The Forkes Report - Religion and Society

Instinct

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:01:00 -0700

A while ago my nephew Dan posted a blog on MySpace entitled “What Better Way to Study History.” His thesis being the study of our own bodies will give us a wealth of knowledge about our collective history.

Like me, Dan went off into a variety of tangents, leading me to this interesting consideration: In the second-to-last paragraph of his blog, he stated, “We have long since stopped being animal.” From the text that follows, one would assume he mean we have stopped considering ourselves animal, which is the tack my thought takes on this subject. In fact, I would say we actively try to deny our “animal” instincts, so much so we find ourselves out of balance, not only physically, but psychologically and emotionally as well.

One of the great arguments against evolution, as it pertains to Homo Sapiens-Hominidae-Primates, is that we could not have evolved “from apes” because of our sentient nature, which is not found in any other family of Primates. Indeed, the Hominidae and Pongidae families diverged from one another some five million years ago so the paths in their separate evolutions have taken widely different routes, lending to the argument that we could not have evolved from “apes.”

Yet, chimpanzees, of the Pan genus of the Pongidae family are extraordinarily similar to us. The two families of Primates didn’t diverge in one dramatic moment, but did so in time, gorillas being the first to move away from the Hominidae family, and the Pan and Pongo (orangutans) much later.

In the process of course, the Hominidae family continued its evolution until today, as we are homo sapiens, meaning in Latin, “Wise Humans” — human beings.

The trouble with the argument against an evolutionary relationship between humans and other genus of the Primate Order is that the term “apes” is used generically to encompass every other genus in the Primate Order, when in fact, the word itself conjures, in most individuals, a picture of one of the gorillas, most commonly misrepresented in the old Tarzan movies of the early 20th Century.

However, there never is any empirical scientific data or evidence to support the argument against the two being related, it is purely an emotional argument. And that is the cornerstone of my point. Emotionally, we do not want to see ourselves as tree-sleeping, hairy creatures that throw poop at zoo visitors, so we do our best to deny our primal animal instincts. We do need to eat to survive, drink water, defend ourselves for self-preservation and procreate.

Since becoming sentient beings, we’ve altered what we eat to such a great degree we have developed diseases that are rare, if found at all, in the other families of the Primate Order. Most people rarely drink just water; at the moment I’m having Diet Coke for instance, and our most appropriate self defense instinct is looked upon as cowardice — that instinctual response being to run, leading to the conclusion that by instinct, we are not predators or carnivores. Predation was/is a learned skill, not an instinct.

More common though and supported by laws that are dictated by religious tenet, is the denial of our sexual instincts. It is this denial that causes the most imbalances emotionally and psychologically and most probably physically. This isn’t new of course, Sigmund Freud figured this out over 100 years ago and to this day Freud’s theories on human sexuality and its relationship to the rest of our being are roundly criticized and rejected by many, primarily from religious corners.

Great pressure to deny our sexuality is placed upon us by society to such an extent that even nudity is considered an abomination, having more than one sexual partner is perversion as is engaging in sexual conduct purely for pleasure.

Now these days, many religious people who consider themselves “enlightened” will agree that “God” designed sex to be pleasurable so it is “okay” to derive pleasure from sex. But they stop there because, as religious tenet dictates, the only purpose for sex is procreation and therefore engaging in sex for merely pleasure is sinful. That is the reason prostitution is illegal in all but one of our United States.

The ban on consensual sex between adults for money has nothing to do with health issues (indeed, were it legal it would be much healthier) or even issues of gender equality. In fact, consensual sex between adults for money might be the most egalitarian sexual relationship between the genders: the buyer gets sexual pleasure, the seller a means of financial support, the value of the service decided upon in a free market-type barter.

The low esteem of prostitution has nothing to do with gender politics and everything to do with social indoctrination; one need only read any literature from the Bible forward to understand that. I would even go further — and extend this tangent — and say there would be no gender politics were it not for social indoctrination as dictated by religious tenets.

Back to the main point, the denial of our “animal instincts.” We deny our primarily herbivore instincts and instead eat as carnivorous predators, and our physical health has suffered greatly as a genus, or at least certain segments of our world population. It's no accident that in Japan diseases like diabetes and heart disease are dramatically on the rise as the Japanese increasingly emulate our eating habits.

For self-preservation we are taught to be “warriors” when in fact fear dictates we run from danger. How many of us men in particular brow beat ourselves for feeling fear and maybe even for avoiding confrontation? How many of us go to great lengths to portray ourselves as “tough guys” in order to mask our true natures? This causes us great emotional conflict. Society tells us to be tough guys, but our instinct is to flee, as our ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago.
 Quite opposite of the cultural indoctrination, it is the female gender that is most likely to be aggressive because it is the female of the species that is the primary protector of our young.

Recently I’ve seen the phenomenon of aggression-turned-retreat first hand when in a moment of potentially violent confrontation, fear swept across the other person’s face and he backed down, despite the fact that he is much larger and quite a few years younger. When his display of aggression failed to have the desired effect, he fell into our basic instinct to either run or avoid confrontation. Truth is, my heart was pounding with fear as well, but was overcome by the pent-up rage exploding from my psyche. Usually, I’m the one who runs.

When we deny our sexual natures, we deny what could be the core instinct of our animal being. Sex is pleasurable so we will enjoy procreating; instinctually, we do not engage in sex for procreation, we have sex for pleasure. If that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t masturbate and more importantly, religious tenets would not ban masturbation and other forms of sexual pleasure. Because of religious indoctrination, we have it backwards, or, more accurately, we are told to approach sex unnaturally, as only for procreation and to deny our instinct to find pleasure in it.

The ramifications of that denial are far too extensive for this post (it’s pretty long already), but it ranges from the simple act of reading and viewing sexual material (pictures, videos, magazine and books) in shame, to some of the most horrific crimes in the annals of society; some of us act out our frustration in extremely violent ways.

Worse yet, some “modern” societies actually do harm, to women and girls in particular, to deny the instinct for sexual pleasure; i.e. clitoral circumcision, to use the polite term. The U.N. calls it what it is: Female Genital Mutilation. In South Asia the violence against women is far more extreme if a girl, once married, is found to be not virginal, or merely perceived to not be virginal.

And that is why I often say, “Religion is the root of all evil.”

Nothing to Get Hung About

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:01:00 -0700

There have been two very ridiculous items in the news most recently and they just beg comment. One I’ve commented on before, and that’s the insistence by the reactionary right that the autoworkers are to blame for the Big Three’s financial woes and the other:

The Vatican’s semi-official newspaper — its mouthpiece — L’Osservatore Romano officially pardoned John Lennon for his remarks of 42 years ago in an interview with the London Daily Standard, “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first-rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”

The editorial board of the Vatican mouthpiece had this to say on the 40th anniversary of the Beatles’ self-titled “White” album:

“The remark by John Lennon, which triggered deep indignation mainly in the United States, after many years sounds only like a ‘boast’ by a young working-class Englishman faced with unexpected success, after growing up in the legend of Elvis and rock and roll.

“The fact remains that 38 years after breaking up, the songs of the Lennon-McCartney brand have shown an extraordinary resistance to the passage of time, becoming a source of inspiration for more than one generation of pop musicians.”

Well, that was nice, but I’m not impressed.

Had the editors read Lennon’s entire quote, in the context presented in 1966, they would see that it wasn’t a “boast,” but actually Lennon’s assessment of Beatlemania at the time — and for the day, Lennon was quite accurate. Certainly, in England at the time, young people were more interested the Beatles than religion and the band’s unprecedented success in the United States made them a worldwide phenomenon. They eclipsed Elvis Presley.

It was in the United States that John Lennon and the Beatles got the worst reaction to the comment. In what was the biggest surprise and shock of my young life at the time, people actually got hung up and angry about Lennon’s words and actually burning Bealtes records in huge pyres!
 My brother and I searched the news for any areas in Milwaukee where the pyres might be taking place so we could nab some of the albums for ourselves. Apparently, rabid Christians were actually buying whole catalogues out of stores just to throw into the pyres.

Of course it was only in America people got so insane. Christianity equals insanity in many and we see it nearly every day, sometimes benignly like when someone sees the face of Jesus or Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich. That’s so funny! Kinda makes you hope Christianity sticks around just to fuel the humor!

Then there is the not-so benign insanity, like all the death threats against Lennon and the other Beatles when the one phrase from Lennon’s interview was publicized. The irony: Lennon, for the entirety of his adult life, the focus of his art and his personality has been to promote peace and love, values promoted by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago—values the followers of Jesus claim to promote and aspire to as well.

The violent reactions to Lennon came from people who claimed to be followers of Jesus and that’s always the way it seems to be when it comes to religion. The most fervent of followers often tend to be the most violent in their zealotry.

