The column was called, “Sons of Lame-Archy.” In it, I razzed the concept of biker clubs and gangs. The part that caused the brouhaha was a digression in which I lamented that none of the gay biker-gang names I saw online had any of that queer flair I love so much, like—and I don’t mean to re-inflame—“Hell’s Anals, The Sodomites and The Mangols.”

I meant no offense. They were just the kind of flamboyant biker-club names that I thought celebrated homosexuality, the kind of gay-biker-gang names that said, “In your face, homophobe! We are no longer going to ride in the closet!” The kind of biker gangs I would join if I happened to be gay or even entice my hypothetical gay biker son to join when if he was old enough.Among the swarm of angry emails, tweets, Face-pastes and blog-floggings were several responses from staffers of San Diego Gay and Lesbian News (SDGLN), including publisher Johnathan Hale, who reported my column to GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), and assistant editor Morgan Hurley, who tweeted that “There is NO appropriate context for those types of words,” and wrote a column in which she criticized me for, among other things, not apologizing. That’s when the bees really started buzzing.

And while I received a lot of support from members of the LGBT community, a lot more sent very angry, accusatory missives, all of which boiled down to one or all of the following questions 1. Is Ed Decker a homophobe? 2. Is it ever permissible to use bigoted epithets? 3. Does Ed Decker owe an apology?

1. Is Ed Decker a homophobe? Not even close. My queer-friendly street cred is airtight. For starters, I have written dozens of columns in which I ferociously argued in favor of gay rights and viciously attacked its enemies.

Second, I, too, have been a victim of homophobia—in the workplace. True story: The company for which I worked at the time had transferred me to a new store. For reasons that don’t matter here, I was favored by the supervisor (who was thought to be gay), and an assumption spread that I, too, was queer. It didn’t take long before I was uniformly outcasted, ridiculed, sabotaged and—get this—poisoned.

Last on my list of pro-gay cred is the fact that—wait for it—some of my best friends are gay. Yup. I said it. Some of my best friends are gay. Why shouldn’t I say that? If I hang out with gay people, it sort of defeats the whole homophobe concept, no? Cases in point are two of my closest friends in the world, Danielle LoPresti and Alicia Champion (founders of San Diego IndieFest), who have appointed me as godfather to their newborn son, Xander Lucian, and have asked me to be a bridesmaid in their upcoming wedding. I haven’t decided whether I should go in drag; regardless, if a man agrees to be a bridesmaid in lesbian wedding, well, let’s just say it wouldn’t be long before he gets kicked off the Fallbrook Annual Aryan Homophobic Apple Bob and Barbecue Planning Committee.

The LoPresti-Champion family

2. Is there ever a time when it’s permissible to use bigoted epithets? Great question. Answer: Yes.

Ms. Hurley likened the FGGT-word to the N-word, which is a reasonable comparison. She also said that it was “never, ever” OK to use these words, which means I need only one example to prove her wrong. Of course, I have many (such as Louis CK’s hilarious and obviously non-hateful bit about the FGGT-word), Lenny Bruce’s various uses of the F- and N-words, but my favorite happened about a year ago, in the live-music bar where I worked.

That night, we had a touring band consisting of members of different lineages—two Africans, two Mexicans, an Arab, an Asian and a couple of crackers for good measure. When the night was over, the band and some of their friends drank at the bar while we bartenders stocked beer and closed shop.

Once we were all sufficiently intoxicated, one of the band-friends pulled out a camera-phone and announced that it was time to play the “Shout the Most Offensive Racist Slur You Can Think Of” game. Apparently, this is something they did after every show on the tour. It was an easy-enough game. Everyone took turns shouting the most outrageous racial aspersion they could think of, followed by a round of uproarious laughter, hugs and backslapping.

I don’t think I’d ever laughed that hard. There was something so freeing about it—especially the shouting part—as if the slurs were ostrich eggs we cracked against the wall and watched all the hate and anger—the yolk—of those words harmlessly dribble onto the floor.

When the camera pointed at me, I stopped what I was doing and shouted, “Niggers don’t tip!” The two bruthas leaped up from their stools and high-fived and hugged and complimented me for such exquisitely hateful hate speech—all of which felt so good I wanted to leap over the bar and make out with them both.

