Witness Protection: The Prophet Returns

Cory Parella is part of a wave of born-again Christian filmmakers. He’s a recovering Catholic of Italian heritage who now lives in Denver.

We talk by Skype Monday night.

Cory has a new book out called, Witness Protection: The Prophet Returns. “After a second civil war subsides, a filmmaker with gifts in basketball returns to the US at the request of his close friend, a former assistant coach who has become the President-Elect. The Constitution was edited by Evangelic Christians, and now everything they did while in military power must be re-examined despite their best of intentions.”

Cory: “When I first started as a writer of the born-again Christian genre, I got caught up… I nicknamed it snake handling without the snakes. I was in the front row.”

“I looked at what was the most controversial topic in church and it was porn. You could have a guy walking into a church with a heroin needle sticking in his arm and there was compassion for that, but anything sexual in nature was [shocking].”

“I looked at, how many of these performers would have chosen to do that if they could have done something else? I saw a lot of smart kids because of tax penalty laws drop out of college [and go into stripping]. Most of them were just trying to survive economically.”

“When I come across folks who are addicted to works, there are issues. When I come across folks who are secure in their own faith, we get along well and tongues get loose. That’s when ministry really happens.”

“I listened to one guy who was convinced that Jack Nicholson was a Satanic priest and for years I bought it until I met people who had worked with him, and they said, no, he’s done a lot of research for movies, but those are different things.”

Luke: “What’s it like being not Jewish in a Jewish industry?”

Cory: “I don’t perceive the media as a Jewish industry anymore. It used to be. I remember Beverly Dean. She said that the only people who’ve come to my aid as a Christian are Jewish. The other Christians ask me for money. Most of the time, Christian works get financed by Jews trying to piss off Palestine. I died laughing when I heard that. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

“The only time I felt racism against my faith from the Jewish community was completely apart from the entertainment industry.”

“To my knowledge, it hasn’t cost me a deal. People who are good at their jobs don’t factor that in.”

Luke: “How did you get into the sex industry?”

Cory: “I couldn’t get a job. I was a Caucasian living in a town [Tucson] where you needed to be bilingual or brown. Racism is a remnant of the Spanish Armada… The remnant of it there is that they are latino first and ideology second. If you switch that, you’re living the dream Martin Luther King described.”

“I did DJing for ten years. One of the last places I worked up the courage to walk into was this dive of a strip club. I walked in and this guy throws me a t-shirt and says that if you can show up, you’re hired. What I didn’t know is that it is the highest likelihood of getting a cold. It’s worse than an elementary school. Getting wrapped up with the social life is hazardous to your health. The girls are carrying stuff, so are the boys. Drugs flew in there like an airport at Christmas. The owners walk around like characters in a Scorsese movie.”

“Why are people coming in for this? They want to pay for love. The church is fumbling with matchmaking. Most of the dancers were starving. Most of the bouncers were too. A lot of addictions. The clientele was also desperate. It was all about using chocolate to feed the masses. You eat too much chocolate and it will kill you. You need the healthy stuff.

“I witnessed a lot of dark stuff, ambulances taking girls home more than their rides after a shift. Drugs took their toll. Every parasite you can think of would feast on vulnerable people.”

Cory also published, Repeat After Me:

From 1979 to 2013, Joe Cavaleri was known as the Ooh Aah Man to Tucson fans of the University of Arizona Wildcats. His live-wire fully body spell-outs of “ARIZONA” and his kid-friendly, hyper charged cheers became not only crowd favorites, but often changed the momentum of the games themselves, fueling the Wildcats to at least 2 national titles in baseball and four Final Fours in basketball as a result.

Once a competitive college basketball player himself, a freak accident ended his career, but sent him into an unlikely career, becoming the first non-student cheerleader in NCAA sports, a role he would play for 30 years. During that time, he walked with sports icons – Steve Kerr, Lute Olson, Jim Nehls, Bob Elliott, Sean Elliott to name a few, and taught the crowds that came to see them play how to cheer like a Wildcat. Official mascots Wilbur and Wilma were based on Joe, and he inspired the creation of Zona Zoo.

In 2009, Parkinson’s Disease ended his career, but his legacy lives on. He transformed West Coast basketball from what it was, when John Wooden’s UCLA fans and players were polite and quiet. Because of Joe, Pac-12 and other leagues rebranded their sports: real fans cheer real loud.

Cory wrote The Faithful, about his dad, a Tucson police officer, and Lute Olson, the Arizona Wildcats basketball coach.

After our interview, Cory emailed:

One thing I wanted to emphasize is that lust, connected to motion pictures or not, is not a male-only issue.

It is shared by both genders and is not directly derived from or codependent with photography.

If a blind man can lust, and a married couple can masturbate each other while watching animated sex cartoons, and no Scripture has been violated, then this means the majority of what is being taught, preached and sold through series like Every Man’s Battle and XXXChurch.com is a false Gospel.

Yet people buy it to avoid accusations and guilt — neither come from God.

Posted in Christianity | Comments Off on Witness Protection: The Prophet Returns

Amy Dresner – She Was 13th Stepped And She Kinda Liked It (3-9-14)

I discovered Amy Dresner while reading TheFix.com about a year ago and was instantly hooked by her honesty.

“Amy Dresner is your soul mate,” said a girl I was chasing at the time.

Here are some of my favorite Amy Dresner articles:

On 13th stepping:

When I had 60 days sober, I started dating an AA member with 19 years. His sponsor told him he could do what he wanted, as long as he was willing to pay the consequences. My sponsor told me it wasn’t a good idea because I was newly sober. I didn’t listen.

I liked the guy because he didn’t talk my ear off about recovery. Guys with four years tend to tell me how to work my program, and how they won’t get involved with me until I have a certain amount of time sober.

“How come you donʼt lecture me about my program?” I asked my old-timer one day.

“Because Iʼm trying to date you, not be your sponsor,” he told me. “And I donʼt consider you a ʻnewcomerʼ because you’ve been in and out of the program for 17 years. You just donʼt have any time.”

Sex and Dating in Sobriety:

In the beginning, the boys in AA kept me coming back. But ultimately, going cold turkey had to mean giving up more than just drinking and drugs.

The Fixes We Chase In Sobriety

Now that you’re sober, it’s time to sleep around, shop, guzzle on sugar and find other harmful ways to soothe your psyche. Or you could meditate and get a massage. Meet the good, the bad and the fugly of sober fixes.

Amy wrote for The Frisky about squirting. She wrote about hook-up culture. She has four articles on After Party Chat and a chapter in the new book Tales of Lust & Love.

I talk to Amy via Skype March 9, 2014. Here’s a transcript of the highlights.

Amy: “No one was at the gym. It’s my new obsession — working out. I want an ass like a Russian twerker. Stripper ass at 44. We’ll see if it happens.”

Luke: “When you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up?”

Amy: “A comedian. When I was six years old, I was watching Richard Pryor and I wanted to be a black comedian. People think I’m a black man on the phone.”

Luke: “What did your parents expect from you?”

Amy: “I did very well in school and very well in college and like every LA brat, I thought about acting. My dad’s a screenwriter. My godmother is a casting director. They wanted me to do anything but act… I dabbled in that for a while and realized I couldn’t be anyone but myself. Then I did fashion for seven years and comedy for five years and now I’m writing, which my dad is thrilled about.”

Luke: “What clique were you in in high school?”

Amy: “The smart, straight-girl clique, not the cool girl clique. I didn’t get out of control until later. I went to Westlake, an all-girls private uniform school where Tori Spelling went. I guess girls were doing blow off their new BMWs at 7:30 a.m. but I didn’t know about that. I was lagging. Everyone else was drinking and having sex. I was a virgin and didn’t start to drink until the second year of college.”

Luke: “What was the happiest time of your childhood?”

Amy: “Saturdays when I was ten or twelve and my father used to take me bowling and to the sticker store and I would dress up in my god-mother’s expensive designer clothing and smoke pretzels in her Jaguar.”

Luke: “Were there any signs in childhood that you were going to have these addiction problems?”

Amy: “I started to get pretty depressed around 15. That was pretty much it. I was a happy kid until then. I always felt alone and different and weird. I always felt like there was something wrong with me. There’s a lot of alcoholism and mental illness in my family.”

“My mom worked a lot but my dad worked from home when he wasn’t at the studio. He was active in my life. I had my dolls and writing little screenplays. Dirt bikes, swimming, kissing boys. I was pretty normal.”