Their drive to convert others ranges from the simple knock on your door with some cheesy pamphlets to starving entire villages of indigenous peoples to force them to convert, to committing genocide if they don’t, to blowing up health clinics and murdering health clinic employees, to picketing the funerals of our soldiers killed in battle saying the fallen are going to Hell, and threatening to murder songwriters and other artists for what they say or create.
 Sort of like the Ayatollah of Iran declaring a fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses.

That’s real Jesus-like. Is that really what Jesus would do? On the other hand, it is written in the Bible Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers; Matthew 21:12: And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves …”

Like any other human, Jesus apparently had his breaking point. Still, from the view of looking back, John Lennon appears to have more in common with Jesus Christ than many of those who claim to follow Jesus. Lennon promoted peace and love and never, ever advocated murdering anyone for what they said or believed.

Makes one wonder if these lyrics in the Beatles hit, “Strawberry Fields” were an artistic response to the hysteria after Lennon’s remark was publicized: “Living is easy with eyes closed; Misunderstanding all you see; It’s getting hard to be someone, but it all works out; It doesn’t matter much to me.”

And then 14 years later John Lennon was murdered by an insane man outside Lennon’s New York home. One of the saddest days in my life.

No, I’m not impressed by the L’Osservatore Romano “forgiving” John Lennon. Not at all. John Lennon and the Beatles don’t need anything from the Vatican or any other religious organizations. The past 40 years have proven that. The Beatles are still one of the most popular music groups ever and at least as popular as Jesus Christ.

And the Vatican doesn’t need to forgive Lennon. They owe the Lennons and the Beatles an apology.

Rerun: One Reason I’m Glad Obama Won

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:01:00 -0700

(This is a rerun of a post from last December. I’m no longer in that living situation, but it illustrates why I’m happy none of the Republicans won the presidency.)

This is funny. Due to unwelcome circumstances, I have to share a place with a guy who is Christian. Talk about irony. Not just claims to be Christian, he actually listens to Christian radio exclusively. Actually, I don’t think he really believes it, not all of it, but he’s adrift on an ocean of spiritual and philosophical doubt.

So, at night, like tonight, I can hear his radio, over his snoring, blaring Christian music and Christian sermons on everything from how the Gospel can explain a guy killing members of a church, to Dr. Mel Mulder, author of the self-published book, Beyond Intelligent Design.

Dr. Mulder, a retired surgeon, is of the firm belief that the Earth is no more than a few thousand years old and was created exactly as depicted in the Book of Genesis. He claims that real science, true science, must fall in line with the teachings of the Bible and that Intelligent Design is inadequate because it doesn’t begin with the main theme of the Biblical “God” as the Creator, that it tries to make “God” comprehensible; does not address good and evil, the perfection of Biblical Creation or the nature of the soul, and — God forbid — allows ID adherents to embrace evolution!

Despite the fact that the primary proponents of Intelligent Design state their goal is to bring science in line with believing in a Christian view of a supernatural being called “God.” Not just a Christian view, but one compatible with conservative Protestant Evangelicals.
 For more on that, look up the Discovery Institute, the heart of the Intelligent Design movement.

Mulder rejects even that unsavory group. The upshot is, Mulder uses many of their arguments to support his views on the creation of the universe.

One of the tenets of the Intelligent Design movement, co-opted by Dr. Mulder for his purposes, is the concept of irreducible complexity. “What’s that,” you ask? It’s the notion that there are certain “things” in nature that are so complex, yet so elemental to life (human or otherwise) they can only be explained as having been directly designed by a supernatural being, and what the hay, let’s call that being “God.” Generally biological systems, most of the examples — well, all the examples I’ve found — having to do with certain bits of the human form.
 You have to admire Mulder’s chutzpah; he denounces Intelligent Design and its proponents but uses their philosophical arguments to support his view that Genesis is scientific.

The ID crowd, as well as Dr. Mulder, use the notion of irreducible complexity to promote their two differing views despite that fact — FACT — irreducible complexity has been refuted by the scientific community around the world, not based on opinions, as the notion of “IC” itself is based, but by peer-review investigation in the laboratory.

Intelligent Design started in the previous decade when a bunch of scientists, a handful really, decided they believed in “God,” the Christian version, and got together in … geez … up the coast in Half Moon Bay I believe, to figure out a way to bring their belief in “God” into line with science. Or … maybe bring science into line with their belief in “God.” Either way, the little get-together had less to do with science than philosophy … well, nothing really to do with science other than to talk about it … and that’s when this group of scientists came up with the notion of Intelligent Design and eventually Irreducible Complexity.

Thankfully, the scientific community is large and worldwide and once this group of scientists began publishing their philosophy as science, curious members of the scientific community at large immediately looked into it and … refuted all their claims.

But that doesn’t deter Dr. Mulder. There’s no fact of science and reality that can’t be explained away as a tool or act of Satan. Unless he can twist it to support his view that the Book of Genesis is the only true science related to the formation of the sun, moon, stars and Earth.
 Wonder if he secretly believes the sun, moon and stars orbit the Earth? As the people who formed the Old and New Testaments did when the Bible was first put into written form.

Therein lies the rub of believing such ancient texts to be literally true. In Leviticus we are told we (men) can sell our wives and children and the price of each is set. A boy is worth five shekels and a girl only three. Might explain why diamonds are a girl’s best friends. Slavery is okay, although the definition of slavery in Ancient Judea differs from what we know to be slavery. Male slaves, after six years, are to be released from bondage with a little care package. Female slaves … well, they’re slaves for life.

Ah … it’s crazy. Crazier still is the number of people in this country, a nation considered to be educated, who actually believe as old Dr. Mulder believes. In his “Religion Speech,” written to woo the hard-core and extremist Christian fundamentalists, Mitt Romney bemoans the lack of religious fervor in Europe that is found here in the U.S.
 “I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.”

Maybe the people of Europe are kicking aside the superstitions of the past, such as religion. But, thanks to the likes of Dr. Mulder and his ilk, we still debate the reality of evolution, as if the Book of Genesis actually has some scientific merit. Three of the Republican candidates for president, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback, have said the don’t believe evolution is real. Well, Brownback has quit his quest for the White House, so that leaves Tancredo and Huckabee. Would you want a president who is so out of step with reality?

Well, if you listen to or read Dr. Mel Mulder, you do.

•••• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••

As long as this blog is the work of Satan: My friend Danielle was featured in a Cyber Girl XTra on Playboy’s Cyber Club web site last December. Thought I’d keep the pic!

Taking a Break

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:01:00 -0700

It’s Friday Night, after a long day and there’s nothing to write about. Just watched the MSNBC special about the Jonestown Massacre. You remember Jim Jones, if you’re over 40. Jones started a church in the late 50’s that in the 60’s became the Peoples Temple and a large political force in the San Francisco Bay area. Then the cracks began to appear in the veneer.

In 1977, after a critical article in New West magazine, Jones moved his congregation to Guyana to a piece of land he was leasing from the government there. Guyana was chosen because the citizens are dark skinned and speak English and Jones felt his Black followers would feel much safer and comfortable in such a society. More importantly, Guyana was a Socialist country and the theology of Jim Jones was one of “apostolic socialism.” After moving his flock to Jonestown, Jim Jones began to control the place and all its inhabitants as the Soviet Union, Cuba and Maoist China did: forced labor, intensive “brainwashing,” restricting movement and refusing to let inhabitants leave.

Enter Congressman Leo Ryan and his delegation. Ryan began a Congressional investigation of the Peoples Temple, concerned that many wre being held against their will. So, Ryan and his entourage flew to Guyana with concerned family members of Jonestown residents as well as a crew from NBC News and various other news organizations; the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner and the The Washington Post.

When several members tried to escape with Ryan, and then a flood of residents decided to follow, Jones, who was addicted to prescription drugs, went over the edge. Several of his most loyal followers followed the people in Ryan’s party to a nearby airstrip and killed five there, including Congressman Ryan and most of the NBC crew.

While those murders were taking place, Jones implored over 900 of his followers to drink the Kool-Aid, a concoction mixed with cyanide.

It would be easy to portray this as yet another reason to discard religion altogether, but there was more going on than religion. In fact, religion had all but disappeared from the Gospel according to Jim Jones. In the beginning of his ministry, Jones reached out to the poor, those left behind by society, those who were lost, especially after the crash of the 1960’s counter-culture. Jones preached a revolution of the spirit that empowered each of his followers in the most personal ways.

Jim Jones became their savior. Once that was achieved, his followers would follow Jones into Hell. The Peoples Temple made the leap from religion to fanaticism, firm in the belief that their savior was leading them to freedom and on November 18, 1978, drinking the Kool Aid was liberation.

Dead is just dead and all that is left for the survivors and the families of the dead are sad memories, a solitary confinement of grief revisited with every anniversary.

