this happened to her, so we'll go to Carol in South Carolina.
Hello.
Hi, Carol.
Hello.
Dennis, it is so nice to speak with you.
You are a hero in my life.
I'm very touched.
Thank you.
I married in 1981 to who I thought was my best friend.
We've known each other for 10 years.
We had a child together.
We were married for 18 years, and he kept, about every two years, he would go through a destructive period where he would quit working, and I would find out later that we're just all, I really should write a book.
Wait, you found out later what?
Well, I didn't find out for sure that he was gay until three years after.
No, no, you didn't finish the sentence, and I'm so curious.
Every two years he would leave a job, and you found out what?
Yeah, he would lie to me and tell me that there was some problem, and he had a genius IQ and could figure out what I needed to know and would use it to tell me, you know, there's a bonus coming, or it would be months you know, there's a bonus coming, or it would be months sometimes before I would find out he was not Did that have anything to do with his being gay?
I don't, didn't think Okay, fine.
Alright, so it's a separate issue.
Fair enough.
I do think it did.
You think it did.
Let me ask you this.
You should write a book, by the way.
No, no, no.
I'm very, very serious.
You should write a book.
And without being incriminatory or anything, I'll be back with you.
I have a question, obviously, that I want to ask.
I try to make every hour important and certainly interesting.
Can't get more interesting than this hour.
That's why Prager Topia is so widely used.
Get any show, any time you want.
Keep it.
Share it.
And no commercials.
Pretty powerful.
PragerTopia.com This is the Male Female Hour.
Second hour every Wednesday.
By the way, I will be in Phoenix next week for those of you in the Phoenix area.
Got a lot of listeners there.
Big night together.
And for the info on how to attend, go to 960thepatriot.com.
960thepatriot.com.
For those of you in the Phoenix area.
So, this male-female subject is...
Do you know a couple or did it happen to you or did you do it, leave a marriage for a person of the same sex?
So, let's go back to South Carolina.
And Carol was married for 18 years and he left her for a man.
So, Carol, you said you had children together?
Yes, we had one daughter.
Okay.
So, we can't get too graphic because it's a public show, but we don't need to.
But I am obviously curious, what was your intimate relationship like with him?
It was excellent until about four years into the marriage, and then it diminished, but it continued until...
Our daughter was born 10 years into the marriage, and it continued until about four years after that.
So the last six years or so of our marriage, we have no relations at all.
Did you ask him why?
I was told by his therapist, which I got him involved with, that it was depression.
So I suspected the therapist didn't tell you the truth.
Well, after I divorced him, the therapist, I saw him socially, and he told me that he suspicioned what was going on, and Sam, my ex, refused to go to the therapist anymore, and the therapist thought it was because he knew.
That the therapist was drilling down on the problem.
Oh, so he was hiding it from the therapist, too?
Yes, he was.
Did you ever ask him point blank, do you prefer men?
Yes, many times.
In fact, my father asked me that before I married him.
Really?
Really?
Yeah, I did not see it, but my father picked up on it.
But I did not see it.
How long ago did the marriage end?
In 1999. Have you dated since?
I've had two dates.
It has destroyed my confidence in myself as a woman.
I do not feel like a woman sometimes around men because I don't trust men anymore.
I don't trust my Ability to judge.
I think every man is gay now, if they're interested in me.
So it sounds like it would have actually been easier for you had he left you for a woman.
Yes, much easier.
Because I didn't have any way to fight any of this.
It took away my confidence as a female.
Yeah, it shouldn't have.
I mean, rationally speaking, it should have no effect on that at all because no female on earth could have attracted him.
No, but it makes you question everything about you if you can attract a man but not keep him.
But he was using me to survive at the time.
Things have changed so much now, he probably would be fine.
But he committed suicide in 2006. I don't think it was all related to...
Right, I don't think so either.
I think he was depressed too.
Alright, so do you promise me you're going to start on that book today?
I'm not sure I have it in me.
You do.
You do.
You could start recording if that's easier and get a ghostwriter.
If you don't have a book in you, nobody does.
Hello everybody!
Welcome back to the Male Female Hour.
And hello, everybody.
I'm Dennis Prager.
Two intense hours today, I gotta say.