Luke: “When did you first fall in love?”

Amy: “If it’s unrequited, is that love or is that obsession? The person I lost my virginity to was the playboy of college. I was madly in love with him. It took me years to get over him.”

“I fell in love again around 33 with a marine who was just back from Afghanistan. We had a long-distance thing for six months and when that ended, I lost my mind.”

Luke: “What was being in love like?”

Amy: “Painful. I never felt good enough. I didn’t feel that I looked right. I was too funny, too aggressive. He [the devirginator] would date a lot of girls who seemed bright and that confused me. Being raised by a father and raised to be someone’s emotional wife, you think men want women who are like them — smart, funny, aggressive, but my father has never been with women like that, and when I got out in the world, men didn’t want that either. They were like, eww, you’re too much like me… Men found me too aggressive and assertive and smart and funny. I never thought that was bad stuff. It takes a very smart guy to roll like that and not be intimidated. You asked if I got sick of being objectified, as a smart women, you never get tired of being objectified.

“On Tindr, people love my photos and then as soon as I open my big mouth, I alienate them within ten minutes.”

Amy finds herself wanting guys who are unavailable. “I see red flags a lot and I ignore them.”

“I didn’t lose my virginity until I was 19. And then I was celibate for seven years, from 27 to 33. I was never promiscuous. This is a new thing for me. It’s a new way to check-out. It’s a response to an ugly divorce, wanting to disprove what an ex said about you. the love addiction stuff is the most painful stuff. I never tried to kill myself over sex addiction. I have tried to kill myself over the ending of relationships.”

Luke: “Have you had an experience of love that made you feel whole?”

Amy: “Can I cry over Skype? Not for an extended time.”

Luke: “What are you most proud of?”

Amy: “I’m most proud of my courage in my writing… I write to own what I’m ashamed of, to say the thing that people are thinking that no one dares say.”

Luke: “What role have your looks played in your self-esteem?”

Amy: “I’ve always been insecure… I hate having my photo taken. Skype is brutal. It’s amazing I ever get laid with the way I look on Skype. I must be f***ing blind people… I even went into treatment for body dysmorphic disorder, which is where you think something is wrong with your looks.”

“Growing up in LA with a father who liked shiksas [Amy’s mom is not Jewish], I always felt too Jewish. I didn’t want to be Jewish. I wanted to be goyim.”

“I don’t like being dressed up. It makes me feel too vulnerable, like I’m on a platter, so I usually dress down.”

“Now that I can’t get high, creativity is the one thing that makes me feel connected and gives me self-esteem and makes me happy. Its something I need to do. I have to write. It’s a compulsion.”

“The 12-step program has worked for me but I was sober for seven years without it. My mom has been sober for 30 years and she’s not in the program.”

“Everyone’s cross-addicted now. When I got sober 20 years ago, no one would let you talk about drugs and now everyone is cross-addicted. Oh, it’s all the same. I can get addicted to anything — exercise, sleep, meditation, sex. If I can check out with it and get high, I’m behind it.”

Luke: “What do you think about God?”

Amy: “I struggle with that. I believe in a Higher Power and the Universe but I don’t call it God except for when I’m over-dosing on the bathroom floor and then it’s ‘Help me God!’ I don’t think God’s an integral part of getting sober. Twelve steps is cognitive behavior therapy.”

Luke: “Do you think there’s any kind of psychic or spiritual tie that happens once you have sex with somebody?”

Amy: “God, I’ve never thought about that, but now that you’ve said it, I’m horrified at that thought. Now I probably won’t sleep with anyone again unless I want to marry them thanks to that comment.”

Luke: “What are your biggest questions about men?”

Amy: “I don’t know what they want. It’s confusing. Although my marriage didn’t work out, at one point he really loved me and loved that I was smart and kinda wild. A lot of men think I could be fun but they don’t necessarily want a relationship with me. The people are attracted are either people who want to save me or people who think I’m a wild freak or other people who’ve struggled with the same stuff.”

“I tried for a long time to change myself into what I thought men wanted and I just didn’t feel authentic. I feel like the right guy will say, she’s smart, she’s wild, she’s out there she’s lived a life, she’s amazing. I want someone who can accept the way I am. I reveal too much too early and people can get freaked out. They don’t have an investment then. They don’t know the entirety of me. On paper, I don’t look very good.”

Luke: How did you try to change yourself?

Amy: “Softer, more feminine, and not as aggressive and assertive and intellectual and not being the funny one.”

“I live with someone [in sober living] who just had a baby. No one thought I would be good with the baby because I pretend to be such a hard-ass, but anyone who knows me know I’m very very sensitive and that’s just armor to protect me because I’ve been hurt. I’m amazing with this baby and the baby loves me. What opens for me with the baby is a real nurturing, maternal, pure, loving, vulnerable side of myself that I don’t see very often and I’m trying to connect with that more. If a man is strong and sees through my BS, I like to go more into my feminine energy. I like to be in my feminine energy and be more receptive and softer. I have my hair in a bun for you today. I’m trying to look all pretty.”

Luke: “Would you rather date a felon or a Republican?”

Amy: “A felon for sure.”

Posted in Addiction, Amy Dresner | Comments Off on Amy Dresner – She Was 13th Stepped And She Kinda Liked It (3-9-14)

Defamation – Behind The Scenes Of The ADL

Wikipedia: Defamation (Hebrew: השמצה‎; translit. Hashmatsa) is a 2009 documentary film by award-winning filmmaker Yoav Shamir. The film examines antisemitism, and in particular the way perceptions of antisemitism affect Israeli and U.S. politics. The film won Best Documentary Feature Film at the 2009 Asia Pacific Screen Awards.

The film examines whether anti-Semitic has become an all purpose label for anyone who criticizes Israel and the possibility that some Jews’ preoccupation with the past — i.e., the Holocaust — is preventing progress in the here and now.[1] Shamir decided to make this film after a critic of an earlier film accused him of antisemitism.[1]
Filmmaker Yoav Shamir states in the beginning of the film that as an Israeli he has never experienced antisemitism himself and wants to learn more about it since references to antisemitism in countries all over the world are common in the Israeli media.
The film includes interviews with Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, John J. Mearsheimer, co-author of New York Times Best Seller The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Norman Finkelstein, a critic of Israeli government policy, as well as many others. The film also follows a group of Israeli high school students on a class trip to Poland where they tour Auschwitz, as well as a number of other notable Holocaust locations.
The film notes that in 2007, the ADL reported a spike in antisemitism, claiming that there were 1,500 anti-Semitic incidents in the United States, yet when Shamir contacts the ADL they can only list minor incidents such as websites with inflammatory comments, letters from employees denied time off for a Jewish holiday, or people offended by a cop’s use of the word “Jew”. A case presented concerns a group of African American boys, aged between 10 and 12, who pelted a school bus with rocks, breaking two windows.
Shamir also interviews a rabbi who says that the hypervigilance of the ADL inflames relations between Jews and non-Jews in the United States. He also finds that among his interviewees there is more sensitivity to antisemitism among secular Jews than religious ones.

After the film was screened at the Tribeca Film Festival, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement denouncing the film, stating that it “belittles the issue (of antisemitism) … and cheapens the Holocaust. It is Shamir’s perverse, personal, political perspective and a missed opportunity to document a serious and important issue.”

Posted in ADL, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Defamation – Behind The Scenes Of The ADL

My Financial History

I went to my first 12-step meeting in May of 2011. I was tired of having the same type of relationship over and over again and thought I could benefit from checking out a recovery group.

As the months went by, I began to fall in love with the 12-step approach to life and began to look at new groups for help. I figured that if this was an area of my life that wasn’t working, perhaps the reward center of my brain weren’t working right and I might have an addiction. For instance, I really like feeling full so I over-eat because a stomach stuffed with food takes away my anxiety. I’m fairly disciplined in what I eat, but I definitely eat too much. I weigh 180 pounds on my 6′ frame, about 30 pounds more than I weighed in high school. I could benefit from going to Overeaters Anonymous. I’d love to drop 10 pounds.

One thing that long blocked me from checking out 12-step programs is my conviction that I am strong, disciplined person who can accomplish anything I set out to do. Now at age 47, I have to accept that this self-image of mine isn’t always true.

I’ve always thought of myself as careful with money and yet I have $45,000 in credit card debt and $20,000 in other debts (while I have only $2,000 in the bank). Something is not right here.