Bunny Love

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:01:00 -0700

(The is the third and final part of this series from last year.)

The last installment, the final chapter, the end to all that is decadent. I like most of the things society defines as “decadent.” Well, maybe not even most of those things anymore, although in my youth I engaged in it all, anything that was taboo.

Rebellion has its price. Truly, we can all chart our own course, but are we ready to face the consequences of our actions? And more importantly, are we willing to face the consequences of defying the social codes of our family and neighbors, rebelling against nearly everything you were told was true and righteous? Better to join the church, attend every week with the spouse and kids than risk being singled out and ridiculed — or worse — attacked for being different.

Well, into this cauldron of fundamental religiosity stepped Hugh M. Hefner and Playboy magazine. Refuting the notion that fundamentally the United States is a very Christian nation, the first issue sold out its meager run of 53,000+ issues.

The Christian Mothers and other religious organizations could protest all they wanted, but their fellow parishioners were buying the magazine anyway! And, Playboy wasn’t founded in New York or Los Angeles — or even San Francisco — the hotbeds of moral decay, but in Chicago, Illinois, the Land of Lincoln.

From its start, Playboy has always been more than just nude women. The magazine has featured articles on politics, sports, the arts, music, films and television. One of the magazine’s strongest features has been the interview, the very first coming in the September 1962 issue, featuring jazz musician Miles Davis interrogated by Alex Haley. Jazz had been a defining art of American culture and Davis was at the forefront of that art. Miles epitomized cool and an interview with such coolness made Playboy more than just a magazine; it became a source of relevant information.

Through the years Playboy has interviewed hundreds of famous (and some now forgotten) individuals, people from Miles Davis to Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 1965), The Beatles (February 1965), Jean-Paul Sartre (May 1965) and the most hated woman in America, Madalyn Murray-O’Hair (October 1965). The list from 1966 alone is remarkable: Princess Grace (Kelly), Federico Fellini, Bob Dylan, George Lincoln Rockwell, Arthur Schlesinger, Mike Nichols, Ralph Ginzburg, H.L. Hunt, Dr. Timothy Leary, Mel Brooks, Norman Thomas and Sammy Davis, Jr.

In depth interviews conducted with tape recorders and transcribed into the glossy pages of the magazine, it gave new purpose to buying Playboy, or maybe additional purpose. If you wanted to learn something new about a newsmaker, the Playboy interview was the vehicle for that information.
 Tim Leary told us to “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out” with his religious tool, LSD-25. Yeah, I’ve had several hundred — maybe several thousand — of these spiritual journeys … like Grateful Dead concerts, who can remember how many? Can’t even remember the ones I can remember going to …

Alex Haley, now one of the great non-fiction writers of America, interviewed the Commander of the American Nazi Party, a priceless moment of race relations between the most vocal bigot in America and his African-American interviewer:
 Rockwell: Just so we both know where we stand, I’d like to make something else crystal clear before we begin. I’m going to be honest and direct with you. You’re here in your professional capacity; I’m here in my professional capacity. While here, you’ll be treated well — but I see you’re a black interviewer. It’s nothing personal, but I want you to understand that I don’t mix with your kind, and we call your race “niggers.”
 Playboy (Alex Haley): I’ve been called “nigger” many times, Commander, but this is the first time I’m being paid for it. So you go right ahead.

The zenith of Playboy’s interviews though came in November 1976 when then-Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter was the interview. The president who admitted he lusted in his heart, a sin, before the citizens cast their votes. To be sure, President Gerald Ford was held in such low opinion by the electorate, Carter would have had to be found in bed with a dead boy to lose the election — and even that might have not been enough.

Playboy, for over two decades, was at the forefront of intellectual curiosity and exploration. Unlike other magazines that clearly showed a bias either for or against an interview subject, Playboy’s writers went a little deeper, pushing the limits of their subjects, interrogating them, no matter how beloved they may have been by the public. It wasn’t about currying favor with the interviewed, but presenting the best interview of the most notable newsmakers in America and around the world.

In September 1992 Playboy presented an interview with the mother of the women’s movement, Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, regarded as one of the greatest works of non-fiction in American history. The entire interview bares reading, but the beginning illustrates exactly why Friedan was loved and hated by anti-feminists and feminists alike.

The interviewer, David Sheff, announced himself as a representative of Playboy at one of Friedan’s feminist think-tank forums and from there the interview began. From that interview, Friedan’s view of the Playboy Bunny of yesteryear, when they were the most visible symbol of Playboy’s vast club empire:
 “The Playboy Bunny dehumanized the image of female sexuality. It was part of the feminine mystique.
 “It was the image of a woman solely in terms of her sexual relation to a man, in this case as a man’s sex object and server of his physical needs. In other cases it was as a man’s wife, a mother and housewife. That is why it was objectionable. The Bunny may have been cute and fluffy, but it denied the personhood of women. That was the feminine mystique, when women were second-class people, less than human, more akin to children or bunnies. It denied the whole previous century, when women had fought for rights, including the right to vote.
 “When women are supposed to serve men, sexually and otherwise, they have no other identity. There is no place for career women or for women who have lives that are not about pleasing men. Since the culture views women that way, women necessarily view themselves that way. The Playboy Bunny image of women’s sexuality was an extreme Rorschach for a culture that completely denied the personhood of women.
 “Sexual liberation is a misnomer if it denies the personhood of women. The first wave of so-called sexual liberation in America, where women were passive sex objects, was not real liberation. For real sexual liberation to be enjoyed by men and women, neither can be reduced to a passive role. When a woman is a sex object, it limits a man’s enjoyment, too. Maybe some people still haven’t caught on, but the best sex requires a deeper, more profound knowledge of oneself and the other person. In the Bible, sexual love was to know. It suggests something deeper. That is why the women’s movement had to happen for sexual liberation to be real.”

From it’s beginning, Playboy’s editorial philosophy had been to lead the publishing world in the areas of political and social discourse. All of its interview subjects, be they wayward sports and movie stars to the movers and shakers of politics and societal shifts, like Friedan, had something to say on the subjects and in that philosophy Playboy has presented an accurate picture of the American zeitgeist.

Currently, it can be argued that the intellectual edge of the magazine’s editorial content has dropped considerably since the heady days when the soon-to-be president was interviewed, but it is in deference to the audience of today, which Playboy expects to be in the age range of 18-25 primarily, a demographic that many believe to be uninterested in the political, social and artistic discourse that made Playboy’s name in the written word, that the current Playboy interview subjects are chosen.

The list of interview subjects so far this year bears little resemblance to the prominence of the magazine’s early years. Probably the most notable would be comedian Bill Maher or actor Bruce Willis, but probably more important is energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens, who plans to bet his company’s future on water. That interview, for anyone wondering where the millions will be made in the future, is a must read. Bill Maher is a political comic primarily, so his interview really falls into that mold created in the 1960’s.

But, to answer to the social irrelevancy of today, other subjects include actors Jeremy Piven and Chris Tucker, Simpsons creator Matt Groening, basketball star Steve Nash, and the real idol of American Idol, Simon Cowell. Maybe all are interesting, but how relevant to the issues slowly engulfing our nation today? Maybe I’m just not open-minded enough. As we have seen in recent months, political activism is on the rise once again, most notably for the environment. So, maybe Playboy’s choice of subjects will shift as well.

The term “socially irrelevant” isn’t a knock on the interview subjects themselves, Piven’s portrayal of Ari Gold on Entourage often carries that show, but what Playboy is really doing is dumming down to it’s audience, or what it perceives its audience to be, according to demographic surveys. But Playboy must change with the times if it is to survive and the days of interviews like Jimmy Carter and Betty Friedan may be over. Piven, Tucker, Groening, Nash and Cowell are popular figures in American culture and they are the names that could lure the younger readers. Still, it would have been interesting to read an interview of new French president Nicolas Sarkozy, said to be a pro-American leader in a country that has a low opinion of this nation.

The best known feature of Playboy magazine may be its models, in particular, the “Girl Next Door” epitomized by the centerfold Playmates, but what carried it beyond just another men’s magazine was (is?) it’s robust intellectualism. Magazines like Time and Newsweek may present facts and figures, with a smattering of opinion, but Playboy offers thoughts and ideas along with the facts and figures … you know, that pun wasn’t intended, but the figures are always perfect … In today’s America, the virtue most under attack has been thoughts and ideas, especially in the realm of personal freedom and the right to speak one’s mind in the marketplace of ideas.

For nearly six years, to have an opposing view of the president’s policies was to be labeled “un-American.” Playboy (among others) pushed back against that stifling of speech and if the editors and owners of Playboy continue that philosophy, the magazine will continue to hold it’s relevant place in American culture. And as long as we still get a centerfold, men will still be interested in buying it and young boys will still be obsessed with getting their sweaty little hands on a copy — and the women who wish to pose will continue to line up at the door for their chance to be featured as Playmate of the Month.

