So Sorry

According to David Scott, I'm "dishonest," a "doodie-head," and "the worst guest blogger in the history of guest blogging." And that's just what he's called me in public. In a private email, Mr Scott wrote: "I hate you! You are going to hell, you evil atheistical bastard you! DIE! DIE! DIE!"

Let's face it, I suck (a lot).

Not only are my posts incredibly lame, I've been able to come up with just four of them -- this when I promised Mr Ford that I'd update his blog at least five (but no more than ten) times a day.

Luke Ford was ever so kind to ask me to guest blog for him, and incredibly generous to offer me $20 per post. To think, I could've been making up to (but no more than) $200 per day! Alas, I've only made $80 so far.

I hate me (a lot).

But hey, my miserable failure as a guest blogger is, at least, partially Luke Ford's fault. How come no one is pointing a finger at Our Moral Leader and calling him a "doodie-head"? After all, he's the one who shunted me off to his backup blogger site with this stupid template. You try writing first-rate material using this template. It's tough, man.

When I agreed to guest blog for Mr Ford, I was led to believe that I'd be writing on LukeFordDotNet, not this aesthetic disaster with it's awful colour scheme and too narrow margins. The margins are sooooo inhibiting. I can't use big words. They won't fit. Now people think I'm stupid.

And why was I forced to blog here rather than on LukeFordDotNet? Because, like you Mr Scott, Our Moral Leader thinks I'm dishonest.

After I agreed to guest blog, Mr Ford sent me an email with a long list of topics that I couldn't discuss. And even though I promised not to mention them (I crossed my little heart and hoped to die), he still decided to stick me here. Then he had the nerve to warn me (again!) to especially not write about ____, or he would change his blogger password, prevent me from posting, and not pay me!

Imagine how terrible I felt when the Great Luke Ford told me in effect he didn't trust me.

Hurt, that's how I felt! I'm not stupid. I know why I'm here and not on LukeFordDotNet with its supercool minimalist, all-white design.

Yeah my posts suck: they're mean-spirited; there's way too much blockquoting; and there's been too few of them. But I'm still depressed from Mr Ford's cruel de-linking of my fan blog. And then for him not to let me post on LukeFordDotNet, well, it was just too much for me.

I think it's fair to say that there's enough blame to go around: emotionally distraught me; un-trusting rat bastard Luke Ford; and this godawful blogger template. So have a little compassion, Mr Scott. Wasn't it Jesus who said [KJV]: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone"?

For a dude convinced that the world was about to end, Jesus sure came up with some really good aphorisms.

-- by the Luke Ford Fan Blogger

Say It Ain't So

With Our Moral Leader hanging out with teenage girls across England (and now Paris) it's up to us, his many followers, to start thinking for ourselves. But, alas, thinking is hard -- at least it is for me. So, I've been forced to search the Internet looking for articles on religion and morality as I await Mr Ford's return to regular blogging.

I've found four interesting articles: the first laments the loss of Biblical literacy; the second, by a post-Marxist, points to the Biblical foundations of modern democratic politics; the third contrasts Jewish and Christian ideas on the morality of hate; and, lastly, an article from the BBC (of course!) suggesting that religion, and by inference Biblical morality, is bunk.

Unfortunately, I regard the last article to be the most persuasive of the four. You see this is what happens when the Great Luke Ford puts his holidaying pleasures above tending to the moral needs of his flock -- we get tempted by dangerous ideas, like science, secularism, and fantasies about partying with hot English (and Parisian) teens!

1) In "The Bible Tells Me So: Biblical illiteracy is a shame" the Wall Street Journal's Adam Nicolson writes:

Up until, say, 100 years ago, biblical literacy would have been practically mandatory. If you didn't know what "the powers that be" originally referred to, or where "the writing on the wall" was first seen, or what was meant by "the patience of Job," "Jacob's ladder" or "the salt of the earth"-- if you didn't know what an exodus was or a genesis, a fatted or a golden calf -- you would have been excluded from the culture. It might be said that a civilization consists, at its core, of these easily transmitted packages of implication. They are one of the mechanisms by which cultures can be both efficient and rich. You don't have to return to first principles every time you wish to communicate ... Without the set of archetypes and fount of wisdom in the Bible, our lives would be thinner and poorer. I know my own life would have been immeasurably less if I had never encountered the majestic language of scriptural stories, as told in the King James Version.

