Dave: "Normally I'd say it's my ego that makes me think that I'm wonderful but you've seem to become an extension of it."
Luke: "So what did you do today?"
Dave: "I went to a couple of comic book shops and took my kids to the playground."
Luke: "The comic book shops for your kids or for you?"
Dave: "For me."
Luke: "Why do you go to such trafe (non-kosher) places?"
Dave: "Jews invented the comic book industry."
Luke: "But they're not Torah Jews."
Dave: "In a recent episode of The Fantastic Four, they said shema [credo of Judaism]."
Luke: "I take it all back then."
Dave: "I don't have a problem with secular culture. Of all the secular culture that it out there, comics are innocuous."
Deutsch was born in Tel Aviv. His parents, now married for 40 years, lived in Israel for seven years. They came back to the United States for a couple of years and ended up staying. Dave's mother is from Milwaukee and his father Henri is from Antwerp, Belgium. Henri and his family fled Europe two days after the Germans invaded and moved to Borough Park. Most of his family were in the diamond trade. Henri worked as a playwright and teacher. "He writes a lot about old Jews."
Dave grew up in Milwaukee "despite my urbanity and cosmopolitanism."
Dave is the youngest of three. His sister, born in Israel, is the eldest. His brother was born in the US.
Luke: "Your parents are frum?"
Dave: "No. They're Conservadox. My mother is from a Jewishly-involved Reform family. Her grandfather had been the principal at the Yiddish school where Golda Meir taught. It was a different type of Reform to today."
Luke: "They weren't marrying two men and stuff?"
Dave: "No, it was very Zionistic. They both moved to Israel in the early '60s with the intentions of making aliyah. At the time, that was not something that many Americans did.
"We grew up in a Conservadox home with Friday night kiddish, Saturday morning cartoons. We did everything but it wasn't Orthodox by today's standards."
Luke: "Did you play with the goyim?"
Dave: "Oh yeah. My best friends then and now are Catholic school kids from my neighborhood."
Luke: "Did you have black friends?"
Dave: "Not many. I had some acquaintances."
Luke: "How did you come to join the Army after graduating high school?"
Dave: "I was right-wing in high school. I felt that living in a democracy, one had certain debts to the country. I felt it was a matter of principle to do some national service. I've always been interested in military history. I played with toy soldiers and G.I. Joes. In high school, I was not a stellar student. I didn't want to go to college right away. The money for college was an added incentive."
Luke: "When did you graduate high school?"
Dave: "1987."
Luke: "How old were you?"
Dave: "18."
Luke: "So that makes you?"
Dave: "34."
Luke: "You're younger than me."
Dave: "I was hoping you'd think I looked younger than my age."
Luke: "I thought you were older than me."
Dave: "You're a charmer."
Luke: "Life has been cruel to you."
Dave: "Since I had the two kids and started teaching, my hair has gone considerably grayer."
Deutsch served in the Army for two years before he was kicked out for faggotry.
He graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a double major in history and the history of culture. Deutsch got his Masters degree in Jewish Studies from New York University (NYU). He then did all the classwork for a PhD but did not pass his French exam and did not complete his thesis. "I procrastinated for three years and then had an epiphany that I should not write my dissertation.
"I wrote up my proposal. I was feeling positive about it. I bit the bullet and contacted the advisor I'd hidden from the last three years. I dropped my kid off at the baby-sitter. I go to get my car and the car is gone. The car is a monstrosity - a 1989 Caprice Classic stationwagon. We got it from my in-laws when they got a new car. My first thought was - how am I going to get to work. My second thought was - I hated that car. We hadn't planned on getting a car. We just got it because it was free. But it kept breaking down.
"Thirty seconds later, I realized I felt the same way about my dissertation. I didn't really want it. I'm not going to get a good job at New York University. I'm not going to be an academic superstar. I realized I didn't want to spend the rest of my thirties working on my dissertation instead of playing with my kids and enjoying myself. At that moment, I became the Buddha."
Luke: "The Buddha didn't get his PhD?"
Dave: "No, because he realized he didn't need it. Sitting under that Bo tree, it dawned on him that he had enlightenment, so why did he need his dissertation?"
Luke: "When did you become Orthodox?"
Dave: "It was a gradual process at the University of Wisconsin, starting my second year of college, when I was 22. I'd always believed in the stuff without understanding what it meant. I went to Orthodox day school through eighth grade. I went to Chabad summer camp. I was heavily into Zionist politics on campus. We'd throw around phrases like, 'God gave us the land.' At some point, you have to ask yourself, is this just a selling point or do I really believe it? It was also being in class with all these Jewish frat kids and they seemed so goyish.
"Then when Desert Storm broke out, and I thought I might get called up, that inspired me to pick up [his religious observance]. If I'm going to get my house in order, I might want to do it sooner rather than later."
Luke: "How did you meet your wife?"
Dave: "I met her at the University of Wisconsin. I had graduated and I was living with my parents in Milwaukee, preparing to go to grad school. She was part of this kiruv (outreach) program from Stern College (Orthodox college for women) where they'd go around the country and talk to the kids about Jewish stuff. She was coming to the University of Wisconsin this one weekend. Friends of mine were organizing the program. At that point, I was already going to grad school in NY in the fall. When I heard, Stern girl coming, I thought, if she's desirable, I'll get first crack at her, because I'll be the one moving to New York. I met her that Friday. She was very pretty. She seemed nice though not too talkative. The next day I set about to woo her.
"Having never hit on a frum (religious) girl before, you don't want to be too forward. So I had a three part plan. First, that I would be very clever and funny around her, but not directed at her. That way she would see how clever and funny I was without being threatening. Next to find out if she were seeing anybody. She was. I figured even if she were seeing somebody, she could be the key to the vault of Stern College.
"That night, my best friend Sam and I had this lounge act - the Mundane Brothers. We were performing at a hippie co-op in Madison. I invited her to the show. I figured if she didn't like the show, it wasn't going to be a love connection. At the end of Mac the Knife, where you sing out the names of different women, I sang out her name, thinking that would definitely charm her. She had no clue what I was doing, thinking I was just being civil.
Luke: "But you were really being charming?"
Dave: "Clearly no one has ever sung your name at a show."
Luke: "That's true."
Dave: "She went back to New York. I got her address from the girl she'd been staying with. I wrote to her. She wrote back to me. We corresponded over the summer."
Luke: "This was snail mail?"
Dave: "Yeah."
Luke: "What year was this?"
Dave: "1994."
Luke: "You wrote letters to each other. That's so adorable. Do you still have them?"
Dave: "Yes.
"I moved to NYU. We started going out in October of 1994 and we married in June of 1996."
Luke: "How many times since then has she regretted it?"
