Nearer My God To Thee

Dolly: i'm having one hell of a time trying to figure out what to make
Luke: I thought i was easy
Dolly: well pasta seems the easiest route but i never make pasta so i'm afraid i'll overcook it
Luke: I have never refused anything you've offered me
Luke: beans, lentils or salad and desert
Dolly: but you don't even like salad dressing
Luke: I don't usually like cunnilingus but I'm still down with sex.
Luke: cunnilingus = salad dressing
Dolly: what about a butternut squash soup?
Luke: i wrote you i dont like squash
Luke: why don't you write my mom or dad and ask them what food I like?
Dolly: YOU don't know what food you like?
Luke: I do and I thought it was very simple but I've obviously failed to communicate it to you.
Dolly: i could do lasagna
Luke: ask my dad, he was the cook, you guys have so much in common, he'll give you good recipes
Dolly: anything in there you won't eat?
Luke: no pumpkin and eggplant
Luke: are you mad at me?
Dolly: what? no, i'm just scared of your dad
Luke: aww, hit him up, he'll be tickled
Luke: or my mom or sis
Luke: it'll be cute
Dolly: your dad would never approve of me
Luke: this problem has come up before but i've never used this solution
Luke: I don't recommend you tell my dad everything about yourself, just ask for a recipe
Luke: take it easy on your sexual history
Dolly: what's his name?
Luke: Dr Ford
Dolly: or should i call him Mr. Ford?
Luke: he might not be around, so CC my mom
Luke: Tell them I sent you.
Dolly: ok i emailed them

Hello! This may seem a little odd but I'm a good friend of Luke's and I was going to make him dinner tomorrow night. The thing is, he's a really picky eater (as I imagine you are both well aware of) and every dish I've offered to cook there's something in it he doesn't like. So he suggested I email you two for suggestions as to what I can make him that he'll actually eat. The only thing I've been successful at feeding him is tomato basil soup, and I can't make that every single time! Any suggestions/recipies you could possibly give me?

My mom replies:

1 and 1/2 cups of red lentils 3 cups of water 1 bay leaf 2 cloves garlic, chopped 2 onions, sliced 25 gm. butter (5 mg is about 1 tsp) 2 eggs 2 cups grated cheese 1 cup chopped tomatoes 3 slices wholemeal bread, crumbled 2 tp salt 1/2 tsp curry powder 1/2 cup chopped parsley

Simmer lentils gently with water, bay leaf and garlic until they are tender and the water is absorbed. Meanwhile, saute the onions in the butter until transparent. Remove from the heat and add the eggs, cheese, breadcrumbs, seasonings, and parsley. Remove the bay leaf from the cooked lentils and drain off any remaining water. Stir the lentils into the rest of the loaf mixture, then spoon into a well-greased or baking-paper-lined loaf tin (alternatively, pour into a casserole dish and serve from this, without unmoulding). Bake, uncovered at 180°c for about 45 minutes, or until firm in the middle.

This is from an Aussie recipe book called Meatless Meals. Good for nonvegetarians too. Even I can cook it.

If you mash potatoes and add a salad and give him wholemeal bread, etc., he should be happy. If not, I suggest you wait till it cools down and turn it upside down on his head or make him take you out to dinner.

Jeffrey Hart Interview

Jeffrey Hart calls me Tuesday 7:30 am, February 28, after I emailed him some questions about his new book The Making Of The American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times.

Jeffrey: "I got your email of course."

Luke: "I tried to come up with something different."

Jeffrey: "This thing is off. What should we do? What are you telling me?"

Luke: "If any of these questions interest you, I'd like to get your answers."

Jeffrey: "OK. Go ahead."

Luke: "What did you think of George Will's review Sunday?"

Jeffrey: "It was OK as far as it went, but his main thesis was that Mr. Bartlett and other conservatives disagree with Bush on one thing or another. I suppose that if he wanted to list them, his column space would not be long enough."

Luke: "What did you love and what did you hate about writing this book?"

Jeffrey: "I liked what I learned. I decided to organize it on the sequence of [presidential] administrations from the time the magazine started in November of 1955.

"To establish the different administrations, I tried to get the best of current historian's account of them. For example, Fred I. Greenstein's book, The Hidden-Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader... I learned that rather than the kindly Eisenhower, he was actually ruthless and highly organized, as one might expect from someone who pulled off D-day and chased the Wehrmacht across the Rhine. To end the fighting in Korea, he sent a message through New Delhi threatening the Chinese with nuclear warfare. The fighting stopped.

"As an administrator, he made tough decisions. He didn't support the French in Indochina/Vietnam. He did not support the British and French empires in the [1956] Suez crisis. When he heard wrong intelligence that Kruschev was planning to send 100,000 volunteers to the Mid-East, he said, amusingly, out loud 'I guess we'll have to drop a whole bucket [of nuclear weapons] on them.'

"He did nothing about the Hungary crisis because the Russians had complete air and land superiority. Hungary was landlocked.

"He was a successful president. He had three years of budget surplus. He started the interstate highway system. He was strong on national defense. There were the U2 spy flights over the Soviet Union and the Polaris missile which could be fired from the bottom of the ocean, the nuclear navy.

"The great presidents of the 20th Century were Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagen.

"Reagen kicked the rotten barrel of the Soviet Union and saw it collapse without firing a shot, as Margaret Thatcher said.

"National Review was interesting as it commented week-by-week as things developed. It wasn't easy to do that as they haven't read the books I've read. Hell for a periodical journalist might be to read editorials a year later. I found it an engaging magazine from the beginning, full of interesting and colorful characters who collided on various issues."

Luke: "Was there a golden age for the magazine?"

Jeffrey: "As long as James Burnham was there. He became sick about 1980. Eventually he developed cancer. He was a big loss. The disappearance of Frank Meyer, Willmoore Kendall..."

Luke: "What did you think of Ann Coulter's falling out with National Review?"

Jeffrey: "I'm not sure what Ann Coulter did."

Luke: "She submitted a column that said we should invade Islamic countries, kill their leaders, and convert the populations to Christianity [at the point of a sword]."

Jeffrey: "I didn't know that. No wonder there was a falling out. That's not a desire end. Where does she write?"

Luke: "She's written a bunch of best seller such as Slander."

Jeffrey: "I look at Drudge once in a while on the internet and there's a bunch of columnists listed and she's one of them."

Luke: "How active are you with National Review today?"

Jeffrey: "I'm still a senior editor. I'm mostly at home on the computer. I disagree with the magazine on a number of important points."

Luke: "What are your most important disagreements with National Review?"

Jeffrey: "Iraq, stem cell research. I don't believe it is wise to try to ban abortion. In general, the Wilsonian policy [trying to remake the world] of the Bush administration and the evangelical base that keeps him in power. Many of the evangelicals are often wrong, even about the Bible. They have no biblical scholarship. Some even think the universe was created in six days. On most social issues, they are wrong. They are against birth control.

"Bill Buckley wrote a column [Feb 24] saying that [the Iraq invasion] did not work. He says that the animosities between the different groups in Iraq are too strong for us to bridge them. That is why Saddam ruled with an iron fist. That's the way you keep a country like that together. Saddam was corrupt.

"I thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Then I supported [the American-led invasion]. Now I find that many of those claims were not only incorrect, but possibly fabricated."

Luke: "What grade would you give the Bush administration?"

Jeffrey: "He's the worst president in American history. I've been reading about James Buchanan. He wasn't bad. He was just trapped in a situation where civil war was inevitable."

Luke: "Where do you come from religiously?"