2) History professor Richard Wolin discusses left-wing German philosopher Jurgen Habermas' interest in the role of Judeo-Christian belief in a healthy democracy:

Among 19th-century thinkers it was an uncontestable commonplace that religion's cultural centrality was a thing of the past. For Georg Hegel, following in the footsteps of the Enlightenment, religion had been surpassed by reason's superior conceptual precision. In The Essence of Christianity (1841), Ludwig Feuerbach depicted the relationship between man and divinity as a zero-sum game. In his view, the stress on godliness merely detracted from the sublimity of human ends. In one of his youthful writings, Karl Marx, Feuerbach's most influential disciple, famously dismissed religion as "the opium of the people." Its abolition, Marx believed, was a sine qua non for human betterment.

Habermas, in contrast, points to "the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love" as the necessary basis for Western political ideals of fairness and equality:

The "contract theory" of politics, from which our modern conception of "government by consent of the governed" derives, would be difficult to conceive apart from the Old Testament covenants. Similarly, our idea of the intrinsic worth of all persons, which underlies human rights, stems directly from the Christian ideal of the equality of all men and women in the eyes of God. Were these invaluable religious sources of morality and justice to atrophy entirely, it is doubtful whether modern societies would be able to sustain this ideal on their own ... religion, as a repository of transcendence, has an important role to play. It prevents the denizens of the modern secular societies from being overwhelmed by the all-encompassing demands of vocational life and worldly success. It offers a much-needed dimension of otherness ... Religious convictions encourage people to treat each other as ends in themselves rather than as mere means.

3) In the Catholic journal First Things Rabbi Meir Soloveichik of Yeshiva University explores the Jewish idea that it's sometimes virtuous to hate one's enemies:

[Jesus] acknowledged his break with Jewish tradition on this matter from the very outset: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous ... Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." God, Jesus argues, loves the wicked, and so must we.

[...]

For Christians, God acted on humanity's behalf, without its knowledge and without its consent. The crucifixion is a story of a loving God seeking humanity's salvation, though it never requested it, though it scarcely deserved it. Jews, on the other hand, believe that Gods covenant was formed by the free consent of His people. The giving of the Torah is a story of God seeking to provide humanity with the opportunity to make moral decisions. To my knowledge, not a single Jewish source asserts that God deeply desires to save all humanity, nor that He loves every member of the human race. Rather, many a Jewish source maintains that God affords every human being the opportunity to choose his or her moral fate, and will then judge him or her, and choose whether to love him or her, on the basis of that decision. Christianity's focus is on love and salvation; Judaism's on decision and action.

[...]

The Protestant theologian Harvey Cox, who is married to a Jew, wrote a book on his impressions of Jewish ritual. Cox describes the Jewish holiday of Purim, on which the defeat of Haman is celebrated by the reading of the book of Esther. Enamored with the biblical story, Cox enjoys the tale until the end, where, as noted above, Esther wreaks vengeance upon her enemies ... he is disturbed by Jewish hatred. It cannot be a coincidence, he argues, that precisely on Purim a Jew by the name of Baruch Goldstein murdered twenty innocent Muslims engaged in prayer in Hebron. There is something to Cox's remarks. The danger inherent in hatred is that it must be very limited, directed only at the most evil and unrepentant.

See also Jeff Jacoby's comment on Soloveichek in a piece titled "When Hatred Is Necessary." Jacoby notes: "Jewish tradition holds, with Ecclesiastes, that there is a time to love and a time to hate."

Reading Soloveichek and Jacoby it may appear that Christian morality is clearly superior to the Jewish alternative. But hating one's enemies, and doing them harm, is a pragmatic philosophy in a way that turning one's cheek is not. Jesus' teachings should be understood within their intended (narrow) context. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. He told His followers to behave as if they were already living in the Kingdom of God: to love their enemies, give up their material possessions, leave their families, if necessary, and follow Him, for the world was about to end.