•••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••

This installment has run nearly 2,000 words and I haven’t even mentioned the contributions of Norman Mailer, Kurt Vonnegut and Arthur C. Clarke, among others. And I love the fiction Playboy has published over the years. The point is, Playboy will be around in it’s hard copy version for decades to come.

Bunny II (Redux)

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:01:00 -0700

(This is a rerun from last year,
part 2 of a series)

Back to Hugh Hefner’s contribution to the Decline of Western Civilization and all things Christian and moral about America.

Playboy has been credited — by its founder primarily these days — for ushering in the sexual revolution. Prior to the magazine’s arrival in the drug stores and magazine stands across America, if a person wanted to look at photos of nude women, they had to find one of those stores on that side of town or subscribe to one of the nudist magazines that showed families frolicking around lakes and volleyball nets, smiling, naked as jaybirds as if being naked around mom, dad, and the other seven siblings was natural and acceptable.
 I’m picturing my six remaining siblings nekkid right now … I’ll never do that again …

Laws and mores were strictly coded along the lines of Christian philosophy, regardless of the assault on personal liberties. You didn’t talk about sex, you didn’t even talk about pregnancy on television and you sure as hell didn’t mention oral sex—unless you were really mad at someone and wanted to call them a … vile epithet that for reasons of decency I’ll leave out of this. But, if you want to pick a fight with someone, that’s the name to call him (or her).

In many states oral sex was illegal. In fact, in these states oral sex is still illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and while were listing, not only did President Clinton lie about his blow job in the White House, he broke a municipal code ’cause it’s illegal in Washington D.C. as well.
 While were listing where it’s illegal to hum a bar or munch a pie, this you might find interesting if you plan on visiting or moving to the state of Utah: it is illegal to have sex with anyone other than your legal spouse. And of course, Utah has a broad definition of “sodomy” which includes not only homosexual acts, but also any act deemed “unnatural.” Makes you wonder: is the spoon position unnatural?

In the Catholic religion we grew up in, it was a mortal sin to even think about sex, and it would be unrelenting eternal damnation for engaging in masturbation — even though years later I found out everybody did it anyway.
 Did you know a priest’s and nun’s vows forbid them from pleasuring themselves? Now that’s spiritual!

Sex was not for pleasure, although throughout time that has been one of man’s great pleasures (not so much for women who had no say in when, how or with who), sex was for procreation. Heck, the Catholic Church still clings to this philosophy. Every time I squeeze on a condom I’m committing a sin.
 To be fair to the Cat’licks, and let’s be honest, were I to return to Jesus, it would be in the Catholic Church, many other Christian sects have the same philosophy: birth control is an abomination.

For the religionists, nothing less than abstinence outside of marriage will do and anything more than the missionary position for procreation is sinful. And if we do anything to prevent the possibility of that sperm coupling with an egg and creating yet another human being, that’s just as bad as having sex without the marriage certificate.

In the 1950’s, having sex was not spoken of; having a baby out of wedlock was a mark of shame on the family and the woman having the baby was little more than a “whore.” That is one of the most derogatory terms in the English language since it is used so freely and so widely accepted as a definition of a woman who may have had multiple sexual partners.
 The more I get into this, the more it’s apparent we as a nation haven’t changed very much from the 1950’s in regards to how we treat each other when it comes to sex.

That was all about to change though in December 1953 when a 27-year old Chicago man decided to publish a men’s magazine called Stag Party. Prior to the arrival of Hugh Hefner’s dream job though was Alfred Kinsey who published two books, The Kinsey Reports, in 1948 and 1953. Kinsey was controversial because he studied sex by interviewing thousands of men and women about their sexual practices. Later Masters and Johnson published their work, Human Sexual Response (1966), based on clinical studies of sexual response, most notably in women.
 Women can have multiple orgasms whereas we men, one squirt and we’re done, for at least a little while anyway.

From the first Kinsey Report, a wrinkle was beginning to appear in the sexual fabric of America and it was into this wrinkle that Hefner took his first step.

It was obvious from the underground popularity of nude pinup calendars (usually found on the walls of auto repair shops) that men loved to look at nude women and Hefner took a chance to exploit that desire with a magazine devoted to the male of the species that would not be confined to backrooms, repair shops and the neighborhoods of the deviant. Stag Party would be urbane and sophisticated, exploring matters men of means would find interesting. The writers who contributed to the editorial content of the magazine would be giants in the fields of literature, sports, the arts, politics and society. Some of the magazine’s interview writers themselves would go on to greater things, most notably Alex Haley who won international acclaim for his book and the mini-series that followed, Roots.

There was just one snag, a deer hunting magazine called Stag threatened legal trouble if Hefner went with his original name, so, after tossing about for a new name, Hef and his colleagues came up with Playboy and adopted the rabbit as its mascot. Get it? Fuck like a rabbit? The first centerfold — they weren’t Playmates in the beginning — was Marilyn Monroe. Yep, she just flew to Chicago and posed nude for this unknown, unpublished magazine started by an equally unknown guy just a few years removed from the military. Yep, Hugh M. Hefner is a veteran.

Actually, Monroe had no idea she would be the first centerfold beauty of the new magazine. Hefner bought the rights to her photos from a calendar company, as he did for the following centerfolds for over a year.

Here it is over 1,100 words into this installment and the topic that got this tome started hasn’t even been mentioned. For that, you’ll need to tune in for just one more installment and this time, I mean it — just one more and I’ll wrap this up.

The Bunny Redux

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:01:00 -0700

(This is a rerun from last year, one of my favorite posts)

Just recently a news item briefly appeared on the Internet portal Yahoo discussing the decline of circulation for Playboy magazine and the possibility that the hard copy version of the popular men’s magazine would soon vanish from the top shelf of the local 7-11 forever.

Well that touched off a firestorm of interest on Playboy’s online flagship, the Cyber Club (which has a forum where members can discuss just about any topic, most often the models themselves), with views ranging from: “it’ll be gone in five years” to “it will never go away.” Personally, I’m in the latter camp.

One great thing about online chats, forums and message boards, you can be sure every conceivable opinion will be aired and every conceivable rumor will get circulated. Here are a few excerpts. The names, fake as they are, have been deleted because, well, because. I know for a long time I was embarrassed to be known as a loyal Playboy reader. Just mention the magazine and one is bound to get into a debate, ranging from the tired old “it exploits women” to “It just doesn’t appeal to me anymore,” which in reality means “My wife would object.” More on that later.
 (Part of the first post) The fact of the matter is over the next 10 years I think we'll see several media outlets cease printing operations. I've already heard rumors that the S.F. Chronicle is considering this.
 (The unsatisfied masses) Maybe it has something to do with the quality of the content.
 (Just the way it is) Everything will go digital ... eventually. I wouldn't worry about it yet—the magazine is the gateway in to all things Playboy. As long as the company makes money, they'll have the magazine.
 (one of my favorites) Hef’s lifestyle runs well into seven or eight figures a year in overhead. Once he’s gone to that big Woo Grotto in the sky, the company should be seeing less red ink.
 (And a great reply!) That’s about a 20-30 year wait, knowing Hef.
 (And the best reply!) Good lord, the last woman Hef might boff may not yet be born!
 (Defiance) Say what you want, but an end to Playboy magazine would be an end to an American icon.
 (My reply) I have had a subscription to Playboy since 1975; so I'm taking the liberty to make a little comparison. I have been a loyal Macintosh user since 1984. In these 23 years I have read on several occasions someone pontificating — with great authority — on the inevitable demise of Apple and the Macintosh, last time was 1997 if I remember correctly. And yet here I am, typing away on my ... 8th?, 9th? Macintosh.
 (Another’s reply to me) Of course Playboy is here for a long time to come. I don't think we're really questioning the survival of Playboy, only the survival of the print magazine. To use your analogy, few (if any) are still using the original Apple Macintosh. The Mac is still around, just not in its original form. The original Mac became outdated and printed material is becoming outdated.
 (And of course I had to clarify) I’m sorry, I should have made my post more clear: Playboy, the print magazine, will be around for a long, long time to come. To expand on my analogy, a good argument can be made that what keeps Apple afloat is not the Macintosh computer, but the iPod, iPhone and the Apple generated software (QuickTime, et. al.) created for that technology. And yet, I’m looking into buying yet another Mac, the latest version since mine is just over three years old. Like the Macintosh computer, which has evolved in the 23 years since it’s debut, Playboy, the print magazine, has evolved and will continue to do so. Would Playboy have any readership today if their musical focus was still on the be-bop jazz so cool in the 1950’s? That’s just one area of interest, but Playboy has embraced the changing social shifts in the zeitgeist since at least the late 1960’s when we saw Playmates with pictures of the Beatles on the walls in their photos. Back in the day, that was a shock to the long-time Playboy readers of that time. Other than that, I concur with your view that there are myriad ways for Playboy to turn a profit besides its print editions. (I’m long-winded)
 (Desperation?) If this is the case I certainly hope Breann McGregor becomes a Playmate as soon as possible!
 (The Voices of Reason) Shows you what Yahoo knows! Playboy's circulation has varied over the years, but the mid seventies, as you say, was its Zenith, with more than six million copies in circulation. Since then, it has dropped to around 3.2 million, and has been at the rate for more than thirty years. Remember, though, that Playboy now has a digital edition, the CC, and various other websites, too. While the hard copy magazine MIGHT be losing money, PEI is definitely making money, hand over fist. Word up!
 (Unbridled confidence) The worst thing a business can do is hold on to the past and fall behind the times and I have complete faith in Christie Hefner to keep Playboy current and essential. There are myriad ways for a brand to make profit other than periodicals.
 (A sober observation) A Playboy brand without a Playboy magazine is a hollow shell.
 (Someone thinks it’s time) I agree. Paper will become very expensive. And all paper-based items, from money to books to magazines to newspapers will have to go.
 (My sentiments: yadda-yadda) This prediction is as old as the computer, and shows no real signs of becoming reality. Computers are more efficient at generating paper (and paper waste) than people. You can easily take a paper copy of anything with you, that's not true for digital material.