Dave: "She's probably had a few moments but in Orthodox circles I'm a catch. I cook. She didn't when we got married.
"The good thing about being Orthodox are that the physical standards for men..."
Luke: "Are very very low."
Dave: "The farther you go into the Orthodox world, the more likely the man has spent much of his life sitting, with a diet of fats and starch. I come along. I'm over 6'. I'm under 300 pounds. I have very little food in my beard. I've got my hair. I walk into a club - I'm a six or seven. I walk into a shul - I'm a ten. So what's your problem?
"My wife and I are happy sitting around watching TV and commenting on it and periodically doing fun things."
Luke: "Does she find your jokes about the Holocaust funny?"
Dave: "Yes. Her father..."
Luke: "Is a famous Holocaust comedian?"
Dave: "No, but he's the type of person who makes jokes about the Holocaust."
Luke: "How does your father react?"
Dave: "He grits his teeth at times. He wants me to be involved with showbiz or writing. He'd be disappointed if I became a doctor. I'm sure he feels that Holocaust jokes don't have much of a future. I'm sure he's right."
Deutsch teaches world and American history at a yeshiva high school. His wife teaches preschool at another Jewish school.
Luke: "What things do you do just for appearances?"
Dave: "I don't wear my more garish outfits to school. I certainly have my affectations. I wear fezzes. I do some things because I think they look cool. I smoke cigars periodically, partly for appearances. I dressed eccentrically periodically. It is affected. I happen to like it. Religiously, when I started this whole baal teshuva thing [path of repentance] I went through the whole, 'Meertz HaShem' [God willing] phase."
Luke: "How can you be a comedian and Orthodox? I thought Orthodox Judaism and comedy were polar opposites?"
Dave: "Judaism has a wide range of opinions on things. You have a more ascetic puritanical strain, which says no to everything. Then you will have more lenient strains. I make compromises with my subject matter and some of the language I use. My rabbi knows I do comedy and he has no problem with it. He doesn't know all the stuff I joke about, which might cause issues. I make people laugh in a not cruel, not harmful way. That's a good thing. There's something in the Talmud about jesters having a place in the world to come for bringing joy to people.
"I feel like I've been an ambassador. People can look at me and see that an Orthodox Jew can be creative or clever. I've never reached a point where I've had to challenge my integrity. Nobody has said, well, we'd love you to do this show and dance with Pamela Anderson. I'd like to think I'd say no, not just because I think Pamela Anderson is a frightening lab experiment gone wrong."
Luke: "Do you have a lot of women throwing themselves at you, offering sexual favors?"
Dave: "I have had that."
Luke: "How many?"
The answer is two but Dave is hard to pin down.
Dave: "When the Mundane Brothers and I were performing, two hippie chicks threw themselves at us. If Sam wasn't into it, I might've been able to get both of of them. They actually threw their underwear at us and their bras."
Luke: "That's so cool, dude."
Dave: "Unfortunately, that was the show Aliza was at and I was hoping to impress her in a different way. I don't think she caught it anyway."
...Luke: "Have there been other occasions when women have thrown their underwear at you while you were performing?"
Dave: "No, certainly not at the Holocaust museum, though there was that one lady who threw her striped pajamas at me."
Luke: "Are you a misanthrope?"
Dave: "I'm cynical but I'm not a misanthrope. I feel like God has taken a liking to me. For the amount of work I've put into my life, I've done much better than I have any right to expect."
Luke: "What are you working on these days?"
Dave: "The book I planned to write making fun of the French did not work out. Apparently publishing is the last bastion of Francophilia in the United States. Though many editors thought I was funny, they did not want to bash the French. I've got some screenplays to work on and a book of essays on American history and culture. I could probably be fairly successful if I had drive and initiative. I enjoy writing but I have no energy for selling. I like doing standup but I don't have the drive to go out to open mikes three nights a week and listen to crappy performers. If I could get some people to listen to me in my living room, that'd be ok."
Dave's last gig was the night I met him in late April, 2003.
Luke: "What would your students say about you if I interviewed them?"
Dave: "I'm considered the cool teacher. I think I yell at them a lot but they tend to get yelled at a lot by all their teachers. I'll go off at them and feel terrible about it and they'll assure me I never yell at them like their other teachers. I think they like me. I'm a funny guy. I tell a lot of jokes in class about TV and popular culture. They're in school for ten hours a day and I appreciate that. I know they need a lot of down time. I think they recognize me for having one of the more interesting classes."
Luke: "What do you love and what do you hate about your religion?"
Dave: "I love the part where I feel like I'm serving God, and that I'm part of a much greater thing, the tradition, the community. I hate the insularity and small-mindedness. You have this vast spectrum in halacha (Jewish Law) and you can support almost anything. To hear these people say schwartze this and spic that. There's a real tendency in the Orthodox world to hate everybody who is not like you. They hate other Orthodox Jews."
Luke: "Who do you like to hate?"
Dave: "I like to hate intolerant people. I can't stand people who don't appreciate irony or have a sense of humor about themselves.
"You certainly appear to have opinions I find repugnant but Holocausts are never caused by people who can make fun of themselves. The guy you can make fun of is not the guy who is going to hurt somebody else. As long as they can make fun of themselves, they have a kernel of humility that enables them to stop themselves and consider they might be wrong, and pull themselves back from the precipice of being so self-righteous as to persecute somebody."
Luke: "I thought we had a deal with God that so long as we kept the 613 commandments we were allowed the sweet pleasure of racism?
"Would you be willing to break the Sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew?"
Dave: "Yeah I would."
Luke: "How many of your students would?"
Dave: "I wouldn't count on many of my students doing much for anybody else.
"Most Orthodox Jews will break the Sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew. Say, a group of Jews walk home Friday night from synagogue and they send someone lying in the street with blood gushing out of him, and he says, 'Call 9-1-1.' I don't think Orthodox Jews would say, 'Just hold on, I've got to find a goy. Do you think maybe your mother is Jewish?' Or, 'Wait a minute, they're a goy. I shouldn't be doing this. On the other hand, if another goy were to see I was not helping this goy, they might hate us and it might lead to pogroms, so I am saving a Jewish life...'"
Luke: "Do you think the life of a non-Jew is as valuable as the life of a Jew?"
Dave: "I am a chauvinist. I care more about Jews than other people. A bomb going off in Tel Aviv affects me more than a bomb going off in Kashmir. I feel that Jewish lives are more important in the same way that I'd expect Irishmen feel that Irish lives are more important."
Luke: "Do you have more loyalty to Israel or the United States?"
Dave: "I would say my loyalty is to God and what is right."
Luke: "Which political party would you vote for Israel?"