My first instinct is to tell you that my financial problems are a result of my devotion to my art (writing) and that’s why I’ve never earned more than $50,000 in a year. But that’s not the full story. I think the core reason I have financial problems is the same reason why I’m a bachelor and the same reason I don’t have as many friends as I’d like — fundamental systemic character flaws.

My earliest memories of money revolve around my strong desire to get it and to spend it (mainly on things like books, toy soldiers, and candy). I drifted through many hours fantasizing about what I’d do if I had gobs of money (just as I similarly day-dreamed about achieving power and prestige and popularity, and later those dreams took a more sexual turn).

I think I started getting an allowance in second grade. I spent most of it but saved about a third. On a couple of occasions, I stole money from my parents and splurged on candy, wasting much of it.

When I came to America in 1977, I spent most of my money on stamps for my collection. I started working jobs after school in seventh grade and was fired from my first six of them for lousy performance.

Most of the patterns above are still in me today. I spend hours of time fantasizing about what I’d do if I had money. I never excel at jobs I’m not interested in. I find most work tiresome. I don’t like taking orders. I think I’m smarter than most of the people around me. I just want to do what I want to do and I will make enormous sacrifices to have a maximum of freedom to do what I like, but I often misjudge on this score and find my freedom severely constricted by the poverty that stems from my unwillingness to work regular jobs at regular pay for as many hours as I can. I like to make money in big steaming gobs for very little effort. Frankly, I prefer to be given money as a reward for doing what I like.

My favorite coping mechanism for getting through work in my early days was the radio. I loved news radio and talk radio and sports radio and music radio. I needed some distraction to get me through pulling weeds and paperwork and cleaning and filing and other nonsense far below an intellectual of my stature.

I’d prefer to think I didn’t steal at work, I simply rounded my hours to my advantage. To this day, I won’t take any more than I can maintain my image of myself as essentially honest.

As the son of a famous man, I got a lot of things given me and I really liked that. As the youngest child, I perfected my manipulation skills. I learned that if you just told people what they wanted to hear and went along with their enthusiasms and let them be in charge, you could get a lot of stuff gratis.

My parents had many concerns about my character. Good thing they didn’t know about how often I’d cheat in school.

In eighth grade, I found betting a wonderful accompaniment to my sports fixation and over the next five years, I tried to play bookie to my friends as often as possible. I found that betting got my adrenalin racing and time went by quicker and sporting events became more meaningful when there was money on the line.

On my first day playing with the neighbor’s kid in the summer of 1982, just before the start of tenth grade, I won $10 off him. I was appalled that he asked his dad for the money and I quickly said that’s ok, I forgive the debt.

“Better to forgive the debt and save the friendship” my friend’s dad said in effect.

I didn’t get into much trouble with my betting. I think I stayed about even. My high school journalism advisor wouldn’t let me play bookie in his classroom. He said it wasn’t good that my friends and I were learning to take advantage of each other. So we had to make our bets outside.

Then late in 12th grade, my friend Oscar took me to the cleaners on the horses. I was up about $300 on Oscar when he said he wanted to bet on races in San Francisco. I always preferred to play the bookie and I thought I had the angles and that the odds suggested I should come out ahead, but Oscar knew something that I didn’t know, and quickly I owed him about $2,000. I was leaving the country for a year in Australia after high school, so I paid him $200 and we called it quits.

I was so shaken by the experience, I resolved to never bet again (with my own money). I’ve kept this resolution.

This disaster was a bright red flashing light in my head that I had an addictive personality. I started using that phrase at times, “addictive personality” and I would tell people that’s why I wouldn’t drink or try drugs.

I think the first money I earned on the books was in the summer of 1983, just before my Senior year of high school. I worked in the custodial department at Pacific Union College. A friend got me the job. I was feeling quite low looking for work. I found the job hard and I was always looking for the easy way out. I often found this through baiting people. One of my supervisors was a medic in the Vietnam War and I’d ask him how many babies he killed. Many of my co-workers hated me and picked on me in return and one day, this little Mexican, being a good Christian, stood up for me and told people to leave me alone. I’ve never forgotten it.

I went back to Australia after graduating Placer High School in June of 1984. I lived with my brother. After a couple of months looking for work, once I stopped telling potential employers I planned to return to the United States in June of 1985, I got a job at GJ Coles. For the next four months, I hated my job.

I loved to read the newspaper every day and whenever I could, I dipped into my brother’s change jar to buy it. Part of me said this was stealing but I ignored that voice.

Then I caught a break. A friend of my brother got me a contract cleaning and maintaining the Boyne Island Shopping Centre. As long as I kept everything spic and span, I was good to go. I’d manage to spend a couple of hours or more each day just reading books and the pay was about $20 an hour. I reluctantly quit halfway through my contract and returned to California in June. I saved about $10,000 from that year.

I worked as an intern at KAHI/KHYL radio, eventually getting hired for 16 hours a week at minimum wage. I bought my first car — a 1968 VW Bug for $1,500. In September of 1985, while tuning my car radio, I ran my Bug into the back of a parked school bus and received about 40 stitches to the cut between my eyes (from my head smacking the steering wheel at about 30 mph). The accident was 100% my fault.

I was so depressed by this disaster that I waited two months before spending the $900 to repair my car. Instead, I caught a ride with my mom to and from Sierra Community College.

In the summer of 1986, I began a job in landscaping. The first two days were killer. Most people would quit because the bosses always gave the new guys the most difficult work to sort them out. People thought I’d quit but I hung in there. On the third day, we went to work at the home of Doug and Sharon Hanzlick. I met their beautiful daughter Rebecca and I fell in love with the whole family. Suddenly, I loved my work, no matter how back-breaking, because I got to be around the Hanzlicks and even when I wasn’t working around them, I could talk about them with my bosses.

By early 1988, I had saved about $30,000. I’ve always been good at saving. I’m not a spender by temperament. It’s just that on occasion, and many years may go by before such times, I’ll just get obsessed with something and make irrational spending decisions on my latest kick and they will leave me in the hole for many years afterward. It’s like I get drunk and binge and regret it.

In February of 1988, disaster struck in the form of disabling Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I had to reduce work and eventually quit it entirely by December.

By June of 1989, poor health also forced me to quit UCLA. My life had fallen apart. I began looking into Judaism. In the summer of 1990, I spent about $4,000 buying all the newsletters and tapes that Dennis Prager had for sale and sending them to my friends, even though I knew most of these people would have no interest in what I was sending them.

Somewhere inside, I knew that I was unhinged. Rationally speaking, I should’ve spent my money seeking to ameliorate my Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, but I badly needed meaning in my life and Dennis Prager seemed to provide it and so I gorged on his materials, bought his radio highlights back to 1986, and was his top overall customer through 1994.

I was so sick most of the time, I only had an hour or two a day where I could think clearly and I’d spend this time on Judaism and Pragerism rather than on seeking out a cure for my illness.

When I made a two-thirds recovery on my health and moved to Los Angeles in March of 1994, I had about $10,000. Living out of my car for six months and then bunking down with friends, I blew through my savings in a year on acting classes. I got my first credit cards and skipped work to concentrate on writing my first book. Eventually, my credit maxed out at $20,000 and I had to take temp office jobs. I got fired from three of them for inappropriate speech (sexual remarks etc).

I bought my first real computer July 3, 1997, and within six months, I was earning enough from my website lukeford.com to do it full-time. By the Spring of 2000, I was out of credit card debt.

In August of 2001, I sold lukeford.com for $25,000 and lived off it for a year while working on a book about Hollywood producers. Then I went back to blogging on the adult industry and that was my primary means of financial support until I quit in October of 2007. I then had $6,000 in the bank and credit cards promising me close to $100,000 in total limits.

I thought about getting a regular job but that depressed me, so I tried various schemes (spending $10,000 for courses and eventually earning it back) to make an honorable living online. This didn’t work. As each month went by, I fell deeper into credit card debt. I believed that I would soon find my sweet spot but that kept eluding me.

In July of 2008, I got a new credit card from Bank of America with a $10,000 balance. I used it to buy 30 lessons in the Alexander Technique at $75 per lesson. I loved the Technique and decided to train to become a teacher. This took me three years and cost about $24,000. During the first two years, I was so tired by my training, I didn’t feel capable of working a regular job on the side. I simply made do with little gigs I could do from home. Between 2008 and 2012, I borrowed about $30,000 from my family.

