I'm back.

Well, things have been pretty crazy around here lately. After a week in wonderful Mexico, during which the Missus came down with bronchitis and strep throat as she is wont to do, I was home for all of 2 days before getting a call from my sister telling me my dad was in the hospital. And it wasn't looking good. So it was a last-minute flight out to California where I did get a chance to see him before he passed away. So after spending the better part of two weeks in Cali, I returned to work to find that my supervisor had been promoted and sent to a different location and his boss's wife had just had a baby so he was out on paternity leave, so needless to say, I've been working a bunch of overtime.And I really haven't had the energy or the inclanation to make fun of jerks on the internet.


But then I heard about this:

Liberals and Conservatives Are Unhappy for Different Reasons

Dennis Prager

 

They talked about this on one of the podcasts I was listening to and I had to see it for myself.

Here's the thesis:

One of the most important differences between the right and the left -- one that greatly helps to explain their differences -- is the difference between unhappy liberals and unhappy conservatives.    
Unhappy conservatives generally believe they are unhappy because life is inherently difficult and tragic, and because they have made some unwise decisions in life.      
But unhappy liberals generally believe they are unhappy because they have been persecuted.    

via GIPHY

Riiiiiiight. "liberals" are the ones who always claim they are being persecuted. That's exactly right.




via GIPHY

Ask unhappy leftists why they are unhappy and they are likely to respond that they are oppressed. This is the primary response given by unhappy leftist women, blacks, Latinos and gays.       

And conservative actors.

Tim Allen Says Being Conservative In Hollywood Is Like Living In 1930s Germany

James Woods retires from acting after saying he's blacklisted because he's conservative

And conservative college students.

Free speech on college campuses shouldn’t just be for liberal students

It’s no secret that college campuses have a liberal bias, but few people understand how that bias affects the treatment of conservative students — even a year after President Donald Trump was inaugurated. Conservatives and Republicans are shamed for their views on college campuses. . . 
“College Republicans are routinely targeted by professional agitators on campus and extreme leftists who refuse to acknowledge free speech when they do not agree with it,” said Ted Dooley, the executive director of the College Republican National Committee.

Oh, and also this columnist who seems awfully familiar somehow. He also seems to have a bit of a persecution complex.

Conservatives: The New Marranos

By Dennis Prager

For those unfamiliar with the term, “Marranos” was the name given to Jews in medieval Spain, especially in the 15th century during the Spanish Inquisition, who secretly maintained their Judaism while living as Catholics in public.

 

Oh dear God! You're not seriously comparing Jews fearing for their lives to American conservatives fearing being snickered at? Are you? You can't possibly.

There is, of course, no Spanish Inquisition in America today – no one is being tortured into confessing what they really believe, and no one is being burned at the stake. But there are millions of Marrano-like Americans: Americans who hold conservative views – especially those who hold to conservative positions on social issues and those who voted for Donald Trump for president.

Millions of Americans who hold conservative and/or pro-Trump views rationally fear being ostracized by their peers, public humiliation, ruined reputations, broken families, losing their job, and being unable to work in their field. 

 Yes, the fear that having voted for the president will result in ostracization, broken families, and being barred from employment, that fear is toooooootally "rational!"

 In terms of the percentage of the population affected, there is no parallel in American history. Coming out as a homosexual prior to the 1960s or ’70s, or publicly announcing that one was member of the Communist Party in the 1950s, would have often led to similar dire consequences in one’s social, work, and family life. But gays and Communist Party members comprised a tiny percentage of the American population. And one of them, Communists, supported true evil.

 Oh my God. Oh my GAWD! Seriously? Right-wing idiots are more oppressed than LGBTs in the 1950s? Or Communists? Who were literally blacklisted?

