Thursday, April 21, 2005
Email Luke Essays Profiles ArchivesSearch LF.netLuke Ford Profile Dennis Prager Apr 13
Kaiser Permanente Is Amazing
I've only had great experiences with them. When I had the opportunity 18-months ago to get a purportedly better health plan, I stuck with Kaiser.
I hurt my ankle (no swelling so it is not a sprain, I came down from a jump on the front of my foot) ten days ago playing basketball and I've been hobbling ever since. This afternoon I realized it might be time to call a doctor. First though, I called my mommy Cathy Seipp (I want her blessing on any significant decision I make, including any woman I go out with, frankly, I'd prefer her to chaperone our first few dates so that I can know I'm safe) to ask her about it. But she sounded very busy so I didn't ask her.
Instead, I called Kaiser at 1:41pm and they made me an appointment for 3:45pm today. Amazing!
Till then I'm curling up at my keyboard and transcribing tales of sexual victimhood.
It's a living.
When the feeling's right, I'm gonna stay all night [in yeshiva]. I'm gonna run to you (once my ankle's better).
PS. Doctor says I have a sprain.
I'd Rather Take Chicks To Shul - It's Cheaper
As soon as I walk into a bar Tuesday night, I'm hit on by this Jewish chick Robyn. She berates me, then rests her legs on my lap, wraps her arm around me, looks me in the eye and says that I really want her.
I protest about my journalistic integrity.
She says I'm a crappy writer and a crappy photographer and I really want her.
Mike Albo writes: "Well, she's right about two things."
The waitress comes over and Robyn orders a $7 shot and puts it on my tab.
Wait a minute. I'm broke. I work hard to save my pennies and this girl I don't know just ordered a drink and put it on my tab.
Robyn says I will be paying for her drinks all night.
The waitress asks for my credit card. I panic. I make $500 a week and that barely covers my expenses. I spend much of my time worrying about how I'm going to pay my bills. I do no discretionary spending. I never buy drinks (for myself or anyone) when I go out because I can't afford it. I have water bottles in my car and I take long swigs on them before going out. I know that's cheap but I have no alternative.
I tell the waitress I'll pay for the drink in cash.
I resolve to never allow a woman in a bar to get fresh with me again.
This is a lifetime pattern. Women seem to think of men as cash machines. Since I was a kid, girls have been arrogantly expecting me to spend money I don't have on them. I can't forget the chutzpah of girls in elementary school demanding from me free sticks of gum. What am I? Mr. Money Bags?
I step up and away from Robyn, desperate to sustain no more damage to my depleted wallet. I keep her at arm's length for the rest of the night and even though the bar is filled with beautiful women, I hit on none of them for fear they will expect me to buy them drinks.
I'd much rather take a chick to a house of worship than a bar because at least at church or synagogue, the drinks and eats are free and the whole moral tone is more elevated.
My most memorable and meaningful experiences with women have begun at synagogue.
I report. You decide.
Robyn
My friend James D.
Walking up to the party at 665 N. Robertson, I see Cathy Seipp, Emmanuelle Richard and David Rensin.
I spot a tall (about 6'5") gangly guy in a suit crossing the street. He and Cathy greet each other. Eventually he turns to me and says, "You must be Luke Ford."
It's the cohost Michael Sonnenschein. He wears glasses. He's nerdy. He writes for Blind Date. Throughout the night, he repeats his worries about how he looks with identical lines.
Elizabeth Spiers, the other host, is a short shy girl from Alabama, far removed from her snarky blogger personna. I bet she had a lot of pithy things to say tonight. Unfortunately, she did not bestow any of her pearls upon me. Instead I ate at the trough of Cathy and Emmanuelle.
Nothing was touted or sold at the party. There were free drinks from the bar and a man at the entrance making sure you were on the list. Michael flitted around, doing his best to serve as a gracious host. I saw no evidence that Michael and Elizabeth were enjoying themselves.