Playboy is here to stay, I say. My first Playboy experience was at the tender age of 12, just a month shy of being 13. It was the December 1968 issue; Nat Hentoff interviewed Eldridge Cleaver. Yep, even then I was picking up Playboy for the articles … Honest! … okay, that’s not true. I may have been familiar with the name Eldridge Cleaver from the news, but what really caught my attention was Playmate of the Month, Cynthia Myers! She was the first woman I had ever seen nekkid—in print or otherwise and … I’ll just put it this way, she taught me the true meaning of self-gratification.

From then on, whenever an opportunity to get a hold of a copy of what came to be my favorite reading material—and this is no fabrication, reading is a passion so I started reading the articles—I took it and at the age of 13 I was finally allowed to have a paper route.
 Mine was the early morning Milwaukee Sentinel, delivered usually before 6 a.m., between Forest Home Ave. to the South, Stack to the North; bordered on the east at 51st St and on the West by 60th St. that’s right, Southside baby!

The beauty of having that early morning paper route, I learned from my older brother who shall remain nameless (Rick still lives in Milwaukee), was that many of the stores around that area hadn’t brought in their overnight deliveries — which were usually still sitting outside the buildings.
 Okay, I feel safe in divulging this because A) We were kids; and B) It happened nearly 40 years ago and what are they gonna do? Whack our pee-pees?

So, if we got our routes finished early enough, we could swing by the local pharmacy — we called them drug stores back in the day — and see what was served on the platter. Now, my unnamed brother was a master at this: the magazines were bundled pretty tightly with the strapping stuff. But, if one was patient enough, the strap that ran horizontal around the bundle could be pulled to either the top or bottom and the magazine — one copy — could be then slid out of the bundle without making a mess of things, although we always ended up with damaged pages, but what the heck, we were kids!

Rick’s rule … err, his name is … err … Bob … (sorry bro) his rule was “Take only one.” If we took more, than the drug store owner could tell his bundle had been pilfered. If he didn’t notice, he’d count, notice one missing, and take it off the statement. The other rule: “Don’t do the same drug store every month.”

So, that is how we managed to have a new Playboy every month before we were able to actually buy one legally.
 Funny tangent: When Hugh Hefner first launched Playboy, there was a great cry of consternation throughout the land; our youth would be corrupted by the visage of nudity and the children of America, if tainted by this evil incarnation, would find themselves on the Road to Damnation, left to burn forever in the Eternal Fires of Hell. Every group of Christian women was out protesting at every store that dared sell the vile magazine. Our mother was a member of the Christian Mothers of St. Gregory the Great Parish. She and her fellow Christian Mothers spared no effort in trying to stop the distribution of Hefner’s contribution to the decline of Western civilization.
 They failed.

It wasn’t until I was 19 and a member of the United States Marine Corps that I was finally able to purchase my first subscription. I’ll never forget the arrival of my inaugural issue as a paid subscriber: September 1975. Erica Jong (Fear of Flying) was the interview subject and Gretchen McNeese was her interrogator. But that’s not what I really remember about that issue. The Playmate that month was Mesina Miller.

This has run well over 1,600 words. Amazing how we can fill up a page with the excerpted dialogue of others — but what a pain with the spell-checker! The point of it all though is captured in some of those excerpts: Playboy is an American icon and changed the face of America significantly; and like all other major shifts of the social fabric of those decades long past, it is largely forgotten and taken for granted.

It Should Be Funny

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:01:00 -0600

Just the way to start the day Sunday. The headline of the lead story on the front page of the San Diego Union-Tribune says: “The Battle Over God’s Will.” Here it is, the 21st Century and we’re still having the debate over “God’s will”? As a public policy discussion? Are you kidding me?

We are having a political debate over a religion, which, by the standard of the First Amendment, were it strictly interpreted, should have no influence over public policy lest we exclude those who believe differently. Not to mention, this policy debate is based on a religion that was first codified no less than 3,000 years ago!

The current dominant religious belief of our nation was finally created and began to be disseminated globally towards the end of the Roman Empire, some 1,700 years ago, 300 years after the central figure in this religion died, we think, on a cross at the hands of a Roman governor and some jealous Jews.

And in 2008, the tenets of this religion, based solely on superstition due to a lack of understanding of the physical sciences, enters the political debate, not as to whether it is truth — relevant — but on who actually knows “God’s will.”

Abraham Lincoln, our 16th and greatest president, was even brought into the current debate.

So, recently I told my Canadian friend Witchy I would stop making jokes at Canada’s expense because we as a nation have no room to judge. She suggested we Americans lighten up and learn to laugh at ourselves, a suggestion that, on the face of it, has merit. But can we actually afford to laugh at the situation of someone who is so unqualified to be vice president, let alone president, being selected for the job so incompetently, for such cynical reasons that any reference to the quaint and hopeful faith that “the worst is behind us” seems suicidal?

Witchy stopped laughing when it was pointed out just how close Sarah Palin would be to having her finger “on the button” and just what that could mean to not only us, her entertaining neighbors to the south, but to the entirety of the planet, including the Great White North.
 Which reminds me, it’s doubtful I can stop making jokes at Canada’s expense as long as photos and videos of Bob and Doug McKenzie can still be found on the Internets. Sorry, my dear. My good intentions can hold my humor in check for only so long.

Then I read Bob Herbert’s most recent column in the New York Times and was struck by his opening observation: “While watching the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night, and the coverage of the Palin phenomenon in general, I’ve gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.” (Italics mine)

Had to ask, “Where was he during the Reagan years? In 2000 and then again in 2002-03 when blatant dim-wittedness led us into a war and then again in 2004 when the current dimwit was elected to a 2nd term?”

All philosophical questions, rhetorical by the very fact that Bob Herbert is not likely to read this column, but the questions leapt from my consciousness directly to my keyboard, summed up with: Where has Bob Herbert been that last seven years at least?

Herbert has been a favorite columnist for a long time now and one of his unfailing characteristics has been his (usually) strong thread of hope and positive attitude. He rarely — if ever — allows himself to wallow in cynicism, unlike myself. Cynicism is so … post-Vietnam!

He might, on occasion, find himself feeling a little despaired, but there’s always been certainty that whatever is ailing us as a nation can be corrected, if we just have a little more patience and cooler, more informed minds prevail. Bob Herbert has been my comfort blanket, the story teller that told the tales that put me to sleep quietly and peacefully, while his colleague, Maureen Dowd, equally insightful, kept me awake, partying all night on a large serving of righteous and cynical intellectualism that, by its very design, pointed out with derisive and accurate clarity the superiority of “us” versus “them.”

Not on Saturday and if Bob Herbert feels as if this is doom, Sarah Palin actually becoming Vice President, I’m truly frightened. What’s more, the article in the Union-Tribune had nothing to do with Sarah Palin directly, but the two topics are undeniably connected.

In San Diego, come November 4, one of the many ballot initiatives we will have to wade through to cast our votes is Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage. The argument against same-sex marriage is purely religious; there is no data to support any suppositions that people marrying other people of the same gender causes any harm to America; socially, politically, economically or spiritually. The push to ban same-sex marriage is religious, nothing else.

The leaders of the movement to ban “gay marriage” are all religious leaders, predominantly of the various Christian sects and their rhetoric is all based upon their interpretations of a set of books within a book first written a few thousand years after the last Ice Age was retreating from the plains to make room for our amber waves of grain. Think about that. Part of their “evidence” that same-sex marriage is wrong is based on the Books of Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, first put to “paper” at least 1,200 years before Christ, some 3,200 years ago.