 Of course, American conservative Marranos don’t live only in the world of music. They are in every profession. We know about the high-profile cases, the conservatives whose careers have been ruined by saying the “wrong” thing or supporting the “wrong” candidate or ballot proposition;

Um, I think you mean we know about racist misogynist  and/or homophobic dicks who have had their careers damaged by being huge dicks in public and embarrassing their employers. But sure, that's totally like having to hide from the Spanish Inquisition.

  But we don’t know about the millions who are just afraid to speak up, who remain silent in a business meeting or at a dinner party when someone casually expresses a view that they strongly disagree with. 

Have you ever been in a normal workplace? Because I can tell you that it's generally the "liberals" or "progressives" who are biting their tongues. But they don't think of themselves as being persecuted like Jews by the Inquisition, they just would rather not have their coworkers roll their eyes at them.

 And honestly, in the real world (and I can say from experience that this goes for both California and Atlanta) if there's one group who never hesitates to tell you their idiotic viewpoint on any issue whether you want them to or not, it's conservatives. They won't fucking shut up about it.

Unhappy Americans on the right blame the problems inherent to life, and they blame themselves.

 Riiiiiight. Because one thing you'll often hear a conservative say is "you know what, I think I was at fault. I must try to do better.

How is Dennis Prager still around?

Today, while browsing through Twitter, in between arguments about whose Memorial Day Tweet was the tackiest and Chuck Woolery defending himself from charges of anti-Semitism by saying "hey, you know who else is a Jew? That Bernie Sanders! (Hashtag #Jew, I kid you not.)" I discovered something. Dennis Prager is still around. And someone is paying him to write stuff.

Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump

‌

by Dennis Prager May 30, 2017 12:00 AM

Okay, first of all, I can't really think of a single prominent conservative that has "attacked" Trump. Well, maybe Joe Scarborough, although he sure as hell fluffed him during the campaign. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and bet that Prager doesn't name any of these so-called "anti-Trump comservatives" anywhere in his column.

Trump is too far from their ideal leader for some conservatives to support him.

When people you know well and admire, and who share your values, do something you strongly oppose, you have two options:
(1) Cease admiring them or (2) try to understand them and change their minds.

Or you could grow the fuck up and realize that you don't have to agree on everything to be friends? Or you could publicly denounce them and excise them from your life? Or you could maybe take a moment to consider that maybe you are the one that's wrong? Honestly, there are way more than two options.

In the case of my conservative friends who still snipe (or worse) at President Trump, I have rejected option one. The reason — beside the fact that I simply like many of them — is what I refer to as “moral bank accounts.”

Every time we do good, we make a deposit into our moral bank account. And every time we do something bad, we make a withdrawal. These conservatives have made so many deposits into their moral bank accounts that, in my view, their accounts all remain firmly in the black.

Well, as we like to say here at the Daily Irritant, name one. Name one positive thing that any of your conservative friends has done.


via GIPHY

That's what I thought.

That means my only choice is option two. But to try to change their minds, I must first try to understand their thinking.

‌

I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today.

Oh! Oh!~ I know! Is it because they realize that Trump is a walking personality disorder with neither the experience, intelligence nor temperament for the office?

Or wait, wait, is it because their suspicions about Trump's inability to do the most difficult job in the world were confirmed by his laughable performance so far?

The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake.

Oh. Okay, I was never going to guess that. But in all fairness, you didn't tell me that the mystery took place in 1862.

While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do.

Ooohhh. so the problem is that they aren't paranoid or delusional enough?
 Or is it that they don't understand what Trump's supporters get instinctively, that this could be their last chance to turn this country back into a Jim Crow, theocratic white man's paradise?

That is why, after vigorously opposing Trump’s candidacy during the Republican primaries, I vigorously supported him once he won the nomination. I believed then, as I do now, that America was doomed if a Democrat had been elected president.

Oh, of course. Gosh, we still may never recover from the growth and prosperity of the Bill Clinton administration, or Barack Obama's righting of the economic ship.  Hopefully, another Bush-style recession can save us!