Cathy Seipp pointed out Joseph Mailander. I walked over and we began a happy chat. It was the first time we've met even though we've exchanged email for years. He has a satirical novel about 9/11 coming out in a couple of weeks.
While locked in an intense discussion about "tumescence" with Andrew Breitbart (he didn't know the meaning of the word), I found my hand smushing something soft and inviting. I looked over and noticed I was fondling Jackie's breast in front of her fiance Antoine (the only white guy I've met with that name). Neither of them minded and neither did I. A jolly good time was had by all and Andrew finally learned the meaning of "erect."
Later, I see Joseph sitting outside with Cathy, Emmanuelle, JackieBlogs.com and Antoine.
Thanks to all who attended tonight's FishbowlLA launch party. I know there were some awkward patches, for which I apologize both personally and on behalf of mediabistro.com. In general I think it was mostly fun, although I find myself questioning the integrity of some of the processed meat snacks. Photos will be posted within a day or two.
Meanwhile, the wait-staff of Pearl would like me to relay a message to the Los Angeles media community: For future reference, 'open bar' is not synonymous with 'no tipping.'
I only ordered water, so I don't feel I should tip for that.
I spent most of the night talking to attractive female unpublished novelists in their twenties and how much field work they did before writing their sex scenes.
Spiers writes before the party:
Who to blame for the Shift Change Memo-ization of blogging? I nominate Jake Weisberg. I mean, this is sort of like one of those back-and-forth Slate diaries, right? It admittedly lacks the insightful analysis, but it's got all of that familiar mutual self-congratulation and back-patting. It has that certain quality; what did Bill Keller call it? Oh, right. Circle-jerk.
I'll probably see Ken Layne tonight, who is, as you noted, my Blog Daddy, so to speak. I started blogging because I was reading Layne's blog back in '01 and thought it looked like fun. I met Denton a year later, and it was all downhill from there.
"Tedious self-aborption," IMs a friend. "Ass-licking. Spiers's schtick seems to be 'I'm licking ass *ironically.*' ZZZ."
Lamest Reason From Your Date For Not Returning Your Phone Call
I heard from a girl the other day that when she finally pinned down the guy she was dating about why he wasn't returning her phone calls, he said that the FDA had made warnings about not using cell phones too much because they emit radiation.
Guys, including me, don't like to give reasons why they don't want to see someone anymore. We'd rather give a lame excuse. "Oh, you're too good for me." The funny thing is that a lot of women buy these excuses and persist in the chase. Maybe he's just not that into you?
FRUM, erev pesach - m4w
Frum, male early 30 in very good shape, its erev Pesach my wife is too busy cleaning, and I was left out side with the chametz :), if wondering if anyone will let me in. this is in or around Boro park.
'Gentiles Know Their Level'
I had lunch with a woman who was raised a Gentile but converted to Judaism. She went to a Jewish singles event and was disturbed by the large number of short unattractive unaccomplished Jewish guys who marched up to her, and without even introducing themselves, asked her out. "Gentiles know their level," she says. "Jewish boys are raised to believe they can be president of the United States. It gives them extra confidence."
"Gentiles know their level" is the sharpest funniest line I've heard in weeks.
A Word from Behind the Mechitza at KNH
From a post to Jewish Whistle Blower:
As awkward as it may be to break from the "sisterhood", your continued harping on Rabbi Tendler as a "deviant" of some sorts is simply false...he was a willing participant in adultry with grown woman/women. That violates halacha, and will cost him his position as a Rabbi, but the women are equally culpable if not outright seductresses.
You seem no longer capable of distinguishing between any improper relationship and being a sexual predator --by your words, the minute an improper sexual relationship comes to light, the man is a predator and deviant, yet the woman is a victim. There lies your lack of credibility -- you cannot distinguish anymore between amourous trysts between consenting adults in violation of their marriage vows and molesting a 9 year old girl. No matter what, the equation for you seems to be All Men Bad, All Women Victims.