It's been riveting.
And then we move on to some news items.
Fox is going to pay $787.
And a half million dollars.
I always like when they do a half.
When you're paying $787 million, does the $500,000 matter?
Anyway, they're going to pay three quarters of a billion dollars.
It's not government paying it.
It's easy for the government to do it.
It just prints it.
Or just takes on more debt.
Which doesn't seem to matter to any Democrat and a fair number of Republicans, but most Republicans do care.
That is a huge difference between the parties.
not enough of a difference because not all Republicans have fought this but nevertheless it is so the the settlement out of court is for that amount of money the The lawsuit, what was the lawsuit for?
$2 billion, was it?
I think it was $1.6 billion.
$1.6 billion.
And it was over claims made on Fox News that Dominion, the makers of the machines that counted votes, I only watch Fox News sporadically, and then generally I will watch Tucker Carlson's commentary.
I think it's important, and I do.
So I don't recall ever hearing someone say that Dominion...
Corrupted the results with its machinery.
But apparently it was said, at least by guests, on host shows.
If it was actually said by any of the hosts, I would like to know that.
This is an important case, but there are so many questions I have.
Journalism Review, Columbia University School of Journalism is the most prestigious journalism school in the country.
And to my absolute shock, came out with a study accusing the New York Times and Washington Post of lying with regard to the Russian collusion with the Trump campaign story.
Did the New York Times ever report that the Columbia Journalism Review came out with this?
No.
Never?
No.
Wow.
Nor did the Washington Post.
Nor did the Washington Post, yes.
Well, okay.
I mean it quite sincerely.
Why are they not sued?
They really made out and out lies.
It wasn't a matter of guests on the show.
There might have been hosts who said out and out what I just said.
I am unaware of that.
And I would like to look into that.
These are preliminary observations of mine until more comes out.
Maybe Fox was worried that it would hurt its brand if all of its hosts were put on a stand.
And that's humiliating.
They would be attacked by, obviously, the Dominion Company's lawyers.
And they wouldn't, even if they only told the truth, I don't know what the fear was, but I can understand that a long, drawn-out trial for months, and the dominant issue, Fox on trial for lying, and then if it lost, it's a lot...
A lot more damaging to Fox than paying this major sum now and the new story essentially dying a week from now.
I assume that was the thinking at Fox.
But my questions remain.
The amount of lies told by the mainstream media is very high.
Yeah, the amount is very large, not very high.
And does this open the door for more productive lawsuits like on that?
Or the Hunter Biden laptop?
The denial that it was true and statements that it was Russian disinformation?
The whole laptop issue?
The number of stories that the mainstream media have lied about is quite substantial.
I don't know.
I don't know the answer.
Can you sue, let's see, 90 years later, sue the New York Times for denying that there was a famine in Ukraine, which Stalin deliberately created and killed five or so million Ukrainians?
I'm sure there's a statute of limitations in that regard, but I'm just saying.
So we'll see if there's fallout from this.
It's hard to know.
I don't suspect so.
I'll be very curious to see the editorials that conservatives come up with.
And I don't mean that in a negative way when I say come up with.
Right.
I'm curious.
I'm a conservative.
I have another thought for you.
The incredible vigilance that must one take in any arena of public, where you have a public forum like I have.
I am crazy about truth.
I'm crazed.
It preoccupies me all the time.
And that's why, I mean, I have been accused of so many things, including being an anti-Semite.
I'm a committed Jew.
That famous piece at the University of Wyoming.
But I'm never lying.
The usual, you know, sexist...
Sexist, what is it?
What is the second word?
Sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted.
Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.
You name it, exactly.
One has to be very, very, very, very careful.
To have any of your trust compromised is the end of your being able to be effective.
Now, people make mistakes.
It's just human and sometimes inevitable.
I made a mistake.
Was it, remember, I even had, it's the only time I remember I was faked out by a guest.
Remember that woman in Australia?
You probably don't remember.
I'm sure you would remember if I could remember her name, which I can't, who turned out not to be what she said she was.
And she had written a book.
Yes, I think it was something on Islam.
I think so.
So that's not an issue of being dishonest.
That's an issue of I was lied to.
But that happened once in 40 years.
