The Media Produces Derangement: Proof From New York Times Readers

This past weekend, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd added another column to the myriad irrational and hysterical pieces about the “existential threat” climate change allegedly poses to human life.

As I do after almost every piece I read on the internet, I read comments submitted by readers.

One provided me with an epiphany.

It was a comment submitted by New York Times reader “Sophia” of Bangor, Maine:

“I have one child, a daughter, who told me age 8 that she would never have a child because of global warming. She’s now 34 and has never changed her mind. So I will not experience a grandchild. For her wisdom, I am grateful. I would be heartsick if I did have a grandchild who would have to experience the onslaught of changing climate.”

It is hard to imagine greater proof than that comment of the power of mass media and of the left. That a normal woman would celebrate her daughter’s choice not to be a mother and not to make her a grandmother can only be described as deranged. No normal-thinking human being would think that way. Jews had children during the Holocaust and made sure to have children if they survived the Holocaust.

Does this deranged woman know how few people are dying due to weather-related incidents in the era of global warming?

Danish statistician and economist Bjorn Lomborg noted this past week:

“Over the past hundred years, annual climate-related deaths have declined by more than 96%. In the 1920s, the death count from climate-related disasters was 485,000 on average every year. In the last full decade, 2010-2019, the average was 18,362 dead per year, or 96.2% lower.

“In the first year of the new decade, 2020, the number of dead was even lower at 14,893 — 97% lower than the 1920s average …

“The preliminary estimate of 2021 climate-related deaths (is) 5,569 or 98.9% lower than the 1920s …

“The newest Lancet study of heat and cold deaths show(s) that cold ‘vastly’ outweigh heat, and that climate actually has dramatically lowered (the number of) total death(s) … “

Of course, none of that matters to Sophia — because she relies on The New York Times (and probably NPR and CNN) for her understanding of the world.

For more proof of how deranged many New York Times readers — and Washington Post readers, CNN viewers and NPR listeners — are because they rely on these sources for what they believe about the world, here are some replies to Sophia’s comment from other New York Times readers:

B. Rothman, New York City: “I completely agree. I have 6 grandchildren and weep inside for the calamitous life that is ahead for them.”

Ida Martinac, Berkeley, California: “I weep with you, Sophia. Whenever I look my 11 year old daughter in the eyes I feel so many emotions: guilt for bringing her into this dying world.”

Liberal, Texas: “I feel your pain. I have 2 sons. Neither one will have children and their partners agree. I’ll never have grandchildren. But I also realize that their decisions have in some way been molded by me. I am proud of their decision.”

Liz, Portland: “Frankly, as someone who has been concerned about climate change, and observing what is happening over the last ten years with real dread, I do not understand why anyone in the last ten years would voluntarily have a child.”

CC, Sonoma, California: “My only daughter shares your daughter’s feelings. I will have no grandchildren. As I watch my peers enjoying their final years surrounded by grandchildren, I can’t help feeling a little jealous. At the same time … our daughters are stepping up to the challenge. I’m proud of them.”

Marisa Leaf, Brooklyn, New York: “I, too, am coming to terms and accepting that my 36 year old son will not have a child as well — for stated reasons. It is painful for me when I watch other young men and women his age going about town with their children. But I understand, and concur, on an intellectual level, that of course they’re right. Bringing more children into the world these days is an existential worry. And irresponsible. So, as I grieve for our planet, I also grieve for the grandchildren that I will never have.”

What do all these deranged reactions have in common? How could so many people living in the healthiest, wealthiest society in human history welcome not having grandchildren?

The answer is they have been brainwashed by the media (and college). They have read and heard nothing — absolutely nothing — by scientists and scholars (such as Steve Koonin of NYU, Richard Lindzen of MIT or William Happer of Princeton, to name just three) who have studied climate change and found the hysteria morally as well as scientifically indefensible. It is not possible to live a life insulated from left-wing ideas. But it is extraordinarily easy to lead a life insulated from all non-left-wing ideas.

So, then, the epiphany I had was this: A majority of people will believe anything the mass media tell them. This is especially true of those who received a college education. Colleges teach students not to question, not think for themselves and not to think rationally.

