Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

Orthodox Union’s Christmas Weekend In Los Angeles

Posted on December 22, 2007 by Luke Ford

As I walk into shul Friday night, I see Michael Medved.

"You’re our star!" I say. "I loved your autobiography."

He smiles.

I stay in shul after davening and read a book for an hour while everyone else goes downstairs to eat dinner.

Then I attend a forum with Michael Medved, Dr. Karen Bacon (from Stern College) and Rabbi Danielle… The OU’s Rabbi Daniel Korobkin moderates. The topic? "Are we too integrated [with the gentile world]?"

Says an observer about the Spinka Hasidim scandal: "Blame the Hasidic attitude that we can’t assimmilate with the goyim, therefore we don’t have to observe their laws."

I have to sit through a couple of long midrashim that everybody in the room must’ve heard a hundred times already.

Michael Medved says it is a wonderful thing for Jews, including Orthodox Jews, to join the American military.

It’s easy to get kosher food in the American armed forces.

The panel agree that shuls should not host super bowl parties and casino nights.

I heard one Orthodox rabbi said that he used to have super bowl parties and that he would give shiurim (Torah lectures) during half-time and time-outs.

Michael Medved says Jews should integrate with Gentiles who share their values. How do observant Jews integrate with Gentiles? It’s impossible. Jewish law makes it difficult to socialize with Gentiles.

(Michael brought his father, wife, 15yo son and brother Harry.)

I heard Orthodox Union CEO Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Weinreb speak Friday night and Saturday morning. In the morning, he cites Conservative Judaism scholar Elliot Dorff in his description of the differences between Judaism and Christianity. Rabbi Weinreb talks about the many considerations and consultations the OU must take before they speak out. They got President Bush’s permission to speak out with criticism of his stem cell research program. The rabbi concludes Shabbos morning with a poem from Robert Frost.

Rabbi Weinreb looks to be about 60. He doesn’t exude energy. He doesn’t try to be anything he’s not. He moves and speaks with deliberation. He’s a rock.

Joe emails:

I would say on the whole the speech Saturday morning by Rabbi Weinreb was the highlight of the whole conference. Here was a prominent orthodox figure quoting from a conservative Jew with total nonchalance. Eliot Dorff is brilliant whether you agree or disagree with him. I thought R. Weinreb’s mixture of quotes from a range of sources and his clear ideas were great. Sunday had one interesting class on Orthodox Judaism in the future. The class was on how the modern world developed, which was interesting. It didn’t speak at all about the future. So, you were probably better off not going.
There were no women to pick up. If you didn’t know better, the convention looked more like a AARP convention. But the conference organizers were sure happy with their mediocre achievement.

Posted in Orthodoxy | Comments Off

San Francisco Chronicle obit: Sanford Lowe; rabbi, activist, gay leader

Posted on December 21, 2007 by Luke Ford

Somehow I missed this story when it was published in 2005, but it’s not too late to pay tribute to a great Jew:

Santa Rosa teacher was known for his scholarly work on Jesus

SOURCE: SF Chronicle Staff Writer

BYLINE: Michael Taylor

Sanford Lowe, a politically active gay rabbi who taught religion at Santa Rosa Junior College and was widely known for his studies of Jesus, died Monday in Santa Rosa of a heart attack.

Rabbi Lowe, who died at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, was 69.

Eric Thompson, his successor as instructor of religious studies at the college, said that in addition to cardiac difficulties, Rabbi Lowe also had severe kidney problems and was awaiting a kidney transplant at the time of his death.

Born in New York City in 1935, Rabbi Lowe, who was known as Sandy, grew up as a Jew who became intensely curious about the life of Jesus.

"Sandy was fascinated by Jesus and in his early academic career he sought to overcome the terror of Christianity he was made to feel growing up Jewish," Thompson said. He said most Jews growing up with Rabbi Lowe were taught to see "Christianity as their persecutor."

"When Sandy was a child," Thompson said, "he used to hide a Christian Bible in his clothes and read it. He was embarrassed that his family might find out he was reading about Jesus. That was culturally taboo."

Rabbi Lowe graduated from Brooklyn Technical High School in 1954 and went on to collect a number of degrees — a bachelor’s of science from Cornell University, then a bachelor’s in Hebrew literature and a master’s in Hebrew literature and rabbinic ordination from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, and a doctor of ministry from the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley.

In the 1960s, Rabbi Lowe was rabbi of a synagogue in Valley Stream, N.Y., where he counseled potential Vietnam War draftees. In 1970, eager for a new life, he left his congregation, loaded up his Volkswagen camper and decided to move to Northern California, where several of his friends from high school years at Brooklyn Tech had taken up residence.

In 1971, he joined Santa Rosa Junior College as an instructor and also became active in the nascent gay movements of the time. He became a leader in the "SCRAP 6" campaign to defeat 1978’s Proposition 6, a controversial ballot measure calling for the dismissal of gay teachers and staffers in California schools. The initiative, authored by conservative state Sen. John Briggs, was roundly defeated in the November 1978 general election. Despite that victory, however, it wasn’t easy being a gay Jew in rural Northern California back then.

"In those days, (Rabbi Lowe) was a Jew teaching the Bible in an atmosphere that was not exactly Berkeley," said Art Hofmann, a retired Santa Rosa Junior College instructor in German and a close friend. "This was an extremely conservative community and a Jew teaching the Bible, and then coming out. I think that took great moral courage."

Rabbi Lowe was also widely known as something of a mentor for people who were having difficulty thinking out their sexuality. His longtime friend, Mark Freeman, said that Rabbi Lowe counseled many friends who were "in marriages and were afraid to come out (sexually). They found him; he was the only openly gay person they knew."