3. Should Ed Decker apologize? No, he should not. Because it would be the most bigoted thing he could do.

After having spent the last 17 years razzing Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, Africans, Asians, Arabs, Latinos, Caucasians, Republicans, Democrats, athletes, musicians, sports fans, pot snobs, beer snobs, snob-snobs, women, men, cats, dogs, bikers, bar customers, bartenders, waitresses, MYSELF, my writing, my looks, my family, my friends, flight attendants, cartoonists,  parents, children, cheerleaders and guys named “Chaz” without a single “sorry” to share between them, wouldn’t it be patronizing to apologize now? Wouldn’t that assume gays and lesbians need coddling or special treatment? I mean, yes, absolutely, I am “sorry” that my words have been hurtful to some, but I do not apologize, because I did nothing wrong.

That said, I don’t want any apologies, either. For those who called me a “homophobe,” “bigot,” “hater,” “enemy to civil rights,” “ignorant” and “filth peddler,” warned me to  “watch my back” and spread my column around the country to stoke a response—no apologies necessary. In fact, I’m stoked by the ferocity of your response. I’m stoked that you mobilized against what you perceived to be a hateful voice, stoked that your  days of taking shit and cowering in shadows are over, that you’re increasingly more willing and able to shout, “In your face, homophobe!” Honestly, I’m so happy about that it makes me want to leap over the bar make out with each and every one of you.

Ed Decker
09.05.11

Epilogue: The letter from GLAAD

After I’d written the first draft of this column, I received a cordial, non-reactionary letter from GLAAD’s senior media strategist, Adam Bass:

At GLAAD we believe that a couple of your fictional gay biker group names used terms that were unnecessarily offensive.  The satire of the column was not lost on us, but we believe the jokes could have used different words to get the same point across.

The letter went on to ask that I not use words like “faggy,” “sodomite” and—this one took me by complete surprise—“homosexual.”

Because of the clinical history of the word ‘homosexual,’ it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically / emotionally disordered…. Please avoid using ‘homosexual’ except in direct quotes.

Here is my unabridged response to him:

Dear Adam,

Thank you for your fair and reasonable letter. As a life-long hater of homophobia, I understand why so many in the LGBT community took offense to some of the language I used. However, I must respectfully decline your request as I am a firm believer that what really matters in these situations is context.

A good example is the revelation (to me) that the word “homosexual” is now on the list of words I am not permitted to use.

First of all—and again, I say this with utmost respect and with no desire to offend—I do not recognize GLAAD’s authority over my vocabulary. My opinion is that there is absolutely nothing offensive about “homosexual.” It is—by its etymology—exactly what it defines, with zero innuendo. Homo means “same” and homosexuals are people who are sexually attracted to members of the same gender. It just couldn’t get any less offensive than that.

I mean, if we’re going to start indiscriminately banning words, I can think of one that is far more offensive than “homosexual,” yet is embraced by the gay community.  The word is “homophobe” and here’s why.

I think you would agree that the word “homo”, as a noun (not a prefix), is currently considered as one of the more offensive anti-gay slurs. Well the word homophobe takes the word “homo” puts it in front of “phobe,” creating a word that means “fear and/or loathing of homos.”

Whoever coined the word “homophobia” didn’t know what they were doing because an etymological breakdown of the word shows that the word is actually made up of a prefix (homo as in “same”) and a suffix (“phobia” as in fear) without a root word.

Technically, homophobia means “fear of the same” which doesn’t make a lot of sense, unless, you know, it is applied to someone with an irrational fear of cloning.

But that’s not what the coiners were doing. Whoever coined it was using homo as a root word – as in, “that guy is a homo” – and attached it to phobia, making homophobia more of a slur than homosexual. However, it doesn’t have any anti-gay baggage so it remains acceptable – proving that context is what matters.

I also took issue with the reason GLAAD says “homosexual” is off the table, that it was “aggressively used by anti-gay extremists.”

Well, sure , any word can be aggressively used by extremists, even polite ones, or, in this case, clinical ones. That’s the point. It’s not the word; it’s the context. And the reason that “homosexual” is the next word on the chopping block is not because there is something wrong with it; rather, it’s that there is something wrong with the way some people use it.

If we ban “homosexual” and make “gay” the appropriate term, bigots will eventually start saying “gay” with contempt, and in 10 years we’re back to the same place, banning “gay” this time in favor of the next acceptable word, and the next—killing word after word without understanding that no matter how many words we kill, the bigots live forever.