How could that be possibly relevant today? We know, for instance, the world (and universe) continues to evolve and has done so for hundreds of millions of years and the likelihood that all of humanity sprung from one man and one woman is not only unlikely, but there is evidence that humans evolved from different species of primates, quite similar in all the respects that make us human, but from vastly different areas of the planet.

We also know the world isn’t flat, the sun, moon, stars and planets don’t revolve around Earth and the sun doesn’t “rise” or “set,” the Earth spins on its axis. We know locusts swarm every seven or so years, the waters of rivers (and other bodies of water) will turn blood red with certain conditions that bring out parasitic algae-like creatures, and there isn’t a god sitting on a cloud throwing lightening bolts at us because we sinned or otherwise dishonored him.

We know all this because the hallmark of human development has been our quest for knowledge, not superstition, and science has advanced despite our desperate clinging to superstition. Genesis has been wholly refuted by intellect and the quaint laws first written in Deuteronomy and Leviticus have been, in some cases, outlawed in modern times. We, for instance, cannot legally own, buy or sell slaves. We still value a man more than a woman, as evidenced by the disparity in pay, but even that is falling away as the years march by.

We can’t legally stone someone for blasphemy or pluck out one’s eye for ogling women. And yet, we have a debate brewing over who knows “God’s will.” You’d think those who oppose Prop 8 would be using logic and science and facts, but no, the pre-eminent leaders of the anti-Prop 8 force are religious leaders who draw their “guidance” from the same religious text as those who support Prop 8.

You tie the reality that 3,000-year old superstition is the guiding force behind our collective political decision-making — on both sides of the debate — with Bob Herbert’s reason to lapse into pessimism, it becomes apparent, more real, that we as a nation are doomed.

You know Witchy, I can’t think of anything funny to write about Canada at the moment.

I See Dumb People

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:37:00 -0600

Guess I’ll start flushing the toilet and washing my hands after taking a dump in public bathrooms.

Don’t ask, but I’m gonna tell anyway. On a forum I frequent, there was a thread about “dumb people.” In this thread (topic) the members post messages about “dumb people” encountered in our lives.

Someone posted about people evacuating their bowels and bladders in public restrooms and then leaving without washing their hands. Of course, we’ve all had the experience of watching — or listening, if they’re in a stall — someone pee and/or poop and then exit the place without at least a quick spray from a leaky faucet.

Since I’m a contrarian at heart, the only logical reply, from my point of view, was, “Guess I’ll start flushing the toilet and washing my hands after taking a dump in public bathrooms.” I think it’s funny.

Earlier in the thread my message was that since I use public transportation I see and experience “dumb people” every day. And I’m not even including the stupid drivers who cut off the buses or — stupidly enough — the ones who drive around the barricades to beat the trolley as it rolls through an intersection. You know, we’ve seen that in movies, but now that I ride the trolley nearly everyday, I can witness to the world, people really do that.
 Here’s the dumbest part of the dumb person trying to beat the trolley train by driving around the barricade: the trolley is only two cars long, takes less than a minute to roll through the intersection and the barricades are down for … three minutes? Is life so busy? It’s a rhetorical question.

Back to the topic, “I See Dumb People.” So, one of the members implored me to elaborate on the dumb people I encounter on a daily basis. It’s hard, really, When you spend as much time traversing the city on public transit, the stupidity becomes really rather normal.

I mean, every day at least one person will try to scam a bus driver with an expired day pass or flash an I.D. that has absolutely nothing to do with the Metropolitan Transit System in hopes of getting a free ride. It’s stupid because I’ve never seen it work. On the other hand, I would probably never know if it works because the perps wouldn’t brag about it to his or her fellow travelers. Unless they were extremely dumb.

What’s annoying about the people trying to hustle a free ride is that the bus driver will keep the bus sitting at the bus stop as the hustler tries to talk his or her way onto the bus with some song and dance as to why they should get the free ride. Some of the stories are so … nondescript … they are as common as the old school excuse, “My dog ate it.”
 I always felt sad for the student whose dog actually did eat the homework. The excuse has been so abused by we liars, the honest ones get lumped in with the liars.

Some of the stories are so creative, my thought is always, “they should get the free ride because that was pretty good.” Maybe it’s a good thing I’m not a bus driver, Hot looking hustler’s would always get the free ride and those with the exceptionally creative stories would ride for free too.
 Speaking of hot little hustlers …
 As I was riding the #15 bus eastward on El Cajon Blvd., I saw this hot, hot woman standing on a corner wearing a very short sun dress. It really didn’t hide a thing, especially with the wind blowing in the right … err … trajectory. She wasn’t wearing any under garments and, I might add, her lovely mons Veneris was as bare as the day she was born. Oh, mama mia! I popped a woody right there! Wished the #15, which makes limited stops on El Cajon, stopped on that corner.
 She does not qualify as a dumb person. She qualifies for the free ride!

But that’s really just the tip of the iceberg. The worst of the public transit are the religious nuts who implore you to “find Christ” by handing out little pamphlets and flyers. There are some who only ride the buses and trolleys to carry their “ministry” to the somewhat captive audiences on the buses.

I despise these people. Every day I encounter at least two of these cretins, waiting at the stops or on the buses themselves. The worst and most prolific of the bunch are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They’re worse than locusts, they’re like ants and I hate ants. The pamphleteers always smile and hold out a pamphlet, often with the words, “Jesus loves you!”
 Well, he probably hates you for being such an annoying bitch!
 Oh yeah, they’re usually women, although Friday morning the cretin was a man.

But they are so common they hardly rate a mention in a topic/thread titled “I See Dumb People.” The crazy ones, the crazy ones … yeesh … They probably shouldn’t be in a thread about dumb people either, although they are generally exceptionally dumb. There should be a thread about scary people. These are the ones who decide to preach “The Word,” according to them, based on their life experiences, real or imagined.
 Real or imagined because some of them … well, for instance:
 There is a guy I encounter on the #20 from time-to-time who talks about how the U.S. State Department stole his daughter from him so they could sell the girl as an adoption in Columbia.
 No, I’m not making this up. He, of course, riddles his story with various quotes from the Bible in his effort to make it more believable.
 The idea of trying to buttress a tale like that with quotes from a religious text first put to paper (sort of) in the Stone Age just boggles the senses!
 One time there was a woman he knew, not very well it turns out, and she was apparently unaware of his prodigious talent for being nutso. All she could do was smile and be embarrassed he was talking to her.

And then there are the ones who decide to engage me in conversation. Like on Wednesday when I was on my way to the J.O.B. riding the #20A bus from Fashion Valley to Kearny Mesa. Since part of my trip includes pedaling the Trusty Trek I wear shorts and either tanks or sleeveless t-shirts. So, this woman points to my tattoo.

I had to pause the Zappa, the really scorching version of “Sofa” from In New York and pull the iPod plug from my left ear to hear what she was saying — and this is why I almost became evil — and she asks, “is that Satanic?”
For a second or two I thought of the joy derived from saying “Yes,” but thought better of it since I would be on this bus with a potentially insane Christian for nearly 20 minutes, so I said, “No, it’s for Capricorn.”

I put the iPod plug back in place, restarted “Sofa” and then noticed she was asking another dumb shit question. So, pause went “Sofa,” out came both iPod plugs and she asks, “What does that number six stand for?”
 “666” is the number of Satan, don’t you know …

My thought was, “This effin’ woman is effin’ loony,” but replied, “It’s not a six, it’s the Sumerian symbol for Capricorn.”

“Sumerian,” she asked in that quizzical tone most religiously under-educated people have when you present them with information that wasn’t approved by the minister, bishop or holy man for thought inclusion.

Now I was P.O.’d ‘cause if I had gone with my first impulse and said, “Yes, it is Satanic,” the nutso might have kept her effin’ trap shut, allowing me to listen to Frank Zappa uninterrupted. Now, instead of listening to “Sofa” and the “Black Page #2, the Easy, Teenage New York Version, ” I was schooling a religious nut on an ancient civilization.

Ironically, when she first got on the bus my thought was, “I’d [do] her!” She was wearing a woman’s sleeveless shirt and tight, tight Spandex shorts which were very, very short. sigh And I was hoping it might be my lucky day.

Yeah, I can write about dumb people. There could be a dumb person blog everyday here. They are that common, not all of them religious freaks either!

After the encounter with the woman concerned about my tattoo, another, matronly woman, offered me a Jehovah’s Witness pamphlet and rather than pause Zappa, I said loudly, “That is evil. Religion is the root of all evil.”

After that, no one tried talking to me for the rest of the bus trip, which was cool with me ’cause I wanted to finish listening to my Zappa.