Underlying all this, however, was his deep curiosity about the life of Jesus, and "this interest developed into a lifelong study of historical Jesus," Thompson said.

Rabbi Lowe was a member of the Jesus Seminar, a worldwide group of scholars who study early Christianity and ultimately make historical judgments based on what they discover.

The key to Rabbi Lowe’s own historical forays was the Bible, and on his Web site at Santa Rosa Junior College he lamented what he felt was vast ignorance about that text.

"There is … an astonishingly widespread lack of knowledge about the basic structure of the Bible either as literature or history," Rabbi Lowe wrote, "and almost no exposure to the intricate systems of biblical interpretation and commentary, traditional and modern, which have enriched and defined the culture of the Western world."

Hearing of Rabbi Lowe’s death, Donna Reed, 75, of Santa Rosa, sent an e-mail to Hofmann, recalling the time more than 30 years ago when she was one of the rabbi’s students.

"He really turned my head around, and I learned so much from him," Reed wrote. "I remember him describing the city of Jerusalem and all the political factions therein during Jesus’ times. The city came alive, and I could just see and hear it bustle. I have never forgotten him, and he remains my most favorite teacher. He cut across all religions — we had Jehovah Witnesses, Catholic sisters, Protestants and renegades like me with a Christian Science background in my two classes. Everyone went home happy."

Rabbi Lowe retired from teaching in 2001.

He is survived by his partner, Simon Bockie of Berkeley…

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off

Rape In Pitcairn – Or What Do You Do With A Drunken Sailor?

Posted on December 21, 2007 by Luke Ford

Says Slate: "An impossible-to-put-down Vanity Fair feature chronicles the sex scandal that has rocked Pitcairn, the tiny Pacific island where the Bounty mutineers sought refuge in the late 18^th century. Technically a British colony, Pitcairn is so isolated that the residents—fewer than 50 of them—developed their own mores, like the practice that eventually got "six men—a third of the island’s adult male population" arrested: sexually initiating island lassies before the age of 12."

Pitcairn is notable for many things including its Adventism and its rape.

I was raised a Seventh-Day Adventist. I never learned much about rape. Rather, I was taught that cities are dens of evil and it is better to live in the country to await the Day of Trouble, the end of Time and the soon coming of Christ.

I wonder if he’ll find me in Pico/Robertson.

According to Wikipedia:

Since a population peak of 233 in 1937, the island has been suffering from emigration, primarily to New Zealand, leaving some fifty people living on Pitcairn.
There are allegations of a long history and tradition of sexual abuse of girls as young as 7, which culminated in 2004 in the charging of seven men living on Pitcairn, and another six now living abroad, with sex-related offences, including rape. On October 25, 2004, six men were convicted, including Steve Christian, the island’s mayor at the time. See Pitcairn rape trial of 2004. The British government has decided to set up a prison for only the island, and spend an annual budget of NZD 950,000, after the six men lost their final appeal.
…Until 30 October 2004, the mayor was Steve Christian; after his rape conviction on October 24, 2004, Christian was dismissed (after refusing to resign). Steve Christian, who claims to be a direct descendent of Bounty mutiny leader Fletcher Christian, was convicted of five rapes, including one of a girl of 12, and sentenced to three years in prison. The charges against the men, one of which dated back to 1972, followed a report by a British policewoman stationed on the island in 1999. The defendants were convicted based on testimony from eight women. Dozens of alleged victims refused to testify. The three-week trials were held under British law in makeshift courtrooms on the island and presided over by three judges from New Zealand. Steve Christian’s son, Randy, was sentenced to six years for four rapes and five indecent assaults. Len Brown, 78, was convicted of two rapes and sentenced to two years. His son, Dave, was convicted of nine indecent assaults and sentenced to community service. Dennis Christian, 49, the postmaster and another descendant of Fletcher Christian, was convicted of one indecent assault and two sexual assaults he had pleaded guilty to. He was also sentenced to community service. Terry Young was convicted of one rape and six indecent assaults. Judges imprisoned him for five years. Jay Warren, the island’s magistrate, was cleared of indecent assault.
…Pitcairn culture, like its language, is a mix of English and Tahitian influences. A successful Seventh-day Adventist mission in the 1890s was important in shaping Pitcairn society, though the inhabitants were already observing the Seventh-day Sabbath before the arrival of Adventism.^[3] In recent years, the church has declined, with only about eight islanders worshipping regularly, but most of them still attend church on special occasions. The Sabbath is observed as a day of rest and as a mark of respect for observant Adventists.
The once-strict moral codes, which prohibited dancing, public displays of affection, and consumption of alcohol, have been relaxed in recent years. Islanders may now obtain a six-month license to purchase alcohol.

My dad gets mentioned in Wikipedia’s entry on Seventh-Day Adventism:

The most recent large-scale schism within Adventism was the Glacier View controversy of 1980. This crisis centered around the 900-page research paper by Dr. Desmond Ford entitled Daniel 8:14, the Investigative Judgment, and the Kingdom of God. The paper questioned the church’s position on the investigative judgment. The meetings at Glacier View Ranch, near Estes Park, Colorado, rejected Ford’s proposals. The schism caused by this rejection resulted in Ford being removed from teaching and having his ministerial credentials revoked. Many Adventists also left the church as a result.^[67] In the years since, Ford has worked through the independent ministry Good News Unlimited.
Since the 1970s, debate concerning the inspiration of Ellen White has been particularly heated. A number of Adventists such as Walter Rea and Dale Ratzlaff left the church and have become prominent critics of the church’s teachings and particularly of Ellen White. In parallel with these events, many Adventist scholars have adopted more moderate views of her inspiration.