Jeffrey: "I became a Catholic in 1968. I accept the Catholic metaphysics. The creed. They have struck out since the early Renaissance on too many issues of ethics in this world starting from taking an interest in cadaver disections, smallpox vacinations, a syllabus of errors, just war theory. The Church has no theory of social change or the interaction of science with human behavior. I see that [Pope] Benedict came out this morning against invitro-fertilization because too many fertilized cells, what he calls embryos, are wasted. That's true, but in natural fertilization, a lot of cells are wasted."

Luke: "What is your position in brief on stem cell research?"

Jeffrey: "I'm all for it."

Luke: "Anything that will enhance human life?"

Jeffrey: "Sure. I don't think a dozen cells are the equivalent of a child with diabetes or an adult with parkinson's."

Luke: "Are there any prominent religious Muslim intellectuals in the American conservative movement?"

Jeffrey: "I can't name any."

Luke: "How well do you get along with your peers?"

Jeffrey: "There's been some friction but not about my views, but about the independent student newspaper The Dartmouth Review, which has been aggressive. I think it's OK if it's aggressive. They're students. If they do something sophomoric, well, they're sophomores. The college financially supports papers that are much more aggressive than The Dartmouth Review. There's The Women's Review, which keeps changing the spelling of 'women.' There's Black Praxis, The Dartmouth Free Press. The Dartmouth Review raises its own money."

Luke: "What's your position on legalizing drugs?"

Jeffrey: "Libertarian except that experts tell me that crack cocaine causes people to be violent. I don't see why anybody should worry about marijuana."

Luke: "What's your position on legalizing prostitution?"

Jeffrey: "I don't think it should be done. I've had [conversational] debates about that with Milton Friedman. He says that if you catch a disease from a prostitute, you can sue. I can't see Teddy Kennedy suing Suzy Q in court."

Luke: "Does society have an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage and stigmatizing other forms of sexual expression?"

Jeffrey: "Certainly government doesn't. Tax exemptions for couples to have kids is OK."

Luke: "Do you think gay marriage is cool?"

Jeffrey: "I don't think the term 'marriage' should be applied but I support civil unions."

Luke: "What about if a brother and sister of adult age wanted to have a civil union?"

Jeffrey: "I haven't thought about that. Is this really an issue?"

Luke: "It illuminates greater issues."

Jeffrey: "I'm probably against it on traditional grounds -- that it has never been approved of and probably shouldn't be."

Luke: "Do you think John Lennon was a poet?"

Jeffrey: "I've never read anything he wrote. A couple of serious people have said that Bob Dylan was a good poet. I haven't gotten into it."

Luke: "What do you think of the Fox News channel?"

Jeffrey: "Of what?"

Luke: "Fox News. It's a conservative counterpart to CNN.

"Have you heard of the book Southpark Conservatives or the idea behind it?"

Jeffrey: "No."

Luke: "Would you say that Joseph Sobran and Patrick Buchanan are antisemitic?"

Jeffrey: "No. But some of the things they say could be taken that way. Pat's a good friend of mine. Of course I don't think he's anti-semitic.

"In his newspaper column, Joseph Sobran recommended a far-out magazine called [National Vanguard magazine, part of the National Vanguard organization, which advocates genocide against Jews, blacks and other undesirables], which was definitely anti-Semitic and anti-black. That was strange that he found some insight in that. It might've been true insight. But collectively the magazine was far beyond acceptability. And a few other things like that.

"I know that Joe has plenty of Jewish friends. I don't know what is going on there."

Sobran, who spent 21 years at the National Review, lectures to the Institute for Historical Review, which is obsessed with denying the Holocaust.

Luke: "Has he been marginalized from the conservative movement?"

Joseph: "I'm not aware of him much. The National Review kept a file of his columns. I'm not sure it still exists."

Luke: "Have there been any antisemites in prominent positions at National Review?"

Joseph: "No."

Luke: "Is the publication good for the Jews?"

Jeffrey: "I think so. Good for anybody. It presents its view literately and I don't think it is hostile to any group on ethnic or religious grounds."

Luke: "How do people at National Review and how do you view the chapter on race in the book The Bell Curve?"

Jeffrey: "The National Review had a symposium on that when the book came out. Psychometrically it's a commonplace that blacks score 15 [IQ points behind (on the mean average) whites who are about 15 IQ points behind asians].

"No one is saying that this is immensely important in any sense. It's a fact. If you lack five IQ points on somebody, it does not mean you will accomplish less."

Luke: "Have you noticed that the public and private positions of people in the National Review crowd differ on race? With ordinary people, the things we say privately about race are very different from what we'd like to see quoted in The New York Times."

Jeffrey: "No. I've been around the place for years and I've never heard anybody... Frank Meyer was Jewish. He had a deathbed conversion to Catholicism. The religion editor for years was Will Herberg (Jewish theologian)."

Luke: "Are we able to have a honest public discourse on race today in America?"

Jeffrey: "I'm not sure. It depends on who's doing the discourse."

Luke: "Do you feel comfortable publishing your thoughts on race?"

Jeffrey: "I don't have any trouble. I think people of different races are all American."

Luke: "Do you notice any differences in behavior between conservative and liberal intellectuals?"

Jeffrey: "No. Behavior in America is basically a matter of class."

Luke: "Are most of your friends conservative?"

Jeffrey: "Not most of my faculty friends."

Luke: "Bill Buckley..."

Jeffrey: "He's fascinated by people with a different point of view. He has the impulse of an impresario presenting a lot of people he doesn't entirely agree with. Most conservatives internalize a lot of these things -- they're a little bit individualist, a little bit libertarian, some are traditionalists. So they can sympathize with various points of view."

Luke: "What do you think of the magazine today?"

Jeffrey: "It has less internal controversy and is less interesting for that reason. Without the internal controversy, it can go wrong, as it has gone badly wrong on Iraq. There should've been someone around saying, 'Wait a minute. This place has three mutually antagonistic elements. It's full of religious fanatics.'

"I can imagine a tough authoritarian like Kemal Ataturk smashing the whole structure and reconstructing it on another basis. I don't think we're prepared as a nation to do that."

Luke: "What do you think of the string of conservative pundits who've been found taking payola?"

Jeffrey: "It's bad."

Luke: "What do you think of the influence of rap on our culture?"

Jeffrey: "Probably bad but I am not well acquainted with it. The stuff where they talk about hos and whores and violence, it is not only a reflection but an encouragement to a culture of violence."

Luke: "How would you gauge the internet's affect on political and philosophical discourse?"

Jeffrey: "Up to a certain extent, excellent, but it can be time-consuming if you get trapped by it.

"I've got to get going towards a lunch date."

Bush Policies Deformed By Christian Extremism

Jeffrey Hart writes:

During the 2004 presidential election perhaps the most scandalous of these arose as an issue in the campaign, stem-cell research. In August 2001, Bush issued an executive order banning federal funding for such research involving fertilized cells created after 2001. This severely inhibited research which had indeed proved promising. Bush claimed to have issued his order for "moral reasons," but all the moral reasons seem to support the research.

The fertilized cells in question are left over and frozen in fertility clinics, in fact doubly doomed because frozen and with a finite shelf-life, and also because a fertilized cell will not develop unless implanted in a woman. Instead of wasting them, why not use them to, it seems possible, treat an entire array of dreadful diseases? One opponent of the research put the objection crisply: such cells "must not be destroyed no matter how noble the cause." It seemed clear that Bush's objection to the research was driven by his Evangelical base, indefensible as his position was.