Now if that sounds nutty consider the following.

4) In "God on the Brain" Liz Tucker points to the scienfitic evidence that the very religious, especially those claiming to have experienced religious visions, suffer from a brain disorder:

Controversial new research suggests that whether we believe in a God may not just be a matter of free will. Scientists now believe there may be physical differences in the brains of ardent believers. Inspiration for this work has come from a group of patients who have a brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy. In a minority of patients, this condition induces bizarre religious hallucinations ...

[...]

Professor VS Ramachandran, of the University of California in San Diego, believed that the temporal lobes of the brain were key in religious experience ... So he set up an experiment to compare the brains of people with and without temporal lobe epilepsy ... What Professor Ramachandran discovered to his surprise was that when the temporal lobe patients were shown any type of religious imagery, their bodies produced a dramatic change in their skin resistance.

[...]

Scientists now believe famous religious figures in the past could also have been sufferers from the condition. St Paul and Moses appear to be two of the most likely candidates. But most convincing of all is the evidence from American neurologist Professor Gregory Holmes. He has studied the life of Ellen G White, who was the spiritual founder of the Seventh-day Adventist movement. Today, the movement is a thriving church with over 12 million members. During her life, Ellen had hundreds of dramatic religious visions which were key in the establishment of the church, helping to convince her followers that she was indeed spiritually inspired. But Professor Holmes believes there may be another far more prosaic explanation for her visions.

He has discovered that at the age of nine, Ellen suffered a severe blow to her head. As a result, she was semi-conscious for several weeks and so ill she never returned to school. Following the accident, Ellen's personality changed dramatically and she became highly religious and moralistic. And for the first time in her life, she began to have powerful religious visions.

I remember reading a similar explanation for the religious visions of Mohammed in Will Durant's The Age of Faith (1950). So, I guess this argument has been around for awhile. But now, apparently, there is scientific proof that moral leaders Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Ellen White, Joseph Smith, et al., were fruitcakes, and so, too, presumably, the Great Dennis Prager and, horror of horrors, the Great Luke Ford.

Oh my.

Mr Ford isn't going to be pleased to find out that he may be suffering from yet another medical condition. I'll have to ask him about this when he returns from Europe. Assuming, that is, that he does return. I have a terrible fear that Mr Ford forgot to pack all his (many) medications, and in a moment of unmedicated weakness he will do something stupid with, or worse to, one (or more) of his teenage admirers, and just like Roman Polanski, he'll never be allowed to return to America (and The Hovel™).

Let us pray that a) the Great Luke Ford isn't a fruitcake, and b) that he proves this by returning from his European vacation with his morals safely intact.

-- by the Luke Ford Fan Blogger

Actress Michelle Ferre (Female Star of Who Am I?, her one film (it's with Jackie Chan)) Interview

I got these questions to her through her brother.

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

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

* 2 What was she expected to become?

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

* 3 What led her into journalism?

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

*4 What are her wishes for her life?

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

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

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

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

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

Mission To Britain

Why has the Great Luke Ford travelled to Britain? His objectives are twofold.

First, he singlehandedly seeks to bring ethical monotheism and transcendental direction into the lives of Britain's wretched secular masses. According to a recent public survey, 40 per cent of Britons don't believe in G-d. (Actually, 52 per cent of American Jews don't believe in G-d, so Mr Ford needn't have travelled half way around the world to minister to the lost and confused.)

Second, Mr Ford is (still) looking for his future wife and, disappointed with American women, is now searching the length and breath of Old Blighty for his one true (submissive) love. A bit of advice. Avoid the "women" of London: butch, rude, unpleasant, feministical -- they're just awful.

Perhaps in the English countryside, or better yet up North, Mr Ford may find a fair lady to his liking. Initial reports suggest he's already having some success in Cambridgeshire (see below).

So far so good, but Mr Ford would be better served if he focused less on teenagers (and the elderly) and more on women his own age (save five or ten years).