When I was at Pacific Union College in May, I heard about this play "Red Books" that mentions my dad. Here’s a blog post about the play by Nathan Schilt:

Did you ever hear the tune, "What do you do with a drunken sailor?" I’m not sure just how this old English chantey made it into the musical canon of my conservative Adventist childhood. But it’s there – and to my great surprise, it recently flashed across my mental screen as I was driving home from a performance of the eagerly awaited "Red Books" at Loma Linda University Church. Perhaps it was the way in which Ellen White was caricatured; perhaps it was the still ringing question – "What do we do with Ellen White?" – that started me humming the tune. But there it was…with suddenly updated lyrics: "What do you do with a sullied prophet? "Well, unlike the drunken sailor, you can’t just "put ‘er in a long boat til she’s sober"… can you? It’s a bit more complicated with prophets and prophetic writings, more like putting Humpty Dumpty together again.
"Red Books: Our Search for Ellen White" provokes and stimulates, but proposes no satisfactory resolution of the question – "How shall we regard Ellen White?" Those who attend the play, anticipating a Norman Rockwell picture of a revered Adventist pioneer, will be disappointed. Unlike the advance billing, which hints at a bucolic stroll down memory lane, the actual production is for "mature" Adventists. It is, as the title suggests, more about us than about Ellen White. She is the central character, but not the protagonist. And the "us" portrayed in the play is really those of us who have seriously questioned the claims made by and on behalf of Ellen White. More specifically, it is about the "us" who question the extent to which she was the recipient of "special revelation" as that term has been used by her apologists.
The opening scene of the play dramatizes cro magnon SDAs, on Oct 23, 1844, standing tightly packed, anxiously craning heavenward; then sadly going off their separate ways after The Great Disappointment. The closing scene brings disparate "believers silently together toward a somber looking, almost sacramental, food table, their heritage shaken and their future uncertain. But they ritualistically shuffle toward the one tradition that still unites them – Sabbath potluck.Those scenes bookend a somewhat daft, bi-polar Ellen, obsessed with red fabric, stretched between playful compassion and stentorian judgmentalism, claims and disclaimers, shoulds and shouldn’ts. (The hortatory barking seal scene is not to be missed.) Moving on and off the stage around Ellen White are her defender/follower champions and the reluctant, but persistent critics.
The critics (Johnathan Butler, former history of religion scholar at La Sierra University – and Fred Hoyt, Professor Emeritus of History at La Sierra) are portrayed as thoughtful, honest researchers, troubled by their discoveries, but compelled by conscience to brave opprobrium and risk careers in pursuit of the truth. "Progressives" and secular Adventists who experienced the disillusioning and/or liberating "aha" of the ’70s and 80s revelations about the Red Books will positively identify with the questioners. But SDAs who sincerely and thoughtfully defend the prophetic "lesser light" as the incarnate and specific fulfillment of Rev. 12 will be disappointed by the absence of a credible E.G. White apologist to counter the detractors or put their findings in perspective. Without discounting their very significant contributions to our understandings of the Red Books, it is risible to suggest that revisionist views of Ellen White at La Sierra during the past two-plus decades have subjected anyone to censure or put careers in jeopardy. Questioning the authority of Ellen White at La Sierra requires about as much courage as anti-Bush editorials at the N.Y. Times.

Posted in Rape | Comments Off

The Blogger Who Would Save Italy

Posted on December 21, 2007 by Luke Ford

What can I learn from this man’s example?

Khunrum emails: "Perhaps you could be the blogger who saves Beverly Hills. Open your window and howl torah! torah! torah! "

Fred emails:

Sir, you need to be the voice of your generation. You need to stand up and write about the malaise, depression and insecurity that Americans today all feel. It’s time to stand up and say "I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore."
Of course, there hasn’t been that much malaise in the U.S. since Carter was booted out of the white house, and even if there were, Americans are not all pissed at the same things.
The left is pissed at Bush, the war, and all things religious, capitalist and moral.
The right is pissed at the irreligious, socialist and immoral.
So we’re not really in the same situation as Italy. There are no unifying "betes noir" as it were.
All this reminds me of one of my favorite picture postcards. There is a picture of a demagogue pounding his fist on a lecturn, shouting, "The time for action has passed! Now is the time for mindless bickering!"
You can always try to fill that role.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off

‘Her Last Death’ By Susanna Sonnenberg

Posted on December 21, 2007 by Luke Ford

Karen Valby writes for EW:

As the story goes, when Susanna Sonnenberg was 2 years old, Norman Mailer took one look at her and pronounced to her mother that ”Susy’s got a great ass. It’s going to get her into trouble one day.” The anecdote means to both impress and horrify, and it captures the flavor of Her Last Death, Sonnenberg’s bracing memoir about growing up rich and glamorous with a savagely inappropriate, drug-addicted mother. This is a world where Bob Dylan is a neighbor, Grandpa had an affair with Ingrid Bergman, and Mum tearfully gives her child a Montblanc fountain pen and a gram of cocaine for her 16th birthday. For every breathless tale of outrageousness, Sonnenberg simultaneously struggles, with cool gravity, to grapple with what it means to be the daughter of a liar. Throughout the narrative, she second-guesses her memories, and gives airtime to the family members who shrug off her recollection of events.
…Daphne got her drunk at 12, bragged about sleeping with her teenage love interests, overdosed in front of her, and punched her in the stomach if she ever thought her daughter was giving her own boyfriend the eye. Daphne was beautiful and funny but in every way a disgrace of a parent. No wonder the author ended up confusing sex for power and screwed her way through her 20s. There are points in the author’s chronicles of seduction — maybe around the time she squirts raspberries into a magazine writer’s mouth and beds an Orthodox rabbi — that Sonnenberg risks becoming that tiresome girl at the party for whom other women have little patience.