Other Bush-inspired policies with severe implications for public health began to form a list as long as your arm. In fact, despite their potentiality for real harm, they possess a comical sort of zaniness. As reported in The Washington Post, they include:

* Information about safe sex was removed from the Centers for Disease Control Web site.

* The scandal that the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research prohibited over-the-counter sale of a "morning after" contraceptive as encouraging promiscuity and thus spreading disease -- clearly outside the mandate of the FDA. The New England Journal of Medicine described this as a political decision, which of course it was.

* The fact that the Bush administration has devoted millions to faith-based organizations promoting abstinence, but in doing so telling flagrant lies: that condoms fail to prevent HIV 31 percent of the time during heterosexual intercourse (3 percent is accurate); that abortion leads to sterility (elective abortion does not); that touching a person's genitals can cause pregnancy; that HIV can be spread through sweat and tears; that a 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person"; and that half of gay teenagers have AIDS. Some grants for faith-based programs stipulate that condoms be discussed only in connection with their failure.

You would think that such Halloween science would be impossible in federally funded programs. Isn't bearing false witness prohibited by the Ten Commandments? But, as we see, Evangelicals make up their own scripture. And this is the Bush administration.

* Then there was that book the federal bookstore at the Grand Canyon was obliged to carry, maintaining that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's Flood. Geology shows that the canyon took millions of years to form by erosion. No problem. Geology is wrong.

The saints, they are marchin' in. H.L. Mencken, where are you when we need you? But some of that represents the comic side of the Bush administration. No one should be laughing about its stem-cell policy. Welcome to Evangelical Land. Today, it's us.

Questions For A Conservative Intellectual

I sent these to Jeffrey Hart, a professor emeritus of English at Darmouth, who has just published the book, The Making Of The American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times:

* Who are the most prominent Islamic (I mean religious, not secular Muslims) thinkers in the conservative movement?

* Ann Coulter's falling out with National Review? Reflects more poorly on her or on them? Are there many girly-men at National Review?

* Which elite university is most friendly to conservatives?

* Do you think John Lennon was a poet? On par with Keats?

* Do poets get to live by a different moral code than ordinary mortals?

* What's your position on legalizing drugs, pornography and prostitution?

* What did you think of George Will's review of your book? Do you think Mr. Will should be more circumspect about making public moral pronouncements given his widely-reported marital problems of a few years ago?

* What do you think of the Fox News Channel? Do you have a favorite newscaster on there? Are there too many blondes reading the news? If so, how should we thin them out?

* Southpark Conservatives. Good for the conservative movement or bad?

* Has National Review been good for the Jews? How so? Would you say Joseph Sobran and Pat Buchanan are antisemitic? Have there been antisemites in prominent positions at National Review?

* Are there many people in positions of influence at National Review who would largely agree with the chapter on race in THE BELL CURVE?

* Should a man be allowed to marry his sister or his dog if they truly love each other?

* Should we get rid of child labor laws so the free market can do its thing?

* Who have been the most physically beautiful intellectuals in the conservative movement during the past 40 years? How does beauty in a male or female intellectual influence how their ideas are received? Is there any one you most wish you could've had an affair with?

* Are conservative intellectuals more moral than their liberal counterparts? Say, less likely to sleep with their students?

* Are you able to converse in rap lingo when that is to your advantage? If you felt like answering any or all of my questions as a rapper that would be great, and it would significantly advance your street cred.

The Making Of The American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times

George Will writes in The NYT Book Review:

For more than three decades, [Jeffrey Peter] Hart, an emeritus professor of English at Dartmouth, has been a senior editor of National Review. There he has seen, and helped to referee, conservatism's struggles of self-definition. His book is a gossipy memoir leavened by a quick skimming of 50 years of political history. "I confess," he says, "to a fondness for gossip, which, indeed, is a conservative genre. Gossips do not want to change the world; they want to enjoy it."

I got and interviewed and profiled about a month ago by a publication compiling a list of the most interesting people in LA (it has not been published yet).

For the first time, I mentioned this to Cathy Seipp Saturday night, Feb 25. She got upset. "Why would they want to profile you and not me? Did you at least tell them about me?" she demanded. "How I am constantly putting you out there? That I make you interesting? That you are nothing without me?"

Taken aback by her vehemence, I invited her to be in my picture. "No," she said. "It might be unflattering. But I'm no Nikki [Finke, who won't be photographed]."

"I'll email the reporter about you," I offered tongue-in-cheek.

"You do that," she said. "Set the record straight."

One thing I like about Cathy is that she's not afraid to take credit.

Feb 26. Cathy got mad at me for making her look bad in this blog entry.

Surreptitiously Changing Her Man: Moral or Not?

Barb writes Luke:

"Luke, I might, just might, be in love, and this time with a man! (Yes, my parents are very happy, although it has had repercussions in other quarters of my social life.) My man Matt and I get along well and care for one another a great deal, but there are a few habits of his that trouble me, and that I'd like to change.

"To begin with, there's his odd diet. He won't eat any animal flesh. None. His parents were members of a strange cult (the one L. Ron Hubbard founded before he hit upon Scientology, I think) that imagined humanity to be made up of cows or other ungulates or some such thing, and denied him high protein foods even when he was in the womb. To me, this is a form of child abuse, and I'd never put up with that, especially when pregnant (I've got plans - days 12/17 are fast approaching). He says he would more than "tolerate" my omnivorous nature, but I want him to be an active participant in that lifestyle. And even as a vegan, his palate is very limited. So I've been thinking of weaning him off the pure vegan (is that the term?) diet he's on by surreptitiously feeding him animal products in the meals he's asked me to prepare for him. I know I could slip some ground beef or chicken into the lentil soup he favors by presenting it as a Mexican or Peruvian dish, with him none the wiser. Then if he likes it, I can increase the amount of meat until he's basically eating a bowl of chili.

"He'd be mad, but I'd be doing him a favor. I know some people swear by their bovine diets, but Matt is not a robust man. He often find himself in extended episodes of weakness and lassitude that I suspect are caused by an insufficiency of protein in his diet, so really, I'd be doing him a favor (like the parent who slips necessary medicine into his child's diet). Please tell me that what I'm doing is moral."

Barb, as a orthodox-aspiring Jewish man, I perform many mitzvot, some of which are known to the general public, and some of which are not. Among those that fall into the latter category is the good deed of visiting prisoners in the California Correctional System. Some of these men are evil, but many just found themselves just starting out on the path of wickedness when they got caught (included in this group are many crystal meth users). I visit these men (and women) in prison to offer moral guidance so that when they are returned to society, they can embark upon a path of righteous that will help glorify God above.

But I am not a fool. When I visit them in prison, I always reject the food that I am offered. I have read that the men who work in the prison kitchens do what you propose doing, by adding a certain milky white "secret sauce" of animal origin to the vegan dishes I would order, so I don't ever share a meal with my prison flock. Respect Matt's wishes, keep two sets of dishes (one for your food, one for his), and let total honesty be your guide in dealing with Matt.

Do you have a problem or question? I've got an answer. just_ask_luke@yahoo.com.

It All Begins With A Date

Dear Luke:

Fischel is one of my dearest friends in life, a man I've known ever since we were study partners at Lakewood Yeshiva. I have always known him to be a pious man and a pillar of the orthodox community. Somehow he reached his fortieth birthday without getting married. Time moves on, and while the rest of us were marrying Jewish girls, he sort of got left behind. I assumed that he was one of "those people" who just didn't need a woman and let it go at that. (In Yeshiva, he'd do certain sorts of experimentation that led me to believe this.)