That is why many people believe the world is coming to an end; it is good not to have children or grandchildren; men give birth; Russia colluded with the Trump campaign; Israel is an apartheid state; all-black dormitories on college campuses are progressive; there should be fewer police; it is fair to women to allow biological men to compete in women’s sports; and myriad other absurdities.

There is no other explanation for these deluded readers of The New York Times.

However, I do agree with them on one point. I, too, support their children’s decisions not to have children. The world doesn’t need more fools.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

Last Updated: Monday, Jul 26, 2021 18:46:32 -0700




You Have a Right To Be Transgender. You Don’t Have a Right To Expose Yourself To Women

How many examples could one give to show what a sick world left-wing activists, the media and the Democrats — the left’s political party — have wrought? The number is equal to the number of policies they advocate.

There is no more obvious example than their position on the display of a penis in front of girls and women.

No issue — with the possible exceptions of defunding police departments as murders increase and biological men competing in women’s sports — better reveals the moral and rational decline of an individual or institution. If anyone you care about defends a person’s right to display their penis in front of a group of girls and women, my heart goes out to you. It is very painful to lose respect for a loved one.

Within the lifetime of even the youngest person reading this column, exposing the male organ to strangers, especially women and girls, was considered sick and criminal. Men who did it were arrested and charged with indecent exposure, and rightly so. In the span of a few years, thanks to the schools people still send their children to, and thanks to the media people still watch, listen to and read, exposing one’s penis is to be considered wholesome and not only legal but a fundamental civil right.

A couple of weeks ago at a spa in Los Angeles, a biological man walked into a women’s changing area completely naked. Needless to say, the girls and women were shocked to see this naked man, but thanks to progressive politicians in California, if a man says he is a woman, this individual can go to any place heretofore reserved to women.

Women’s colleges, for example, must accept anyone who claims to be a woman. But to show how intellectually dishonest progressives and women’s colleges are, if a female student at a women’s college decides she is a man, she/he is allowed to remain a student there. Either they do not believe that a girl who transitions to a male is really a male or they no longer believe they are a women’s college.

A Los Angeles Times editorial defending the right of the biological man to expose his penis to girls and women illustrates the intellectual and moral state of the left.

Take, for example, this sentence from the editorial:

“There is no doubt that Wi Spa did the right thing in defending the right of a transgender customer to be nude in the women’s area, even though the sight of male-appearing genitalia discomfited at least one female customer, who complained at the front desk.”

Note the Los Angeles Times’ way of describing a penis: “male-appearing genitalia,” not “male genitalia.”

Regarding the discomfort of any of the girls or women at the spa, the Times editorial simply dismissed it: “No one has an absolute right to feel comfortable all the time.” However, that is not the position of the Los Angeles Times or the rest of the left regarding transgender people. The left emphatically insists that trans people have an absolute right to feel comfortable all the time.

But they don’t. A man who identifies as a woman yet retains male genitalia may have a legal right, but not a moral right, to display those genitalia in front of women.

A man who identifies as a man and exposes himself to a woman, let alone to a group of women and girls, is deemed sick and arrested. But, according to the left, a man who says he is a woman and does the exact same thing — with the exact same disturbing effect on women, let alone girls — is to be given universal support. In fact, however, this individual is the apotheosis of narcissism. And is still a man: As one woman pointed out to me, his engaging in such behavior is demonstrative proof that he is still a man (one with an exhibitionist streak). Women don’t expose themselves like that.

Meanwhile, members of antifa, the closest thing America has to the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth), attacked the woman who led the demonstration against the Wi Spa.

Such is the state of America and the West in the year 2021.

When the right of a man — regardless of whether he identifies as a woman — to expose his penis to girls supersedes society’s obligation to protect girls’ innocence and most women’s sense of decency, we have reached a new low.

For those who believe that mankind inexorably heads in a moral direction, the left’s attacks on Western culture, Western norms, freedom of speech, objective truth and Judeo-Christian values should serve as a disturbing wake-up call.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

Last Updated: Monday, Jul 19, 2021 17:29:01 -0700




The Best Thing Most Americans Can Do to Make America Better

Some think tank or polling organization should ask 1,000 Americans: What is the best thing most Americans can do to make the country better?