Michiko Kakutani writes for the NYT:

When Susanna Sonnenberg was 10 years old, her mother bought her a copy of Penthouse magazine and told her to read one of the letters aloud.

When she was 12, her mother gave her some cocaine and told her how to tell “the difference between the dealers you could trust and those who were just cokeheads.”
When she was 14, her mother seduced — or pretended to seduce — the older brother of one of her friends.
“Her Last Death” recounts “the true calamity of being daughter to this mother,” and the wonder of this memoir is that the author survived her traumatic childhood and found a way of turning her memories into a fiercely observed, fluently written book that captures the chaos and confusions of her youth, the daughter of an unpredictable pill-and-coke addicted mother and a brilliant, self-absorbed father, neither of whom had the faintest idea of how to be a parent.
Writing in sharp, crystalline prose, Ms. Sonnenberg describes the glamorous but highly treacherous Manhattan world she grew up in, while limning her parents’ penchant for the theatrical gesture. Her maternal grandfather was a famous musician who played Carnegie Hall; her maternal grandmother, a dead ringer for Carole Lombard, lived in a hotel in New York, had an apartment in Monte Carlo and presided over a grand estate in Barbados. Her paternal grandparents lived in an ornate town house on Gramercy Park and maintained two summer houses in Provincetown.

Posted in Book Reviews | Comments Off

Is It Ok To Use Sex To Sell The Gospel?

Posted on December 21, 2007 by Luke Ford

There’s a Christian war going on on MySpace about the evangelical ministry of my friend Heather Veitch (who targets sex workers).

Dawn Reinas writes:

As a sex industry survivor, I am frequently asked about different outreach ministries and whether or not I support certain ministries. It is important to me that all ministries preach the true gospel message.
Using sex to sell products is something we’re all used to seeing. This is a worldly method that is to be expected from those who are of the world. Women are prostituted on television and billboard advertisements in order to catch other people’s attention, draw them in, and now that they have your attention, they sell you their product. This method causes lust to abound. Everything from cars to liquor is advertised this way. We know this is wrong because the Word of God tells us that sex is reserved for marriage, and that lusting is the same as adultery. But what else can you expect from those who don’t know Christ? Aren’t we called to be different?
Since when, as christians, are we to use sex to sell the gospel? Is Jesus nothing more than a "product" to be sold? Would Jesus be pleased with us purposely using sexual inuendos and certain styles of dress to "draw in" the "viewer" in order to "sell" Jesus?
<>Would it be appropriate if I dressed in a bikini, slapped a big sign on the back of the GSXR that says "Jesus loves you" and stood next to my bike on the corner of the street handing out cards that said "I love to ride…" and you turn the card over and it says "with Jesus on my side." (Heather’s ministry, along with some others, have used a VERY similar method, sexual inuendo and all). How godly is that? The world would laugh at that and think it’s "cool." Can you see from my example how I just made God all about me? It’s all about drawing attention to myself, using sex and sexual inuendo, mixed with a little Jesus and now I have the attention of the people. And because I’m so outrageous, I’ll probably get on TV and do some interviews as well, not because I’m preaching the gospel, but because my "methods" are just so different, but yet they are very worldly.
Heather Veitch does not preach a full gospel message, nor does she preach that one must repent and believe on Jesus Christ. That is probably because to preach that way could be offensive. She uses sex to sell Jesus Christ, our Holy Savior, and has even sold clothing which has the words "Holy Hottie" across the butt part of pants, drawing attention to a woman’s buttocks, which does nothing more than incite lust. She also has employed the use of a porn photographer for her photos, all in attempt to seem "more relevant" to the unsaved.
Now, one doesn’t have to stop stripping to be saved, but one must change their mind (repentance) and allow God to change their lives. But that is not preached, what JC’s Girls did say is that it is okay for you to continue week after week to go to church, but yet continue being a stripper, escort, etc. I would even question whether that person was truly converted. When I was a call girl the message of Christ was preached to me and I recieved it. I continued working two more weeks until I quit. During those two weeks I barely saw any clients and I was in constant torment. I could not ignore the Lord and it only took two weeks for me to quit. A truly converted person should have a similar experience.
Once we see a ministry that treads on dangerous ground, such as Heather’s, it is our job as christians is to expose this. If possible, we should try to correct the one who is in error, but when they rebel against the authority of scripture, we should have nothing more to do with them.
In August 2007, Heather did an interview with her friend Luke Ford in which she admitted to divorcing her husband and is now in a committed relationship with a Jewish man (unequally yoked). So not only are we seeing the manifestation of sin in ministry, but the fruit of her personal life as well. Heather chooses to keep the details of her divorce a secret, and it is her right to do so. But her old church in Riverside stated that she must remain single or be reconciled back to her husband, so I will take their word for it that this was the only proper thing to do in that situation. (This information is on a public website found at http://www.lukeford.net/blog/?cat=180).

Scott responds: "…[B]eing publically sexy is NOT a Christian value. Therefore, if you use sexiness to witness the gospel, your gospel is different from the message Jesus gave. Jesus’ gospel NEVER said it’s OK to sin in order to save souls."