I don't lose sleep over that.
But you have to be committed to a truth.
I'm asked all the time, do I think that the 2020 election was honest?
And I continue to say what I have said.
There are reasons to think that it was not.
I accept Joe Biden as my president.
It's just a fact of life, and I don't deny it.
But if I really am committed to truth, if you are really committed to truth, answer this question.
The Democrats' policies of...
Tens of millions of votes sent to people who never requested them.
Making election day into a month rather than a day.
Changing from paper ballots to machines.
Delaying results more than ever before in election day history.
Do they only lead?
People with an agenda to suspect there was cheating?
If you're really committed to honesty, do you really believe, if you know any of what I've just said and more, that it's inconceivable that there was cheating?
Now, you might say, yes, there was cheating.
The Democrats cheated, but not enough to sway the election.
Okay, fine.
But it doesn't mean there wasn't cheating.
It didn't take a lot to sway the election, however.
Back in a moment.
So, my friends, I was talking to you about the verdict with regard to Fox News.
I will have more to say as more information comes out, but I assume some of you have been curious what would I have said.
I have a very interesting report here that I need to bring to your attention.
It enters the mind-blowing in our lives.
So, let's see.
Here we go.
I am actually...
It's coming up.
Yeah, here it is.
This is really something.
The new NASA, that's National Space Administration, director, took her oath of office, not on a Bible, But on a Carl Sagan book.
Carl Sagan was the best known astronomer probably in American history, but certainly in the late 20th century.
I actually had him on my TV show.
I had a TV show for a few months.
It was a great TV show, actually.
But at the time, they were not looking for anything of depth.
For national television.
Anyway, I'm not complaining.
I'm very happy I had it.
It was a fascinating experience.
And one of my guests was Carl Sagan.
That's all I'm telling you.
But that is quite remarkable.
And it is also, she is not alone in doing this.
So let me give you another example.
Let's see.
So, the new NASA director sworn in on a Carl Sagan book.
Now, let's see.
I want to verify this.
According to the Smithsonian Magazine, California Congressman, I'll bet you you don't know this, California Congressman Robert Garcia.
Are you familiar with him?
Me neither.
Let's just make sure here.
Robert Garcia, newly elected congressman from California, had Superman by his side at his swearing-in ceremony on Saturday.
This is in January.
In addition to the classic bright blue and red suit, the superhero wore a protective Mylar covering and traveled with the Capitol Police.
A self-described comic book nerd, Garcia borrowed the first issue of the Superheroes comic book series from the Library of Congress for the occasion, which had been delayed four days by the prolonged Speaker of the House election.
The comic was one of several items Garcia chose to swear his oath of office on, including a copy of the Constitution, his citizens' His citizenship certificate and a photo of his parents, who both died from COVID-19 in 2020. Wow.
So he swore his oath on a copy of the Constitution, a Superman comic, and a picture of his parents.
So, okay, so that is another example here.
The NASA director did it on...
A Carl Sagan book, and I think we have one more example here.
All thanks to Dave Gordon in Canada, who's an intrepid researcher.
Well, I'm going to get to that.
Missouri Councilwoman uses Dr. Seuss' book to be sworn into office.
This is from 2019. Kelly Dunaway hoped the message of the book would resonate in her politics.
Kelly Dunaway knows her decision to be sworn in on a Dr. Seuss book pushed back against tradition.
That is in part why she did it, and it's the same reason why she wanted to run for a seat in the St. Louis County Council election.
She wanted to try something new.
This is from ABC News, August 21, 2019. I just think we need to do so much that in our politics and in our policy, just because we've done things the way we've always done them is no reason to keep doing them that way.
See, this is what I told you.
Change is a god on the left.
Change for change's sake.
Maybe that you have done something for so long, in some cases, is a reason to continue to doing it.
That's the reason for the British monarchy.
A tie with your past is a very important thing for a nation.
For a religion.
We just got over the Passover holiday.
Jews have been celebrating the same holiday for 3,000 years.
That's powerful.
That is a reason to continue that celebration precisely because it's been done for 3,000 years.
Americans have taken oaths of office on the Bible because It's a Judeo-Christian country, and that's the most important book in American history.