Thank you so much for your letter and the cordial tone with which it was written. I have great respect for GLAAD and its endeavors. Let me know if you need the gratis services of a spunky writer—I’d like to chip in.

Ed Decker,
San Diego CityBeat

Vice President Joe Biden collected some trouble recently when he seemingly endorsed China’s controversial population-control policy during his visit there.

“Your [one-child-per-family] policy has been one which I fully understand,” he told the crowd. “I’m not second-guessing.”

It didn’t take long for his enemies to pile on, including House Speaker John Boehner, who said he was “deeply troubled” by Biden’s statement.

Doesn’t Boehner’s hyperbole make you wretch? He wasn’t just troubled by Biden’s remarks, see; he was deeply troubled—as if Boehner was pacing in his office all week, brooding about the apocalyptic effect the VP’s speech will have on our nation.

“The result being,” Biden continued, “that [China is] in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. [It’s] not sustainable.”

Well, whaddaya know? Biden wasn’t endorsing it after all. Rather, he was making an economic argument over a moral one. Because, as Biden knows, when you attack someone’s morals, they become defensive and all progress comes to a halt. It’s called diplomacy.

Of course, I got a laugh out of the whole thing because, while everyone else was demanding that Biden publicly denounce China’s family planning policy (which he did), all I could think was, Denounce it!? Are you nuts? Denouncing a one-child-only policy in China is like denouncing a one-mosquito maximum at your campsite. Why would anyone denounce the greatest government moratorium  since the Trojans banned giant, rolling, wooden horses from entering their city gates?

To hell with the Great Wall—the one-child policy is the shit that belongs on all their tourism posters:

“Visit China—what few kids we have are muzzled.”

Or,

“Beijing! Where the brothels outnumber the brats!”

Oh, sweet Republic of China—how long is thy immigration line? For I would gladly tolerate the traffic jams, pollution, rampant public spitting, government-controlled media, bizarre alphabet, squat toilets, avian influenza, aggressive pro-panda propaganda (propandaganda?) and, worst of all, the 24-hour All Lucy Liu channel, to live in a country that isn’t inundated with chil—OK, OK. I’ll stop. Sorry. I honestly didn’t intend to run the joke so far into the ground. You know I was joking, right? You know I know that the Chinese family-planning policy is barbaric. I would never support a law that limits our right to reproduce; however—isn’t it time our government stops promoting reproduction?

There are many tax benefits that incentivize procreation, not the least of which is the child tax credit, which gives families $1,000 for every dependent under 17. That is udder bovine excrement! Given our overpopulation problems, people should be incentivized toward not having kids. We should give a $1,000 tax credit to every child a taxpayer does not have. If you don’t have two kids, you get a $2,000 credit. Not having four kids gets you $4,000. As for me, I plan on not having 15 children. I know, I know, 15 is a lot of kids to not have, but the way I see it, I’ve got a lot of love not to give.

Another problem with the child tax credit is that it goes to the wrong people. Currently, only families earning less than $110,000 are eligible. That means we are subsidizing lower income-people to breed, which is utterly whackbasswards.

Lower-income families usually have to work three or four jobs and can rarely afford quality childcare, so their unsupervised golem are free to loot convenience stores and drop bricks from overpasses all day. The last thing we want is for them to have more children. Better to incentivize upper-income people because they have money: They can afford a team of tyrant-nannies to crush their children’s spirits. They can afford to build a sound-proofed dungeon in which to shackle and torture the little murderers-in-the-making. They can afford to seal all their offspring’s orifices with expensive cosmetic surgery.

And while I do oppose the Chinese concept of levying fines or prison sentences for violating one-child law, I am down with taxing parents extra. For instance, we should institute a “Screaming Hellion on the Plane” tax. I’d also like to see a “Too Much Pee in the Public Pool” tax; a “Mommy, Why is that Man so Fat and Other Insults” tax; an “Everything on TV Sucks Because We Can’t Let Kids Hear Bad Words or Encounter Adult Concepts” tax; and, of course, a “No Fun Family Values Asshole” tax for all those a-hole parents who think they can dictate adult behavior—such as when we have to stop drinking beer at the ballpark, how much porn we can view in the public library, who can’t marry whom and how many feet away from the middle school we have to be when selling or buying our drugs—all in the name of protecting “the children.”