Dave: "Labor. The Palestinians will have a state, should have a state."
Luke: "Does your wife set limits on the jokes you can tell about her?"
Dave: "I can tell jokes about her. I wouldn't discuss our sex life other than the most joking way."
Luke: "What are your best jokes about your sex life?"
Dave: "The spiel about the benefits of Orthodoxy for the other than adequate male like myself. The best part about Orthodoxy is marrying an Orthodox girl, because they have nobody to compare you to. My wife knows 30 seconds as a marathon and four-inches as the Titanic.
"If one of the kids at school would ask what my wife and I do in bed, I would not talk about that. A lot of these kids do have questions about sex. They're going to ask their rabbi? I will talk about sex and halacha [Jewish Law].
"They ask me about halacha and birth control and halacha and oral sex. I explain that you will find authorities who say that oral sex is wasting seed and you can't do it and you will find legitimate authorities going back to the Middle Ages that whatever a husband and wife do within marriage is acceptable so long as it is not the primary form of intercourse. You are obligated to have sex with your wife even when she is pregnant so simple procreation is not the sole reason for sex."
Luke: "How many of your students are married?"
Dave: "None but they're certainly hoping to have sex before marriage."
"In Florida, there's this weird bad Orthodox scene during winter break. It's Spring Break for Orthodox kids. A lot of the yeshivos let out in January. Kids go down there. Parents know they're going down there and let them go down there by themselves. Four guys will get a hotel room. It's certainly more subdued than the non-Jewish Spring Break."
Luke: "Orthodox Jews Gone Wild."
Dave: "For them going wild is eating trafe food and going around with girls."
Luke: "That's disgusting."
Dave: "Presumably lots of parents know that it happens."
Luke: "Do kids ask you if masturbation is OK?"
Dave: "I say it's not. What are you going to do? They don't have to ask me if it is OK. They know that it's not. One kid did come up with a fascinating justification: Within the testicles, sperm only last for a certain number of days. If you don't masturbate, then the sperm will just die within your testicles. If you do masturbate, at least there's a small chance that the sperm might end up impregnating somebody. There it is folks - the product of 1500 years of Talmudic reasoning.
"This is a Modern Orthodox school. These are kids who watch MTV and are exposed to lots of sexual images. Plenty of them are hunting up porn too. The difference between these kids and their non-Orthodox and non-Jewish peers is, culturally speaking, pretty nonexistent. These kids wear the same clothes, watch the same movies, listen to the same music as any other kid in America. They are not at a black-hat yeshiva. They have TVs and computers in their homes. They daven, keep kosher, keep Shabbos, but culturally they are not traditional or insular. When you read about some of the things that happen at the black-hat yeshivos with the Homo-eroticism, these kids are doing better than their more Orthodox peers.
"I think it is good to start with high standards, and then when the kids fail to meet them, the worst that happens is not as bad as when you don't start with high standards. Orthodox kids usually don't get pregnant, VDs...
"This is one of my proofs for the divinity of the Torah, which does not prohibit lesbianism. God recognized that two chicks doing it is hot. While it is forbidden by later rabbinic leaders, what is the punishment? Flogging. 'Bad lesbian, bad lesbian. Oh, we're going to have to spank you, I'm sorry.'
"There's this one rabbi I know - Rabbi Mayer Schiller. You'll find some of his stuff posted on The Third Way page. He reviewed a biography of Strom Thurmond where he mourns the cowardice of Strom Thurmond for giving up segregation. For the loathsomeness of his ideas, at least he can laugh at himself. We get along. I have a high threshold for things so long as the person does not always take himself seriously. Go forth and sin no more.
"The best about Rabbi Schiller is that he sets the standards for misbehavior so high, I feel like nothing I can do will get me into trouble. If I have made some comments about Israel that have got me in trouble, well, Rabbi Schiller is a fellow traveler with the Neturei Karta (anti-Israel ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect)."
"I have this former student with a crazy right-wing mishmash of ideas. We were running email arguments. I got on him about his use of the term faggot. He said, 'That's what they are and that's what they do.' Who does he think he's talking to? I know this kid. I know he gets porn magazines. He would have on his email - Judaism is not a buffet. You can't just choose what you want.
"So finally I wrote, I know what you do. If it's fair for you to call homosexuals faggots, it's fair for me to call you jack-off, because that's what you do. He never wrote back to me. I finally reached him."
Luke: "I almost never call people faggots."
Dave: "You're in the entertainment industry. You've reached that higher level where people pay attention to what you are saying.
"You are probably one of my greatest barriers to my productivity this summer. I'm sitting at my computer. I'm going to write. I'm going to do something very productive now. Hmm, I wonder what Luke Ford says? Ohh, I've got to say something about that.
"Until I hooked up with you, I'd gone years without writing a letter to the editor. I know I have this personality - a smartass egomaniac. Every day I read an article that makes me want to spew. But I have to refrain or I just won't stop. It's like an alcoholic thing. Sometimes I'll write a letter just for catharsis, and then delete it. And with you, it really was one of these - the first taste is free - things. I wrote you a letter and the next thing I know, it's posted. That was pot? I thought we were just burning incense."
I asked my friends for questions for Dave Deutsch, the world's worst Jewish comedian.
Fred writes: I'd be interested in knowing what a bad comedian earns. I'm tired of practicing law, and I'm fairly certain I have what it takes to be a bad comedian. I want to know if there is any future in it.
Khunrum writes: Does he know who the World's Worst Goyisha Comedian is? Does he believe that the two Iraqi's killed recently are really Qusai and Odai or stunt thugs planted by Bush and Rumsfeld? Ask him if being the World's Worst Jewish Comedian gets him any nookie. Ask him if her minds apologizing to Marty Singer..Ask him if he wants to join the Advisory Committee. It looks as though we just had a retirement. He can have Robert's spot, at least until the divorce.
Dave replies: "One can do very well for oneself as a bad Jewish comedian--but not, apparently, as the worst."
Chaim Amalek writes: Ask him why Jewish men can divorce their wives and remarry at the drop of a hat, but Jewish women have no right to divorce if their husbands don't approve. (Lengthy article on this in the New York Mag that just came out - such a shanda!)
Ask him why he thinks Jews have a right to keep all Palestinians out of Israel (even those who, because of infirmity or age, do not constitute any sort of a threat). Was he a supporter of white rule in Rhodesia?
Ask him what justification there can be for teaching Jewish children that the entire nation of Amalek, branch and root, must be hunted down and exterminated. Clearly this is genocide, yet is presented in the Torah as a mitzvah. If a Jew honestly believes that all genocide is evil, does it not then follow that the Jewish Torah is evil as well? (This thought occurs to me every time I visit one of those Holocaust museums. I sure do hope the goyim don't catch on!)