Luke Ford's decision to abandon American women is a wise one. He appears to be following the advice of the Great Fred Reed, author of the wonderful essay "Marriage, Horror, and Susan Reimer," wherein Mr Reed explains why American women are an "international horror":

Because of The Chip. The Attitude. The bandsaw whine of anger, anger, anger ... It's there. It's real.

You, a young man, may not recognize the Chip if you have never seen normal, warm, happy women. If you are twenty-something and haven't been out of the US, you haven't seen them. They exist by the billion — in Latin America, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaya, China and, last I looked, France and Holland.

[...]

Susan Reimer [a columnist at the Baltimore Sun] is what is out there, guys: bitter that no one wants her (as who in his right mind could?), sure that no one is good enough for her, never having grasped that those who would be loved must first be lovable. Understand this: Susan is America.

So, if Mr Ford can't find his one true love in England, he shouldn't despair. Keep looking, Luke. Mr Reed suggests: "[T]ry Singapore. Argentina is splendid. Many places are. You would be amazed. See what's out there before you marry a gringa with her Inner Susan ..."

by the Luke Ford Fan Blogger

Cambridge Girls Embrace Luke Ford

For the weeks before my trip, I was tired and depressed, so I husbanded my energies for this trip.
I'm writing this report now at 1:05pm Friday in Wapping, near Canary Wharf, London. I'm overlooking the Thamas. I'm sitting in an old warehouse which is being used as a set for an independent movie.
I'm wearing my black undertaker suit, which I also wore on the plane over because I didn't want to carry it around. I just brought a backpack with about 20 pounds of clothes (I just wash them in the bathtub and re-use), three books, two books on tape, a digital recorder and a small digital camera.
My flight over here was everything I could dream of -- I had the company of an attractive smart young woman who couldn't get away from me for ten hours. She was bound to her chair and it was just the two of us by the window and the rest of the world could go to hell.
I did not talk to her for the first 45 minutes, playing hard to get. I buried myself in my Michael Lewis book, Liar's Poker. Then, while we were past Nevada, I turned to her and extended my hand. "Hi, Luke."
She shook my hand. "Hi, I'm Fiona."
Twenty seven, she was a graduate student at Cambridge. Her parents lived in Southern California.
We chatted for about an hour until dinner came. I asked her if she wanted her chocolate cake. She didn't so I scoffed it. Then I asked her if she wanted her waters. She did.
That was about the last thing we said to each other. For the next eight hours, we lived in our own worlds.
I expected that the women in England would be as rough as bags but there are a ton of hotties. The English are reserved however, which makes it difficult to make quick connections like you can in Los Angeles.
What I most love about traveling is that it places you in frequent situations where people are virtually forced to talk to me (such as being seated next to me on a plane, train, or automobile). In normal life, people frequently avoid me. But I've constructed a preferred personality on the internet where I'm a legend on the LukeFordFanBlog.Blogspot.com (don't believe the unflattering things he write about me, nor the true things).
I've been walking about six miles a day. I have several painful blisters on my feet. I've done most of the famous tourist attractions in London, including the Tower of London, the Clink, Parliament House, walked by Westminster Abbey past Downing Street and Whitehall to Trafalgar Square.
I went to Cambridge Thursday, ran into a bunch of 10th grade schoolgirls from Stafford who asked me if i was famous. I said I was semi-famous. I signed about a dozen autographs, took pictures, told them I wrote on religion. They went home and googled me. One just emailed me. I have quite a fan base among the intellectuals in London.
Because I was from Los Angeles, the girls mainly wanted to know if I knew anyone famous, perhaps Britney Spears or Aussie cricketers Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne.
I do not.
I haven't run into one rude person in London, but almost everyone is reserved. One buxom blonde woman around 40 was bubbly and outspoken on my train ride back from Cambridge but she's been the only one Brit who's overflowed.
I've seen things here that I've never seen before, such as a mate snorting cocaine so he could have the energy to go out with me that night. Also, on three different occasions, I walked in on a guy taking a wank. I was freaked but he seemed pretty relaxed about it. The English don't take things too seriously.
I've been up early and out late every night. I went to the club Cheers till 3am Thursday morning. It was filled with Tourists and they played an ABBA song. I haven't heard an Air Supply tune since I've been here and I'm having withdrawals.
I'm heading for North London in a few hours to celebrate the Sabbath with some Orthodox blogger friends I've never met. Then Saturday night I'm off to Paris (it's three hours and £100). I'll stay the night at a cheap hotel, take a tour Sunday, and return to London late Sunday night.
For the first time since I've been here, it's raining. The high temperatures have been in the sixties all week and about 50 at night.
This trip has cured my depression, and I'll be feeling even better if I'm able to break down some of that British reserve and truly make a unique impression.
I'm going to hit Oxford next week.
I'm surprised that I've noticed no difference in the way people dress between England and America, though one American executive I saw here said the British dress a bit finer.
I've been reading a great book: WATCHING THE ENGLISH. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the customs of this country.
In Australia we have the stereotype that the English don't bathe. My mom grew up in England and she says she only had a bath twice a week. Now it seems with upgrades in plumbing, the English shower every day just like Yanks and Aussies.
I haven't noticed the horrible teeth that the English are (or used to be) infamous for.
I've been staying in Chelsea, a little over a mile from Parliament House and Westminster Abbey, and just a few blocks from Sloane Square, around which the Sloane Rangers hang out (upper-class trendsetters). My sister was enamored of the Sloane Rangers 20 years ago when she lived here and got a law degree from Buckingham University.
There's little crime in the nice areas I've been (though one side of a street can be in a nice area and the other side a nasty one). The tube (London's underground subway) is clean and people are reserved and well-behaved (though designed by an American, the tube far cleaner and kinder than the New York version). They know how to que.
I'm sitting at a computer with two big screens and I can use my mouse to pop between the screens from the same keyboard. I've never had that before.
The English keyboard has about a dozen differences from the American one. The most important difference I struggled with was the "@" sign. I couldn't send an email until I had found it (it was way over on the right, on top of the single quote mark).