When I graduated from Alexander Technique training school in December of 2011, I had about $50,000 in credit card debt. For the next three months, I devoted myself to trying to build up a practice. I put up a website at Alexander90210.com. When I wasn’t able to get a sufficient number of students to support myself doing what I loved, I took an office job in April of 2012.

Since then, I’ve had minimum credit card payments of about $1500 a month and have been able to reduce my total credit card debt by about $130 a month (and I have paid off about $2,000 in other loans). I’m good at living inexpensively but I’m an under-earner. I’ve never liked to do work I wasn’t interested in or excited about the people around me. When I’m done at the office and I have enough to make it through the month, I then concentrate on my writing, my personal growth, and trying to make things happen in Hollywood.

The past few weeks, I’ve been listening to these lectures from Debtors Anonymous. It’s good stuff. One of these days, I’m going to a meeting.

In one of the lectures, I heard a recommendation that one write out one’s financial history as part of working the First step. That suggestion led to this blog post.

I start most of this type of writing by hand in my journal and then I sometimes put a sanitized version on my blog.

Perhaps my journey to financial sobriety will begin with this simple post.

I’ve often lived with a sense of crisis, desperation and despair and most of this is related to my finances. There’s a peace of mind that comes with money in the bank.

Most of the time, I make sober judicious choices with my spending. Only on occasion do I act drunk, but then those few binges drag me down for months afterward. I do under-earn. I’m glad when I get the day off work and instead of looking for gigs on craiglist, I spend the day reading books, writing in my journal, listening to lectures, blogging and trying to launch a career in something I love such as teaching Alexander Technique or doing a TV show.

I’ve often been a burden to my family. I have this great sense of entitlement that comes with believing yourself to be a genius. I expect the world to fund me to do my thing and I’m disappointed when that doesn’t work out. I’ll often wait until the last minute to take a real job.

On the positive side, I’ve always been scrupulous about returning borrowed objects, treating other people’s property with respect, and paying my debts to people (my family will give me time to get back on my feet and pay off my credit cards before I pay them back), while on the other hand, other people have stolen more than $50,000 from me. I’ve never denied or minimized my debts, I’ve rarely been late with my payments and never in default, and I’ve always been honest with my creditors. My credit score has always been north of 600. I think a credit score might be the single best number to assess somebody’s character.

Posted in Addiction, Personal | Comments Off on My Financial History

I Hate Gmail

Over the past 36 hours, about 15 routine emails I’ve sent out (including to some people I’ve exchanged email with previously at these identical email addresses) have been rejected and returned as spam.

I get this response to each failure from Gmail: “Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: [email] Technical details of permanent failure: Message rejected. See http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=69585 for more information.”

So I go to that link, and I get this:

Here at Gmail, we work very hard to fight spam. This includes not only spam coming into Gmail but spam being sent out from Gmail as well. Believe it or not, spammers sign up for Gmail addresses in large numbers just to send out spam! To help do our part to keep this junk off of the internet, we bounce mail that we are confident is spam. Unfortunately, we aren’t perfect and will occasionally bounce legitimate mail. We apologize for the inconvenience.

There are a number of ways you can inadvertently confuse our automated spam filter, by sending suspicious-looking or spammy text, for example. By far the most common problem is sending mail cc/bcc’d to large numbers of recipients (“bulk mail”) to send out newsletters, invitations, etc. Since spam is sent to many recipients, our spam filter is slightly more likely to confuse bulk mail with spam.

All of my rejected email were individual emails to only one recipient at a time. I’ve never had this problem before. I’ve never used [email protected] to spam.

After logging a dozen complaints with Gmail with no response, I’ve returned to using my AOL email account.

Posted in Google | Comments Off on I Hate Gmail

7 Women You Meet on JDate

Ester Steinberg is the actress in this, Jason Horton is the bloke.

The seven women you meet on JDate are:

1.Persian Princess from Beverly Hills
2.The Girl from Camp
3.Agent Mogul
4.Israeli Soldier
5.Crude Comedian
6.Just Got Back from Birthright Hippie
7.The Nerotic Nerd

Posted in JDate | Comments Off on 7 Women You Meet on JDate

Monica Foster Dishes The Jewish Dirt

On March 5, 2014, a friend sent me a link to JewishDirt.com. The site immediately grabbed my attention. I looked to see who made it and saw the name “Monica Foster.” I’d heard that name many times before over the previous few years. I decided I wanted to talk to her.
The next evening, I interviewed Monica via Skype. Here is a partial transcript of some of the highlights of our talk. Please listen to the Youtube recording if you want to get the whole thing in context.