Ask him to explain the doctrine of the so-called "oral law." I want a good laugh.
Dave Deutstch responds:
Khunrum: I don't know who has taken on the mantle of world's worst goyishe comic since Luke's conversion.
Chaim Amalek: RE: Divorce--to a great extent, because the rabbis refuse to find a solution to the problem, which they could if they cared enough to do so.
RE: the Palestinians--I don't know what his weird bug is with the Palestinians. I've already explained this: Israel and the Palestinian are at war with one another. An elderly Palestinian can still provide a safehouse for bombers, can still walk through the streets collecting intelligence, can himself serve as a suicide bomber. Particularly in an unconventional conflict like the Palestinians are fighting, there is often no clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants. And again, Israel already has a population of over a million Arabs, so they are hardly keeping out "all Palestinians."
As far as Amalek (the nation, not the boor) goes, while it may be somewhat problematic, its not as bad as he makes it seem to be, since any member of Amalek can be saved by adopting the 7 Noahide Laws, so you're actually not obligated to kill all Amalek, only the ones who remain evil.
Aside from the fact that the real harm that could be caused innocents by naming accusers in rape cases (from victims being unwilling to step forward for fear of stigma) far outweighs whatever abstract good would come of it, naming the accusers as a general practice would actually be contrary to your specific goal of preventing false accusations.
It's basic child psychology--if you give a child the same punishment for both minor and serious infractions, he has nothing to lose by doing the serious one. If your goal is to prevent false accusations, then the smart thing to do is reserve naming the accuser only in cases where there is strong evidence for a false accusation. Otherwise, if you do it in all cases, then why not make a false accusation?
If there's no distinction made between real and false accusations, then the false accusers won't stand out; they might as well make the accusations, since there's no way to distinguish them from the true ones. Naming the accuser should only be reserved for actual cases of false accusation, otherwise, it loses all prophylactic power (and you know that bad things happen when your prophylactic is ineffective).
The reason why I've harped on this issue so much is because this is one case where you, Luke Ford, actually have power to do evil. You can criticize immigrants (you know, except for the ones who have skills that the US needs, like heretical clergyman and semi-literate porn buffs) all you want; you aren't actually going to deport or beat any. But as a journalist, you might actually engage in naming the accusers in porn cases, and I think this would be a grave error on your part.
Nowhere in the torah does it say that the Fatwah against AMALEK is suspended in the case of those who accept the Noahide laws, nor could it. After all, the order to genocidally exterminate Amalek explicitly applies to CHILDREN, for whom any inquiry into their belief systems is meaningless. Assertions to the contrary by jews who clearly are discomfitted by their most sacred of books presenting genocide as a mitzvah are just so much self-serving modern orthodox dishonesty. (As you know from your deep work in the jewish community Luke, Modern Orthodoxy, like Conservative Judaism before it, is on its way out.) Face it, if genocide ALWAYS is evil then so too are some of the teachings of the torah.
7/23/03
About the Kobe Bryant case.
Dave Deutsch writes:
People seem to be overlooking the considerable evidence that the woman in question is herself engaging in criminal actions relevant to the case--this isn't simply a matter of impugning her sexual ethics, or her judgment, but in bringing to light statements she made which completely contradict the rape charge. The real story is not that she is an alleged rape victim, but an alleged perjurer.
This Mike Smith isn't terribly logical--after all, the basketball player, and your wife, would know your identity even if the media didn't publish your name. But you do still ignore one important point, which is that rape victims are blamed and considered "damaged goods" in a way which other crime victims aren't.
Again, the guy who gets jumped walking down the street at 1 AM isn't going to have people saying "Look, you go to a bar late at night, what do you think is going to happen? And who were these guys, anyway? He was probably coming on to them, and they didn't like it, so they kicked his ass. You can't expect me to believe that three complete strangers would simply attack this guy on the street without any provocation on his part." Why treat accusations of rape differently? Because alleged victims of rape are treated differently (and you yourself engage in treating them differently, so you can hardly deny it).
It is fair to ask why accusations of rape should be treated differently. I have given an answer, so at this point, you might want to try responding to it.
Luke replies: I'm sorry if I have been too busy transcribing our interview, thinking about God, and davening with Rabbenu Tam as well as Rashi tefillin to respond to you before now.
If one of my friends walked into South Central Los Angeles alone and got robbed and mugged, I would certainly assign him some responsibility. We do assign responsibility to other crime victims. If I went into a bar and started an argument that led to me getting beaten up, I'd have to shoulder some responsibility.
Dave replies:
Clever bastard, you know I can argue with either Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam, but I'm powerless against the two of them together.
Did I say stigmatizing? I meant stigmata-izing. but seriously, this "she went into his room, what did she expect" business is just wrong. Like you said, if you pick a fight in a bar, you deserve what you get. If you enter a bar, you don't. A guy who walks in south central and gets mugged will be called stupid--nobody will suggest, however, that he somehow merited the mugging, or that the mugging was a result of his own moral failings. Nobody will say "Look, what did you want the mugger to do? Here's this white guy parading in front of him with a rolex, fat wallet, etc--he was asking for it." The mugging victim is faulted only for stupidity, not consent. The implication that a rape victim is asking for it by going into the room is used to suggest that not only was she stupid, but that she implicitly gave her consent by going into the room. In other words, it isn't really rape.
If you think I'm being pedantic, simply consider what is actually used by defense attorneys. No defense attorney is going to argue that his mugger-client was lured into a mugging by the victim. Any good defense attorney will argue that his rapist-client was lured into the rape by the implied consent of the victim--if he thought she was willing, then he wasn't forcing her.
If all you want to do is say that it is generally stupid for a girl to go with a strange man to his hotel room late at night, and that it is likely to send to him the signal that she's interested in sex, I won't disagree. But without qualifying it, your comments merely fall into this "blame the victim" category, which implicitly excuses the guilty. Aren't you conservative types supposed to be opposed to that sort of morality?
Luke says: I've never suggested that a rape victim bears moral sin for tempting a man or stepping into his room. I've said it is unwise and irresponsible of her.
Dave replies:
I remain right that rape victims are treated differently (I think I've proven my point there) and so their names should be kept quiet. As far as stigma goes, surely you must concede that while you, having accepted the divine justice and wisdom of our holy Torah, would never do such a thing, not everyone is such a tzaddik? While there is perhaps some merit in living such a saintly life that you cannot imagine that others would do evil, nonetheless, we must live in this world, and accept that not all would behave so nobly.