The moral of this story: whenever anyone asks about my tattoo, my simple answer will always be, “Yes, it’s Satanic.”

•••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••

Just to catch up on the previous blog: Salim Ahmed Hamdan received a sentence of only five and a half years. Apparently the jury doesn’t think he is so dangerous he needs to be put away forever. Well, I’m pleasantly surprised and delighted to admit I was wrong.

•••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••

Sad to report, comedian Bernie Mac has died. He was one of the funnier comics and he made the Ocean’s 11 franchise a lot more entertaining than it might otherwise had he not been in the films. Read more Here.

Evil Once Again

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:00:00 -0600

It’s been an interesting week. Change in meds and a touch of a summer cold, not to mention the news.

A fashion model committed suicide by jumping from her apartment. Ruslana Korshunova killed herself Saturday. Course there will be the chorus of people who insist the business she was in drove her to do it. Please. Thousands of models, some famous, some not, and damn few of them carry out suicide attempts, let alone succeed. But, why not go for the easy answer so the holier-than-thou can say, “uh-huh! Bein’ a model will do it to ya.”

One of my favorite adult (nude) models, Erica Campbell, recently decided to become a born again Christian. That is a major disappointment. But she was obviously in a deep funk; a deep dark hole of depression and anything can seem like a lifeline. Even religion. Especially religion.

Some of us have a dark void in us that nothing seems to fill. Not relationships, food, sex, drugs, alcohol, or love. It’s a yearning for something more, a feeling of wholeness, wellness, like we are part of the community. And yet, we are the ones who look with disdain at the community.

The community that passes judgment on those who think differently, act differently, and require, without exception, compliance to the rules and standards without debate or deviation from those dictums. As if the freedom of speech is only a cute phrase from a simpler time. A community that only accepts a certain few as chosen for the “good life” and the rest of us better know our place, keep quiet and do what we’re told when we’re told to do it. A community that says, “You’re not one of us, but you can sit over at that table and we’ll let you order off the menu.”

Religions, on the other hand, are looking for members, paying customers, who will adhere to their rules, take a pre-determined place in their community — often determined by whomever rules the church — and keep quiet unless told to speak and when told to speak the members speak only the appropriate and accepted thoughts and ideas.
 And their initial come on is: Everyone is welcome! Especially those who have that emptiness and disdain for that larger community we never felt a part of.

And the more slavish the devotion and adherence to the approved speech, the higher up in the food chain of the religion the members can go and everyone — every member—can aspire to be a part of the hierarchy, although in reality not everyone can be a member of the elite, otherwise it wouldn’t be elite.
 You know the elite: they get perks the other church members are not privy to; maybe only a vaunted place during services. Some of the more affluent and larger churches provide material perks, epitomized by the PTL religion of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Their non-profit status was eventually revoked by the I.R.S. and Jim Bakker spent about five years in prison for a variety of charges, including fraud.
 Both Jim and Tammy Faye renounced their PTL ways after they divorced and yet both became leading figures in new sects, designed by themselves.
 Their stories get pretty twisted; Tammy Faye married a friend from the PTL, Roe Messmer, and they started their own denomination. Jim Bakker, after leaving prison, renounced his former interpretation of “The Word” — his Prosperity Theology—and yet now he is the leader of a new church (with a new wife) centered in Branson, Missouri, that is broadcast nationally once again and brings in enough money to allow them a new studio to accommodate his growing popularity.
 Bakker has been truly born again, with pretty much the same philosophy that got him tossed into prison. He still owes millions of back taxes but the new church is “run” by friends so the I.R.S. can’t touch the income. Same Bakker, just a little smarter about how to get over on the government. For Bakker, Jesus is still a cash cow.

Since seeing the “light,” the truth about religion, I’ve often wondered why people in the 21st Century still flock to something first created in the Stone Age. We look at the Book of Genesis, myths first created when humankind had to have an answer as to how did we get here. A super natural guy called “God” first created the universe — the Heavens and the Earth — light and dark, the ground and water, plants and animals and finally humankind to rule over all. And “God” did it all in six days, leaving the seventh day for rest, instructing humankind to use that day of rest to pay homage to him.
 It had to be a male entity, super natural or otherwise. No female could be in charge if men were going to be the rulers on Earth.

Most likely, the “how” we got here came after the question arose of “why” we are here. Every religion has a version of the same afterlife. In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions (all claim Abraham as their founding patriarch) that centerpiece of the afterlife is “Heaven,” a “place” where all the obedient ones go when they die, their souls lifted up in bright glory if their life has been pleasing to God. By pleasing to God, the Earthly rulers meant obedient to their Earthly rules, laws that could be (and often were) bent and twisted to the advantage of the Earthly rulers (all of whom were men).

Religion often claims to be all-inclusive — anyone and everyone is welcome. The most insidious of the Christian religions being the “non-denominational” churches that can interpret The Bible to fit their specific desires. At first I wrote “needs,” but what “they” need is a way to make their take on God and Christ palatable to the prospective members who feel that void. But the come on is always the same: what’s missing from your life is “God,” He will fill that void. And quite frankly, “God” fills that void — at least for a little while.

The rules vary from denomination to denomination slightly, but there is always the slavish devotion to “The Word” as determined in The Bible. How “The Word” is interpreted is what separates the different sects from one another.

And now Erica Campbell is part of that charade. I really liked her. Still like her as a matter of fact. She was nice to her fans, always let them (us) contact her via the internet, ask her often pointed questions about relationships and sex, her relationships with other models and just about any question we had.

For many, she was the surrogate girlfriend. Consequently, some of those fans became over zealous, possessive and abusive, intruding on her “real” life so much so that she retreated to a reclusive farm in New Hampshire. Still, we, for a time anyway, filled that void inside of her. And eventually not even that was enough.

Hopefully she will find what she needs: personal peace and serenity. Hopefully, the people who have involved her in that religion will not take advantage of her, sexually or otherwise. Religious leaders have a long history of taking sexual advantage of young converts, especially the prettiest ones who don’t know any better and are still raw and vulnerable, easily manipulated by the right words strung together in the right sequence.

Or take advantage of her popularity, using her to attract more members. Besides the money new members bring to the church, larger memberships to their church means more power, a far more coveted prize than money.

Yeah, I’m cynical when it comes to religion. But it has proven, over the past 8,000 years, to be the root of all evil.

Beware: This is the Work of Satan

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:01:00 -0700

This is funny. Due to unwelcome circumstances, I have to share a place with a guy who is Christian. Talk about irony. Not just claims to be Christian, he actually listens to Christian radio exclusively. Actually, I don’t think he really believes it, not all of it, but he’s adrift on an ocean of spiritual and philosophical doubt.

So, at night, like tonight, I can hear his radio, over his snoring, blaring Christian music and Christian sermons on everything from how the Gospel can explain a guy killing members of a church, to Dr. Mel Mulder, author of the self-published book, Beyond Intelligent Design.

Dr. Mulder, a retired surgeon, is of the firm belief that the Earth is no more than a few thousand years old and was created exactly as depicted in the Book of Genesis. He claims that real science, true science, must fall in line with the teachings of the Bible and that Intelligent Design is inadequate because it doesn’t begin with the main theme of the Biblical “God” as the Creator, that it tries to make “God” comprehensible; does not address good and evil, the perfection of Biblical Creation or the nature of the soul, and — God forbid — allows ID adherents to embrace evolution!

Despite the fact that the primary proponents of Intelligent Design state their goal is to bring science in line with believing in a Christian view of a supernatural being called “God.” Not just a Christian view, but one compatible with conservative Protestant Evangelicals.
 For more on that, look up the Discovery Institute, the heart of the Intelligent Design movement.

Mulder rejects even that unsavory group. The upshot is, Mulder uses many of their arguments to support his views on the creation of the universe.

One of the tenets of the Intelligent Design movement, co-opted by Dr. Mulder for his purposes, is the concept of irreducible complexity. “What’s that,” you ask? It’s the notion that there are certain “things” in nature that are so complex, yet so elemental to life (human or otherwise) they can only be explained as having been directly designed by a supernatural being, and what the hay, let’s call that being “God.” Generally biological systems, most of the examples — well, all the examples I’ve found — having to do with certain bits of the human form.
 You have to admire Mulder’s chutzpah; he denounces Intelligent Design and its proponents but uses their philosophical arguments to support his view that Genesis is scientific.

The ID crowd, as well as Dr. Mulder, use the notion of irreducible complexity to promote their two differing views despite that fact—FACT—irreducible complexity has been refuted by the scientific community around the world, not based on opinions, as the notion of “IC” itself is based, but by peer-review investigation in the laboratory.