The Tendler case is going to harm the orthodox feminist movement for years to come precisely because of this failure in credibility. He needs to go because, as the RCA rightly pointed out, he engaged in conduct improper for an orthodox rabbi -- he had an extramarital affair with very willing partner/s, and possibly seductress/es. You have destroyed, however, all of the rightful momentum that developed from the NCSY case by mislabeling this case as predator/victim because of an inability to acknowledge that the women were equally culpable, if not more so.
Those of us behind the mechitza know the real facts, and this case has been badly misrepresented for feminist political motivation. I grieve for the lost opportunity, and for the misrepresentation of our community.
We women are much more caught up in the vise between American culture and yiddishleit than the men. Halacha asks almost nothing of us, save for dressing like the clique and preparing lavish social affairs for company every shabbat.
We claim that watching Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives does not effect us, and that we can compartmentalize the values of America from our own homes and families. Wrong. Time to accept that bitter truth and accept its consequences.
These women need go immediately, as quickly as the Rabbi, not as heroes but as harlots.
No one, and I mean absolutely no one, on this side of the mechitza has anything emotion other than utter revulsion for these women.
They are, indeed, adultresses, and we all look forward to the men performing the distasteful tasks necessary halachically and civicly in weeding their imoral influences from our shul and community.
All the purported sympathy posted on your blog comes from out-of-town feminists employing our local crisis for their own benefit and cause. There are so many important cases of abuse that demand not only publicity but credibility. The less said about the unfortunate events in our shul, from the perspective of the orthodox feminist cause, the better.
A KNH Mother and Wife, for the Silent Majority of Eshet Chayil in the KNH Community
Hi Luke this is Rahel form Ethiopia I've seen your website about searching wife/girl friend. I'm very much interested to be your wife b/c you are very attractive person and..lovely face. i seny my pics after your answer Please let me know if you are interested or not. I'm waiting for your reply on this address.
Update: It turns out that Rahel is a Christian and is not interested in converting to Judaism. So the marriage is off.
Black Like Me - In Honor Of Michael Kinsley
Cathy says I should pitch Michael with some of my innovative story ideas. She's warned me to be on my best behavior.
I've decided to smear on some black shoe polish next Wednesday, carry along my didgeridoo, and, just before shaking his hand, demonstrate to Michael the ancient Australian tradition of the puppetry of the -----.
If anyone objects, I will just say that such puppetry is part of my racial tradition and they shouldn't be moral imperialists.
The Big Book Of Jewish Conspiracies
Dave Deutsch, the world's worst Jewish comedian, writes:
Luke Ford watchers have long been wondering about what happened between him and David Deutsch.
Deutsch, the charming Humor Editor of Heeb Magazine, was once a frequent Ford correspondent, perhaps both his most imaginative and unimagined.
While a Ford spokesman insists that the drop-off in Deutsch's submissions are simply due to increased demands on his time in other areas, people are beginning to wonder whether there might be something more, given that the effeminately rugged Australian (voted "Mr. Oceanian Expatrate" 1992-94 and again from 96-99) has yet to make reference to the book Deutsch and Heeb editor Joshua Neuman just penned, The Big Book of Jewish Conspiracies, available at Barnes & Noble, Borders, Amazon.com, and anywhere works of remarkable comic genius are sold.
Is it because Ford considers reading a work of high-quality satire to be bitul zman, a waste of time that would take him away from his important misanthropic works?
Is it resentment that, having asked Deutsch to pen one of the innumerable forewords for one of his innumerable books, he was wounded by the fact that Deutsch didn't reciprocate for his own alarmingly funny work?
Is it because the notoriously stingy Angeleno, living up to his nickname "The Outback Jack Benny," refuses to buy the book, depite its brilliant wordplay, while the equally miserly Deutsch refuses to send him one?
Is it because the clever and witty Big Book of Jewish Conspiracies just came out last week and he didn't hear about it?
Or is it that Ford, famous for his iconoclasm and independence, has given in to pressure by the Jewish Establishment to keep silent.
