I haven't heard much from this guy before, but in listening to this it seems quite apparent that he's merely a O'Reilly wanna-be.

To clarify, Prager is the wanna-be. Not Hitchens, obviously. Probably unnecessary, but I felt compelled to make sure.

Suppose one were to answer in the affirmative to his question (seriously though - Genesis?) what does it prove. I might be inclined to feel less anxious were the people opposing me inclined towards Bible study, I would be even more relieved if they were social democrat activists, even more relieved if they well fellows of the Uherio Institute for the study of Practical Ethics and let more relieved (at least of my anxiety) if they were ardent Jainists. It doesn't incline me towards becoming a Jain nor think that Jains are in a robust, Aristotelian sense, morally superior to me.

Prager said "Brezhnevism". I couldn't believe what I was hearing. He said it as though Brezhnevism was that which followed Stalinism. I can't even believe that I'm posting a comment about such a silly attempt at creating ones own vocabulary. Yeah... A leader of a country has a last name so let's, for posterities sake, add an 'ism' to it. At least Hitchens is cool. -tgs-

Prager sounds like a stubborn jackass.

More stupidity in secular institutions than in religious ones, and in the USA, no less..??!! How can Hitchens leave such a totally dumb statement unchallenged??

Seems to me that comparing the guy to O'Reilly is similar to people trotting out a Hitler reference in other arguments. I certainly am no fan of Prager, but he at least conducted a civil, thoughtful conversation, giving Hitchens plenty of opportunity to make his points. Plus, he had him on for the whole show, apparently, whereas O'Reilly would have tried to beat Hitchens up for 4 minutes and then been on to the next inanity.

Why is it that the hosts always have their mics up higher than the guests?

Prager may have been polite/patient in the beginning (emphasis on may) but later on I couldn't help but notice that his increasingly frequent interruptions of Hitchens.

@Mike

Because they're usually on a flippin' telephone?

Prager started out nicely enough, but there was a point later on where he seemed to be turning to his staff and openly mocking Hitchens while he spoke. I wouldn't compare the fellow to O'Reilly, but he could use some work.

was it just my understanding of this session or was Prager just dismissing Hitchens' response everytime he was cornered? Just nonchalantly dismissing it and moving on to his next "question".

Prager's criticism of Universities. It's true that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, the right brain doesn't know what the left brain knows, because of over-specialisation. Also special political ethnic or sexist studies sometimes add a ridiculous,comic element (as it turns out at 2nd tier, e.g. CSU Universities). But Prager is just anti-intellectual, if passively, patiently.

Prager's been around Los Angeles forever, more recently syndicated. He sounds so reasonable at first, but he is logic-proof as can be, and quite vicious in a subtle way that his voice (tone) never lets on. He always defends big tobacco, big Arms "Defence" contractors, the already-haves, have-mores, those on top now, over anything else. He is really big on Non-forgiveness ("only God can forgive"), which makes him effectively even more vicious than Falwell, Robertson, etc., believe it or not.

He's worse than Abramoff, Dr. Laura. He is "evil", innocuous as he appears,

Allow me to synopse:

Prager: Here is a poorly thought-out, smug hypothetical, the answer to which I will continually interrupt. Hitchens: Even shaping my responses around your interjections, an easy refutation. Prager: Yes, but - but

and so on. This "interview" actually lacks a lot of the usual Hitchens punch because Prager doesn't let one of the most interesting and educated speakers in the world actually get going about anything.