With the Supreme Court and hundreds of additional federal judgeships in the balance; with the Democrats’ relentless push toward European-style socialism — completely undoing the unique American value of limited government; the misuse of the government to suppress conservative speech; the continuing degradation of our universities and high schools; the weakening of the American military; and so much more, America, as envisioned by the Founders, would have been lost, perhaps irreversibly. 

Oh, yeah. It would be awful if all thoise things that never happened at all even once were allowed to continue to, um. . . happen?
Can you give one example - just one - of the government suppressing Conservative speech? No, you can't. Because it never happened.
Can you give a single example of our military becoming weakened? No, you can't. Because it never happened.
And how many Democrats are pushing for European-style socialism? Even if you caount Independent Bernie Sanders, that's one. You think friend-of-Wall-Street Hillary Clinton was going to push for socialism? I wish! And before you spit on European socialism, I suggest you travel a bit in Europe. Because I've been a few times and people seem perfectly happy there. If European socialism was so dreadful, the citizens of these democratic countries could easily vote to replace it. The fact that

The “fundamental transformation” that candidate Barack Obama promised in 2008 would have been completed by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And by "fundamental transformation," you mean more people now having the ability to see doctors and get medicine.  Because that's really the biggest change I can think of from the Obama Administration. Oh, my God, what if Hillary had completed this? What if even more people got access to doctors? And medicine?

To my amazement, no anti-Trump conservative writer sees it that way. They all thought during the election, and still think, that while it would not have been a good thing if Hillary Clinton had won, it wouldn’t have been a catastrophe either.

Wow, that really sums up Hillary Clinton in a nutshell. Wouldn't have been great, but not terrible. As opposed to electing a narcissistic man-baby conspiracy theorist with the attention span of a gnat.

That’s it, in a nutshell. Many conservatives, including me, believe that it would have been close to over for America as America if the Republican candidate, who happened to be a flawed man named Donald Trump, had not won. Moreover, I am certain that only Donald Trump would have defeated Hillary Clinton.

So you'd rather have a senile sociopath with serious impulse control leaking classified information all over the globe than a dull, middling centrist who might do what, nominate a judge who would uphold Roe v Wade?

In other words, I believe that Donald Trump may have saved the country. And that, in my book, covers a lot of sins — foolish tweets, included.

Really. This guy?

This is the guy you think is going to "save America?"

Not this guy:




But this guy?

The Never Trump conservative argument that Trump is not a conservative — one that I, too, made repeatedly during the Republican primaries — is not only no longer relevant, it is no longer true.

Really? He became a conservative in 6 months? And you think this mercurial, capricious nature is a positive attribute?

Had any Never Trump conservative been told, say in the summer of 2015, that a Republican would win the 2016 election and, within his first few months in office, appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court; begin the process of replacing Obamacare; bomb Russia’s ally Assad after he again used chemical weapons; appoint the most conservative cabinet in modern American history; begin undoing hysteria-based, economy-choking EPA regulations; label the Iranian regime “evil” in front of 50 Muslim heads of state; wear a yarmulke at the Western Wall;

Um. . .

 I'm not really sure why you get bonus points for knowing the proper headgear to wear to one of Israel's holiest sites, but if you're giving out these points, you gotta give 'em to the last couple guys too.

Also, I don't know why you get any points for appointing the judge that Heritage and the Federalsit society told you to appoint. I mean, contrary to what Mitch McConnell may say, appointing judges is just part of the president's job. And when your party controls the Senate, it's not even a challenging part.
And why anyone gets any points for removing rules that keep the air breathable and the water drinkable and keeps rivers from catching fire is beyond me.

 And you neglected to mention that he also appointed the least qualified cabinet in history.

Anyway, it goes on for a while and I have to turn in, but let me just note for the record that nowhere in this ridiculous screed does Prager mention a single "anti-Trump conservative." So I win that bet!

a a

Good news, rape culture is over!