According to one source, Ford, when asked why he hadn't read or reviewed the book yet, allegedly responded "ADL money can buy a lot of Air Supply Reunion Tour '05 Tickets and Dr. Reynardo's Magical Monkey Gonad Hair Restoration Treatment."
The eyes of your adopted homeland are upon you, Mr. Ford. What will you do?
Republicans For LA Mayor James Hahn
Longtime leader of the Los Angeles chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Bruce L. Bialosky, emails:
The election for mayor of Los Angeles will be decided by Republican and Independent voters. The question is why is it so important that these voters take a position on this race between what would appear to be two Democrats.
We intend to inform you of the differences over the next few weeks so that you can make an impact on this election and make sure that we have the right person representing us for the next four years.
Antonio Villaraigosa is a fine man. He and his family have been to my home for dinner. I supported him in 2001, but I have changed my position and joined the vast majority of leaders of the Republican community in support of Jim Hahn.
After Antonio lost his election in 2001, he went to work ‘part-time’ for Ron Burkle. Burkle is one of the largest fundraisers and contributors to Democrats. Antonio then decided to run for the city council in 2003. At that time, he made a promise that he would fill out his full term as councilman. Many of you may be skeptical of those kinds of promises, but there is a difference here.
In 2004, Antonio took a major position with the Kerry for President Campaign. There is little doubt he would have been in line for a major appointment if Kerry had won. No one would have faulted Antonio if he would have taken that position, forsaking his council seat. The difference is Antonio knew that the mayor’s race was in the near future and he misled his constituents and others -- like Bob Hertzberg. Because he had nowhere to go after the Kerry loss, L.A. mayor looked like a nice next step in his political career.
There are a multitude of policy issues we will outline for you that separate Jim Hahn from Antonio. In upcoming letters we will alert you to those issues.
You may have seen that County Supervisor Mike Antonovich has endorsed Jim Hahn. In the near future, we will make you aware of many more notable Republicans who have endorsed the Mayor’s reelection – the total is over 40 and growing. For example: State Senator Bob Margett, Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Over the past nine months, I've had far more success talking to women who say they've been victimized by rabbis (and advocates for these women), than I have from their critics (and the supporters of rabbis accused of sexual abuse).
I'm not arguing that all sides to an argument are equally valid. Rather, I'm acknowledging a lack of balance in my writing. That's why I'm particularly glad to get the following from journalist Yori Yanover, who has a different perspective on these matters than most of the people I've been talking to.
Yori Yanover (the webmaster of Worch's www.rebhershy.com) writes 2/13/05:
The string of accusations by grown women against various rabbis, that said rabbis have used their position to manipulate them into having sex with them, marks a sad trend in the politics of sexuality, as well as the politics of Jewish egalitarianism.
There should be legitimate cases in which women may turn to the law against abusive men of authority. Employers are not permitted to demand sexual favors, or even to use sexual language, under penalty of law. And minors are not even permitted the right to concede to sexual advances. Statutory rape is rape is rape.
But when a grown woman depicts a rabbi's religious position as an argument to absolve her of responsibility for having adulterous sex, it infantilizes her, and sets back the cause of women's egalitarian role in religious society. If women are so helpless that an authoritative gaze from a clergyman, or even concerted pressure, even nasty, abusive pressure, can cause them to succumb and have sex with him, we must conclude that it's too soon to permit women to have regular intercourse (no pun intended) in an open and unrestrictive fashion. We must shoo all our women into the house and bind them in chastity belts, because they're childlike and unable to withstand temptation.
A society of victims, unable to accept responsibility for their messes, is an infantilized society, one incapable of fending for itself spiritually and otherwise. We mustn't give in to the temptation of blaming our troubles on others. It is something only children do. Indeed, children and feeble minded people are entitled to be treated as potential victims. Grownups must account for their failures, even in the bedroom.