Presumably, those most influenced by their schooling and by the media would answer something along the lines of: “fight racism” or “work to reduce inequality.” Whatever the specific answer, most young people — and those older who lean left — would most likely respond by citing some form of activism.

Since the early 1960s and ’70s, a moral life has been defined as engaging in activism. One improves America — indeed, one becomes a good person — by fighting for a cause. That cause may be feminism, environmentalism, socialism, material equality, racial equality, LGBTQ+ liberation or the welfare state — free health care, free college tuition, free preschool, free day care, free school breakfasts and lunches, even free income.

This is a massive break with the American past. While there were always causes to champion — the abolition of slavery being the greatest and costliest — most Americans did not think the best thing they could do with their lives was to become a social activist. Indeed, the very term “social activist” is largely a creation of the second half of the 20th century.

Throughout American history until the post-World War II era, had you asked almost any American what constitutes living a good life, he or she would have offered any or all of these five responses:

No. 1: Developing one’s moral character.

No. 2: Getting married and making a good family.

No. 3. Taking care of one’s family, especially one’s parents.

No. 4. Going to church (or synagogue).

No. 5. Taking care of the poor in one’s community, usually by joining a service organization such as a church charity, a Kiwanis, Lions or Rotary Club.

My suspicion is that if one were to ask young people today, and certainly anyone on the left, you would not receive any of those five responses.

Let’s take them in order:

No. 1. Developing one’s moral character.

With the macro-ization of morality, the definition of moral character has changed. It is no longer working on oneself, conquering one’s demons, controlling one’s appetites — in short, fighting one’s flawed nature. When people looked to the Bible for wisdom rather than to their foolish hearts and their foolish teachers (who rely on their own foolish hearts), they knew how flawed human nature is, and therefore knew that character development meant a lifelong struggle with oneself. No longer. Character development now means struggle with a deeply flawed America, not a deeply flawed self.

No. 2. Getting married and making a good family.

That is the single best thing the vast majority of people can do to make a better world. Most college graduates and essentially the entire intellectual elite mock this idea. If a female college student announced on a social medium or in class that her greatest desire was to find a good man and make a family, she would be considered pathetic, brainwashed by “the patriarchy.” If, on the other hand, she announced she would devote her life to a feminist cause or to fighting racial injustice, she would receive almost universal approbation.

Yet, what could be possibly better for society than the great majority of its people marrying and attempting to raise decent people?

No. 3. Taking care of one’s family, especially one’s parents.

This is another traditional definition of leading a good life. However, this has been subverted by three developments: first, the unprecedented number of Americans who have not made a family (i.e., a married couple with children); second, by the state taking care of more and more people — individual citizens, their children and their parents; and third, the unspoken pandemic of adult children who not only do not take care of their parents, but they have also removed them from their lives for personal or political reasons.

No. 4. Going to church (or synagogue).

For the highly educated who believe that religion is irrelevant to character, I have always asked two questions: First, if religion is irrelevant to moral behavior, why are almost no violent criminals regular churchgoers? Second, if you were traveling in a strange city, it was midnight, you were lost, and you saw a group of young men walking toward you, would you or would you not be relieved to learn that they just had attended a Bible class?

No. 5. Joining a service organization.

Almost every American who had the time joined some group that did good in his or her community. Men joined service organizations. Women volunteered in a whole host of charities such as hospitals, schools and churches. There is less volunteering today than at any time in American history.

It’s much more exciting to join a demonstration than to do any of the five things listed. And it comes with the added bonus of thinking well of oneself — without having had to do any of the tough work on one’s own character.

That, in a nutshell, is the genesis of our present existential crisis. People don’t understand that the best thing they can do for this society is to lead an individually good life and raise honorable children, not join a protest movement.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

Last Updated: Monday, Jul 12, 2021 18:17:44 -0700




Wokeness Gone Wild

Attention readers: Dennis Prager is off this week. Please enjoy the following column by Oliver L. North and David L. Goetsch.