Luke Ford To the Rescue!

I seem to recall reading somewhere, maybe it was on the Luke Ford Family of Blogs™ (I couldn't find the exact quotation), that when Dennis Prager enquired if he could write for the Jewish Journal he was turned down because of his writing style, or lack thereof. Luke Ford is also, apparently, less than impressed with Mr Prager the wordsmith:

There are so many examples of poor writing on the jacket [of Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A human nature repair manual] that I do not have the time to list more than a few:

* The sentence that begins "However ..." The word "however" means "yet" EXCEPT at the beginning of the sentence, when it means "in whichever way," which is not the way the word is used (misused) on this jacket.

* Then there are the sloppy phrases like "in order to be happy." Why not just say, "To be happy?"

* Then there is the phrase "make you personally happy ..." Why do we need the word "personally?" We don't.

By contrast to the jacket, Dennis Prager's writing is the triumph of substance over style. Through his use of the passive voice and numerous modifiers, he violates many of the canons of good writing in his pursuit of ideas. But it works.

I'm not entirely sure what point Mr Ford is trying to make here. (Making coherent arguments is not one of Luke Ford's strengths. Nor apparently is criticising someone else's violations "of the canons of good writing" without also violating "the canons of good writing.") He might be saying that Dennis Prager should have written the material on the book's dust jacket, because it was so poorly written by the publisher. Or Mr Ford might be saying that Dennis Prager did write the material on the jacket (as indeed Mr Ford does for his own books), and it's even more poorly written than the book itself. Let's assume that it's the latter, which is the more insightful of the two assertions, and thus probably not the point Luke Ford was trying to make, and agree that Mr Prager thinks better than he writes.

Dennis Prager reminds me of Thomas Sowell. Both write like men: simple and direct. They make their point, and then stop. They are not long-winded. They are not interested in having a relationship with their readers. They seek merely to persuade through the power of their ideas.