Jane (who had a relationship with rabbi Worch) replies (and I've edited down her letter for various temporary reasons):
Yanover's letter sounds all well and good. However, there is still no accounting for those who are in rabbinical positions primarily for the ego-gratification of power-over-others, using their mentoring and supposed 'spiritual' authority as tools of seduction. Has he no concern about those who pervert and abuse Judaism in this manner?
Yanover wants to talk about the so-called 'infantalizing' of women, that's a crock. The minute all the women who've been abused by these cretins...speak up is the minute they stop being infantalized. For more on being infantalized, in fact, he should ask...about... 'Age-Play'.
Of course Yanovers' going to have a "different perspective" on "these issues", when one of his main goals is to get you to remove your Profile page on his friend!
Here's a suggestion for digging a bit deeper as a journalist. When those supporters tell you things like "he's the only rabbi who really understood them", or "the relationship was healing" or "therapeutic" ---dig deeper.
Ask exactly what they mean, why, etc. If you dig deep enough, you'll eventually end up getting similar stories that we who came forward to complain have told--except with a different spin, of course, if they are still currently involved.
Those of us who've come out on the other side, when we hear things like that, the alarm bells go off. It's what we, too, once thought and felt. But manipulation can be a fine art, and in the hands of certain narcissistic craftsmen, even the best of people can be duped for long periods of time.
But do try to get more of his supporters to speak up. And be sure to question/ask them all about the BDSM Kabbala (yes it exists, two women I know have it although I've never seen it), ask them how their experiences of "timed orgasms" from his "voice-control" fits in with his teachings on Judaism, 'k?
Yori Yanover responds:
Luke,
It's disturbing to argue with an anonymous person, "Jane," while I'm presenting a full name, and my address and phone number are in the White Pages. Why would she fear exposure by having her identity revealed to me? What is the implication about who I am, that this Jane fears criticizing my letter using her full name? What is the implication regarding the veracity and acceptability of her own views when she's not there for an open discussion, but prefers to hide behind a pseudonym? What is the implication when this blog gives equal credence to both views, when one comes from a real man and the other from what could very well be a fictional woman?
"Jane" suggests that it's a bad thing that rabbis "pervert and abuse Judaism" by "using their mentoring and supposed 'spiritual' authority as tools of seduction." I couldn't agree more. But why does that absolve all who sleep with them of personal responsibility? Or, as generations of mothers used to say, "If he told you to jump off the Empire State Building you'd also do it?" Give me a break, barring physical or other violent enforcement, people, men and women, tend to sleep with those they want to sleep with. You slept with your louse of a rabbi it's your fault, unless you are a child or a moron (legally).
"The minute all the women who've been abused by these cretins...speak up is the minute they stop being infantilized," says "Jane." Actually, no, that's when they realize how badly they've messed up and are looking for a way to salvage the life they've ruined by pinning the blame on the guy they just did it with. It's the post-coital cry of Rape, and it don't wash.
And what am I to make of the assertion that "Of course Yanover's going to have a 'different perspective' on 'these issues,' when one of his main goals is to get you to remove your Profile page on his friend!"? Is this a grownup kind of discourse? Is this a rebuttal to anything I wrote, or an attempt to smear me by talking about my supposed intentions rather than my expressed opinion? This "Jane" could just as easily have written, "Of course Yanover has this perspective, because he's overweight, owes money at the grocery store and moonlights as a bouncer at Studio 54," with identical relevance to the discussion at hand.
The only credible proposal "Jane" puts forth is that charismatic manipulation is tantamount to an assault, which would absolve the victim of responsibility for adultery. But what she fails to provide is a single book of laws, Jewish, secular, Muslim, anything, which backs this assertion. She's plain wrong, and her exclamation that those manipulative, charismatic rabbis are perverting Judaism, pales before the kind of damage she and the victim movement is doing to the Jewish idea of responsibility, which is essential to the very Jewish idea of T'shuva. This is why on Yom Kippur we clap on our own chests and not on the chest of the charismatic rabbi standing next to us.