(TW: Rape)


Recently, a fraternity on the Georgia Tech campus got itself into a bit of bother over the occasional rapes taking place in its house and the frat's explicit encouragement of such behavior.

'Rapebait' Frat Encouraged Sexual Violence, Lawsuits Claim

Posted: 10/31/2014 3:06 pm EDT

A member of a Georgia Tech fraternity sexually assaulted two women using the playbook described in a "luring your rapebait" email, two lawsuits filed this week against Phi Kappa Tau claim.
The Alpha Rho chapter of PKT turned a blind eye to red flags that brothers were encouraging each other to sexually assault women, the suits allege, including the "rapebait" email, songs joking about sexual violence, and chapter meeting minutes declaring "rape is good." The two suits contain nearly identical allegations but each is filed on behalf of a different plaintiff.

 The fraternity chapter has been disbanded, and apparently that has completely solved the problem of on-campus rape culture.  At least according to this guy:

Sarasota speaker: There is no campus 'culture of rape'

 

And who is this speaker with such expert knowledge of collegiate culture? Why, no less an authority than  Dennis Prager of course!


Because who would know better what goes on in today's universities than this guy?

 

To be fair, his wife may actually be an undergrad.

 So here's what he had to say about rape culture on college campuses:

“It’s a gargantuan lie to get votes. It’s as big a lie as the culture of rape on your campuses. What nonsense. There is a culture of rape on campuses run by the feminist left?
What do you cite to sell me this nonsense?

Well, I guess I might cite the fact that a large number of women get sexually assaulted on campus?

  One in 5 women are sexually assaulted on campuses. Do you know what sexual assault means? Did you ever look at what counts? An unwanted kiss is considered sexual assault. 

Well, yes. I'm not sure why it wouldn't  be. Well, I guess I'll let the expert explain why not.

An unwanted kiss is considered sexual assault. I’m stunned it's only 1 in 5. Four out of five women have not gotten an unwanted kiss? My wife gets unwanted kisses every so often.
(laughter)

Oh, now I get it! If I kiss my wife at a time when she doesn't feel like smooching, maybe she's annoyed with me or feeling unattracted to me because I look like a potato in a Bobby Cremins wig, 

 

                           +

  

 

________________________________________ 

 

Anyway, that's obviously the same thing as a stranger trying to shove his tongue down a woman's throat like he's Fitzgerald Grant and she's Olivia Pope.  That wouldn't be horrifying at all!

They make light of rape because they redefine these terms. We don’t make light of it. We think it is the worst thing possible short of murder. But they make light of it by trivializing it. Culture of Rape? No. I’ll tell you why it exists on the campus, and that is: a rape of the culture.”

So there you have it. Problem solved! feel free to send your daughters off to college secure in the knowledge that rape culture doesn't exist, it was all just a problem with mis-defining the terms. What a relief!

There is really a special place in hell for people like Prager. I don't understand why these people always feel the need to stand up for the assholes. Or maybe it's just that they feel some need to stand up for the powerful against the less powerful. Whether it's taking selfies in line at Chic-Fil-A or "standing with" the Duck Dynasty creep, these people will always rush to the defense of those who neither need or deserve defending. So of course these scumbags are going to side with fratboy rapists over their victims. It's some kind of sick pathology with people like this.

Okay, Phil is a millionaire with his own television show who is regularly given a platform to air his twisted views by various magazines and radio shows. He doesn't need you to stand with him.

Um, Israel has the strongest military in the region because of millions of dollars in US support. Support for Israel is the sine qua non of American foreign policy. Even criticizing Israel can make you a pariah amongst the conventional-wisdom-mainstream pundit class, just ask Jimmy Carter. Israel doesn't need some teenybopper in a T-shirt to stand with it. 

 

Chic-fil-A is an extremely successful company with over 1,800 locations. They are hugely profitable, thanks to using almost no actual chicken in their chicken sandwiches. They are not some poor little mom-and-pop restaurant being bullied by the all-powerful gay lobby or whatever you think they are being bullied by. They don't need your help.