Heather Veitch blogs:

There are reasons that I am divorcing that are never stated here. I wish to respect my husband by not spreading our dirty laundry all over. The majority of quotes that are here are taken from a porn gossip blog called lukeisback. This is not the place that I think a christian should be getting information to spread further gossip with. I left Dawn a comment and I will see if she post it. I let her know that this is gossip and very hurtful when you do not have all the information. But I did let her know that I will not comment on this. I will not share all my experiences in my marriage to defend myself because it is just not right to my ex.. or my children. I do ask that those who love me would pray for me.

I invite you to watch a preview of my upcoming documentary called Pussycat Preacher. This is a true story that follows my life as I reach out to the sex industry. I was very fortunate to have a excellent film maker film my life while I had many victories and many struggles. I hope you all like it. If you would like to purchase the film it will be on sale for a short time.. right now Bill Day the film maker is having a pre release special. You can find it here pussycatpreacher.com

Well the night started out in the strip club… It was great . We were able to have some great conversations with some girls about God and we were able to share our stories with them in a gentle and loving way. The girls we met were so sweet and so receptive. By their reactions I do believe that some might call us in the future. Many showed interest in going to church as well. I have been in this club a couple of times before but this time I was able to spend more time talking to the management. The first couple of times I came in the management watched me like a hawk. Last night they said that they have received great responses from the girls and Annie and I are welcome to come in any time we want. So all and all.. the strip club outreach went very well. Then Annie drug me out to the cold strip where we walked up and down Las Vegas blv. It was a cold night but there still were several girls out working. Some of the girls we approached were receptive to our invite to church. Also there were girls that were in no way ready to talk to us about God ,church, or anything else. BUT.. Annie was able to give ALL of the girls her contact information. SO please pray that they will hold on to that card and call when they are ready or in need of help.

This blog is about my boyfriend 🙂 I am very happily in a committed relationship with a great guy named Ike. I have been friends with Ike for about two years now. We started considering dating back in last February. We have been taking things very slow considering all that is going on and my commitment to the ministry.I kept this private of course because as you see everyone has a opinion about who and if I should date. There are rumors flying around that I was with Ike while I was married because I called him Ikeepoo on his best friends myspace .. who by the way is also a good friend of mine. I think this is hilarious. I have called many of my male friends dorky nicknames to tease them. Even including Kevin Max. In fact I like to give my girlfriends nick names as well.. Like my girlfriend Candice who I call Can-dog.. I know at one time I dated girls but I hope that there wont be a new rumor that I was also having a affair with Candice. Anyways.. i dont understand how people can make such horrible accusations when they have no knowledge of my life or what I do on a day to day basis. So once again.. If you dont agree.. I will pray about it.. But I will not debate with you my life. God is in control and I am going to trust him to be with me and guide me.

When I shared with Heather some of my struggles, she said: "I am going to keep praying for you. And just for you I will address THE Father so we will be praying to the same G-D."

I once took Heather to Friday Night Live at Temple Sinai. All these Jewish guys kept hitting on her, completely untroubled by her shiksa status.

Posted in Heather Veitch | Comments Off

Michael Jackson – Man Of God

Posted on December 21, 2007 by Luke Ford

I interview author Aphrodite Jones (Michael Jackson Conspiracy) Friday morning.

Here’s my first interview with Aphrodite (January 23, 2007).

She has a blog called "Michael Jackson Conspiracy." Here’s her last post (it’s from Nov. 14):

For months MJ fans have been asking me to respond to the biased reporting of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond during the Jackson trial (which seems to continue to this day). Fans want to know why these biased reporters have not been called to task for being irresponible with the facts — for allegedly having agendas to try to destroy Michael Jackson.
First — let me remind everyone that Diane Dimond was fired by Court TV immediately following the Not Guilty Verdicts in the 2005 Jackson trial.
Other than appearing on Nancy Grace’s show to trash Jackson — Dimond has not been seen on TV much – her career seems to be over. I will also say that Dimond’s book was a flop — and the rumor that she had a deal with Sneddon to gain exclusive access to take photos and footage of MJ behind bars — well that’s hearsay and also a moot point…..
As for Nancy Grace –who was able to launch her successful CNN show staring with the coverage of the Jackson trial — she is loved by many and hated at the same time. Her reportage is so slanted — it borders on criminal at times. That’s just my opinion — but there was a woman who killed herself after Grace made unfair accusations so I think that speaks volumes about Grace.
Also – just to set the record striaght about Nancy Grace’s tactics — she constantly referred to 2 books that. MJ had — these books showing photos of boys were taken from MJ’s ranch in 1993 and were held by Sneddon for 10 years to use as evidence. Grace had to know thay — one thing she’s not is stupid. But Grace reffered to these books repeatedly because it made for ratings and served her pro-prosuction agenda. What a shame that she is allowed to spew venom with no counter points being made against her. CNN should be more fair. That’s just my opinion.
PS: I have the new copy of EBONY and Michael looks better than ever. What do they say? Looking good is the best revenge! MJ is a winner — a man of
God.
No one can stop his genius!

I ask Aphrodite, "Why did you write this book?"

Aphrodite: "I’ve gotten into a space where I question the whole validity of media reportage. Showing the other side of the coin on a high-profile case that was completely misrepresented by the media, including myself, would be good. A launching off point for me to get into how the media makes a case that has nothing to do with the facts of a case.

"A lot of what’s out there is just people following each other like sheep. There are few people who will go against the grain."

We discuss Natalee Holloway’s disappearance in Aruba. "This girl is shark bait," says Aphrodite. "We all believe she has to have been lost at sea and devourced by sea creatures."