Wokeness may be the most absurd, harebrained concept foisted on the American public in our lifetimes. Consider just a few of the actions taken and claims made by proponents of this inane philosophy. Graduate students at Oxford University recently voted to remove a photograph of Queen Elizabeth from a campus common area. The movement was led by an American exchange student, the privileged son of a wealthy Washington, D.C., attorney. This should surprise no one since many proponents of wokeness are white, pampered, mansion-dwelling dilettantes.

These thoroughly indoctrinated students claimed they were protesting Britain’s colonial history. One wonders if they even know their country’s history. After all, were it not for stalwarts like Queen Elizabeth and her predecessors, the British people — including these woke graduate students — would be shouting “Sieg Heil” instead of “God Save the Queen.”

In the United States, woke advocates propose, among other things, the government confiscate all wealth and property and redistribute it according to race. Another claim of the woke crowd is America suffers from systemic racism. Their critical race theory posits white people in America have used and continue to use laws, policies, regulations and societal mores to oppress people of color while ensuring a superior position in society for white people.

Of course, those who make these assertions have trouble explaining a few inconvenient facts, including that America:

  1. fought a long and bloody civil war to end slavery
  2. is the only nation in the world to have an Emancipation Proclamation
  3. elected a Black president, Barack Obama, and a mixed-race vice president, Kamala Harris
  4. passed a broad and sweeping Civil Rights Act almost 60 years ago
  5. amended its Constitution to ensure the rights of its Black citizens (13th, 14th and 15th Amendments)
  6. now has the most racially and ethnically diverse Congress in its history
  7. maintains scores of government offices dedicated to ensuring equal treatment of minorities in housing, education and the workplace

Those of us who thought the woke crowd reached the zenith of absurdity with its claims of systemic racism were wrong. We should have known better. An even more off-the-wall claim was recently made in an article published in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. The article claims “whiteness” is a “malignant, parasitic-like condition” causing those afflicted with it to have “voracious, insatiable, and perverse appetites.” This supposed malady causes those who have it to target nonwhite people for nefarious purposes. In other words, whiteness is a mental illness.

While it is tempting to simply ignore this article as just another example of the senseless drivel passing for scholarship these days, we should note the Journal of the APA supposedly accepts only peer-reviewed articles. This means the article in question had to be reviewed and approved by a panel of the author’s professional peers. Therefore, the author is not some lone voice crying in the wilderness; others in his profession apparently agree with him. If so, this raises some interesting questions. Is the article the result of actual research or biased supposition? Does the article represent true science, or is it pseudo-science masquerading as scholarship? Did the author’s peers really agree with him, or has the APA been so afflicted with wokeness they were afraid to disagree?

Interestingly but not surprisingly, the article claims whiteness can be treated but not cured. In other words, being white makes you the perfect patient for psychoanalysis professionals. They can treat and bill you forever without any expectation of curing you. A convenient diagnosis, is it not? If whiteness is indeed a treatable but incurable malady, business is looking up for the psychoanalysis industry. But this article makes one wonder if it’s the psychoanalyst rather than the patient who should be on the couch.

Oliver L. North is a combat-decorated U.S. Marine, No.1 bestselling author, and founder and CEO of Fidelis Publishing LLC and Fidelis Media LLC. Find out more about him at www.olivernorth.com. David L. Goetsch is a Marine Corps veteran, member of the Florida Veterans Hall of Fame, professor of business, Christian counselor and author of 76 books. Find out more about him at www.david-goetsch.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 OLIVER L. NORTH AND DAVID L. GOETSCH

Last Updated: Friday, Jul 02, 2021 18:34:43 -0700




Be Safe: Don’t Visit Your Dying Parent. Don’t Leave Your House. Don’t Get Married. Don’t Have Children. Don’t…

As many observers have noted, staying safe has become a religion. “Safetyism,” as it is sometimes called, like all religions, places what it values — in this case, being safe — above other values. Safetyism explains the willingness of Americans to give up their most cherished values — including liberty — in the name of safety for the last year and a half.