A week ago I went out with my wife and six kids to have a nice meal at a kosher restaurant, and what do I see? Fischel with a woman, but not just any woman, a tall goyishe looking blond. But I know that Jews can be blond, so my heart said "Finally, he's found his behsert" and I introduced myself. Long story short, it turns out that she is a shiksa, and he's thinking of marrying her!

Our "circle" from Lakewood days is divided on how to respond. Some want to write him off, but I and a few others are thinking of staging an intervention to break this up. After all, it really cannot work. A Jewish neshama and a shiksa cannot cohabiti happily in the same house, so if we intervene now, we will be saving both many years of misery. My wife says not to do this sort of thing, and urges me to seek broader counsel, lest I do something harmful to the Kehilla.

Luke, I know you've been there and done that. You are a man of the world. What should I do?

Reb X

Dear Reb X: You are right, it all begins with a date. But to answer you fully, I will need to do some research of my own and talk to some of the gedolim within my community. And appeal to the learned of my readers to opine as well. Dear readers, what should this man do? Either comment below or, if desirous of more privacy, write to me at just_ask_luke@yahoo.com

Amalek writes me: "You are getting more goyishe every day. People who meet you these days cannot possibly think you are Jewish. Where's the angst, the hunger for money, the yiddishe punim, the hairy palms and hunched shoulders? Dolly has reclaimed you for Christ, even though she isn't even a believer! As per what you just posted on relationship blog, it may be too late for an intervention, and besides, who would intervene?"

Holly Randall and her mom Suze are elite in their tastes. They only shoot a couple of times a week and are selective in their choice of models. They have a rule that they won't shoot someone unless the models first sees them in person. Less than ten percent of the girls who come to them do Suze and Holly eventually shoot.

It usually falls to Holly to explain to the model that she and her mom won't be shooting her (Kendra Jade and Mary Carey are examples of famous porn stars in the past that they elected not to shoot, though Suze shot Kendra this week and will probably shoot Mary in the coming weeks). One of Holly's favorite ways of explaining this is to say, "If I were a model, I wouldn't want to shoot me."

I fell in love with Holly through her personality. She only became sexy to me after I got to know her. When she gains or loses 15-pounds, I am unmoved (unless she's sitting on me). If she became a paraplegic tomorrow, I'd love her just as much (though I expect the sex would be more difficult).

So I'm cruising the redesigned Suze.net website and on the front page is a glamorous photo of Holly and she says: "From your favorite porn stars to naughty newcomers - if you've got a crush - we've got your girl! I guarantee you will love our site! Love, Holly Randall"

And I think how rarely I've heard that l-word from Holly and here she is giving it out to anyone who will visit her stupid website. Air Supply would not approve.

The internet can suck.

Holly is a people-pleaser. She empathizes with models. She often says how glad she is that she is not a model. That she couldn't stand the constant rejection and critiques.

Yet Holly is the new mascot on suze.net. Yet Holly has posted artistic nudes of herself on suze.net (and then removed them). Yet Holly has all the traits of the model. Her inner model is just under the surface always wanting to jump out and play.

Holly loves the camera. She knows how to pose to make herself look best. She can look at pictures of herself for hours (just as I can write about myself for hours).

(Holly says she does not spend hours looking at photos of herself.)

Holly's always be more concerned about the photos I took of her than about what I wrote on her.

I don't know any non-model who has published as many pictures of herself on the web as Holly has, just as Holly does not know anyone who has published as much about himself as I have on the net.

(In the narcissism sweepstakes, I win.)

My favorite photos of Holly are wholesome ones where she's wearing little make-up and not trying to strike a sexy pose. I like Holly best as a wholesome girl, not as a porny girl. But being the child of pornographers who has worked fulltime in porn for the past seven years, she's a porny girl. Almost all of her friends are in porn.

It creeps me out that guys in particular are often trying to get Holly drunk, hitting on her, sending her pictures of their cocks, and getting her to strike such sexy photos as pushing her breasts together to maximize her cleavage (yes, Monstar, that's you).

It creeps me out that so many guys (particularly members of suze.net) have pushed Holly to pose nude for public distribution.

I've never taken naked photos of Holly (or any woman I've dated) and it horrifies me -- and simultaneously strikes me as absurdly funny -- that Holly may do this.

I never told her this until after she told me that she was not going to do it because it would be bad for her image as the future CEO of suze.net.

I think it sucks that she's the mascot for her own porn site but it is her life and her website and I don't bother her with my views in these matters (but rarely).

I don't like having a woman who's close to me on public sexual display. I prefer to think of my woman (and I'm not claiming Holly as my woman, just using her here to make a point) as only having sex with me.

(When a woman I love shares her body and soul with me, as well as provocative photos of herself, I find that exciting. When she shares that stuff with the world, I find it disturbing.)

I'm 39 and I understand that I can not make real these fantasies. I've only rarely dated virgins and I don't seek them out. I can't remake a woman and therefore I've learned to detach myself from things where I can't make a difference.

I don't think it does a woman good to pose nude and put her sexuality on display and make money from it.

I understand there are numerous seeming exceptions of women, particularly Hollywood actresses, who've had flourishing careers after posing nude, I do wonder how many flourishing marriages they've had.

Rather than empowering a woman, nude modelling will forever haunt her. She will cut herself off from at least 50% of humanity (not just the religious and not just Americans) who will not longer consider her real, but rather as a sexual object or freak.

My views are not dominant today. More young women than ever (as a proportion) expose themselves. I think it sucks when women I care about dress and act like whores. I'm down for writing on whores as interesting material but I'm not down for incorporating them into my life. The more whorish the woman, the less I want her in my life.

For me, there are two types of women -- women I want to marry and women I want to write about. (In this matter, and other things, Holly breaks my rules.)

Dennis Prager wrote a two-part essay on women exposing themselves:

In Part One, I offered two reasons for the increasing exposure of young women's bodies. One was the loss of female roles and identity, leading many young women to announce they are females in the only way left to them -- by showing their body. The other was the near-extinction of the concept of femininity, including the demise of feminine dress.

With no feminine role to aspire to, many young women feel powerless. The one area of power left for them is sexual.

Every woman knows that the quickest way to attract a man is to have him notice her. So it makes sense to assume that the more of her body she shows, the more men will be attracted to her.

So, as a service to any woman who is confused by the difference between "cute" and provocative as regards women's clothing, this may help. What you often call cute or attractive, men see only as a sexual come-on. If you wish to dress for sex, you should be entirely free to do so. But if you want love and attention, you have to know the difference between dressing for sex and dressing to be cute and attractive. The more skin men see, the more they think sex, not love. And that includes guys your age, your male teachers, your clergyman, your mailman, and the old man next door.

I despise the lies men tell women (and I've told many of them) to get them into bed or into the sex industry. I despise the "figure modelling" advertisements to lure women into porn. I despise the lies people tell themselves to justify behavior they should know is self-destructive.

Here are some arguments given to Holly for posing nude:

* It will increase signups to suze.net.
* It will help her empathize with models.
* It will unleash her hidden beauty.
* She'll be sharing herself with her fans.

One could argue (falsely) that Suze's success was largely based on her female perspective and that some of her greatest works were pictorials of herself (I don't know). She was not only the artist (pornography is the lowest form of art) but the subject as well (how profound).

How wonderful it would be to see pictures of Holly exploring her sensuality (you can do this far better with fully-clothed photos). Blah, blah.

It all comes down to horny men enticing Holly with appeals to her vanity. I think these arguments suck. I think the men making these arguments suck. And I think it sucks that women who should know better fall for this crap.