A New York Liberal Writes about the Plight Of Black Women:
A great deal has been published in recent years on the disparity of rates of miscegenation that I refer to. The Washington Post has published quite a few articles on the preference black men show for lighter-skinned women in their choice of mates, and if you Google, I'm sure you will find the articles. One article which references several of these sources is here. Or, if you are a bit more ambitious, you could look up the census information yourself.
As for the origin of lighter skinned black women, have you forgotten that once all black women here were owned by white men? A white man out on the farm with nothing to do could get drunk on a Saturday night, call any colored woman over to the Big House, and presto - nine months later you had a lighter skinned black person. The fact that those white men whose moral character was such that they owned human beings the way you or I might own goldfish would occasionally screw/rape one or more of them does not prove a preference for black women, even among slavers. These degenerates screwed black women because that's all they could own.
This David cannot be as ignorant as his assertions make him out to be, can he? The average preference for lighter skinned mates over darker skinned mates, at least in this country (and in ancient Rome and Greece) has been noted many, many times by many, many commentators. It reflects what one sees walking down the street, too. (How often do you see a white man with a black woman? How often do you see a black man with a white women? Judge for yourself!) It reflects what you see on Spanish language television, where all hispanic women look like they might be Catherine Zeta-Jones' sisters. I'm not sure if David has any white male friends, but among mine, the discussion of which women are the hottest just never seems to include any black women. And while a number of my friends have taken an asian woman for a wife, none has married a black woman. I'll bet its the same for most of your readers. None of this is good for America's Black Women, who tend to be socially conservative Christian women and would love to marry a black man. Miscegenation makes things that much harder for them.
As usual, Mr. Amalek doesn't really do much to counter my comments. Saying "those degenerates screwed black women because that's all they could own" misses the point--many of them were already married to white women. If their preference for white women was so strong, why not just schtup their wives?
A New York Liberal Who Marched In Selma Writes: Oy vey, is this guy for real? Are you sure he has a penis?
Despite their access to white women, they, like the men who frequented (and still frequent) black prostitutes, apparently didn't get the memo. Why doesn't Mr. Amalek go to some of the prostitute strips in New York and see how many white guys are getting blow jobs from black and hispanic hookers?
A New York Liberal Who Marched In Selma Writes: I don't hang out with hookers. But I do know that black hookers cost substantially less than white hookers. (Luke, you know all about this. Clue your friend in on the basic facts.) The demand side just isn't as strong as it is for whites. (By the way, the black hookers one sees on the streets of New York are the absolute dregs of New York, often drug-addled trannies and crack-whores. And such white men as may frequent them are not exactly the flower of the white race, either.)
I looked at the census data--while black men have considerably higher marriage rates with whites than black women, both Asian women and hispanic women have higher intermarriage rates than Asian or hispanic men. There are certainly no shortage of white guys with the hots for Asian girls.
Folks, re-read that comment again - David concedes the point. I am speaking of black/white couplings, and I believe I made this clear. Faced with facts that do not support your position, you are trying to obfuscate the issue by bringing in other races, when that isn't what the discussion is about. Even you acknowledge that black men are far more apt to take white wives than white men are to take black wives, and that's the core of the argument that miscegenation is disadvantageous to black women.
As for ancient Rome and Greece, all he does is reinforce my point, which has to do with the exotic being erotic. For people in the Mediterranean, blondes were exotic. For northern Europeans (and I notice he doesn't address the points I made about Germany and Poland), Jews were exotic.
Black women were "exotic," as they had to be imported from Africa from lands beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. And there have always been blondes here and there among the people of Italy. They could get still more blondes from their own lands within their empire just to the north of the Alps(Helvetia, Germany, Gaul). But the blacks were given the shit work to do, and the hot blondes were shown the bedroom. (Even in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, the slaves doing the heavy lifting are often depicted with the darkest pigments.)
Even Luke Ford admitted recently his own preference for black chicks--a preference he shared with Moses, whose wife was, after all, a Kushite (and let's not forget Solomon and Sheba).
Yes, the biblical fables concerning Moses and his choice of mate (who, by the way, was a shiksa) are laudible. I just wish the rabbinate acknowledged what those fables meant to convey (that marrying shiksas is fine).
I have no problem with saying that lots of African-American men want white women. That's hardly a major revelation. I have a problem with these broad generalizations like "The preference for men of all races for lighter skinned women is well documented." and making such comments without putting it in a broader social context (or at least a social context of broads).
Almost all my male friends are white (although I like the bizarre implied accusation that they wouldn't be...and therefore?) I know two couples in which the man is white and the woman is black, another in which the man is white and women East Indian, another in which the man is Anglo-Peruvian and the woman Peruvian Chinese (I'm not sure where that fits, but it sounds interesting, doesn't it?) I suspect there there will be considerably more black woman/white man relationships in time for the next census (get working on this, Luke).
As for spanish tv, most of the girls on Sabado Gigante have much better bodies (more zaftig) than Catherine Zeta Jones (who is a very good looking woman).
We are talking about skin color here, are we not? The fact is that Spanish language television could just as easily have found dark skinned women with equally striking bodies (I think). But they invariably choose to use the lightest skinned women they can find. The dark ones need not apply. They seem to know what they are doing, as their shows are quite popular. (Although I think liberals should be protesting this blatant racial discrimination. For the record, I condemn racial preferences in hiring. Once again, the dark skinned woman is left with no one to defend her.)
Which leads me to what really troubled me: your comment that you and your friends don't discuss which black women are hot. Racism is evil--but when your bigotry blinds you to the beauty of a good looking woman, well, that's just pathetic.
This is how the world really is. The average white man finds the average white women to be more sexually desirable than he finds the average black woman. That's the main reason why so few white men marry black women (in contrast to asians, who are much sought after), and this is especially true of high status males. That's why black whores charge less than white whores (Luke, you KNOW the facts on this one); that's why for every ten black men you see on the street with a white woman, you see maybe three white men with black women. This pattern of racial preferences works especially harshly against black women, whom few seem to care much about.
You know, I always get a kick out of liberal jews who argue on behalf of mixed marriages for everyone else, even as they struggle to limit exogamy within the Jewish community. Their position is that while tribal purity is necessary for Jews, it must be denounced and discouraged with respect to the goyim. (This is of a piece with supporting open immigration into America, while defending the extremely exclusionary Zionist "law of return" for Israel.)
The world is not as you or I want it to be. White people are at least as conscious of being "white" as torah jews are of being jewish, or as black nationalists are of being black, and with equal justification. Jews who think that they can get away with supporting one set of standards for their community (and Israel) while urging a very different set on western nations that have given them succor are in for a terrible, terrible shock: the goyim are not as dumb as you think.