There's no free lunch, "Jane," no matter how many times you scream that it's the rabbi who made you eat.
Yori, I know that Jane is not a fictional woman. I've been talking to her for months. She had a relationship with rabbi J. H. Worch that went wrong.
That this blog presents many viewspoints, including your's and Jane's does not mean that each viewpoint has equal credence. After I provide the context I can, I usually leave judgments about credibility to the reader. I suspect that the "survivor" camp will give Jane full credibility and you zero, while others will give you full credibility and her zero.
My colleague Luke Ford included my note to him regarding personal responsibility Vs. the Victim Movement in modern Jewish life (and American life in general). There was a challenge to my note and Luke was nice enough to publish my retort with a few words of his own. Case closed. You'd think. The Victim Movement has no patience for the likes of me. after I was booted from the Awareness Center's mailing list (which I stayed on like everyone else, to find out when my own nefarious sex crimes are finally exposed), my name is mud on the new Jewish Whistleblower website, a new phenomenon in Net history: a blog so outside the scope of personal responsibility, even the person running it (and slinging fresh heaps of excrement, monkey fashion, at a plethora of public figures) hides behind a veil of anonymity. As it turns out, one cannot object to the Victim Movement unless one is either a predator of helpless women, or enjoys watching others doing the predator thing. It's amazing what you can do these days with a penis...
What do you do when someone has been manipulated into having sex with a religious leader, father figure and spiritual guide?
What do you do when a community attacks the victim for being brave enough to come forward?
What do you do when there could be concrete evidence a high-flying Orthodox rabbi had sexual relations with a woman other then his wife?
What should the survivor do if she fears for his or her emotional and physical safety if the evidence went public knowledge? Remember the survivor already feels like she's been victimized by their community. The survivor may feel humiliated that they were manipulated into having a sexual relationship. Especially when the survivor thought that the offender really loved her, and then later learned that it was only for the offender's own personal pleasure, and the need of feeling in control of another.
JewishIdea.blogspot.com writes:
Now, the Orthodox Jewish world, which holds itself to a higher standard, and is particularly averse to desecration of the name of G-d, struggles with its own scandal, and it is an ugly sight. The public discourse has degenerated into a knock down drag out name-calling slugfest,fought in hysterical tones, mostly on the internet, with neither side looking very pretty.
We have a group of people on one side screaming for Rabbi Tendler to step down as rabbi of his shul and move out of his town. Where he would go is not clear. The Orthdox Jewish world is small, connected, and often as overheated as the screaming blogs. Unless he clears his name, there is nowhere in the Orthodox Jewish world that Rabbi Tendler can go to escape the opprobrium that now haunts him. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Jewish religion has no central organization or bureacracy; the Jews have no Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope to make an executive decision to remove a rabbi from a pulpit and send him to an isolated monastary somewhere, to get him out of the spotlight, to punish him and protect him and the Church at the same time. Every shul rabbi is an entrepeneur, ultimately answering to whomever he chooses, if anyone at all. No, for better or worse, Rabbi Tendler is on his own and he is in the public eye, with nowhere to run. Every Jewish scandal is duly noted and recorded by the Jews and millions of Jew-observers across the globe. A rabbi, in particular, can not hide; he has no protection other than his good reputation. In the end, the only people who can decide that Rabbi Tendler must move on from his shul are Rabbi Tendler, and the people in his shul. No one else has the right to make that decision. This is a simple, but powerful fact. As long as Rabbi Tendler believes he can hang on to a group of True Believes in his shul, he will, struggling to ride out this storm.