I'll never forget what Nick East told me a decade ago: That he could never settle down with a porn girl because he doesn't want his spouse having sex with other men.

"How would you feel walking into a party with a beautiful woman on your arm, knowing that every guy in there has f---ed her? Would you feel you were walking into the room with a treasure?

HollyRandall IMs me: you are such a s---
HollyRandall: i say this with the greatest affection
HollyRandall: i just got this message:
HollyRandall: Remind Luke there are far more pictures of him floating around than of you, as far as i'm able to tell.
HollyRandall: i responded that i didn't think that was actually true
HollyRandall: i'm sure there are WAY more pics of me than you
HollyRandall: not necessarily floating around, but on my site at least

If this essay doesn't get Holly and I on Dr. Phil, I don't know what will (short of hookers, blow and unwanted phone sex calls).

James DiGiorgio writes me: "Upon reading your latest Holly Randall angst-ridden rant, I've come to the conclusion that it's a good thing you're a jew. If you were a Christian or a Muslim, I think you could very likely rise to the depths of religious fundamentalism in the worst sense of the term. Since you are a Jew, and since Jews, generally, don't push their religion or their culture on the rest of us, the world is safe from the words and actions of one more fundamentalist."

As Dennis Prager says, everybody is a fundamentalist in his own way. Everybody has fundamental beliefs they rarely, if ever question. Mike Ramone, for instance, is a fundamentalist atheist. I doubt he's seriously studied the arguments for God's existence made by a believer.

Ex-porn star Tony Stearns (his real name, his stage name is Earl Slate) is not scheduled to get out of prison until 2011 (there'll be no good behavior time off for the guy who's turning 43, he was convicted of armed robbery) but he's already got a fiance -- a 52yo grandmother.

I talk to her by phone Tuesday afternoon 2/21/06.

Crissy: "You sound like you need somebody to cheer you up.

"You're pretty confused."

Luke: "Have you had a relationship with a man in prison before?"

Crissy: "No. This is not the best. This is hard."

Luke: "Why do it?"

Crissy: "Because I care about him."

Luke: "There are a lot of people you could care about."

Crissy: "He doesn't have a lot of people."

Luke: "But what's in it for you?"

Crissy: "Practically nothing. I'm just a giving person. It's always been that way. Maybe I give too much of myself."

I keep cracking up.

Crissy: "What?"

Luke: "Women who develop relationships with men in jail, it's fascinating."

Crissy: "It would be different if he were serving a life sentence. Those women are really stupid."

I'm overwhelmed by my laughter.

Crissy: "It's not a funny situation. I've seen all those 20/20 things. Geez, they go after the ones in for murder. Do they think that's going to be a fun life? It's not.

"It's not only demeaning to the person in there, it's demeaning to the person who comes to see them too."

Luke: "How did you fall in love with him?"

Crissy: "He's gorgeous and he's funny."

Luke: "And you haven't had sex with him yet?"

Crissy: "No. We're not allowed to do that. You have to be married. Then you have to sign up for family visits. They're supposed to be every 90 days."

Luke: "When are you getting married?"

Crissy: "We're not sure. We set our sights on July [2005]. Then January [2006]. I keep moving it back."

I sigh.

Crissy: "Is that bad? I want to make sure that this is something I want to do."

Luke: "How do your friends and family feel about this?"

Crissy: "They're fine with it. Whatever makes me happy. If he can make me happy... Obviously he can only make me so happy being where he's at."

Luke: "They're just fine with you marrying a guy who will be in jail for the next five years."

Crissy: "Yeah."

Luke: "How do your parents feel?"

Crissy: "They're not thrilled about it."

Luke: "'We've always dreamed you would marry someone in prison.'"

Crissy: "They think I need somebody who is actually here with me. They're from the old school. They're 79 years old and in July they'll celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary."

Luke: "Do you have a weakness for bad boys?"

Crissy: "Ohmigod, you read it, didn't you? Yes, I do."

Luke: "What kind of bad boys have you been with? Men who beat you?"

Crissy: "I had one of those. Or alcoholics. Or drug addicts. You think you can help people. You think you can save people. I've learned you can't change anybody."

Luke: "Have you ever been to Alanon?"

Crissy: "I've never had anybody who's had enough guts to try to straighten up their life to go to AA or NA. It's not going to help me to go to try to understand them. I understood them perfectly fine. That's the problem. And they didn't want to correct it.

"I'm not attracted to bad boys anymore. I've been on my own for six years. I'm not going to have a guy tell me what I can and can not do or who I can see or where I can go.

"Tony and I come from two different worlds. He was the bad boy growing up. I was the good girl growing up. I've been married. I've had kids. He's never had any of that. You've never had any of that.

"He's accepted the kids. She's started playing the guitar. They have that in common.

"You've been around the people in porn. They're out for themselves. That's all they want to care about. That's all they want to think about. It's what's good for me, me, me."

Luke: "So why would you want to get yourself caught up in that?"

Crissy: "Why did you?"

I give a pained laugh.

Crissy: "You got more benefits out of it than I am going to get."

Luke: "I just write about them. I'm like a scientist who pokes insects in a cage and sees how they react. The people I write about are not in my real life."

Crissy: "But some of them are. I never knew they were arrogant and self-centered."

Luke: "You have to be screwed up to be in porn. It's a requirement. It's so self-destructive."

Crissy: "Tony practically raised himself. I had strict parents."

Luke: "You guys have so much in common."

Crissy: "It's like night and day.

"No, we don't have a whole lot in common. He said that on our last visit. I said, 'That's right. That's why we're not jumping in to something that's not good for the both of us."

Luke: "What about dating men in the regular world?"

Crissy sighs. "Oh God, dating is hell.

"They've been ready for me than I was ready for. They would fall in love faster."

Luke: "Men fall in love quicker because they are more superficial."

Crissy: "I would've have guessed that."

Luke: "You should read, Love Sick: Love as a Mental Illness."

Dolly: so if i make dinner
Dolly: which i probably won't because i'll be so damn tired
Luke: i'll drop dead
Dolly: how do you feel about eggplant?
Luke: yuck
Dolly: ok moving on
Luke: how 'bout some...
Dolly: don't be disgusting
Dolly: you have the intelligence of a gentleman, at least attempt to act like one
Dolly: pasta with creamy tomato sauce?
Luke: that's ok, i prefer mexican stuff, salad or something
Dolly: but more of a creamy sauce with a taste of tomato than a tomato sauce
Dolly: christ you are impossible
Dolly: ever thought of broadening your horizons?
Luke: i'll eat pasta, it's just not a favorite, it makes me sleepy
Luke: NO
Dolly: you really should
Luke: lentils or some soup is great
Dolly: how do you feel about tarts?
Dolly: i mean the food
Luke: fine with me
Dolly: squash and basil tart?
Dolly: mushroom-leek tart?
Luke: i thought tarts were sweet
Luke: both of those options sound horrible
Dolly: tomato-feta tart?
Dolly: no it's like a meat pie, but veggie
Luke: Darling, anything you prepare, I'll be glad to eat.
Dolly: liar
Luke: I believe in you.
Dolly: well i probably won't anyhow
Dolly: i'd have to buy everything and prepare after work
Dolly: i can't play career woman and housewife, as much as i'd like

My correspondent Shmuly in Williamsburg writes:

"Dear Luke - I've been intimate with this young woman (her name is Chava) now for four months, and when we are together, the coitus is wonderful. I think she sees me as more than a dildo with flesh, as she insists on cuddling with me before, during, and after our marathon coital sessions. Oh, and that sheet with the hole in it? We have sex without anything coming between us, and I do mean ANYTHING - be it made of cotton or of latex.