Dave Deutsch replies: Now, I'll concede that I'm not a big fan of deconstructivism, so it may very well be that when he wrote "men of all races," he did not, in fact, mean "men of all races." Consequently, my "bringing in other races" to discuss "men of all races" may have been wrong. If he can explain how "men of all races" actually means (and means clearly, by his account) "black men," I'll happily apologize. If not, then I would expect him to apologize for the above allegations, restate his position, and I'll respond from there. It seems silly to have a discussion when one participant, for whatever reason, refuses to support the comments he initially made, and then insults the other participant for having the temerity to actually call him on that. I thought conservatives were supposed to accept responsibility for their actions?
Dave Deutsch Sets Us Straight
Dave Deutsch writes: As usual, when Chaim Amalek discusses race (which is about all he discusses), he gets it wrong.
The preference of men for lighter skinned women is well documented? That's fascinating. Where does he think these lighter skinned black women came from? Does he imagine that they simply bleached over the course of time? Somehow, despite this "well documented preference," countless white men schtupped black women throughout American history. Many of these were men who had white wives, and/or access to other white women (should we presume that Thomas Jefferson couldn't have found a white woman to sleep with him had he desired to?) While it may not be "well documented," there's not shortage of evidence for it--the light skinned black women he mentions are ample enough evidence. But if he wants documentation, there are certainly plenty of slave narratives that discuss it. Also, in New Orleans, there were a number of elite brothels staffed entirely by light skinned women who catered exclusively to an elite white clientele, and many accounts of the black urban demimonde (I'd recommend Iceberg Slim's books--start with Pimp) discuss the white men who would furtively enter the ghetto for sex with black prostitutes--again, many of them married, and who would have access to white prostitutes if they so desired.
Amalek's discussion, as usual, also leaves out any context, thus reinforcing the stereotype of black man having a voracious appetite for white women (a stereotype that began, of course, at a time when white men in the south were committing frequent acts of rape against black women--about as textbook a case of projection as you can find). White women to many black men are, of course, a status symbol (like shiksas to Jews). They also represent a way of revenge (the ultimate grudgefuck, so to speak). Also, traditionally, in American culture, the standard of beauty has been to favor light skin over dark (just as there are plenty of Jewish men and women who believe blond hair and blue eyes are the ultimate beauty markers). Socially, there are also some things to consider--many visible upper class black men--like pro-athletes--move in a largely white world. Going to a largely white college, or being in a largely white business environment, they associate more frequently with whites, period (at the university of Wisconsin when I went there, I think the black student body was probably less than 2%, out of over 20,000 undergrads--so who else are the black athletes going to date?). Finally, if you want to look at it in simple evolutionary biological terms, one might argue that in American society, dark skinned men would naturally prefer light skinned women, simply because their offspring would have a better chance to survive and thrive (and during segregation, achieve the ultimate success of being able to pass).
Finally, there is simply the attraction of the exotic. The comment about men favoring light-skinned women is certainly not born out by the Jewish experience. While Jewish men in American media may depict Jewish women as shrill, unattractive harridans (great example of this can be found in "City Slickers," where the Daniel Stern character, emasculated by his obviously Jewish wife, finds redemption and masculinity with the blond haired, blue eyed shiksa--ironically played by the Jewish actress, Helen Slater), Jewish women have traditionally been viewed by non-Jewish men as being beautiful, alluring and exotic. Aside from the famous fictional cases of beautiful Jewesses (Ivanhoe, Merchant of Venice), in Germany and Poland, where the Christian women are about as light-skinned as you can get, Jewish women were considered to be the bomb (watch the movie Shoah and catch the reminiscences of the Poles in the town of Chelmno--if memory serves, the men didn't miss the Jewish men, but they sure mourned the loss of the Jewish women). So much for the well documented preference.
The best part is that the very example that set Amalek off actually contradicts his point. Kobe Bryant's wife has an Anglo father and a Mexican mother--apparently, he wasn't aware of what his preferences were supposed to be. And so while Vanessa Lane is definitely not black, her mother (judging by here own coloring and features) is definitely not white.
As for the issue of naming rape victims, Luke, you are wrong. There is a difference between rape and other crimes, simply because of the very point you make to defend the practice--stigmatizing the victim. If somebody gets his car stolen, the worst people will say is that he's stupid. The worst a rape victim could face is (at least in some societies) being murdered in an honor killing. Even backing away from that extreme, there are plenty of people like you who will blame the woman, and, even if she isn't blamed, will see her as damaged goods. Rape, unlike car theft, is an attack against a person, not property. That in and of itself is sufficient to approach it differently. If anything, it probably falls under some sort of "loshon hora" guideline.
And your reference to "many" victims of rape being in part responsible is sufficiently vague enough to be meaningless. How many rapes occur because a woman went to a man's hotel room? Is that how most rapes occur? You know very well it isn't, so all you're doing is setting up a straw man. If you want to qualify things, then do so from the start--say "Those rapes in which x occurs..." Don't begin with a general statement about rape, and then use a fairly specific--and infrequent--example to support your argument. Women are raped in their homes, and parking garages, and parks--should women not park their cars, or walk in parks (parks, lets say, where there is no history of rape)? And what does "going to a hotel room" mean? There is going there at 2 AM after a night of drinking, and there's going there at 9 PM because the guy wants to change his shirt. If you're not going to have rachmones [mercy], at least have some seichel [wisdom].
Now, this is not to say that there is never a time to discuss the "victim." If, as in the case of Kobe Bryant, the alleged victim has engaged in behavior that casts considerable doubt on her allegations, it is a story. That doesn't mean that she sleeps around--it means that she makes comments suggesting that things didn't happen as she claims. If this women is going to be going around talking about how she had consensual sex with him, that is directly relevant to the case.
Naming a rape victim might not be loshon hora [evil speech]--might be rechilus [petty speech]. Check your al cheyts [prayer for forgiveness] at Yom Kippur--I'm pretty sure you'll find something. I would say (you know, as the ultimate arbiter of morality in our time) that it's something to be avoided as not being particularly menschlich [good person].
Anyway, this rape-victim thing is another point at which I often find cultural conservatives to be in need of a hypocrisy check. When Korean merchants in South-Central had their stores looted and burned out, I don't recall too many people saying "Well look, what do you expect? They open stores there, they get what they deserve. What did they think would happen?" or when a couple's house is robbed while on vacation "Well look, most robberies occur when the family is gone. If they didn't want to be robbed, why did they go on vacation?" No, in those cases, opponents of "moral relativism" will be firm--responsibility belongs to the criminal. But a woman gets raped, and suddenly, you have all kinds of questions being asked about her behavior. "Wait a minute, she went out with the guy, wearing a short dress? What did she think was going to happen?" Personal responsibility no longer rests with the criminal. Gosh, how could he have possibly acted otherwise, I mean, she was wearing a short dress and went home with him for a drink.