Intelligent Design started in the previous decade when a bunch of scientists, a handful really, decided they believed in “God,” the Christian version, and got together in … geez … up the coast in Half Moon Bay I believe, to figure out a way to bring their belief in “God” into line with science. Or … maybe bring science into line with their belief in “God.” Either way, the little get-together had less to do with science than philosophy … well, nothing really to do with science other than to talk about it … and that’s when this group of scientists came up with the notion of Intelligent Design and eventually Irreducible Complexity.

Thankfully, the scientific community is large and worldwide and once this group of scientists began publishing their philosophy as science, curious members of the scientific community at large immediately looked into it and … refuted all their claims.

But that doesn’t deter Dr. Mulder. There’s no fact of science and reality that can’t be explained away as a tool or act of Satan. Unless he can twist it to support his view that the Book of Genesis is the only true science related to the formation of the sun, moon, stars and Earth.
 Wonder if he secretly believes the sun, moon and stars orbit the Earth? As the people who formed the Old and New Testaments did when the Bible was first put into written form.

Therein lies the rub of believing such ancient texts to be literally true. In Leviticus we are told we (men) can sell our wives and children and the price of each is set. A boy is worth five shekels and a girl only three. Might explain why diamonds are a girl’s best friends. Slavery is okay, although the definition of slavery in Ancient Judea differs from what we know to be slavery. Male slaves, after six years, are to be released from bondage with a little care package. Female slaves … well, they’re slaves for life.

Ah … it’s crazy. Crazier still is the number of people in this country, a nation considered to be educated, who actually believe as old Dr. Mulder believes. In his “Religion Speech,” written to woo the hard-core and extremist Christian fundamentalists, Mitt Romney bemoans the lack of religious fervor in Europe that is found here in the U.S.
 “I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.”

Maybe the people of Europe are kicking aside the superstitions of the past, such as religion. But, thanks to the likes of Dr. Mulder and his ilk, we still debate the reality of evolution, as if the Book of Genesis actually has some scientific merit. Three of the Republican candidates for president, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback, have said the don’t believe evolution is real. Well, Brownback has quit his quest for the White House, so that leaves Tancredo and Huckabee. Would you want a president who is so out of step with reality?

Well, if you listen to or read Dr. Mel Mulder, you do.

•••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••

On a lighter note and what the Hay, as long as this blog is the work of Satan: My friend Danielle is in her third week as the Cyber Girl XTra on Playboy’s Cyber Club web site. Good on ya Dani girl! Yer looking fine! I’m glad we’re friends, proud to call you my friend. Hope this turns into bigger and far better opportunities … in case you’ve forgotten, I’m single! By the way, how’s Mom?

Is Race

nospam@example.com (Tim Forkes) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:32:23 -0600

Part two, one day before the sixth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001. One would think that if anything would bring our nation together like nothing else, erasing, or diminishing, the “differences” that divide us, it would be a disaster — an attack by international criminals — like we experienced six years ago. Two years ago the disaster of Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of New Orleans seemed to widen the divide between Black America and everyone else.

There were so many of those hateful chain e-mails in my inbox after Katrina, it changed my view of Caucasian America. The Americans stranded on their rooftops, in their attics and at the convention center and Super Dome deserved what they got, according to the e-mails, because they were lazy and shiftless Blacks who had been so dependent on government support for survival, they couldn’t or wouldn’t get a job to pay for a way out of New Orleans before the storm hit and the levees collapsed.

The fallacy of that belief: the vast majority of those trapped in New Orleans were either the working poor who barely made enough to survive, or the physically challenged, like the ill and elderly in hospitals and nursing homes; elderly folks stuck in their own homes—and they weren’t all African-Americans either.

We make it too easy for ourselves to continue the culture of racism and yet, as if to announce we thrive on our hypocrisy, our TV talk shows tell us we aren’t going to allow the usage of “the ‘N’ Word” anymore, like it, along with racism, will magically disappear.

The word “nigger” is most evident in the ever so popular gangsta lifestyle music and art. Every Black person, it seems, uses it, sort of like a badge of street cred. You aren’t black enough if you don’t use it when talking to friend and foe alike. Not surprisingly, many African-Americans object to its exaggerated use in the hip-hop culture just because it is such a mean and demeaning word, yet it persists. Al Sharpton is one of the more vocal critics of that and other aspects of the hip hop culture.

There are White people who ask, “Why is it okay for Black people to use ‘nigger’ but not us?” Well mainly because the word was created by white Europeans for use in subjugating the kidnapped African men and women; and for us white people to continue using it as if isn’t a viciously mean word just perpetuates the attitude that Blacks are less than human. On the other hand, there’s really no set-in-stone rule about its use and probably Blacks are no more “allowed” to use it than White people. But why would you want to use such a mean, mean word anyway? We don’t have enough insulting jargon to hurl at our fellow humans without having to lower ourselves any further with racism?

Then there are the White people who use it and justify its use with the ridiculous notion that there are “white niggers too.” No, there aren’t “white niggers” any more than there are Black WASPs.
 There are of course African-Americans who could be WASP’s if their skin color were different.
 Okay, if you’re wondering, “What’s a wasp? Ain’t that like a bee?” WASP is the acronym for White Anglo Saxon Protestant and is usually applied to the white gentry often represented by the likes of Paris Hilton!

The only time I’ve ever heard a white person use the term “white niggers,” is when that White person was defending his or her use of the word nigger when referring to people of color. In my lifetime I have never heard that term used in any way other than to defend using the word “nigger.” Someone may write back — in a private message or e-mail — that they have used the term “white nigger” often when referring to certain white people they don’t like, but let me be clear, I will respond that I think you are, in fact, lying.

Technically, it’s impossible to be a “white nigger.” As stated earlier, the word is the derivative of Niger, which means black and therefore at the very least, “white nigger” is an oxymoron. And just what behavior constitutes being a “White Nigger”? Is Eminem a white nigger? I mean, he’s into that rap thing …

But let’s be a little more direct: if you are using that term, “white nigger,” to defend your use of “nigger,” you are probably in the lowest economic and social strata of White America commonly referred to as “white trash.” In my experience, I’ve never heard it used by any other strata of people. The more affluent and educated we are, the better we are at masking our bigotry.

Racism is still very much with us and it is alive in well in American politics. As was pointed out in this blog several times, the Republican National Committee produced an anti-Harold Ford Jr. ad that played up the congressman’s dates with White women and played off the racial fears of White America with the ugly specter of unbridled misogyny—in particular, Black men polluting our White women with their dirty black seed.
 “Yeaaahh. Fuckin’ Negroes want our White women and then the next thing you know, the White Race will be wiped out in America.”

The racist ad worked. Ford lost his senatorial race in Tennessee by a small margin, mainly because a number of White citizens, who may not object to having an African-American represent them in the Senate, object to the idea that a Black man would couple with our White daughters.

On the other hand, a White man fucking a Black woman ain’t such a bad idea! That’s been going on for centuries in this country and our third president, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, had several children by his various slaves.
 It begs the question: How did such a libertarian like Thomas Jefferson sleep at night, having written such an important document — the Declaration of Independence — and then owning other human beings, people who had none of what he espoused in that document, subjugated to tyranny by his own hand, even to the point of having sexual slaves?
 Sexual slavery is a common, if unspoken, taboo fantasy of many men. Can’t think of any men who would admit they are initially titillated by the suggestion brought up from Thomas Jefferson’s example. To do so would invite condemnation from all quarters. On the other hand, bondage and S&M are extremely popular adult sexual themes, well represented on the Internet and in print. We may not talk about it openly, but thanks to the Internets, we can visit our little fantasy 24/7.

Just a few years ago, right after he died, it was revealed Strom Thurmond, the man who ran for president with the slogan, “segregation yesterday, segregation today; segregation for ever!” had fathered a girl with an African-American employed by his family … apparently, misogyny all hinges on the White Woman! Or maybe it’s the Black man … I don’t know …

The controversy surrounding Strom Thurmond’s child was the sheer hypocrisy of his segregationist views at the time he was making payments to the African-American mother of his child. Thurmond softened his views on segregation long before he passed away, but he still stands as one of the last and strongest voices of segregation and racism in America.

Sometimes I rationalize racism as something that’s been with us forever and will remain a central theme in American culture, but remember, remind myself, that rationalizing it gives racism legitimacy and there are far too many people these days rationalizing it already. We heard it when the multitude jumped to the defense of Don Imus when he called the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.” Somehow, the fact that not a majority of citizens were listening to him on the radio or watching him on TV made the slur okay. The worst part of it was the cabal that blamed Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for the controversy!

If racism is here with us forever and remains a major block to real national unity, it will be because we want it to remain so; there’s nothing more frightening than changing the status quo, which is why race is a gingerly spoken of topic, even while we tacitly engage in it when we bring up subjects like what went wrong in New Orleans August 31, 2005 and the debate over illegal immigration. Race baiting makes finger pointing easier and if we don’t have to collectively think about the problem, much less the solutions, why upset the apple cart? Racism works.