On the other side of the controversy, the Tendler True Believers are butressed by a well-paid professional staff of political operatives, public relations people, attorneys, and loyal family members. They are working together to suppress the negative publicity. Rabbi Tendler has consistently denied all the charges against him. There is not even a hint that perhaps he made a mistake or two along the way. He has a right to take that position, and we are not here to take sides. But we must note that the pro-Tendler forces have employed the most reprehensible tactics. They have attacked the credibility of the accusers, who consider themselves victims of manipulation and abuse. After attacking the victims as a group of unstable nitwits, the Tendler machine unleashed its energies to do whatever it could to confuse the issues. They attacked the two midwives who first advocated the rights of the victims as unsanitary "witches" and "baby-killers". The Tendler forces then attacked the RCA rabbis as unqualified "mediocre" rabbis who were on "witchhunt". Why the RCA would conduct a witchunt against Rabbi Tendler, an RCA member for many years, is never stated. The True Believers attempted to impugn the integrity of the investigation because it was conducted by non-Jewish investigators, a truly primitive argument. And, in perhaps the most absurd agrument of all, the True Believers claim that the RCA investigation and decision to expel Tendler can't be respected because it was not the result of a formal legal process, or Jewish Beis Din. All this, in spite of the fact that Rabbi Tendler agreed to these very conditions at the outset of the investigation. The pro-Tendler forces have also tried to inundate blogs with endless amounts of spam, in order to suppress public discussion.
A woman who says she was abused by rabbi Mordecai Tendler posts:
We have been harassed and KNH [Kehillat New Hempstead, where rabbi Tendler is the founder and leader] members have said lies and describe us in very demeaning terms. There is No one really there to defend our images and no recourse for most of what is posted or the damage done. KNH members will always believe and support him no matter what. No matter what they claim of wanting to be convinced he is guilty. People still believe Laners’ innocence and in many other authorities who committed similar crimes. It’s a very sick whitewashing of the issue with his supporters like a Salem witch trial against the victims. RMT intention and schemed to damage the credibility of the women so that he would produce false witnesses and false testimonies and false reports from authorities to use against us if we spoke publicly. Even supporters of the sexually abused women have fed into these attacks confirming back with words like, “yes but he picks on crazies”, or “yes he picks on vulnerable”, etc. The one good statement I saw on your sites was that all human beings are vulnerable to someone who wants to manipulate and abuse them. This is not a sign of some psychological problem or weakness. I’ll add you can make any ones life look bad or some one like Scott Peterson could appear perfectly fine, like Tendler and they are a sick danger to women. RMT is the “crazy one”, if you want to use this term for the women and so are his supporters who cover-up for him by describing the women as the culprit and in a disgusting manner. Meet those who really know us. You’ll hear the real description and how normal we are. But “crazy” for him here means he needs help and should step down to get well. “Crazy” here for the women means what twisted take on us of the situation. RMT, his clan, president and close supporting members twisted the truth, did anything to cover up his image. Damaged any women who he either was inappropriate with or looked bad for his image as people were hearing from other abused women. And yes we have been intimated and threatened.
The RCA also victimized us. And Rabbi Dratch did. See Forward article. They gave RMT an internal report. Threw us to the dogs and responded back if you want the RCA to protect you from being threatened and harass then come forward. What? They are the cause of their deficient case. Protect? They made a statement without any details causing the ruling to be undermined then to rationalize the lack of details saves them? The second new statement proves again their boy club mentality to not mention the attacks made on the women but only on the good reputations of the Rabbis. The women have good reputations, just not from the Tendler, or the RCA because they can’t see either how good women are deceived?
We have been victimized by all you against Tendler including AC (The Awareness Center). You are so politically motivated to get him and your agenda is to do everything for that purpose you have thrown out all ethical and moral rules. You have forgotten the women. We have a right to privacy. We have the right to want to go forward or not; if we want to tell what happened or not. You compromised our confidentiality and privacy in order to get him and prove he is the sexual predator that he is to back up what you revealed publicly which was privately told to you by those he abused. It didn’t matter that we are victimized by you because all is fair game, so you think. To get out of this for us you justify will mean great you’ll be verified and promoted, we will have to defend and protect ourselves, so let’s throw their info in. No true supporters of women would do this. If you want to help then open doors for women to come to. If the women you know don’t want to be public accept it, get others. Have faith in God, you did your tachlis, he’ll continue. You harmed us. You victimized us. I can’t see women I know who have also been victimized by him looking at what you did, seeing the way we were spoken about from all sides on the blogs containing very few truths wanting to come forward, definitely not to you. You have also hurt our claims.