Now, to be sure, coming over for a drink is often a prelude. But it's not a signed contract. Maybe she comes over, thinking "this guy's pretty good looking," and gets into his bathroom, and finds his VD medication. Maybe she notices his collection of scat fetish magazines. Maybe she's creeped out by his constant references to the martyrdom of Jeffrey Dahmer. Maybe she just gets tired. Point is, going to a guys apartment, or even hotel room, is not a criminal action, and women who do it and get raped shouldn't be viewed as accessories, any more than guys who drive cabs late at night, or wear nice watches should be viewed as accessories if they get robbed. Those are not mitigating actions. The truth is that many, if not most, crime victims did something stupid, or careless, which, had they not done so. They parked in a bad spot, they forget to lock their bike wheel, they should have taken in the paper, etc. etc. Rape victims are no different in that regard, so arguing that they bear any greater responsibility for their victimization seems to me to be an untenable double standard, particularly since, as noted before, the repercussions of the crime are that much greater. Anyway, baby crying, gotta go.
The maid, a beautiful West Indian woman in her early twenties, led me into the living room, where Norman Podhoretz was waiting for me, dressed in a silk smoking gown and a smile. He caught me admiring his ensemble.
“You like this robe? A present from Pinochet. Please, sit.” He gestured towards the couch. His gaze followed the maid out the room. “You know, I hate to see her leave, but I loooove to watch her go. Would you like some tea?”
I demur, and he reaches into his pocket and takes out a joint. “I got this from Safire. Real high quality. You sure you don’t want any?”
“No thank, you Mr. Podhoretz. But, I have to say, this isn’t what I expected from a neo-conservative icon.”
“Icon, schmicon. Listen, your boss at the magazine, Josh Neuman, is a gay icon. Does that mean he’s a faygeleh?”
“No, but then, he didn’t start the nation’s most prominent gay magazine.”
He took a deep drag, and let it out. “Listen, you want to know the truth about this necon foolishness, I’ll tell you the truth. There I am, fresh out of Columbia, and looking for parnossa [income]. I can write…and so can fifty thousand other Jewish leftists looking for work. What kind of market was there for Norman Podhoretz, leftist? None, but for Norman Podhoretz, conservative? The sky was the limit. Before I came along, the conservative movement was all antisemite Birchers and antisemite Establishment supergoyim. Not a bris in the bunch.”
“What about Roy Cohn?”
“Please, he was hardly an intellectual powerhouse. Plus—and I don’t want to speak ill of the dead--he always seemed a little swishy to me. But I made conservatism kosher.”
“But it was all an act?”
He shrugs. “That’s entertainment. But now that I’ve left Commentary, the show is over.”
“So what are you doing now that you’ve retired?”
He gestures to the maid, and gives his best “Mr. Roper” smile. “You and the maid?”
“Didn’t you ever read ‘My Negro Problem, and Ours?’ I was advocating shtupping black chicks long before anybody else.”
“What does your wife think about this?”
“She has her own…diversions, but you can ask her yourself. Midge, could you come out here?”
I hear a door opening in the back, and footsteps coming down the hall. Podhoretz leans in close and whispers: “Listen, Midge has had…a little work done. Be a good boy and say something nice.”
She walks in, and looks like the love child of Jocelyn Wildenstein and Joan Rivers.
“Hi, I didn’t know that Mr. Podhoretz had a daughter.”
She laughs coquettishly. “Who’s this, Norman? Is he a present for me?”
“No, no, he’s a journalist here to interview me.”
Suddenly her tone changes to one of desperation. “A journalist? Do you work for the Times? You know, my son John is a journalist. Maybe you could talk to the people at the Times about a job for him?”
“Please, Midge, that’s not what he’s here for.”
She grabs my arm with her talons. “Please, you have to help him! I know he doesn’t have any talent, but the Post?! The Post! Please…”
She collapses sobbing into Podhoretz’s arms.
“Shhh, come on, honey, it’s time to take your medicine. I’m sorry, but she’s just a little excited, we’ll have to cut this short. The schvartze will see you out.”
He leads her from the room. Norman Podhoretz, neoconservative.
Now You Can Write Like Luke Ford
Dave Deutsch writes: Please tell Ms. Cathy Seipp that I had also wanted to include lyrics from the theme of "To Sir, With Love," but upon reflection, realized I didn't know any of them. Also tell her that I appreciate that she used that song instead of "Don't Stand So Close to Me."
Also, you should watch the O.C. with her. There have been at least three episodes with Jewish references, any one of which would have given you several paragraphs worth of screed on the sorry state of Jewish affairs and the corruption of the American media. If you watched a little more TV, your blog would really write itself. And lets face it, how many more times do we really need to hear about your lunches? If you want, to improve your productivity, use this:
NOW YOU CAN WRITE LIKE LUKE FORD!
It's easy, just use these central elements, and fill in the minor details:
Luke Eats Out (insert day of the week) I met (insert name of female journalist) for (insert meal of the day). She was wearing (insert type of garb, hairstyle or accessory) and I said she looked like a (insert insult, followed by tangent on the state of femininity in America, making sure to rant about the Jews). Somehow, she took offense at this, and refused to speak to me until my (insert name of vegetarian entrée) arrived. While waiting, I couldn't help but notice how all the (insert name of ethnic, racial, or sexual group) looked like (insert derogatory term). That reminded me of how, when I was a boy in Australia, we had a saying (insert vaguely racist saying that has nothing to do with anything).
Sit back and wait for replies from your fictitious correspondents.
Check this out: Luke Eats Out.
Tuesday I met Cathy Seipp for lunch. She was wearing high boots, and I said she looked like the whore of a mid-level SS officer. Why is it that in this godless world, women feel that they must not merely give it away, but offer it up like so many cheese samples in a supermarket? Clearly, the fault of the liberal Jewish media elites. Somehow, she took offense at this, and refused to speak to me until my spinach souffle arrived. While waiting, I couldn't help but notice how all the lesbians looked like Mexican busboys. That reminded me of how, when I was a boy in Australia, we had a saying: "Two Chinks don't make a chain, but they can sure make a mean stir fry."
Chaim Amalek replies: "Admit it, Luke, you racist Jews like your friend Dave are hypocrites! You'll eat souffles with lesbians who look like Mexican busboys, but not with Palestinian busboys who look like lesbians!"
If Heeb magazine were a person, it would be a creature of indeterminate gender and sexual preference, body festooned with numerous piercings and sundry other exotic modifications, given to mouthing swatches of radical and anarchist flapdoodle.