Luke: “So, when you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up?”
Monica: “I wanted to be Janet Jackson. I had her pictures everywhere. I really believed I could be Janet Jackson. My mom always had me in dance class. And then I had the awakening that I could not be Janet Jackson because I was not a Jackson.”
“That’s what brought me into being a stripper because you have an audience. Now I think, oh, how delusional… If I knew what I know now, I would never have become a cam girl, a stripper, nothing. I would never want anyone to go into adult.”
Luke: “Where were you in the social pecking order in high school?”
Monica: “I was very popular. I was a varsity cheerleader in tenth grade. I was an over-achiever. I always had good grades. I did not graduate high school though because of things going on with my mom and I. I had to move out of the house. I couldn’t deal with her anymore… She and I have a decent relationship today.”
Monica’s parents divorced when she was 14. Her dad, an engineer, came out as gay.
Monica: “I was the hub between many different groups. I’ve always had the entertainer gene. I was a good athlete. But then I had my nerdy side, my tech side, which is my favorite part of who I am. I’ve been on computers since I was four years old. My best friends were technology friends who were always guys. I can only have a few girlfriends because I don’t like the drama.”
“My issue is that I can never have enough attention. It’s just something in me. I don’t know what will ever fill that void. I’m always looking for something that I’ve never seen before. Through my search, I tend to create things that other people have never seen before. That’s my gift and my curse. That’s why I do the work I do. Right now I’m trying to figure out the link between religion and the adult industry.”
Luke: “Were you molested as a kid?”
Monica: “No, it never did. I had extremely conservative parents. My mother is an elementary school teacher. She dissuaded me from anything to do with sex. My dad was never open about it. He never abused me nor any of his children.
“He came out of the closet when I was 14. He’s openly gay. He has his life partner. That confused me when I was young.”
“I am extremely straight. I love men. I’ve never been sexually into women.”
“I’m accepting of people’s sexual preferences. I have gay friends, but what I don’t like is how some people who are gay make it their whole life. I am straight and I don’t make being straight my whole life.”
Luke: “What at age did you become physically involved with boys?”
Monica: “Not until I was almost 20. I had no urge at all until I was about 22. The boyfriends I had were guys who were very non-sexual. It was more of a friendship. They were more guys who wanted to be able to say they had a girlfriend so other girls would leave them alone and they would do the same for me so other guys would leave me alone… I’m a late bloomer.”
Luke: “What role have your looks played in your self-esteem?”
Monica: “Tremendously. When I was a young girl, I always felt out of place because I grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood. I was the only black girl in my school until my parents divorced and my mother brought my family to south Florida… I had a difficult time assimilating because the black girls couldn’t relate to me and I couldn’t relate to them… That’s why I was so obsessed with Janet Jackson because that was who I could relate to. My mom made sure that all of my dolls were African-American. She tried to instill in me a great sense of being African-American. When I moved to Florida, I realized I was pretty good looking.”
“What makes me feel the best is being able to help people. That’s the type of attention I like the most. I need that validation…
“Even with the cam shows, I feel like my shows help. I always make my title, ‘This is the psychologically healthy adult material.’ Even when I’m in free chat between the paid shows, I say, ‘Hey, you might not get a show with me, but do any of you need real world advice and they really do ask.’ I’ve been told I really do help them. That has helped my self-esteem.”
“My first long-term relationship was with a guy from the United Arab Emirates. I think I’ve dated as many white guys as black guys. I’ve never dated an Asian. I’ve never had an Asian guy approach me. They don’t tend to be into black women.”
Luke: “When did you first encounter Jews?”
Monica: “When I moved to Florida. Hmm, the Jewish people. I have my opinions the Jewish religion as a whole. Definitely. I think a lot of people who claim to be of the Jewish faith don’t live what the Jewish faith is. They use it instead as a ticket into certain social circles and as a way to feel that they belong to a group. I don’t like that at all. Since my exodus from porn, some people have given me a very hard time and they’ve all been on the Jewish faith. I feel that people who live by the Jewish would not condone [the adult industry]. That’s something I’ve been fixated on the past couple of weeks.”
“Jews seem to isolate themselves from other people for some reason. There’s this level of insecurity. The first guy I became close friends was named Ori. I was 18. I had just dropped out of high school. He had this certain paranoia within him. He told me that he could relate to black people but he did not like white Americans. To me, he looked like a white American guy. I did not know when I met him that he was Jewish. I thought he was a white guy.
“He was extremely insecure about being Jewish. He was always talking about being Jewish. Everything was Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. It was weird to me. He was under the impression of white Americans looking down on him and not liking him. I don’t think the majority, that white America is out to get you. That was my first encounter with someone Jewish.
“I went to FAU and met more Jewish people. It was this isolationist mentality and a little bit of aggression. I didn’t really know where it stemmed from. When I went into porn, I met a lot more people who were Jewish and a lot of people who were anti-Jewish. That’s when I first became aware of what the Jewish people were paranoid about. At that time, I never thought positive or negative about Jewish people as a whole.”
“When I left porn, I noticed that all the people who were stalking and harassing me and my family, they were all Jewish and they were constantly talking about being Jewish. It’s on Twitter that I’m noticing this. One guy in particular, Ari, is very Jewish and he uses his Jewish faith to attack Christians… I have the screenshot of this [Jewish lawyer] openly said ‘Christianity is bulls—.’ I’m like, you doesn’t even adhere to any faith, you say you’re an atheist, you don’t follow any religion, so why are you going say Christianity is bulls— and then at a later date say that you have an affection for the Jewish community. Why is it that the Jewish people are OK and the Christians are not? I consider myself a Christian and I’m offended by that.”
“I feel like there is definitely an organized aggression by what I consider to be bad Jews. I don’t think all Jewish people are bad but there are a group of them who self-identify as Jewish and I don’t think most Jewish people would want to claim as their own. If these were black people and they wre acting like this, I’d say, you guys are out of the black world. You can’t be here. Of if they were Christians, I’d say no, you can’t act like this.”
“I never even knew about this Anti-Defamation League until this guy Mark threatened to contact them with regards to what I was saying. So I go to their website, their Las Vegas branch one, and front and center, they have this picture of Martin Luther King. So I’m like wow, Martin Luther King, they must be against defamation and racism and what not. So I’m looking at their site and I’m looking at who they’re against and who they’re targeting, and I’m like, wait am inute. They’re going after Farrakhan. Farrakhan has this book out where he’s talking about Jewish people and their involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. I don’t know if that whole book is correct or not but I do know that Farrakhan is protected by the First Amendment. I find it interesting that this First Amendment [Jewish] attorney who fights for freedom of speech and fought for the right for this guy to have his book, ‘The Pedophiles Guide…’ and at the same time, you’re going to tell Farrakhan he can’t have his book? That’s lumped under my umbrella of being a bad Jew.”
“That guy running the Anti-Defamation League isn’t even American-born. I’m not saying that makes him bad, but maybe he has some things in his mind that somehow he can silence people.”
“The majority of Jewish people I’ve met, 95% of the Jewish people, I have no problem with at all, but these people in the entertainment industry, there’s something going on. Are they even Jewish or is this a code word for something else? Maybe this is a code word for Satanism.”
“I don’t like the aggression I’ve noticed towards Christianity. I notice that a lot of the media, which is owned by a lot of people who claim to be of the Jewish faith, that certain stereotypes are amplified. Christianity is blatantly assaulted and picked on. And recently there’s been a lot of aggression towards people who follow Islam.”
Monica said that her romantic relationships with Jews haven’t been any different than her other relationships.
Monica: “Currently I only have one friend who is Jewish. He’s not a close friend. He is very aware of the work I am doing right now. He thought JewishDirt.com was a good idea. Before I built that site, I spoke with him about that. He is someone who actually follows the Jewish faith but he has been attacked by the mainstream media. He’s been attacked by people who work in technology of the Jewish faith with regard to some software programs he developed. He’s happy about being Jewish but he’s kinda upset with some people who claim to be Jewish. He got what I’m saying with that website. Before I built that site or even registered that domain, I felt like I needed to talk to him about it. I said, ‘If I do this, will a lot of people be incredibly upset?’ And he said, ‘The only people who are going to be upset are the people who are claiming something and not living it… I know you. I know exactly how you think. You are not going to do it unjustifiably.'”
“The Jewish people I met in south Florida before I went into adult tended to be empathetic and compassionate.”
“The Jews [in the adult industry], their demeanor was completely different from the Italians and the blacks… Very condescending. Very gang-like. Very aggressive. Very scary. Still the isolationist thing. Kinda like a superiority complex too… Maybe because they control so much… James Deen went on record saying that the Jews know they are better than everyone else. What is that? Is he trying to rev up hate? Why would he say that unless someone else said it to him and he’s just repeating what he heard and it’s OK because of his social circle. We all have to be careful with our racial sensitivity. I don’t know why it’s OK to objectify everyone who is not in their little group.”
“I only started that site, JewishDirt.com, about four days ago. I can’t believe the traffic.”
“I built the site because I want the Jewish community to know what is going on. I want them to know about this legal extortion business with copyright law, the escorting and illegal prostitution, the stalking. Now I’m looking at Jewish news. I’ve never looked at Jewish news before. Joan Rivers was just attacked by the ADL for saying that Heidi Klum looks hotter than the ovens Jewish people were thrown into. Joan Rivers is as Jewish as you can get but I’ll tell you why I think she was attacked. Her daughter dated Steve Hirsch of Vivid, who’s in the Free Speech Coalition, which seems to stem from the Anti-Defamation League… I’m looking and it seems like Jewish women are attacked, are given a hard time in the media, but the men are not.”
Luke: “How did my writing affect you?”
Monica: “Your blogs are incredible to me because you did quite a few interviews and you were able to capture the mindset of the porn stars. I like how you brought in your religious views. You mentioned how a lot of the women didn’t seem to be thinking clearly. You’d write about the circumstances going on around the women. You were painting a clear picture. Very good work.”
Luke: Why did you get into the adult industry?
Monica: “I wanted to change my life and get out of Florida. That was my ticket out of Florida. I did buy into the whole Jenna Jameson thing. I thought if I worked hard enough or was smart enough in how I marketed myself that I would have a good chance at getting a contract. I was not aware that black women didn’t get contracts. I did realize it was a game I would have to play but I didn’t realize the magnitude of the type of game it was. I was seeking attention, fame, money.”

Luke: You don’t see a big difference between adult and the regular entertainment industry?
Monica: “On camera, yes. Off camera, no. The porn people are more the daredevils, definitely adrenalin junkies, but the people in mainstream entertainment could be worse because they’re hiding it. I liked the porn people more than the mainstream people.”
Luke: “What did you see of the occult in porn?”
Monica: “Yes. There’s Ordo Templi Orientis, OTO.”
“There were a couple of private bookings I did and these men were into the occult. They had the symbology all over their homes. They were into worshiping these deities. That’s why condoms are important because they do use the bodily fluids in these ritualistic practices. I don’t know if the people involved in it even buy into it or if they’re doing it as a ticket to advance careerwise. I did notice that in these cult groups they utilize these brainwashing techniques. There were certain ways they would talk to you to influence you.
“There are a lot of girls when they are young who are brought into these groups and they use these beliefs and practices to separate them from the faith they were brought up into. Let’s say it’s a Christian girl from the Midwest. She might be bedazzled by all these satanic references. Maybe she thinks, hey, my homelife was bad, here I am doing porn anyway, my parents are Christian, maybe they didn’t love me enough, and these people seem to have money and glamor and success and they’re following OTO or Satanism and maybe the girl tries it but she might believe that once she goes there, she can’t come back to God.
“I was already 29 when I got in. I was too old to be influenced like that. I had lived too much. I’ve had people tell me, you can’t leave. You can’t go back into mainstream society. You’ve already done this. I have this website, Christian Porn Star. They’re like, you can’t be Christian. You can’t believe in Jesus. Look at what you do. And I’m like, God forgives. Jesus died for my sins and I sin every day and I feel pretty good about what Jesus went through on that cross. No matter what is thrown at me, it is not as bad as being held on a cross with nails through your wrists and hands. Muslim people do acknowledge Jesus. Jewish people might not think he rose from the dead but they do acknowledge that that cross thing happened. God is the commonality between the religions I think are real and valid.
“I feel that all this occult activity is an effort to separate men and women from God through guilt. I would like to see more religious leaders tackle this issue but they’re afraid to because of the organized crime and the stalking. These porn people have the world so intimidated, they’re using the prostitution as blackmail against some of the world’s leaders because they’re all seeing the hookers.”
“I think there is such a thing as soul ties. I don’t think that anyone should have that much sex because there’s some sort of energy exchange that happens that can tie you spiritually and psychically. The phrase of ‘giving yourself to someone’, you really are and you need to be careful about who you give yourself to.”
“If you’re in too long, it tears at your soul. A lot of the men who’ve done hundreds of scenes, they are not like other men. It’s like they’re lacking in their soul. It’s like an emptiness. A lot of women who’ve done a lot of scenes, I’ve felt that emptiness within them too. I did under 30 scenes. When I left, I felt empty. It took me until a year and a half ago to go back to where I felt prior… Even when who are professional courtesans, the best ones have few clients. There’s one woman I know who calls herself a courtesan. She sees maybe three or four guys. She’s told me, ‘I only see such a small amount of people because I think spiritually it depletes me.'”
“That’s why a lot of people in porn commit suicide or go crazy because of all the sex. It’s too much. I don’t think our bodies are designed to handle. Not at all.”
Luke: “Is there anything I haven’t asked you?”
Monica: “I think I’ve shared too much. I don’t talk to anybody anymore. I get a lot of interview requests but yours came out of the blue and I was like, that’s who I want to talk to. This will be my interview for the next year or two or three.”