More important than Dr. Seuss.
I objected to Keith Ellenson swearing in when he was elected to Congress, and it was a national scandal.
I objected to using the Quran, but I warned that precisely these things would ensue.
Hi everybody, Dennis Prager here.
Hi.
One of the greatest crises in the country is the suppression of free speech, is censorship by big tech.
Every society produces outliers who do major work.
It's hard to explain why such people exist.
Thank God they do.
Jason Fick is one such person.
Who has been working years.
He may be the most knowledgeable person, at least that I know of, with regard to what Big Tech has done in suppressing news and censorship.
And he has researched this and gone to court.
So I finally have the honor of having him on.
Jason Fick, if you had to introduce yourself in Ten sentences.
What would you say?
I would say that I'm somewhat of a Section 230 guru.
I have been fighting this for a long time.
We are trying to sort out the problem that we face with liability shields with this suppression of speech and suppression of content.
We've been doing it for a long period of time.
And I would say that the word that best describes me is just persistent.
I don't give up.
I'm going to continue forward until we finally fix this.
Explain to people Section 230. So, back in 1996, Congress enacted a law that was designed to allow companies on the Internet to be protected, essentially, from two things.
The first was that they were supposed to be prevented from being treated as someone else.
The second aspect of it was...
Wait, wait, what does that mean?
Prevented from being treated as someone else.
What does that mean?
Well, for example, if you were to say something bad and you were to put it on my website, I should not be treated as you for what you said.
That's been wholly confused into that if I say something else in addition to what you do or I amplify it or I manipulate your content in some way...
That I cannot be treated even as myself.
And that's been sort of the ridiculous application of this law, which has essentially become what Ted Cruz called superimmunity.
And it really is.
It has become immunity from everything, including violations of our constitutional rights.
I mean, it's really stretched out into pretty much everything.
And that's just the first piece.
The second piece was actually supposed to allow These companies to operate within limited liability protection to restrict materials that they, in good faith, considered bad.
And then I'm kind of summarizing because they did give some criteria and then it ends on anything otherwise objectionable.
The question is, what exactly is objectionable, of course?
Because they consider virtually everything objectionable.
So can this be summarized as Section 230?
By the way, it's Section 230 of what?
Its formal name is Title 47, U.S. Code, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
It was supposed to be about decency, not about moderating all content.
And this has protected Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
from lawsuits.
Over any of their behavior, such as censorship, distortion, or defamation.
Is that correct?
I think the best words you said there are the most poignant words is anything.
It has protected them from their own unlawful conduct, including anti-competitive conduct.
And what most people are not aware of is that although censorship is much more of a prevalent issue now, This actually started with anti-competitive behavior because they pushed all of their competition out of the way and yet could never be held accountable for it.
That's what's made them into the Leviathans that they are today is they essentially wiped out everyone in their path.
All right, we're going to come back with Jason Fick and tell people if there is a way to get in touch with you how they would do that.
By the way, is there a way for people to...
Absolutely.
Well, as you learned last night, I'm on Twitter, at Jason Fick.
You can just look me up on Twitter.
Spell Fick.
Fick is not...
Yes, it's Jason, J-A-S-O-N, F as in Frank, Y-K. You'll see it on the screen if you can see it.
But if you look me up on there, I'm generally pretty active on Twitter now that Elon's taking it over.
All right, back in a moment.
Most pressing issue of the day.
A one-man battering ram at the big tech people who hide behind Section 230 and are immune to lawsuits, even though they are the greatest censoring devices in American history.
Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc.
I know well because of my own experiences through PragerU and you don't Need your own experiences.
Just if you search certain things, how much you won't find on a Google search, or it won't come up until the sixth page of results.
Whether it's about the vaccine, or about the accusation that there was collusion between Russia and the Trump.
Campaign, whatever the subject might be.
We have had a hundred PragerU videos placed on the restricted list by YouTube, which means that if you have any filters against pornography and violence, you wouldn't be able to see that PragerU video.
So, Jason Fick, by the way, it's FYK, so if you want to follow him.
You have a lawsuit against Facebook, is that correct?
Well, at the moment, I have to sort of say no.
We actually just got done in the Supreme Court, and unfortunately, the Supreme Court just denied our cert.