Another profile introduced Heeb’s readers to a poor soul claiming to be an “Orthodox comedian” whose act includes this line destined for the Comedy Hall of Fame: “A lot of people say to me, ‘Dave, how can you, an Orthodox Jew, use a Braun razor made in Germany?’ And I say, ‘Hey, give credit where it’s due: Those people know how to take the beards off of Jews.’”
Despite its negligible impact, Heeb deserves our fleeting attention, not so much for its product as for the cautionary tale it tells about what happens when organizational desk jockeys think they’ve found the key to being cool — and end up looking silly in the process.
For the first two years of its existence, Heeb was also sponsored by UJA Federation of New York, which spent $108,000 on the magazine. After a recent flurry of negative publicity, UJA announced the funding would stop immediately, a year ahead of schedule. Heeb’s new editor says he’s determined to keep the magazine going.
Fox Man was in the Manhattan Headquarters of the League of Anti-Defamation, monitoring the global situation.
“Hmmm,” he said, scanning the numerous screens. “Suicide bombing in Jerusalem, arson at a synagogue in the Ukraine, a rising tide of Antisemitism at college campuses masquerading as anti-zionism—wait, what’s this! A villain known only as “Aussiemandios” is making a movie that depicts a small group of Jews killing Jesus 2,000 years ago! To the Censor-Ship!”
In his rocket propelled Censor-Ship, he sped to the Los Angeles lair of the mysterious Aussiemandios. He presumed the Censor-Ship would easily crash through the walls of the hideout, but with a jarring thud, it stopped cold, apparently by a powerful force shield. “No matter,” thought Fox Man, “I will simply use my power to insinuate myself into the most unlikely places.” He did saw, and found himself facing the back of the arch-villain.
“It’s over, Aussiemandios, give it up.” Aussiemandios turned around, and Fox Man gasped.
“You!”
“So, Fox Man, at last we meet. I wish that I could be a better host, but I’m afraid that all I have is this communion wine and a few wafers. I don’t suppose you’d care to partake?”
“But why, Mel Gibson, why?”
Silence! I am not Mel Gibson anymore. I am Aussiemandios!”
“Uh, yeah, what is that, exactly?”
“Isn’t it obvious? It’s a play on Ozymandias.”
“Who?” Aussiemandios mutter angrily. “Doesn’t anyone know anything? Ozymandias, the King of Kings, from Shelley’s poem? But in my case, I’m an Australian Man of God, hence, “Aussiemandios.”
Fox Man still had a blank look on his face.
“Damn,” Aussiemandios cursed, “I knew I should have tested it on some focus groups first. But that’s not important now. What is important is that you can’t stop me from making my film.”
“Stop you? Oh heaven forfend, we at the League would never try and stop a film from being made—that would be closed-minded. We just have a few suggested script revisions.”
From his Fox utility belt, he drew out a 300 page document that he threw at Aussimandios. “You can read it later, but to summarize, instead of having the account from the Gospel of John, you would have Jesus appearing as a gay black man in the contemporary Deep South, lynched by a bunch of intolerant fundamentalist Christian bigots who reject his message of love.”
“Never!” shouted Aussiemandios, hurling the script back at Fox Man. “Do you know who you’re dealing with!”
“Yes,” snarled Fox Man, turning his cash-powered Censo-ray on Aussiemandios, “A man who will never work again in this town.”
Aussiemandios staggered under the force of the blast, then, shockingly, impossibly, stood up, and laughed. “Don’t you get it Fox Man? You power can’t affect me, for my strength comes from the same source. Have you seen my numbers? Forget about my gross, check out my net! I’m too powerful for you.”
In disbelief, Fox Man only increased the force of the ray. “Never! Maybe you can make your movie, but you’ll never get it released!”
Aussiemandios walked up to Fox Man, completely ignoring the energy being directed at him. “It’s not possible! “Oh Fox Man, haven’t your realized? Through me, all things are possible. Not only can’t your power harm me, but since you’ve confronted me, I’ve been using your power for myself, to send my message out around the world. This was all a trap! Thanks to you, and your power, everyone has received my message.”
He knocked the Censo-Ray out of Fox Man’s hand, and threw him to the floor.
“You can kill me, Aussiemandios, but I won’t beg.”
“Kill you? Kill you?”
Aussiemandios laughed, and Fox Man was chilled.to the bone.
“Oh, Fox Man, I am so far beyond that. Shouldn’t it be clear by now who I truly am? The questions about who my father really is, the sufferings I faced in my films, the multiple sequels—second, even third comings—the shots of my bare ass, truly, turning the other cheek. Don’t you know who I am?”
“You’re a madman!”
Aussiemandios lashed out at the supine hero, but caught himself. “Don’t worry, Fox Man, I forgive you, for you know not what you do. And now, if you don’t mind, I’ve got a premier to attend. Farewell, my child.”
There was a flash and a puff of smoke, and then he was gone. Fox Man crawled from the lair, as it collapsed around him, barely escaping. Gasping for breath, he was ready to collapse, when his distress signal went off.
“Great Scott!” he yelped. “There’s a gay couple in Massachusetts that can’t get married! If this isn’t a job for the League, I don’t know what is. But there’s only one way I can summon the power to get to Boston, and fight this battle.”
He pushed a few buttons on his League transponder, and all across the country, an energy wave went out, to Jewish communities, senior homes, and retirement villages. Wallet by wallet, bank account by bank account, from wealthy machers to widows on fixed incomes, cash was drawn to refill Fox Man’s power cells. Thus re-energized, he sped towards Boston, stopping in Manhattan only to pick up his sometime partner, the AJCenturion.
“AJCenturion! There’s a crisis we have to attend to! The forces of intolerance are trying to strip same-sex couples of their traditional and time-honored right to marry. Its up to us to stop them.”
“Is that really our responsibility, Fox Man?”
“AJCenturion, I’m shocked! What could possibly be more integral a part of the Jewish tradition, or more crucial for the defense of the Jewish community, than to uphold gay marriages!”
“I’ve heard reports that some Jews cant’ afford to send their children to Jewish schools, and I’m trying to help them.”
“Are you providing funds for them?”
“No, but I’m providing a million dollars to fund a study to find ways to help them.”
“Perhaps that is a worthy cause, AJCenturion, but is Jewish education truly more important for the Jews than same-sex marriage? As Hillel said—or at any rate, would have said, if he were a Reconstructionist rabbi of indeterminate gender—“When one same-sex couple can not wed, then no same-sex couple can wed.”
“My God, Fox-Man, you’re right! I don’t know what I was thinking—to Boston!”
And so our two heroes took off. Will they get to Boston in time? Will they preserve the sacred right of same-sex couples to wed? Will Fox Man and Aussiemandios meet again? Find out, in the next installment of The Amazing Adventures of Fox Man!