"My Jackson book gives facts that were presented in the court room that are exculpatory that most people do not even know."

"It’s difficult to step out and decide to criticize the media. Having been a commentator for 15 years, you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you."

Luke: "Now that the book’s out, were your reservations [about writing it] justified?"

Aphrodite: "Not at all. I went on O’Reilly with it. Geraldo with it. I did Air America. I’ve had a number of people ask me to speak about it at lectures to universities. I did a signing in Santa Barbara a few weeks ago that went well. There’s a video on youtube about it. I won an award for "Outstanding Journalist of the Year" from the Brookins Community A.M.E. Church."

As AphroditeJones.com puts it: "Aphrodite Jones received The Outstanding Journalist Of The Year Award at an AME event attended by Gov. Arnold Schwarnegger, L.A. Police Chief William Bratton, and many other luminaries. The event celebrated 10 years of services by the Brookins Community A.M.E. Church, and during the VIP hour, Jones signed copies of Michael Jackson Conspiracy. In her award acceptance speech, Jones addressed a crowd of 2,000 people to tell them about her new journalistic effort, about the media conspiracy that exists, and asked them to "give Michael a chance." Jones was later approached by numerous attendees, who were touched by her efforts to restore Michael Jackson’s image. "

Aphrodite: "With this book, I have reached another level. I went on Al Sharpton’s radio show and got involved with the whole issue of race and bias in the courtroom."

Luke: "How do you decide that race is playing a part?"

Aphrodite: "When I was involved in the trial coverage, I didn’t see any racism. Looking back, however, I realize that Michael Jackson is the only high-profile person of color in Santa Barbara. [District attorney] Tom Sneddon has had a long-standing vendetta against him. In 1993, he couldn’t bring criminal charges. He then spent ten years looking for people who would testify against Jackson, even going out of the country.

"I see Sneddon as a good ol’ boy. I see him as being sexist and racist.

"I’m not saying race is a key factor but it is a factor."

Luke: "How hard is it to determine how large a factor race is?"

Aphrodite: "Tom Mesereau has a completely different take. He thinks that what Tom Sneddon wanted was to go after the most famous person in the world. That it had little to do with race."

"There was tremendous satisfaction by Tom Sneddon to see the whole Jackson family there…and to put these people in their place. That’s a feeling that I got."

Luke: "Did he say anything that would leave that impression?"

Aphrodite: "It wasn’t really anything that he said. It was the way he maneuvered the courtroom. The Jacksons were only provided so many seats, so that on the day of the verdict, Janet Jackson had to sit upstairs in a separate room and hear it on a loudspeaker. Why would you do that? Typically, a family is accommodated in a courtroom."

Luke: "What was your relationship like with Tom Sneddon during the trial?"

Aphrodite: "I didn’t have any relationship with him."

"I ran into a prosecution team at a restaurant. I was entertaining people from out of town. I wasn’t with the rest of the media. Sneddon came over. That time I was still on the other side of the coin, thinking that Jackson was a monster. I really had the wool pulled over my eyes. I went over and said, ‘You guys are doing a great job.’ Sneddon got up and hugged me.

"Again, that shows a little bit of the sexism.

"I’m a reporter covering it for Fox News. It’s not appropriate."

Luke: "How often does that happen to you as a reporter?"

Aphrodite: "Never."

Luke: "How common is it in these trials for reporters to take sides so that at least they’ll get inside information from one side?"

Aphrodite: "Incredibly prevelent. That’s why you see why we believe that Diane Diamond had a separate deal with Tom Sneddon. Part of the evidence for that is that she was writing a book in secret during the entire time of the trial, which was an anti-Jackson book. She anticipated a guilty verdict. She reported everything based around a guilty verdict. She got fired by Court TV days after the trial was over."

According to Wikipedia: "In 2005, Court TV, citing financial strains from expanded trial coverage on both the Scott Peterson murder case and the Michael Jackson case, decided not to renew Dimond’s contract and her entire investigative unit was disbanded."

Aphrodite: "She was so pro-prosecution and had information that nobody else had… During the raid on Neverland in 2003, Diane Diamond was the only reporter allowed to be on the premises to film it. That’s a violation of police procedure. If Sneddon was able to make that loophole for her, it tells you something about the nature of their relationship years before the trial.

"There were allegations that she was promised to have full access to Jackson if he was put behind prison bars. That’s hearsay but I’ve gotten it from a number of valid sources."

Luke: "It’s a dirty little secret of journalism that you will get far better information from somebody if you give them the feeling you are their sincere friend rather than if you simply be a professional reporter."

Aphrodite: "There are very few people who don’t fall into that trap, especially field reporters."

Luke: "I try to make people feel I am their sincere friend because that’s far more effective than simply… I always say the words that I am a disinterested reporter, I will never say that I am their sincere friend, but I will try to make them feel I am their sincere friend because I get far better information that way."

Aphrodite: "Of course. I’ve written about murderers and that’s what I do. Of course I do have a natural empathy for people who murder because I feel their pain. Some of them are just cold-blooded killers. Others of them, particularly the children I’ve talked to who committed acts of murder, while some of them are monsters, others got pulled into a scheme that was over their heads. I have had during my writing career varying degrees of quote unquote friendship.

"In terms of feigning a friendship, when I’m dealing with a monster like Cary Stayner who killed four people in Yosemite who calls me and tells me, I wonder what made me cut this woman’s head off… I have to feign being open to hearing him. It’s difficult but it’s something that you do to get the story. Every investigator knows that you have to do this."