But any time the powerful are in any way challenged by the less powerful, right-wing scumbags will rise to their defense and call it courage. Pathetic!

Dumbest Person Gives Dumbest Defense

I thought I had heard the absolute dumbest defense of the Washington Football team name when the Missus told me that she heard some doofus on the radio explaining that the name can't possibly be racist, because it's been around for 90 years, and nothing racist lasts that long. 

You know, unless you count slavery. Or Jim Crow. Or the Native American genocide. But yeah, racist things never last long.

But no, that was not actually the dumbest defense. That defense can only be delivered by someone as dumb as Dennis Prager.

And the only person as dumb as Dennis Prager is, of course, Dennis Prager.

Why the Left’s Preoccupation with the Redskins?

Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014

 

 

Buckle your seatbelts, folks, it's gonna get pretty stupid in here!

 

Given how much evil there is in the world; given how many signs of moral, intellectual and economic decline there are here in America; and given the increasing irrelevance of America to world events, it is fair to ask why the American Left is preoccupied with the name Washington “Redskins.”

 

 

Yes, with all the terrible things going on in the world, why would someone waste their time worrying about the Washington team name, asks the man who is writing his column about the Washington team name.

 

The Washington Redskins have been in existence for 82 years. For about 80 of those years, virtually no one, including the vast majority of American Indians, was troubled by the name.

 

And no one knows what did and didn't bother the Native American community than this guy!

 

 

 

The pressure is relentless. There is more concern in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times — not to mention the rest of the left — with the Redskins than with Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups for investigation

 

Well, yeah, that is true. There is more concern about a racist sports team name than there is with that thing that didn't happen. That thing that only the most pathetic hacks even bother to pretend actually happened.

 

 

Pictured: The most pathetic hack

The angry will tell you that the name “Redskins” is profoundly offensive to American Indians and that they — the angry — are simply more sensitive to racial slurs than others.
This explanation is self-serving, but insufficient.

No, that's sufficient. The name is offensive, that's pretty much all the explanation necessary.

 The great majority of American Indians understandably just don’t care.

Um. . . says who? We're just supposed to take your word for it, Prager? Do you even know any Native Americans?

Like heterosexual AIDS and so many other crises, this has been entirely manufactured by the left.

Um, what? Are you under the impression that heteroes don't get AIDS? Do you think it's some sort of myth manufactured by the Left?

Since 1947, there has been a movie theater, the Redskins Theatre (with the same logo as the football team), in Anadarko, Oklahoma, a city whose population is divided evenly between Indians and whites, and which calls itself the “Indian Capital of the Nation.” Why, in 67 years, have the Indian populations of Anadarko and Oklahoma not changed this theater’s name?

Because the left hadn’t made it an issue. It’s not an Indian issue; it’s a left-wing issue.

Oh, well that settles it, then. There's a movie theater with that name, so it can't possibly be offensive. That really makes sense.

And why is the left so preoccupied?

It isn’t because they are more morally sensitive to injustice. That is what the left believes about itself. But there are other reasons for the manufactured hysteria about the Redskins name. Here are some:

Um, I don't think you have any idea what the word "hysteria" means.

hys·te·ri·a

/hɪˈstɛriə, -ˈstɪər-/ Show Spelled [hi-ster-ee-uh, -steer-] 

noun

1. an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.

I don't think saying "hey, that name is racist, you should change it" really qualifies as "hysteria." But please, do go on with your "reasons."

First, there is a rule in life: Those who do not confront the greatest evils will confront much lesser evils or simply manufacture alleged evils that they then confront.

No, that's not a rule. That's just some gibberish you made up, On what are you basing this?

This has been a dominant characteristic of the Left for at least half a century. The greatest evils since World War II have been Communism and, since the demise of Communism in the Soviet Union and most other Communist countries, violent Islam — or, as it often called, Islamism.