Posted in Jews, Pornography, Prostitution | Comments Off on Monica Foster Dishes The Jewish Dirt

Bad For The Jews

Historian Marc B. Shapiro gets flak for revealing things about Jews and Judaism that are widely seen as negative.

Marc defended himself here: “And believe me, there are plenty of “unsavory” things I have not printed here on the Seforim Blog (and was advised not to discuss by leading academics — I can provide further details for people who are interested).”

He’s referring to being told that such things are bad for the Jews.

Who are these “leading academics”? Marc won’t say.

Is our understanding of Jewish life and of Torah mishaped by the policies of these “leading academics” and those who follow them to not make public matters of importance that reflect poorly on Jews. How much is this promotion of group interest warping the interested public (Jewish and non-Jewish) understanding of truth? It would seem that this widespread silence on matters that reflect poorly on Jews by leading Jews justifies non-Jewish skepticism of Jews and Jewish claims (including on the numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust, six million is the sacred figure and any quibbling is regarded as anti-Jewish). How can Jewish scholars be trusted when they continually silence themselves in the service of Jewish interests?

Marc Shapiro replied: “Everything is context. Some things should not be put out there on a blog in a sensationalist fashion but can be discussed in a scholarly work. That is what I mean.”

I wonder what sort of things should not be discussed on a blog but are fine to discuss in “scholarly works”? I wonder if “scholarly” means so abstruse that ordinary people can’t understand it, or perhaps publications in a medium where it is unlikely ordinary people will find it or find out about it.

Christian scholars in the academy (outside of the power of their church) don’t have this sort of self-censorship. Could you imagine the outcry if you found out that leading scholars of Christianity were self-censoring so as to preserve the reputation of Christians and Christianity? I believe in a big distinction between scholarship and apologetics and when I turn to scholarship, I don’t want to believe that scholars are self-censoring to promote their team.

In his blog posts, Marc often leaves the most incendiary material in Hebrew and doesn’t translate it.

Prior to my converting to Orthodox Judaism, I grew up a WASP (a Seventh-Day Adventist) and I never remember WASPs saying we should keep certain things secret because they would be bad for WASPs. There’s much more concern about such things among the Jews.

WASPs are pathetic at organizing in their group interest.

I asked historian Jonathan Sarna: “Do you give guidance to academics on what is appropriate and not appropriate to discuss publicly and if so, what is your advice? Is this self-censoring in group interest routine among Jewish academics, and if so, how much does it shape Jewish scholarship? In other words, how much credence can we give Jewish scholarship when it is shaped by group interests? I grew up a WASP and never encountered the idea among WASP academics (I grew up on college campuses) that there are truths we should not share about WASPs because they would not be in our group interest.”

Dr. Sarna replied:

Dear Luke,
I do not recall giving guidance to academics on what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly, but I do sometimes to help graduate students to understand the difference between scholarship and advocacy. Scholars (like myself) who occasionally weigh in as “public intellectuals” need to understand, and make clear, when they are writing as “passionate advocates” and when they are writing as “dispassionate scholars.” The two roles are different.
There are, of course, times when scholars choose to exercise self-censorship, particularly at moments when national passions run high (wartime, after Sept 11 etc.). There are times — in personal life and in scholarly life — when a wise person stays silent. The ancient rabbis knew this and advised scholars to be careful with their words. I think that remains good advice.

Bar Ilan historian Ariel Toaff, who rose to fame in 2007 with his controversial book about the blood libel, replies to me:

In my opinion the search of historical truth cannot and must not be subservient to considerations of political expediency. Not can it be conditioned by the risk that its findings may be distorted and exploited.
It is true that when the intention is to conduct research into Judaism and Jewish history, the problems become especially complex. However If you do not intend to produce a predictable apology or to add yet another brick to the atemporal and hackneyed reconstruction of the past, there arises the real and intimidating danger of antisemitism, infinite distortions, generalizations in bad faith, and hatred for the Jews and Israel today so fraught with menace. So is the game worth the candle?
My answer is, despite everything, unequivocally affirmative. Learning the real history of the Jews and Judaism in both their positive and controversial aspects, and abandoning the narrative of the Vale of Tears where the victims are always the same, can only serve to strengthen Jewish identity. I refer not to the virtual and edifying Jewish identity projected always as benevolent and satisfactory (sometimes indeed completely invented by too many cautious and sensible defenders of Judaism), but to an active, real and effective identity in history: a vigorous identity which emerges with all its errors and inevitable contradictions, and is extraneous to artificial or instrumental schematism.
I intend to stress that it is not possible to charge those who conduct seriously academic research in Jewish history by accepting the anti-historical currents of Judaism today, that in my view are driven by worries which, though legitimate, are entirely extraneous to the work of the academic and scientific researcher.

If Jews in America can’t speak freely and openly about themselves and their tradition without worrying about how they will be perceived, then where can they speak freely?

In his latest blog post, Marc Shapiro wrote:

I am curious if anyone else had my reaction. While his return of the money was definitely a kiddush ha-shem, I think that his speech has the potential to be a hillul ha-shem, nullifying the kiddush ha-shem. First of all, he lets the world know that there are those who told him that it was forbidden (!) to return this money. He then tells the audience that his justification of returning the money was in order to make a kiddush ha-shem. This approach, which received applause at the convention (but not from those on the dais!), is not what he explained in a prior interview with the Los Angeles Times that his reason was “to do what is right, and thinking about the feelings of others. It’s looking out for one’s fellow man, and not just for one’s self.” (I assume this is how he really feels, not how he expressed himself at the convention.)

Let’s leave aside the point that as best as I can determine, according to secular law one is indeed obligated to return lost property of this sort. I understand that for those who don’t accept the Meiri, the halakhah Muroff is discussing can be quite a challenge in modern times. But I wonder what is going through the heads of the Agudah leadership. Do they really want the entire world to know that their approach in this matter has nothing to do with helping one’s fellow man, but is about doing what will make Jews look good in people’s eyes? Isn’t this the sort of thing that would be best not spoken about in public?

Posted in Jews, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Bad For The Jews

Who Was The Last American Politician Who Was a Public Intellectual?

I think it was the sociologist and politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who noted that Americans tend to behave more sanely the closer to Canada they live. Newt Gingrich thinks of himself as one but none of his books stand up on their own without his famous name.

I spent part of my weekend studying the 1939-1940 Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union.

Finland has traditionally been near the top of the heap for educational test scores. Why? What’s their secret? Lots of Finns.

Here’s a great story from Finland. The Prime Minister wouldn’t debate the ideas of his father on race.