We had gone there for the second time.
We are wrestling over the same question that has yet to be answered by the courts, and it really comes down to whether or not Section 230C1 applies to...
All publishing decisions or no publishing decisions.
It really comes down to that decision, whether it protects all conduct or no conduct.
And the reason for that is that if you cannot be treated as a publisher yet while acting as a publisher, therefore you cannot be treated as yourself.
And that doesn't make any logical sense, yet that's how the courts have imparted this law to protect absolutely everything.
But that's really not how it should work.
It should be that they are not held accountable for what somebody else does, somebody else's conduct and the substance of their content.
That's really how this should be working.
So, again, I want everybody to understand this because you're so involved in this.
This is stuff I could wake you up at 4 a.m.
and you could recite.
But I think people need to understand what it means to be treated as a publisher.
Well, let me, if I may, let me tell you a quick story about what happened.
Like, what specifically happened to me.
This predates all of the political censorship.
But back in 20, I would say 2012, 2013, I had somewhere around 17 million fans.
I was making a lot of money because we were not restricted back in those days.
We were getting billions of hits.
And I probably had about, we were making about 300 grand a month.
Well, Facebook's business model comes along.
And if you notice, it's very different than other websites.
Other websites have side ads.
They have top ads.
But with regards to Facebook, Google, and Twitter, they were selling space within the same feed that our content goes in.
Well, that creates a misalignment between these companies and us because they are financially incentivized to develop content and put it in their feed.
That means that they had to get us out of the feed.
And when I say us, I mean everybody.
Every single user was promised reach, but then all of a sudden we were finding rules like spam that are completely arbitrary, and they were pushing us out of the feed.
Well, all that did was it metastasized into what we now see today with the censorship.
But in those days, what happened is it pushed me out of the feed.
They wiped my pages out.
They claim somehow that it's objectionable.
But in my circumstance, we caught them red-handed because my content was shut down, completely deleted on six of my pages.
And I went to a competitor and I asked them to check with the reps if they could reinstate the pages.
Well, the reps came back from Facebook and said, not if I own them, but if that other company, my competitor, in a straight-line competition, if they owned it, they would reinstate it for them.
Meaning the substance of my content is not even remotely at issue.
It's not the content.
It was who owned it and who was more valuable to them.
Well, now think of that in the context of what information is more valuable to them.
That was financial.
You know, today it's about what information they agree with, right?
Which is much more geared towards what Prager was involved with with YouTube.
So fast forward, we sue and we allege an anti-competitive misconduct.
And they said I was treating them as a publisher and under 231, I can't treat them as a publisher because the content originated with me.
Well, this is not a simple, or excuse me, this is not a very complicated question.
My content was produced by me.
Therefore, I am the publisher or speaker of my content.
Therefore, under 230C1, I should not be able to treat them as me.
My lawsuit never sought to treat Facebook as me, the publisher or speaker.
And unfortunately, because of sloppy draftsmanship, many of these courts believe that it says a publisher, which is indefinite.
We don't know who that publisher is, but the publisher or speaker is specific.
Well, in changing it, it means that...
They simply can't be treated as a publisher because the content originated with somebody else, which means they can't even be treated as themselves.
So the court prevented me from treating Facebook as Facebook simply because my content was involved when there was no actual improper content.
It got all confused.
It became essentially this superimmunity.
And we're trying to say to the courts, Which I believe I have an op-ed article coming out on Western Journal either today or tomorrow that explains this problem.
Every word of the law is important and that it is not up for the courts to decide what the legislation meant if the words are there.
Read what the text says, apply the statute as it's written, and it would work.
That's it.
What are you going to do now?
We still have conflicting law, even though the Supreme Court hasn't decided not to take our case, which would have been a quick fix because we've already come up with the solutions.
All you have to do is read it.
It's fairly simple.
It's straightforward and textual.
But now that they have decided not to do that, we still have a conflict between the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit.
And we have issues with Gonzalez because For example, the Department of Justice.
We can't do the Gonzalez right now.
We're going to do that another time.
I want people to be able to contact you.
Jason Fick, FYK, on Twitter.
He is a true fighter.
Thank you, sir.
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
▲
Export Selection