Mr Prager's latest column is an illustration of the use of simple prose to make a profound argument. He contrasts the Judeo-Christian moral system with that of the left:

Judeo-Christian values believe the road to a just society is paved by individual character development; the Left believes it is paved with action on a macro level. Many parents, for example, measure their child's character by the child's social activism, not by his or her behaviour toward fellow students. If the child has walked for AIDS, or marched for breast cancer, or works on "environmental issues," the child is deemed -- and the child deems himself -- a fine person. That he or she might mistreat less popular kids in class is not considered ... [L]eftist ideals, being overwhelmingly macro, will always be more appealing to the less decent who want to feel good about themselves. That helps explain those Hollywood celebrities who lead narcissistic, hedonistic personal lives but nevertheless feel very good about themselves by raising money for "peace" or by demonstrating against global warming.

Note Mr Prager's assumption that one can't be a good Christian or Jew and be a leftist. It's profound observations like this that have made the Great Dennis Prager the world's number two moral leader -- behind, of course, the Great Luke Ford.

Kenneth Minogue covers much of the same ground, but in a more elegantly written essay, in the current special issue of the New Criterion devoted to Britain. Mr Minogue explores "two concepts of the moral life," one of which (the Establishment's, i.e., the left's) has led to a self-defeating moral inversion:

We have observed a pretty clean sweep of important moral convictions in the collapse of the virtues of chastity, loyalty, and thrift. Is this merely to be recognized as a case of moral decline? Or have these virtues been replaced by something else? And if so, what? The moral life has clearly evolved -- but where has it gone? The evident answer, I think, is that moral sentiments now focus on benevolence, philanthropy, and charitable causes ... As a new morality, this development prides itself on releasing judgment from a narrow concern with sex in order to bring ethical standards to bear on the really serious decisions made in government and commerce ... The new morality thus incorporates both multiculturalism and "political correctness," in that both basically respond to a solicitude for the sensitivities of people different from "us" ... It has above all identified the people who need help, both those victimized by disease or misfortune in our own society and those afflicted in other parts of the world. Morality has thus liberated itself from the merely personal element of being true to oneself and become a program for perfecting the world ... the transposition of bad moral conduct into the language of social acceptability and social capital removes it entirely from the innerness of the moral life ... The new politico-moral order imposes on us duties to strangers, people we have never met, and for the most part never will. Particular duties to family and friends, much less that central duty of integrity to ourselves on which the older moralists laid so much stress, hardly enter the picture ... Could it be, however, that our very greed for social perfection has destroyed our grip on the real moorings of human life?

Perhaps when Mr Ford returns from his London holiday he can update us on Britain's decline from the religious, peaceable land that it once was, and that I remember, to the secular, violent wasteland of today.

-- by the Luke Ford Fan Blogger

Why Luke is Abroad

Simply put, his mission entails nothing less than saving Western Civilization from demographic doom. All that Luke has been for good and ill, and all that he is capable of becoming, shall find expression is this grand task. Luke aims to revivify the West, beginning with the Jewish community of the UK.

--Mr. Amalek

Move On….. dot Org

Come on fellow “guest bloggers”. I thought the last post ended on a positive note. Feel free to follow it with self-deprecating jokes about Judaism or hilarious parodies of Our Moral Leaders' visit to the UK.

Personally, I’m falling asleep to warm fuzzy thoughts of him discussing Ethics with “football” fans and, perhaps, women of ill repute in an un-air-conditioned neighborhood pub. The dike is breeched and the floodwaters will surely follow.

Death of a Gentile

In his infinite wisdom, Our Moral Leader has appointed, as far as I know, three guest bloggers while he heads to the UK in search of knowledge and material for his readers. For our part we must exercise patience while we await his return.

As is his way he has provided for you like no other Leader will, arranging a mixture of viewpoints for your pleasure. You have one self-obsessed guest, one Luke-obsessed guest, and one southern gentile guest who is of late concerned with thoughts of death. Just call me “Bill”, because that’s what Our Moral Leader himself calls me.