Okay, let's talk about World War II. Who was it again that wanted to go fight Hitler? And which side of the aisle was it that wanted to be isolationist, and tried to prevent FDR from assisting England in their struggle against the Nazis? And for that matter, was it the Left or the Right that voluntarily went to Spain to fight against Franco's fascist takeover? Ah, who remembers? Oh, wait. Everyone remembers, you disingenuous little weasel.

 Islamism is the belief that Sharia (Islamic law) must be imposed wherever possible on a society, beginning, of course, with Muslim-majority countries. These Islamists are, as the British historian Andrew Roberts has noted, the fourth incarnation of fascism — first there was fascism, then Nazism, then communism, and now Islamism.

I thought we were talking about the football team and its racist name? But, sure, why pass up a chance to conflate fascism with communism and both of them with Islam?

For many years, most of the Western left was supportive of communism, and after the 1960s, it was simply hostile to anti-communists. The left was far more concerned with attacking America than with attacking the Soviet Union. So, too, today, the left is far more concerned with attacking America — its alleged racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and economic inequality — than with fighting Islamism.

 Damn those lefties and their lack of desire to attack the Soviet Union! We'd have been greeted as liberators!

Also, we've spent the last, what, thirteen years fighting wars that are ostensibly battles against Islamism, what the fuck more do you want? And I'm pretty sure we can fight Islamism and also critique the US's racism, sexism and homophobia at the same time. We're multi-taskers.

Second, the corollary to the above is that those who do not fight the greatest evils invariably loathe those who do.

Yes, that's why those who do not fight fires always hate firefighters so darn much!
And those who don't fight criminals hate the cops who fight them on our behalf.

 

 

Pictured: The most hated men in America.

 



 Second, the corollary to the above is that those who do not fight the greatest evils invariably loathe those who do. The left hated American anti-communists much more than it hated communists. The left today hates traditional America much more than it hates traditional Islamists. The Redskins name is a symbol of that hated America

Yeah, the left hated anti-communists because they tended to be right-wing reactionaries and a lot of Lefties were a bit naïve about what life in the USSR was really like. But if you're saying that the Left likes the people who stone adulterers, ban homosexuals, and force women into burkas, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what a Leftie is.
And the Redskins name, how is that a symbol of America? The Bald Eagle is a symbol of America. Uncle Sam is a symbol of America, the term "Redskins" is a racial slur directed at the people that America tried to wipe off the face of the continent.

Third, the left has huge nostalgia for the sixties. In the left’s eyes, virtually every one of its causes is as morally urgent as the civil rights battles on behalf of blacks (for which it falsely claims exclusive credit).

 

 



Seriously, show me one example of anyone claiming exclusive credit for the civil rights gains of "the blacks." Also, whenever anyone refers to black people as "blacks," it automatically sets off the racist alarm. Not that the term is necessarily racist, but it just tends to be used by the Archie Bunker types.

Fourth, aside from tearing down another American tradition, and showing how awful America was and remains, the motivating issue here is left-wing self-esteem. Remember it was the left that developed the self-esteem movement. And nobody feels as good about themselves as the left does when it finds another American moral flaw, especially when that flaw is another example of “intolerance,” and racism.

Yeah, and they really had to do some fucking detective work to find the hidden racism in the use of a fucking racial slur as a team name.

Fifth, and finally, the left is totalitarian at heart. Whenever possible, they seek control of others; and they love to throw their considerable weight around. The left-wing president does it so often that the Supreme Court has unanimously shot down his attempts on a dozen occasions.

Wait, would this be the left-wing president whose healthcare plan came from the Heritage Foundation? The Left-Wing President who has reduced the deficit every year? The left-winger who bailed out the banks and the auto-making corporations without holding any executives accountable for any of their misdeeds? The left-wing president under whom the stock market has hit record highs? That dirty commie?

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, under huge pressure from leftists, just dropped conservative Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist George Will.