"The problem is my friend Izzy Hora. Izzy is always looking at the downside of everything, and I'm afraid he's found it here. You see, Izzy tells me that I can judge this woman's true intentions by using a calendar. 'Here's what you do. Get yourself a special calendar, just for this purpose, one that can be hidden from others (especially the goyim). Figure out when Chava begins to have her period, and mark that day with a big fat red "X" on the calendar, and mark the rest of those days in red as well. Then with that first red letter day counting as day one, count off days 12 to 17, and mark those with a green pen - these are her "green days," when she is ovulating and at the peak of her fertility. Finally note every day you have sex with Chava on this same calendar. If she is timing things so that her green days overlap the sex days (with you), then she is interested in you for real. But if she is avoiding having sex with you on those days, then she's just using you for hot sex, for the feeling of your huge enormous shvanz, pulsing between her young milky white thighs. So which is it, Chaver [that's yiddish for 'Dude]?'

"Luke, I'm ashamed to say that Chava and I NEVER have sex on days 12 - 17. On those days she's been making herself scarce, and it seems quite often my coital efforts are rewarded with the onset of her period, when she is at her least fertile stage. Is Izzy right? Might my woman be two-timing me, and giving her best to some Greenhorn while dumping her red letter days on me?"

Dear Shmuly. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but Izzy might well be on to something - calendars do not lie. The finest compliment a woman can pay to a man is to expose her ova to his sperm, and it sounds like that's exactly what she's NOT doing for you. Instead, you are getting something else entirely, and the calendar proves it. It is long past time that you and she had a long, hard talk about this matter, and cleared the air.

Do you have a problem? I have a solution. just_ask_luke@yahoo.com

Feb 15, 2006:

David Aaron Clark calls me back. "You wanted to rub my face in it, didn't you?"

No. I did not even know that Eon had signed with Vivid. I was just calling David to say hi.

David: "History has always proven it is more profitable to call yourself the leader of a movement than to just do your thing."

Luke: "Is it the triumph of style over substance?"

David: "It's a triumph of marketing because his style isn't that impressive."

Luke: "You sounded pessimistic via email this week."

David: "Is this an intervention?"

Luke: "Yeah."

David: "I don't know where distributors get the idea that alt-porn is the new thing. It must be Suicide Girls.

"Suicide Girls is just another male chauvinist capitalist in hipster clothing. That's why it's a success. He knows he's just marketing a veneer of hipness but giving them the same old thing. Joanna Angel's site burningangel. I'm sorry but the guy from Rutgers who tapped her to be the spokesmodel. He's the reason that site has some success.

"Eon McKai and Malachai Ecks believe in what they're doing. They're just young and dumb and unaware of the past. They're honest about what they're doing. I just think it sucks. These are kids who lucked into the keys to the candy store but I don't think they know how to run the register.

"The guys who've made money with this on the Web don't really believe in it. They're just smart businessmen."

Luke: "How was your week?"

David: "Valentine's Day was horrifying. No, I guess it wasn't horrifying. Horrifying would've been if I had had a terrible date or had to hire a prostitute. It was more a deep existential hole of black resignation. But a lot of old girlfriends got in touch."

Luke: "Did you have alt-girlfriends?"

David: "The girlfriends I had were alt before they came up with that stupid term. Mistress Shane and Jade Blue-Eclipse would put any of them to shame."

Luke: "I was on set with one of your movies starring Jade. She poured blood on herself."

David decries the internet as a "digital Tower of Babel."

Luke: "But if there's one chick you want to get to know, MySpace can provide you with more info about her and a way to contact her."

David: "Are you thinking with your groin?"

Luke: "Well... Or you can keep an eye on her and see who's writing flattering comments and trying to bang your chick."

David: "And if that wasn't there, how might you be improving your mind and soul? You haven't read all the great works. Or you could be out doing yoga or riding a bike or protesting the Bush administration at the Metro stop."

Luke: "I'd rather be having sex."

David: "Look at you. It's amusing to watch you reveal your humanity. You've managed not to for so many years."

Luke: "Love is leveller."

David: "It makes brave fools of us all."

Luke: "I'm more calm and centered this time around."

David: "The sixth time around, you are going to be..."

Luke: "Zen. The embodiment of Buddhist's enlightenment."

David: "You could do it in a seriel manner and go for six more Holly-types."

Luke: "We communicate well. Words have not flowed this easily for me in as long as I can remember."

David: "Good Lord. How old are you? Obviously she has a sense of humor."

Luke: "And an amazingly thick skin."

David: "I feel a sense of nostalgia when I read your exploits."

Luke: "You went out with Holly too? She didn't tell me about this."

David: "No. See. Those antennae are always up.

"I remember San Francisco and New York when I'd provide play-by-play of my contretemps. The course of them would always be affected by their awareness that they were on stage. Some laughed more easily than others. I would commit things to the public consciousness that most people would not disturb. [Women] would not always realize what they had signed on for. They'd be alternately flattered and angry. Only flattered at first. It's a tightrope line for you too, seeking to be honest and yet you know that what you're expressing is going to be committed and you will have to look back on it in a couple of years."

Luke: "A lot of chicks I was going to date got freaked out by what I wrote about Holly and didn't feel safe dating me."

David: "That's how you weed 'em out.

"You're growing into your skin. You've overcome that emo Brad Pitt image you battled. There's a certainly ruffled manliness about you. There's no macho element. There's a whole female population that doesn't care about that. Not in porn, unless you have the spiritual equivalent of machisimo -- capital. If you ever get yourself a teaching gig, you'll be swimming in it. You'll never get tenure because you'll have too many reprimands on your file."

Luke: "I'm going to become an assistant professor for blogging at USC."

The New Blond - Fox Lips

Jack Shafer writes:

As the leading scholar of blond studies, Joanna Pitman provides us with the best collection of statistics, history, prehistory, and commentary on the subject. Her book offers an evolutionary psychology explanation for the hair color's timeless allure: We associate blond with youth, she writes, because the hair of babies and that of young children tends to become wan and darken with age. Pitman—a blonde, incidentally—notes blond women appear younger and thus more fertile, winning them an evolutionary advantage over brunettes. Blond hair "also softens facial lines and is flattering to mature faces," she attests, which explains why women from Baroness Maggie Thatcher to Fox's Greta Van Susteren hit the bottle.

The new blond is lips, specifically what people inside the industry call "Fox lips," and they are worn by Fox's Laurie Dhue, Fox's Gretchen Carlson, and MSNBC's Rita Cosby, three top blondes. Achieved in the makeup room in a procedure that sounds one step this side of cosmetic surgery, I'm told that powder, pencil, and paint can turn even the weakest mouth into a juicy vagina dentata.

How big are Fox lips? When Rita Cosby switched from Fox to MSNBC, a construction crane was called in to move hers, which resemble a pair of oily, red eels mating angrily.

Holly Randall explains:

There's also a visual element of it that I learned in studying photography. In photos, the eye is always attracted to the lightest part of the image first -- then it travels to the darker areas same with hair. When you see a crowd of people and one is a blonde and the rest brunette, your eye (whether or not you notice) will automatically first see the blonde. Now if you have a thing for brunettes, obviously your eye will stay trained there.

Fifty years ago, Edward R. Murrow made television history with his "Fields of Shame" investigative report on the plight of the migrant farm worker.

Now Luke Ford looks at the plight of the migrant dildo worker in Chatsworth and her chance at the American dream.