Luke: "I am amazed at how much empathy I can develop for people whose information I need."

Aphrodite: "Right."

Luke: "When I need someone’s information, there’s no limit to the amount of empathy I can develop for that person. I want the scoop and I am only going to get it if I make them feel I am their sincere friend. It’s not moral but it’s a requirement of the job."

"Other than feigning friendship, or at least understanding, with someone I feel to be a complete monster, for example Robert Noel, who owned those dogs that killed Diane Whipple in San Francisco… It was the only way I could get the information. Nonetheless, I knew I was going to turn it around on him.

"But for the most part, I rarely will feign something or smooth talk someone and then turnaround and violate them in what I write.

"The people I don’t trust, the people I believe to be monsters, I tend to stay away from and just take the public record so I can do what I want with it rather than go through the ordeal of forging a fake friendship to get the information."

Luke: "Do the people you interview often feel burned?"

Aphrodite: "No. I don’t do that to people. I won’t do it. I keep so many secrets beyond what I write with everybody I work with. I value that. It’s part of the reason people come back to me with other stories. I am extremely loyal to people who confide to me other than people who are locked behind bars for heinous acts of murder… I have strict values when it comes to that. I don’t cross those lines."

Luke: "I wonder if the reason the media was so anti-Jackson was that there was no up-side to being fair to Jackson. The only up-side was to portray him as a creep. Who’s going to advance his career by saying Michael Jackson is a decent guy who’s been treated indecently?"

Aphrodite: "Right. Had Jackson been put behind bars, it would’ve been a billion dollar industry globally. A cottage industry would’ve developed around what is he eating, what is he not eating, who’s writing, who’s not writing, who’s the jail cellmate, who slipped him something, who didn’t slip him something, is he on suicide watch, which Jackson came to visit… It would’ve been a field day."

Luke: "There’s no news story if you say Michael Jackson behaved in an ordinary way today. That’s not news. It’s only news if he behaves in a freaky way."

Aphrodite: "That’s become the standard for every star, however Jackson was the first and is probably the biggest target. They went after him criminally with shabby evidence and shabby witnesses. They did it because they wanted to shame him out of leaving the county."

Luke: "How responsible is Michael Jackson for his own troubles?"

Aphrodite: "He has to take some responsibility. His Peter Pan thing, people can’t understand it. He’s old enough to seek help, to figure out why he can’t trust adults. He’s so addicted to attention which is why he came up with the arm bands… He’s always able to come up with something. The need for attention is so great perhaps that’s why he perpetuates that whole Neverland thing, the thing with kids, because it had people talking about him."

Luke: "How did the news media at the trial feel about Jackson?"

Aphrodite: "Everybody was talking behind his back… There was a consensus among most people. I did take polls about it. That he was guilty. There was consensus. He was convicted by the media before the trial even started."

Luke: "Did they dislike him?"

Aphrodite: "No. There was a lot of pretending to like him to get him to talk every day after trial."

Luke: "Why was Martin Bashir the only journalist you named in the book?"

Aphrodite: "Because he was the only one who testified against Jackson. He was the one who caused this whole thing to begin with with his fake documentary, a documentary filled with trickery and he’s built a career out of trying to take Jackson down. The promises he made to Jackson prior to the documentary were so outlandish and his behavior in the outtake footage in which he sucks up to Jackson beyond belief and then turns on Jackson… Bashir has been brought up three times for journalistic unfairness in Britain. On one of those occasions he was sanctioned.

"Jackson opened his home, his heart, everything to this man for months… Then Bashir launched a career on ABC News and became a star. That’s the ultimate betrayal and mockery of the whole news system. So now people are getting their news from somebody they think is so trustworthy and he built his career on the opposite of that."

Luke: "But don’t most good journalists do exactly that? Suck up to the subject they need to get close to, befriend the subject, get close, and then betray when they write and report?"

Aphrodite: "Depends on the journalist. Any successful journalist is going to have some sense of bringing their own view to the matter.

"If Playboy or Vogue or People do a story on someone, they don’t suck a person in and attack them. So you can’t say any successful journalist. People magazine is read more than any other magazine in the world."

"Even in the case of 60 Minutes, there’s always an angle they stay true to."

Luke: "What percentage of successful journalists practice journalism in a similar suck-up and betray style to Martin Bashir?"

Aphrodite: "I would say that is not the norm. It might be the impression we get of the media but I’d say that people have more scruples than that. I would hope so."

Luke: "How much do journalists talk about that — seduce and betray?"

Aphrodite: "That’s it. They won’t talk about it. There’s no way to put numbers on that."

Luke: "As journalists, that is the most sensitive part of our jobs. We don’t want to admit to seducing and betraying."

Aphrodite: "When Geraldo went to Neverland and gave a report about Jackson being not guity, didn’t turn around after the verdict… He remained faithful… He said during the trial that if Jackson was found guilty, he’d shave his moustache off.

"To say that all journalists suck up and betray, or that there is an element of that to all journalists, I think that is unfair."

Luke: "You don’t even think there’s an element to it?"

Aphrodite: "There is an element to it. Of course. You’re never dealing with one subject matter. If you want to get the other side of the story, you’re going to have to seduce the other person into thinking, ‘Oh, it’s going to be fine for you.’ You’re going to betray the other person because you have an angle you want to pursue. Yes, everyone is going to do some of that."

I read to Aphrodite the first sentence of Janet Malcolm’s book, The Journalist and the Murderer: "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible."