According to Wikipedia:

Tatu Vanhanen (born April 17, 1929 in Vuoksenranta, Finland, now Ozyorskoye, Russia) is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere in Tampere, Finland. Vanhanen is a co-author (with Richard Lynn) of IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002) and IQ and Global Inequality (2006), and author of Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism (1999) and many other works. His son, Matti Vanhanen, is a former Prime Minister of Finland.
Vanhanen developed interest in evolutionary biology after studying Edward O. Wilson’s sociobiology. Most of his academic works are about democratization which he has studied with international comparative methods.[1]
From 2002 to 2004, he was investigated for incitement of “racial hatred” by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigations.[2] An interview he had given with a magazine, in which he contended that whites and Asians were more intelligent than blacks for evolutionary reasons and should therefore be given many of the top political and financial positions in Africa, had apparently been the object of complaint by Finland’s “Ombudsman for Minorities”, Mikko Puumalainen, who said he feared the former professor’s remarks would boost racism. “Whereas the average IQ of Finns is 97, in Africa it is between 60 and 70. Differences in intelligence are the most significant factor in explaining poverty,” Vanhanen had said. Eventually, the police dropped the investigation.
His son, former Prime Minister of Finland Matti Vanhanen, told journalists he did not intend to engage in a public debate with his father.

News report:

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is considering whether or not to launch a criminal investigation into comments made by Professor Emeritus Tatu Vanhanen in an interview with Kuukausiliite, a monthly magazine supplement of Helsingin Sanomat.
In the interview Professor Vanhanen, a former Professor of Political Science at the University of Tampere, said that evolution has made Europeans and North Americans more intelligent than Africans. Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said on Wednesday that he regrets the controversy sparked by Tatu Vanhanen, who is his father.

Professor Vanhanen told Kuukausiliite that African poverty is not the fault of the white man.
“Whereas the average IQ of Finns is 97, in Africa it is between 60 and 70. Differences in intelligence are the most significant factor in explaining poverty”, Vanhanen said.
He also said that it might be a good thing if as many Europeans, Americans, and Asians as possible were to take on leading economic posts in African countries. “Only they are capable of creating prosperity”, he said.
On the other hand, Tatu Vanhanen said that he favours economic solidarity toward poor countries, and he hopes that immigrants in Finland would inter-marry and assimilate into the population at large.
Jari Liukku, deputy head of the NBI, says that the police are investigating whether or not Vanhanen’s comments constitute public incitement against a national group, which is a crime under Finnish law.

Finland’s minority Ombudsman Mikko Puumalainen hopes that a police investigation will be launched. He says that although freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Finland, the right is not unlimited.
Puumalainen also dismissed the scientific validity of Vanhanen’s claims.
The Finnish League for Human Rights fears that Vanhanen’s interview could aggravate the racism experienced by immigrants and ethnic minorities in Finland.
“This interview could strengthen movements of the far right”, says Aysu Shakir, a project head at the league.
Shakir notes that after the publication of the interview, Internet chat rooms have filled up with comments by extreme right-wing groups and individuals who “swear by Vanhanen’s name”.

Commenting on his father’s interview, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said that it case was “more a sad matter than a burden” for him.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that the controversy would not have arisen if the person making the comments were not his father.
Asked if he felt a need to distance himself from the views that Tatu Vanhanen expressed, he said that he does not plan to engage in public debate with his father.

Posted in Finland, Race | Comments Off on Who Was The Last American Politician Who Was a Public Intellectual?

Baby Richard

Beginning in April 1995, Dennis Prager devoted every hour of his radio show for six weeks, much to the dismay of his bosses and many of his listeners, to the Baby Richard controversy. Why this obsession? Because the story exemplified Prager’s belief that blood means nothing and values mean everything.
In his March 25, 2002 column, Dennis wrote:

I took the news of the forced resignation of
Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene — for having had sexual contact with an 18- or 19-year-old woman 11 years earlier — very hard.
You see, in 1995, Greene and I were the two most vocal voices in
America in defense of a 4-year-old boy taken away from his family and given over to a birth father whom the boy had never seen. The boy, Danny Warburton, was known as “Baby Richard,” though at the age of four, he was hardly a baby.
The Illinois Supreme Court, in a vote of 5 to 2, overturned a
lower-court ruling to leave Danny with his parents and his brother, and to hand him over forever to a birth father who soon after abandoned the boy again. The justices did not even provide a way for Danny to communicate with his family, the only family he had ever known.
At Danny’s birth, the birth mother had legally given adoption rights over to the Warburtons, a fireman and homemaker — his parents virtually from birth.
Bob Greene in the Chicago Tribune and I, through my radio talk show and writings, poured our hearts out for this boy. I devoted half a year to writing an analysis of that horrific decision and the
blood-is-more-important-than-love thinking that made it possible.
How could these Illinois Supreme Court justices use their power to
hurt, rather than protect, a child? As the case involved Chicago
residents, Bob’s voice was uniquely powerful. Against the judgment of those in the media who believe that the public easily gets bored with any issue, he devoted column after column to making readers like me weep for Danny Warburton and for his mother, father and brother.
Were it not for Bob Greene, I would have known much less about the
situation and not obtained the information I desperately needed to make my daily case against Illinois Supreme Court. Also, knowing that I had a major ally in the media enabled me to do something I have never done in 20 years on the radio — devote more than a month to the same subject, every day, for three hours. 

Said Dennis Sept. 17, 2010: “I spoke at a rally on his [Baby Richard’s] behalf in Chicago. And I cried in the middle of my own talk, it was so painful, that whole issue, in part because my child [Aaron] was the same age and also adopted at birth and the thought of his being taken away was nightmarish.”
According to Wikipedia Susan Brandenburg reported July 4, 2007:

Moriarty’s dramatic account of the four-year battle by Czechoslovakian immigrant Otto Kirchner to regain custody of his son from the couple who had adopted him at birth is in direct contrast to the condemnation of him that defined the case back in the mid-1990’s. It ultimately changed adoption laws in several states.

Although it appeared to the public that the biological
father of the boy had suddenly appeared on the scene to rip his 4-year-old son from the loving arms of his adoptive parents, the father’s court battle for custody actually began before his child was three months old.

One aspect of Moriarty’s “rest of the story” is that
the adoptive parents, Kim and Jay Warburton, and their attorney had actually coerced Daniela Kirchner, a young, vulnerable, then-single immigrant mother, into signing away rights to her baby without the knowledge or permission of the birth father. For years, beginning when the child was a tiny infant, the conflict between the adoptive parents and the biological parents raged through courts and state legislatures, fueled by intense media coverage of a highly toxic nature against the biological parents.

In Think A Second Time, Dennis wrote:

Nothing in the history of the human race has
caused more evil than the belief in the importance of blood.
Many of the greatest evils in history — from the universal practice of slavery to the caste system that has permeated the Hindu world — have emanated from the blood-based belief that I owe allegiance only to my group.
But it is in the twentiest century that blood-based beliefs have caused the most cruelty and destruction:
* The Turkish slaughter of the Armenians.
* The German near-extermination of the Jews of Europe (the Holocaust).
* The Japanese mass slaughter and enslavement of other Asians.
* The Chinese slaughter of the Tibetans.
* The mutual mass slaughter of Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.
* Apartheid in South Africa and racist laws against blacks in America.
* The enslavement and mass slaughter of blacks in the Sudan.
* The “ethnic cleansing” by Serbians in Bosnia.
Every one of these evils was a result of blood-based beliefs.
The only great twentieth-century evil that did not result from
blood-based beliefs was communism, which dehumanized people by defining them according to class or Party affiliation rather than race.
As regards children, blood-based thinking has been at the root of the belief in parental ownership of children — “you are my blood, I own you.” A feeling of ownership over children has led to or justified the enormous amount of abuse and humiliation of children and to such practices as male relatives murdering a daughter/sister for losing her virginity before marrying.
Of course, blood-based values aren’t entirely destructive… They have led to one positive development: the fostering of love and
responsibility toward family members. Yet even these two positive
results have often had negative consequences…
Obligations toward blood relations have frequently led to believing
that one has no obligations to non-blood. The more people have based love
for people on blood, the more they have tended to diminish the value of people who are not blood related.
Hence, the great amount of inter-tribal, inter-clan, inter-racial, inter-ethnic, and
inter-national hatreds.
Another negative consequence of blood-based values has been
described…as “familism”, not trusting anyone outside of one’s
family… [A] major explanation for the development of North America and the relative non-development of South America has been the prevalence of familism in South America.
…[F]eelings of responsibility and even love toward family members are created; they are not the “natural” result of blood relationships…
When people do care for family members it is because they are family members, not because they are blood (even though most people believe that it is blood that is the source of that caring). We think that blood love is natural, almost instinctive. It isn’t.
The desire to eat or to engage in sexual relations is natural, but
caring for blood relations has been culturally cultivated…
If blood were a factor of any significance in determining family love, biological parents would be considerably more likely than adoptive parents to love their children. However, by any measurement we are capable of making, parents of both adopted and biological children love them identically…
Adoption also provides proof that obligation toward family members
emanates more from cultural values than from blood ties. Members of
adoptive families feel just as obligated toward (and close to) family members as do members of blood families…
Husbands and wives are family — indeed, they are often the individual to whom one feels closest in life — yet they are not blood related…
Throughout the world the family of one’s spouse is considered one’s
family — yet, like our spouse, none of this family is blood related…
Friends provide the most obvious example of non-blood love…
If parents loved their children because they are blood related, why do they continue to love their child even if they come to loathe the child’s other blood parent?