I went deep under cover at Topco to produce the closest, most intimate, most shocking view of the production of sex toys by hardy Hispanic workers for pudgy middle-class Caucasians. You will never experience a blow-up doll in the same way again. This article is The Jungle for the 21st Century.

By the time you've finished reading, you're guaranteed to be as happy as an illegal Mexican immigrant with her first CA driver's license.

Tuesday, September 23, 2003. 9:45AM.

I run across the six lanes of De Soto Blvd in Chatsworth and charge into the Topco parking lot. On the second story of 9401 De Soto, on the balcony in the sun, I spot Jennifer Gorman, Topco's PR gal, and Scott Tucker, Topco president.

I wave at them. They ignore me and talk to each other. I keep waving.

"Hi, it's Luke," I yell.

They give me polite but apprehensive smiles.

I walk into the sales wing. The pretty Latina receptionist phones Jennifer to fetch me from the lobby. The lady asks for my car keys and in exchange gives me a guest badge. I was told yesterday not to wear open-toe shoes in case a dildo falls on my toe and breaks it.

Jen walks into the lobby. She's wearing a black dress with a plunging blue collar that offers a few square inches of sneak previews of her hidden treasures ("fitted black number with an open collared neck" says Jen). Her feet are bare on top, with heels underneath ("low strappy sandals" says Jen). She's blonde, about 30 years old, with an oval shaped face and medium length hair. She's intense, hyper and [a quality Jen won't allow me to mention so she doesn't get teased about it endlessly, guys, you can't tease girls like you can other guys], with a type A personality.

She takes me upstairs where we run into Scott. He explains that he thought I was a hobo and that they had too many of them hanging around already and they didn't need anymore, which is why he didn't wave back.

Scott seems like a Bible-believing-fundamentalist-speaking-in-tongues-Southern-Baptist who runs a dildo company. He's dressed in a suit and tie and has a marine's haircut.

Tucker says he's read an article or two of mine.

I bet he's going to read this one.

Scott disappears into the conference room for a meeting. His father Marty, the founder of the company, is there from China. Marty, dressed colorfully and casually (he's married to a Chinese girl in her twenties), looks like a much wilder guy than Scott. He must think, while looking at his son, "Where did I go wrong?"

Jen takes me into her office. While she gets changed into her tennis shoes), I look out her balcony at the Memphis of the West.

Topco has 450 manual labor employees (it appears to me that 449 of them are Mexican and the other is a Caucasian who feels like a loser) and 50 administrators who are all white.

All the white employees work on the top floor in offices and all the Mexicans stay on the bottom floor in the three-football field-sized-warehouse.

You could make a cool sitcom about this place called "Upstairs, Downstairs." Have the white president of the company fall in love with an illegal Mexican dildo maker. (Well, that has happened at Topco.)

All jokes aside, it is moral that Topco employs Mexicans to screw the tops on lubricant bottles rather than employ Chinese slave labor like all the other sex toy companies (but Doc Johnson).

Jen takes me to places I've never been before - like the sex toy showroom. There's a swing. She got into it, wearing a skirt, on her first visit to the company, before she even filled out an application. It might be some kind of job requirement for white women at Topco? She's a good fit for the place, though I'm not sure what's going to happen to her after this article comes out.

I'm about to ask her to get into the swing again so I can take photos, but subdued by my lithium medication, I decide discretion is the better part of valor.

Jen leads me downstairs. She pushes through a door marked in red "Emergency Exit Only - Alarm Will Sound." Then she puts her hand on some detector and takes me into the warehouse. Fat blow-up dolls are the first things to catch my attention. Then there are the hundreds of Mexicans, the most I've seen in one place since I went to Home Depot.

We wander the aisles, avoiding the onrushing forklifts. Stacks of sex toys loom precariously above us. One of those big boxes falls and we're history - killed by a dildo.

I'm instructed by Jen to make Topco sound nice.

She hunts down some cool gifts for me that I can give away to my lady friends - vibrators that come in containers that appear to carry lipstick and nail polish. Man, with these, I will turn into a real lothario.

Most of the Topco administrators seem so square, I doubt they ever use their own products. At least I hope not. I really don't want that picture in my mind.

I make some insinuating comments to Jen about vibrators but she gently and sensuously brushes them aside.

If you looked in most of the Topco offices, you'd never know it was a sex company.

There are several Tuckers in the top administrative positions.

All the Topco employees I meet are nice. Nothing I write should be misconstrued so as to put them or their fine God-fearing company in a bad light.

Rest assured, that when you diddle with a Topco dildo, you're diddling righteously.

I believe the above paragraph contains a pull quote that will appear in the next Topco catalogue, if there's any justice in this world.

Could you truly have a satisfying orgasm if you knew that your vibrator was made by a woman paid a few cups of rice a day?

Notes on method: I walked around Topco with the lovely publicist Jennifer, with the blessing of its gracious president Scott, and then afterwards I went home and wrote things I thought were funny but they thought were crap.

I'll never forget that fishnet shot of Cheryl Tiegs in 1978 (read Michael Gross's book Model : The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women). She was just as hot on the cover of the 1983 issue.

I ran into Cheryl at my therapist's office in 2001. She wanted to know the location of the bathroom.

Sunday morning, while I Google images for "'Cheryl Tiegs' nude", I listen to Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, published by Zondervan, as an atonement for my sin.

I do not want to spend my day looking for pics of Cheryl Tiegs. Afraid I might spill my seed on the dusty soil of my hovel, I call Dolly for moral support. She isn't there. Some SAA (Sex Addicts Anonymous) sponsor she is.

Normally she knows just what to say to kill my lustful desires.

I call another woman. She's not there. I leave a wailing message that I am in the grip of forces greater than myself.

She calls me back. "I went to bed at 5am. At noon, there's a buzzing on my cell phone. I think, who the hell could be calling me this early?"

"You said I could call you any time if I was struck sinful desires."

"And I would point you back to your moral path."

"Yes. I've just spent the last hour scouring the internet for pictures of Cheryl Tiegs and Morgan Fairchild."

I do not specify that I've been scouring the net for nude pictures of these celebrities.

"I knew I was going to fall. I knew I was going to relapse."

"And I wasn't there. I'm ashamed of myself. You'll have to find a new sponsor."

"Now I'm stronger. I can turn my back on those alluring photos. I was a more vulnerable person in 1978."

"And you're not at all vulnerable now."

"I'm practically an island. I feel no pain and I never cry. But the call of history. History echoes."

"You can be seduced by history."

"I'm sure you think less of me now."

"I do. Why did you have to tell me this and just destroy the grand illusion of you that I had?"

"Have you bought your new bathing suit for the Spring?"

"It's zero degrees here."

"You have to have faith."

Michelle Laure Miho Ferre

French-Japanese woman Michelle Laure Miho Ferre (stands 5'4", michelle@fukuhara.cc) stars in the 1998 Jackie Chan movie Who Am I?

According to IMDB.com: "Michelle never considered acting, but on the set of "Who am I?" when she tried to interview Jackie Chan, he was struck by her, and asked her to audition for the film--which she did, and landed a co-starring role in the film."

It's her only movie. Her background is journalism. She's worked in TV in Japan for gameshows and for CNN.

Born June 13, 1973, she speaks Japanese, English and some French. Her favorite sports are short ski, snorkeling, fishing and tennis. Her hobbies include Japanese ink painting, walking, watching movies and plotting scripts.

Michelle's Yahoo group.

I got these questions to her through her brother.

* 1 When she was a girl, what did she want to be when she grew up?