Aphrodite: "I disagree with that. I’m sorry. I just completely disagree with it. I see myself, right or wrong to the rest of the world, as somebody who wants to shed light on negative situations so they won’t occur again. I don’t find myself to be morally indefensible. I don’t find myself to be someone who has no scruples. I don’t double-cross people I work with. I still maintain friendships with many of the people who’ve been subjects in my books. I mean they’re not close friends but I can call them.

"I do have the experience, as with Joe McGinniss about Jeffrey MacDonald, where along the way you see the other side of the coin… I had that with Michael Jackson. For the most part, I go in seeing the picture… I come into stories after the fact. My investigative reporting has to do with more in-depth work. I’m not looking to find out what happened. People already know what happened. I don’t have to do that kind of guess work. I can be more pointed about how I want to approach a story.

"In my last book about Michael Peterson, who killed his wife, I knew from the get go that this was a monster and I doubted he would be convicted. I did not bother to approach him or his family. I’d rather not go there and play that game knowing I was going to betray the person in the end."

Luke: "What percentage of people do you guestimate end up regretting talking to you?"

Aphrodite: "I don’t know. I’m sure there are plenty but I wouldn’t say it is a large percent. I hear from all of them. People constantly reach out to me."

"There are times when I’ve written things about people and I know I’ve pissed them off. But you don’t realize what the exchange was like in real life. I might have a scene with somebody and walk away thinking, ‘You’ve had your fair shots at me. Wait until you see what happens to you.’ Not in a mean way. I just see the person as a monster. I walk away and I just show the monster."

Luke: "You’ve been interviewed a lot. What percentage of the time do you regret giving someone an interview?"

Aphrodite: "When I do an interview, I always get the tinge of, ‘I’d rather not read it,’ because I know there’s going to be that stab.

"I just did a radio interview with people from Sirus Radio in Santa Barbara. They brought me on so they could sandbag me over the Jackson book. They talked about the top five reasons Jackson’s a pedophile. It was a big joke for them.

"During the course of the interview, I turned it around. By the end of the conversation, not only did I feel it was OK, but their producer came back and thanked me for being such a good sport."

Luke: "Why didn’t you name more names about the media in your book?"

Aphrodite: "It’s something I may do in time… I could name more but some of these people I have personal friendships with. Just because some people misreported things, there’s never a black and white. There’s always a grey."

"I love your questions. They are very insightful."

Luke: "How was the experience of blogging?"

Aphrodite: "For me blogging is a job. A lot of people look at blogging as entertainment or an obsession or it fills a need. It’s a creative outlet. I don’t have that response. I’ve been writing professionally since I was 20. That’s 30 years practically. To me, writing is about work. If I’m not getting paid for it… Blogging is just work that I’m not getting paid for. I enjoy writing but if I know that there’s no pay at the end of that rainbow, I don’t enjoy it as much. The blogging thing has been a mixed bag. It’s been interesting seeing people react to the blogs but I’m not Rosie O’Donnell who has nothing else to do but post her new thoughts of the moment. I have to earn a living."

Luke: "You’re very vulnerable on your blog."

Aphrodite: "I don’t even know that, Luke, because I’m not a blogger."

Luke: "It’s like you’re talking to me on your blog. It’s that same level of candor."

Aphrodite: "For some reason, I’m willing to say more on a blog."

"I’ve always been the last one to join. I didn’t get on the internet until 2000."

Posted in Aphrodite Jones | Comments Off

Curtains For The Guilds?

Posted on December 20, 2007 by Luke Ford

From an LAT op/ed predicting the course of the WGA strike:

By August 2008, the schism within the guilds is complete. The rank and file have gone to the mats in what they believe is a fundamental struggle for justice, equity and their fair share of Internet revenues. The well-known and the well-heeled are back at work, making movies and television shows.
The coalition of stars and artisans — which has been both a tradition and increasingly a myth for decades — evaporates. The vast majority of writers and actors remain locked in a labor movement, while directors, stars, screenwriters and show-runners function as the freelance independent contractors they truly are. The guild system goes the way of the studio system.
Some will say it’s the invisible hand of the market at work, with organizations collapsing and then realigning in more homogeneous groupings — a "creative destruction" that has been a long time coming. Others will cry conspiracy, with the studios dividing and conquering. But after a while, as always happens, everyone will say: Wasn’t it inevitable, and isn’t it rational?

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off

Covering The Watchdogs

Posted on December 20, 2007 by Luke Ford

Dean Starkman writes:

The business press has written about the mortgage crisis as a predatory-lender problem, a naïve borrower problem, a compromised rating-agency problem, an irresponsible debt-buyer problem, and, first and foremost, a problem manufactured on Wall Street, which fueled the subprime expansion with loans to front-line borrowers, sold the bad paper into the global markets—and, to keep the fee-engine going, bought much of its own product.
If the business press has a blind spot, it is that it failed to understand the crisis for what I think it really is: a regulatory failure of mammoth proportions.
Now comes The New York Times this week with a devastating account of regulatory failure, under the headline: “Fed Shrugged as Subprime Crisis Spread”
The piece is strong. It effectively pulls together material that had been in the public record and advances an equally strong piece from last May, and other work over the summer, by The Wall Street Journal.

Posted in Economics | Comments Off

Merry Christmas

Posted on December 20, 2007 by Luke Ford

Evan Gahr emails:

I wished Don Feder a Merry Christmas. He wrote back is it appropriate for one Jew to wish another a Merry Christmas. This is my response.
Yeah, I think so. It’s a merry holiday. And it’s all around us. I don’t think, however, it would be appropriate for a Jew to have a Christmas tree since that’s outright celebrating the holiday.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off