You could just as easily argue that nothing in the history of the human race has caused more good than the belief in the importance of blood as it has been the foundation (we like people who are like us more than we like people who are different from us) of almost all flourishing families, tribes and communities. All the evils Prager lists above are the flip side of genetic altruism — sacrificing for your own.

Prager’s theses are easy to test. Does genetic similarity predict
closer ties or not?

J. Philippe Rushton found:

For Homo sapiens, inclusive fitness theory goes well beyond ‘kin’. As William Hamilton hypothesized, genes can
increase the probability of their own survival by bringing about the reproduction of not only family members with whom they share copies, but also of any individuals with whom they share copies. Research with Hamilton’s theory on people is less well known and remains controversial. This review shows: (1) spouses and close friends assort on blood groups and that similarity predicts fertility; (2) twin and adoption studies find genes rather than upbringing cause people to positively assort; (3) phenotype matching is more pronounced on more heritable items within sets of homogeneous traits; (4) bereavement studies find grief is greater following the death of a more similar co-twin or child; (5) studies of face perception find people prefer and trust those who look like them; and (6) DNA variance within and between ethnic groups is equivalent to that within and between families.

Kin-selection theory predicts that animals increase their fitness by allocating more cooperation to kin than to non-kin. Hamilton (1964) showed that altruism (or, conversely, reduced aggression) is favored when rb – c > 0, where r is the genetic relatedness between two individuals, b is the (genetic) fitness benefit to the beneficiary, and c is the fitness cost to the altruist. However, to benefit kin over non-kin, altruists must be able to detect genetic relatedness. Mechanisms proposed for this to occur include familiarity, imprinting on self or others, and innate feature detectors that work in the absence of learning…

A study of 263 child bereavements found that: (1) spouses agreed 74% of the time on which side of the family a child ‘took after’ the most, their own or that of their spouse, and (2) the grief intensity reported by mothers, fathers, and grandparents was greater for children who resembled their side of the family than for children resembling the other side of the family…

Several studies have found that people rate faces as more attractive when they resemble their own. Platek et al. (2002) morphed people’s faces with those of toddlers and asked questions such as ‘Which one of these children would you like to spend time with?’ and ‘Which child would you adopt?’ People responded more positively toward children’s faces that had been morphed with their own. During debriefing, the participants expressed surprise that any morphing had occurred. DeBruine (2002) found people trusted a stranger’s face more when it had been morphed with their own than when it was left unchanged…

The pull of genetic similarity does not stop at family and friends. Malat & Hamilton (2006) found that people prefer same-race health providers and perceive them as more trustworthy. Putnam (2004) found that the more ethnically diverse a community, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust others, from nextdoor
neighbours to local governments.

Inclusive fitness theory has been used to explain why members of ethnic groups move into the same neighbourhoods, join together in clubs and societies, and are prone to develop ethnocentric attitudes toward those who differ in dress, dialect, and other appearance…

In retrospect, it is not surprising that people are able to detect and prefer those who resemble themselves. Similarity, whether actual or perceived, is one of the most important factors in human relationships. It is more surprising to find just how fine-tuned the recognition process can be. The studies reviewed above show that the preference for similarity occurs within ethnic groups and within families and on the more heritable items from within sets of related traits.

In another paper, Rushton found:

Genetic Similarity Theory extends Anthony D. Smith’s theory of ethno-symbolism by anchoring ethnic nepotism in the evolutionary psychology of altruism. Altruism toward kin and similar others evolved in order to help replicate shared genes. Since ethnic groups are repositories of shared genes, xenophobia is the ‘dark side’ of human altruism. A review of the literature demonstrates the pull of genetic similarity in dyads such as marriage partners and friendships, and even large groups, both national and international. The evidence that genes incline people to prefer others who are genetically similar to themselves comes from studies of social assortment, differential heritabilities, the comparison of identical and fraternal twins, blood tests, and family bereavements. DNA sequencing studies confirm some origin
myths and disconfirm others; they also show that in comparison to the total genetic variance around the world, random co-ethnics are related to each other on the order of first cousins.

Most theories of ethno-political conflict and nationalism focus on cultural, cognitive and economic factors, often with the assumption that modernisation will gradually reduce the effect of local antagonisms and promote the growth of more universalistic societies (Smith 1998). However, purely socio-economic explanations seem inadequate to account for the rapid rise of nationalism in the former Soviet Bloc and too weak to explain the lethality of the conflicts between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in the Indian subcontinent, and Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Albanians in the former Yugoslavia, or even the level of animosity between Blacks, Whites and Hispanics in the US…

Patriotism is almost always seen as a virtue and
extension of family loyalty and is typically preached using kinship terms. Countries are called the ‘motherland’ or the ‘fatherland’. Ethnic identity builds on real as well as putative similarity. At the core of human nature, people are genetically motivated to prefer others genetically similar to themselves…

In 1964, evolutionary biologist William Hamilton
finally provided a generally accepted solution to the problem of altruism based on the concept of inclusive fitness, not just individual fitness. It is the genes that survive and are passed on. Some of the individual’s most distinctive genes will be found in
siblings, nephews, cousins and grandchildren as well as in offspring. Siblings share fifty per cent, nephews and nieces twenty-five per cent, and cousins about twelve and a half per cent of their distinctive genes. So when an altruist sacrifices its life for its kin, it ensures the survival of these common genes. The
vehicle has been sacrificed to preserve copies of its precious cargo. From an evolutionary point of view, an individual organism is only a vehicle, part of an elaborate device, which ensures the survival and reproduction of genes with the least possible biochemical alteration.

‘Hamilton’s Rule’ states that across all species,
altruism (or, conversely, reduced aggression) is favoured when rbc40, where r is the genetic relatedness between two individuals, b is the (genetic) fitness benefit to the beneficiary, and c is the fitness cost to the altruist. Evolutionary biologists have used Hamilton’s ‘gene’s eye’ point of view to carry out research
on a wide range of social interactions including altruism, aggression, selfishness and spite. The formulation was dubbed ‘kin selection theory’ by John Maynard Smith (1964) and became widely known through influential books such as The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (1976) and Sociobiology: the New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson (1975).

With Arthur Jensen, Rushton sketched:

…the poverty of predictions from culture-only explanations. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that in intelligence, brain size, and other life-history variables, East Asians average a higher IQ and larger brain than Europeans who average a higher IQ and larger brain than Africans. Further, these group differences are 50–80% heritable. These are facts, not opinions and science must be governed by data. There is no place for the ‘‘moralistic fallacy’’ that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires.

[James Watson] is but the latest in a long line of academics that have been pilloried and defamed. The others include Nobel-Prize winner William
Shockley
, Hans Eysenck, Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn, Richard Hernstein, Charles Murray, Christopher Brand, Glayde Whitney, Helmuth Nyborg, and Tatu Vanhanen. The present writers too have endured their share of attacks. The taboo on race will surely become a major topic of investigation by sociologists of knowledge. There is no parallel to it in the history of science. It is uniquely imposed, mainly through self-censorship, by members of the Western intelligentsia in their own academy – which prides itself on a tradition of academic freedom, open inquiry, and the unfettered discovery, systematization, and pursuit of knowledge and its dissemination to the general public.

Based on the book Race, Evolution & Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton

Based on the book Race, Evolution & Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton

Posted in Dennis Prager, Race | Comments Off on Baby Richard