Millions of Americans not only gave up their right to go to work, earn a living, attend church or synagogue, and visit friends and relatives, but they even gave up their right to visit dying relatives and friends. One can assume that nearly every person recorded as having died of COVID-19 died without having a single loved one at their bedside from the moment they entered a hospital until their death. The acceptance of such cruelty — irrational and unscientific cruelty, one might add — can only be explained by the failure of generations of schools and parents to teach liberty, while successfully teaching the worship of safety. If your father had to die alone, it was worth it for the sake of safety; if your mother had to be in what amounted to solitary confinement in a nursing home for more than a year, that, too, was worth it for the sake of safety. And, of course, if political leaders and leaders in science and medicine have to lie for the sake of safety, so be it; truth, too, is less important than safety.

None of this is new. Twenty-five years ago, I wrote and broadcast about the willingness of Americans to watch individual rights crushed in the war against smoking, and especially in accepting the absurdity of the allegedly lethal dangers of secondhand smoke. No one denies that intense exposure to secondhand smoke can exacerbate preexisting illnesses such as asthma. But the anti-smoking zealots’ claim that 50,000 Americans die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke is nonsense. For example, in 2013, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported that there was no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke.

Yet, in the name of that nonsensical 50,000-a-year claim, people were forbidden not only to smoke on airplanes — which on courtesy grounds alone was appropriate — but even in smoke shops. In the city of Burbank, California, run for decades by leftists who, like all leftists, have contempt for personal liberty, smoking is banned even in cigar shops. Despite the fact that no one is forced to work in any cigar shop, and even if the shop is well-ventilated, no smoking is permitted.

What is important to note is that these irrational prohibitions on personal liberty bothered no one except smokers. The number of nonsmoking citizens of Burbank who objected to these laws was probably zero. Had Burbank announced a ban on alcohol, there would have been a revolt — despite the fact that at least half the instances of spouse- and child-abuse are accompanied by alcohol, and every instance of death, brain damage, paralysis and other permanent injury caused by a drunk driver is caused by alcohol. Has anyone been killed by a smoking driver? Has anyone been murdered, or any child or spouse been molested or beaten because the murderer or abuser had been smoking?

So, the safety zealots learned from the anti-smoking and anti-secondhand smoke crusade the great lesson that if you told Americans something wasn’t safe, you could deprive them of their rights and they would willingly go along with it. And, for the record, this is equally true in virtually every country in the world. “Safety uber alles.”

They didn’t only learn this lesson from the anti-smoking fanatics. For two generations now, safety has increasingly deprived Americans of joys as well as freedoms. Children, in particular, have been so coddled that American children of the last two generations have probably had far less joy and far more fear than children of any previous American generation. Young children cannot take walks on their own lest child protective services be called; diving boards, once found on nearly every home swimming pool, are widely banned; and monkey bars and seesaws have been removed from playgrounds. As an article in the Australian website Babyology headlined: “Monkey bars are dangerous and must be removed from playgrounds, experts say.”

Young people up to age 15 cannot fly without adult supervision by the airline. Why not? I flew alone from Miami to New York when I was 7 years old, and no one thought my parents acted in any way irresponsibly.

Two Norwegian scientists, Ellen Sandseter (Queen Maud University College of Early Childhood Education) and Leif Kennair (Norwegian University of Science and Technology), wrote a study on children and risky play published in Evolutionary Psychology in which they concluded: “We may observe an increased neuroticism or psychopathology in society if children are hindered from partaking in age-adequate risky play.”

The desire to lead as safe a life as possible is a major factor that explains why fewer and fewer young Americans are getting married and even fewer are having children. Neither marriage nor having children is safe. Both are filled with risks. The headline of an article this past week on NBC’s “Today” show website reads, “Child-free adults are just as happy as parents, study finds.” Aside from the question of whether one can compare the happiness of two groups of people with entirely different experiences (would it be meaningful to say that most dogs are happier than human beings?) — or even whether one can expect honest answers (how many people claim their choices in life made them unhappy?) — the article well illustrates the point of this column. “Be safe” would certainly include not getting married and not having children.

You can live a safe life. Or you can live a full life. You can’t live both.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

Last Updated: Monday, Jun 28, 2021 19:10:57 -0700