Let me re-phrase that. The St Louis Post-Dispatch, under pressure from decent human beings just dropped right-wing hack and rape apologist George Will. Although to date, they are the only one out of the scores of papers who run his drivel that has seen fit to rid themselves of this smug little prick, so yeah, those leftists sure have a lot of clout!
That's better.

Under pressure from left-wing professors and students, Brandeis and other universities dropped the few conservative speakers they had invited to this year’s commencement exercises.

Or, one could say that under pressure from decent human beings, Brandeis and other universities saw fit to cancel their plans to have war criminals give commencement addresses.

Forcing the Redskins to do their will is just the left’s latest attempt to force its views on the vast majority of its fellow citizens. That’s why it’s worth fighting for the Redskins. Today it’s the Redskins,tomorrow it’s you.

So, to sum up, the reason the Washington football team should not change its blatantly racist name is that, um, lefties want it to and they're a bunch of jerks, so keep the racist name because Injuns don't mind being called slurs? Am I close here?


Oh, and also, First they came for the NFL team with the racist name and I said nothing because I was not an NFL team. . .

Dumbest defense ever.

 

Some People Apparently Give A Shit What Dennis Prager Thinks.

When I lived in Southern California back in the early 1990's, there was a radio talkshow host named Dennis Prager. A self-righteous, preachy windbag, he was popular enough to have a mercifully short-lived TV show. A weird weird TV show. It was filmed on a set which looked like it was supposed to be someone's living room, and Prager held court in the big chair surrounded by sycophants who gathered around him like the Disciples around Jesus Christ seeking his moral guidance.

Anyway, I thought he had disappeared from the scene years ago. But flash forward 20 years, and here he is writing for Nutbag Central, aka The National review Online.

And here is the issue upon which Mr. Prager has chosen to opine:

Dennis Prager

February 16, 2010 12:00 A.M.

The Doritos Ad Wasn’t Funny

That would be the Doritos ad from the SuperBowl. So, way to be up on the latest news, Dennis!
(you can watch the ad here)

By far the most popular ad shown during the latest Super Bowl. . . was the Doritos “House Rules” ad. Tens of millions of Americans saw it as hilarious.

That is unfortunate. Anyone aware of the manifold social pathologies the ad depicted did not find much to laugh about.

See, I just thought it was dumb. I missed the "manifold social pathologies."

Here are the major elements of dysfunctionality this ad depicts:

First, a child smacking an adult across the face is not funny. It is, in fact, one of the last things society should tolerate.

Now an adult smacking a child? Hilarious!
I would think you'd be more concerned with children being hit by adults, women being hit by men, etc. but the adult being hit by a small child, yeah that's what we should be up in arms about.

In real life, a child who hits an adult needs to be disciplined. If a child did that to me, I would grab his offending arm and apply enough force to make it clear that he will never do that again.

Then I'd feel like a big man!
Take that, five year old boy!

After I mentioned this on my radio show, some psychotherapists sent me e-mails disagreeing with these views. They noted, for example, that “violence breeds violence.”

Some clichés are true; I find this one meaningless.The truth is very different: Immoral violence breeds violence; moral violence (such as just wars, police work, and appropriate parental discipline) reduces violence.

Moral violence? Does kicking Dennis Prager in the nuts count?
Dennis clearly knows more about this subject than some bunch of psychotherapists! All they have is years of study and practice and some fancy degrees. Dennis has a philosophy! And his philosophy differentiates between moral and immoral violence. Never mind that concepts like what kind of violence is moral, or which wars are just are completely subjective. (I'm quite sure the 9/11 hijackers thought that their violence was morally justified) If there's any doubt, I'm sure Dennis will be available to decide what is just and moral.

It is a given that I do not defend physical — or any other form of — abuse against a child. Of all the world’s evils, child abuse may rank as the greatest. But a properly administered spanking is not abuse.