Anyway, to the subject:

A very close friend passed away last Friday after battling cancer for a little over a year. Upon his diagnosis he quickly called his friends and family and told them of his situation and prognosis. He stressed that though he was young (59), he had lived a rich and full life and had no regrets. He spent the next three or four weeks putting his affairs in order, making an orderly transfer of assets to his children. The balance of this past year he spent fighting his illness with as little disruption to his life as possible. When he saw medical hope gone and his family and friends prepared, he made his peace with God and simply let go. Truly a noble man.

His daughter bravely delivered his eulogy and transformed what could have been a time of grief into a time of celebration of his life and a torrent of pleasant memories. She told several anecdotes about him that illustrated his influence on our lives. The large, protestant sanctuary was full to capacity and everyone in attendance left the service with fond memories of his time on earth.

His tortured body was lowered into the ground at sunset Sunday evening. This new week has begun without him, the world a better place for his time here.

"The Luke Ford Story" is Ready to Lens

That's movie-lingo for "the perfect script is out there, and all I need is for someone to provide the money and talent to turn it into a fine film that elites from across the world will want to see." Seriously, if you are interested, and are someone I might be proud to have tell my story (or at least not ashamed, so no people from the world-of-things-that-are-forbidden-by-the-Torah need inquire) then just drop a line to: rabbigadol@yahoo.com

A Statement Neither Speilberg nor Streisand nor Moore Would Disagree With (at least not in public)

"There is nothing wrong with Hollywood that Islam cannot fix."

All I am Saying, is Give Peace a Chance

Poll: Jordan top anti-Jew nation; Russia most pro-Christian

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, September 19, 2005
Jordan leads the Islamic world in its antipathy for Jews according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center.

The poll, which surveyed 17,000 people in 17 countries, said 100 percent of Jordanians viewed Jews unfavorably. The majority of Jordanians are Palestinians, but the late King Hussein and his son and successor, King Abdullah have been known for their pro-American stances.


Russia led all other countries with favorable views of Christians (92 percent) while Turkey (63 percent) had the most unfavorable view of Christians.


The Netherlands led all nations surveyed both in positive views of Jews (85 percent) and negative views of Muslims (51 percent).
Significant numbers of respondents in only Jordan (38 percent) and Lebanon (40 percent) blamed U.S. policies for Islamic extremism.

Respondents in Lebanon, which has a large Christian population, were nearly unanimous (99 percent) in their unfavorable views of Jews. 91 percent were favorable to Christians.

The poll found decreasing support in Islamic countries for Al Qaida and suicide bombings.

Jordan was the exception. In the latest poll, the level of Jordanian support for Bin Laden rose to 60 percent, compared to 55 percent in 2002.

The center also reported increased Jordanian support for suicide attacks.

Fifty-seven percent of Jordanian respondents expressed support for suicide bombings, up from 43 percent in 2002.

In Morocco, support for Al Qaida dropped from 49 percent in 2003 to 26 percent in the latest poll. In Lebanon, only two percent of respondents expressed support for Al Qaida.

A Brief Report on the Musical Tastes of the Looters of New Orleans

This from AP:

The Wal-Mart store in uptown New Orleans, built within the last year, survived the storm but was destroyed by looters.

"They took everything - all the electronics, the food, the bikes," said John Stonaker, a Wal-Mart security officer. "People left their old clothes on the floor when they took new ones. The only thing left are the country-and-western CDs. You can still get a Shania Twain album."

If the store had not been looted, it could be open in two weeks, Stonaker said. Now he doubts it will be open by January. "They'll have to gut it and start over," he said.

The Return of Chaim Amalek, America's Favorite Liberal Upper West Side Jew

Luke Ford alter-ego Chaim Amalek reports that he is looking forward to sharing his views with you during Luke's mysterious voyage to the UK. He speculates that the secret purpose of Luke's trip is to breathe some life into the moribund Jewish Kehila [community] of the UK, vanishing as it is under the self-secreted solvents of assimilation and feminism and materialism. But fear not, oh ye Jews of Albion, for Luke Ford is soon to arrive on your shores with both a message of hope and a practical plan of action for survival.

--Chaim Amalek
(if you got a problem with any of this, take it to the esteemed Rabbi Gadol who can be reached at rabbigadol@yahoo.com)