A1) ... When I was a girl, I had interest in becoming just about anything. The very first "dream" I had, was in becoming a fashion designer. I loved to imagine and draw variety of clothes. But eventually, I came to realize I had a problem. I wasn't good at drawing!

* 2 What was she expected to become?

A2) ... I wasn't expected to become "something" in particular, I suppose. I always had freedom of decision, in whatever I wanted to do.

* 3 What led her into journalism?

A3) ... I did deliver news in the program "CNN Headline" in Japan, but I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore journalist. It all came as a natural flow of coincidence. I majored in International Relations and Political Science at my University. Upon graduating, I had to decide which career I was to proceed in. Interest in mass media along with the educational background, and my ability to speak both English and Japanese lead me naturally to settle in the field of journalism.

*4 What are her wishes for her life?

A4) ... Having experienced acting in a movie, and having experienced the joy of acting, I very much "wish" to succeed as an actress in the movie scene.

* 5 Could she describe any highlights and lowlights from her life?

A5) ... I think the highlights of my life are yet to come, talking from an optimistic viewpoint. But if to give something offhand, it would probably be the opportunity of having played the role in "Who am I." Lowlights, on the other hand are undesirable events along life. Many events are simply undesirable, but most are necessary to make one grow up for what is to come. I tend to find reasoning in any mishaps. This way I can take it, chew it, and digest it, so I can get over with it. Otherwise, too much pessimism just lays you down on the track of negative events. Sorry that I don't have an example of a lowlight event, but experience tells me: "NO FUN" is rather "JUST A WASTE OF TIME", so I'll just keep it to myself.

* 6 What parts of her life give her the most meaning?

A6) ... Family, no matter what. My family has always been on my side, both in good times and bad times. Mutual love and trust within my family has helped a lot in shaping my character. Therefore, I will be what I am, and want to be with people who like me for what I am.

* Where have you lived?

I was born in Kobe, a port city in Japan which probably resembles Seattle in much ways. I have lived in France for a couple of years during my baby years, before enrolling into an international school here at Kobe. Since then, the long term stay in France settled to Summer vacation visits to Grandparents' place in the Northwestern part of France, "Bretagne" or also known as "Brittany". My University was in Tokyo, and I lived there throughout my schooling, work (mass media), and working with Jackie. Ever since, I mostly reside in Kobe with a lot of moving around, which makes it hard to say where I am, most of the time.

Q: So which are your favorite books? Or books that have most influenced you?

A: Naming all the books I like will be too much, so let me pick up a few that have influenced me. The books are: Thornton Wilder's "Our Town" and "The Bridge Over San Luis Rey", and J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Ring". All three books have changed my outlook on life in a similar way. Whether it was the author's intention or not, I adopted a feeling that I should live each day to its fullest, and that I should be true to myself as well as to others.

Q: What makes you happiest?

A: This is a hard one! I'm happy when I'm eating good food, taking warm bath, snuggling in newly spread bed sheet, listening to the sound of waves, watching clear blue sky, snowboarding in fluffy powder snow...there's just so many little "happy" aspects in my life that nailing one down is simply too difficult. But, if I were to choose one, it would be when I'm hugged or hugging someone. It puts a big smile on my face.

It's funny how these questions give me chance to think about things I take for granted!

2/13/06

Q: How did that Jackie Chan movie affect your life?

A: The Jackie Chan movie affected my life in many ways. It opened a new door leading to a profession as an actress. My lifestyle also changed from day to day routine to something more "unexpected". It's like having either a long break or a long working period. But most of all, I enjoy the new encounters I make through this profession.

Q: What type of men are you attracted to?

A: I'm attracted to men with cute and adorable smiles. I'm not picky about looks. It's important that I can feel relaxed and at ease when sharing time and space with someone.

Q: Who are your heroes?

A: My one and only hero would be my Brother. I'd define "hero" as someone you would respect, admire, and trust. There are people whom I respect and admire, but trust is a hard aspect because it is something you gain not for granted.

Q: Favorite novels/songs/poems?

A: My favorite novels are:

"The Neverending Story"---Michael Ende
"Flowers for Algernon"---Daniel Keyes
"Peter Pan"---J. M. Barrie

The songs I like are:

"Time To Say Goodbye (Con Te Partiro)" ---Andrea Bocelli
"La Vie En Rose" ---Louis Armstrong
"The Logical Song"---Supertramp

The poem I like is:

"The Road Not Taken"---Robert Frost

My favorite phrase/ proverbs/ etc.:

"If you kept the small rules, you could break the big ones" ---1984, George Orwell

"Nothing ever built arose to touch the skies unless some man dreamed that it should, some man believed that it could, and some man willed that it must." ---Charles F. Kettering

I'm working on writing scripts. Elaborating ideas within imaginative scopes are fun, but putting them down in words...writing is simply a challenging job!

Thursday. Feb 9. 1:50pm. My caller ID tells me it's Cathy Seipp. "She's going to chew me out about something," I think as I pick up the phone.

Cathy: "You are a journalistic treasure."

Luke, thinking she's been sarcastic: "How so?"

Cathy: "I can't believe that pompous ass Dennis Prager is frightened for society and that [Michael] Fumento is an important voice.

"I'm glad you called in. Fumento said, 'These are new rules.' That this is on record is fantastic. Amazing. You are truly a journalistic treasure. They should give you a Pulitzer."

Luke: "Prager spent the whole hour on Fumento's plight. Prager said that not disclosing the grant was wrong."

Cathy: "That's not the only thing Fumento did that was wrong. Soliciting the grant was wrong. What is these people's problem?

"Fumento's latest column has two baldly-inaccurate facts -- that Sharon Waxman threatened and bullied me, and that my [publicist] source complained to my editors twice."

Neither Townhall.com (and its ilk) nor the Scripps-Howard news service pay their columnists such as Fumento for syndicating them weekly.

Cathy: "You've got to wonder how is this guy [Fumento] making money?

"If he makes these kinds of factual errors, how many factual errors are there in his science reporting?

"...You were pretty worshipful of Prager?"

Luke: "I've always admired him and that has not changed [even though we may disagree about many things]."

Cathy blogs:

I missed hearing that as it happened, but Luke Ford was tuned in (and transcribing) as usual, and so thanks to him I learned that the pay-for-play columnist's gig with the Hudson Institute may end next month. But even more interesting than that was this astonishing exchange:

Prager: "There is something frightening going on here where a particularly important columnist, a voice this society can not afford to lose. Apparently you have annoyed enough people that you need to be quieted. I am frightened, not for me, [but for society]."

Now Prager remains Luke's great hero, despite warnings from the radio host's lawyer about California's anti-stalking law. But luckily, his calls to the show, which he listens to loyally each day, still get through. And so, here's Luke on the air:

Luke: "A journalist can not go soliciting money from people he plans to write about. Michael Fumento asked for money from Monsanto and various agribusiness companies to finance his [2003] book [BioEvolution]. He did not disclose it in his book. It's an elementary matter of journalistic ethics. He should be fired."

Prager: "Who should've fired him?"

Luke: "Anyone who employs him as a journalist. He did something beyond the pale. If I'm going to write about somebody, I can't go to them and ask them for money to write about them. He didn't disclose it in his book and he didn't disclose it in his columns."

Michael: "These rules are new to me. In fact, they are new to everybody."

So not only does Prager actually think that Fumento is a crushed voice of dissent, but Fumento claims he's never heard of the notion that journalists shouldn't ask for money from people they write about. Amazing. You know what? Right now, I'll take the moral standards of a porn-obsessed oddball like Luke over these two.