It's not abuse if you define it as "not abuse." Just like waterboarding isn't torture if you define it as "not torture."

The Doritos kid deserved a physical response from this man. . . With regard to the argument that this man was not the boy’s parent — and the terrible fact that there is far too much hitting and abuse of children by stepfathers and boyfriends — I do not believe that only parents may physically respond to a child.

There is far too much hitting of children. Also, not enough hitting of children.

I do not believe that only parents may physically respond to a child. Teachers, for example, should be permitted to do so — I was physically dealt with by a number of teachers, and in every case I deserved it.

That's right, Dennis, kiss the whip!

I was physically dealt with by a number of teachers, and in every case I deserved it. I also did so as a camp counselor — to great effect.

Send your kids to Dennis Prager's Spankaway Camp!

And so should the man whom the child in the ad smacked. In an ideal world, all adults raise all children in some way.

So. . . it takes a village?

Second, the two adults in this ad act, to say the least, very irresponsibly.

The man acts and speaks like a lecher and moron. And the woman should not have exuded sexuality for a date in front of her little boy.

Um, I think the guy speaks like a moron because he's speaking to a small child and trying to talk on the child's level. And it's not really the mom's fault that she's hot.

Those who argue that the boy was just defending his mom may well be right. But that only further reinforces the point of what a dysfunctional scene the ad was portraying: A leering man, a mother dressed in a sexually provocative way, and a sexually aware child who essentially serves as man of the house at the age of five.

Sexually provocative? Really? I mean, she's not exactly wearing a nun's habit, but it's not like she's flouncing around in a negligee. But, hey thanks for the family values lesson, Mr. on-his-third-marriage-to-a-woman-young-enough-to-be-your-daughter.

Dennis Prager Marries For Third Time

Now, would you like to take this opportunity to make this even worse? You would? Oh, boy!

Finally, people only find funny that which has some truth in it. Would this ad have worked as well if the characters depicted were all, let us say, Asian-American? Would it have been as effective if it portrayed whites acting this way?

Oh, God. Here it comes!

Tragically, it worked in part because the characters were African-American. The unimpressive sex-on-the-mind male, the sexually provocative single mother, and the prematurely sexually aware and violent boy who is man of the house were familiar — either as an inaccurate white stereotype of much of urban black life, or as an accurate stereotype of much of urban black life.

Oh Damn! No you didn't!

He does have a point, though. White men have no interest in sex.



And white women never dress provocatively or have children out of wedlock.



So, yeah. I can see why people would go to Dennis Prager for moral guidance. You know, if Mel Gibson is too busy.


PS--Here are a couple of fun facts about Dennis Prager from his bio:

Dennis writes: "I vividly recall the moment when, as a boy in sixth grade, I heard the news that Caryl Chessman was executed.

"Because Chessman was executed for rape, the notion that rape is a horror stayed with me almost all of my life." ( The Prager Perspective, June 15, 1997)

ALMOST all my life. You know, I got over it.

"He never fought with his older brother. They wrestled a lot in the basement."

"Anybody who knows, who has read me, who has heard me, who has my four CDs on male sexuality, if there is anybody who is not hung up about that subject is yours truly.

Obviously, not hung up on sex, I mean only 4 CD's on the subject?

Several of Prager's classmates in high school remember him as a loudmouth who was not particularly good at reading whether people were interested in hearing what he had to say

Shocking!

On his radio show Jan. 14, 2010, Dennis said: "When I am with boys and I love being with boys, I do, I always have, I have an affinity, even an emotional affinity, little girls are cute but I must admit that if I could spend a weekend with ten-year-old girls or ten-year-old boys, I'd opt for the ten-year-old-boys because I feel like I have more to say to them... When I meet boys, I am extremely aware that I want to come off to them as an adult and not like a boy.

Creeeeeepyyyyyy!!!

And finally,

Dennis says that he has never experienced antisemitism in America.

Sure, I guess when you give people so many other reasons to dislike you. . .