Invoking the name “Martin Luther King” and screaming “Black Power!” a gang of up to 30 black teens attacked four white girls in Marine Park in what police are saying is not a bias crime.
Surely BrooklynSkyline is a satirical site. I find the whole tone of this article distasteful. I think we should try to minimize tensions between the races not exacerbate them.
Dennis: "Being a Democract means calling evil evil after conservatives have conquered it."
Prager mentioned that Thomas Friedman of The NYT wrote today that it is inevitable that we will win in Iraq. Prager also refers to the first Gulf war to free Kuwait and the overthrow of communism.
Prager remembered being excoriated at Columbia graduate school for Russian studies by the future National Security advisor to president Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brezinski, for calling the Soviet Union "totalitarian." Zbigniew told Prager that we don't use that kind of term about Russia because we don't know that it is true.
Prager: "I want to talk about how feminists celebrated a woman [Andrea Dworkin] whose most famous idea was that all sex with men, even the most loving marital sex, is rape.
"So she became a lesbian and married a gay man.
"Gloria Steinem said Andrew Dworkin changed history. In her eulogy, Steinem said Dworkin changed the way people think.
"When women say that their feminists but they don't buy this nonsense, then what makes them a feminist?
"Feminists have not stood up for Arab women (Afghanistan, Iraq and places where honor-killing is honored).
"Dworkin said the only difference between a whore and a wife was the number of men involved.
"And she was considered to be a major feminist thinker."
Wendy from Chicago calls. She said she believed what Dworking advocated and it almost wrecked her marriage.
Prager: "The secular leftist brainwash at college is a big subject on this program. You have kids in a hermetically sealed environment... The university is not dissimilar from a cult politically speaking. That's why when conservatives show up, they routinely have pies thrown in their face or salad dressing. That someone would believe that all sex is rape. Do you understand how that cheapens rape? The first people who should be angry at Andrea Dworkin should be people who've been raped. That's the first group who should spit on her grave. But feminism doesn't care about raped women. They care about crapping on men."
Prager wants to do an hour on his radio show on the things you learn in college that you have to learn as adult. "How colleges play with the brains of students, especially female students. Teaching these ideas [Dworkinite at times] about men. Women's studies courses are overwhelmingly taught by disfunctional women like the late Andrea Dworkin.
"She married the last five years of her life, but she was a confirmed lesbian on ideological grounds. She married a gay man. That's a good example of where gays can marry."
Caller: Her theory was that all intercourse is a power-play, such as in prison. There's some truth to that.
Vicki Polin writes:
One of the most important things to remember regarding Andrea Dworkin is that she forced our society to think outside of the box. She gave us permission to value our own thoughts when they were different from mainstream society. She allowed women to be independent thinkers.
It doesn't matter if you agreed or disagreed with Dworkin's views. What mattered was she made you think. Andrea Dworkin's writings attacking pornography gave both women and men who were being victimized the opportunity to have their voices heard and, in turn allowed to heal.
From The LA Times:
Bush Made Inroads Among Jewish Voters, Study Shows
Jewish voters remained overwhelmingly Democratic in the 2004 presidential election, but President Bush made inroads with those who attend religious services most often, according to a study to be released today.
But the initial Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool exit poll had found that Jews preferred the Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, over Bush by 74% to 25%. The Los Angeles Times exit poll had found an almost identical 74% to 26% split among Jews.
According to Mellman's surveys, Jews who attended religious services weekly split their votes evenly between Bush and Kerry...
That mimics a powerful trend among Catholics and Protestants. Frequency of church attendance has become one of the strongest predictors of voting behavior, with those who worship most regularly leaning Republican and those who attend less often voting more Democratic.