What’s that you say? Families are the backbone of America and we need to make it easier on parents to raise smart, healthy and productive members of society?

Are you crazy? Did you not see Children of the Corn? Scary, right? Well, turns out Children of the Corn wasn’t a horror movie after all. It was a documentary.

By now, you’ve probably heard about the 14-year-old South Pasadena boy who recently lobbied to have profanity banned in his hometown. Apparently, the City Council liked the idea so much that they officially proclaimed the first week in March as No Cussing Week and The State of California is considering adopting No Cussing Week as well.

Now keep in mind, No Cussing Week is not law. It’s an official proclamation, which means–it don’t mean squat. It is unenforceable, un-punishable, not in violation of the First Amendment and, therefore, not deserving of our contempt.

It is, however, deserving of our ridicule.

Forget the obvious reason, which is that swearing is a valuable element of human communication. Anyone who doesn’t know that has never had their plane stuck on the tarmac for three hours, their shampoo bottles leak into their suitcase or their hotel reservation misplaced–all during the same trip. You just try to tell me that having access to a couple of choice obscenities at that moment wouldn’t save at least a couple of lives.

But the main reason No Cussing Week deserves our ridicule is because it’s fucking retarded.

The person responsible is McKay Hatch, the 14-year-old founder of the South Pasadena High School No Cussing Club. The No Cussing Club (NCC) is well-organized and proactive. It has a website, a logo, a motto, a T-shirt and even a theme song with accompanying music video. The song is called, “Don’t Cuss,” which is sung by young Hatch, who raps about the origins of the movement. The video opens with him watching some older kids playing basketball.

“I was sitting in the schoolyard, hanging with my crowd / When some kids came walking by, talking really foul / Every other word was burning in my ear / So I took a new stand and I challenged all my peers.”

At this point, two of the older kids step into frame and begin fighting over the basketball. Heath, a pasty-faced, puny little twerp, stands up, snatches the rock from their hands and gets in their faces with the chorus:

“If you wanna hang with us, I don’t wanna hear you cuss–don’t cuss!”

OK, look, I know the boy is only 14, and it’s fabulous that he’s expressing himself artistically. It’s just, when I watch this video, I can’t help but think, Man, you are sooo gonna get your ass kicked in school tomorrow.

When asked what made him decide to go on this anti-cussing mission, Hatch–whom I call Dead Kid Walking–said, “My mom and dad taught me good morals… and not cussing was one of them.”

Obviously, an adolescent boy has no deeper understanding of the word “morals” beyond whatever slop his parents have been pouring into his trough for the last 14 years. But swear words are just words, and words have no moral attributes. If anything, it’s bad morality to teach your kids not to curse. Especially if your child is puny and twerpy and tends to go on no-cussing crusades, wearing that holier-than-thou-boy-prodigy smirk that makes you want to bash his teeth in.

It’s just not safe is what I’m saying.

Imagine a bunch of non-puny seniors in the school cafeteria talking smack and dropping F-bombs for fun. Then up walks some pasty-faced twerp like McKay Hatch with his cloud of holier-than-thouness floating over his puny little body and announces, “My dad says it’s wrong to use bad words”–a sentence that he will be permitted to finish upside-down in the cafeteria dumpster with globs of ketchup smeared on his face.

Parents, if you love your kids, teach them to curse. And for god’s sake, don’t let them join no No Cussing Club! Can you imagine those meetings, sitting around the tree fort drinking SunnyD and planning their anti-cussing patrol?

“OK, gang, tomorrow we go out in teams of two. Tom and Jimmy will monitor the bathrooms. Sally and Ralph, you guys canvass the cafeteria. Log every cussword you hear. And, please, no heroes! Remember how long it took to dig Hatch out of the dumpster last time?

Yeah, um, no, I’m telling you, you teach your kids to curse. Teach them everything there is to know about swearing. Teach them all kinds of wonderful dirty words that none of their friends have heard–everything from underground cult hits to old-school classics like “Up yours” and “Pecker” and my all-time favorite, “Get bent.” Teach them how to coin their own obscene insults by placing a vulgar word next to a body part. Words like “Douchenose” and “Assmouth” are sure to be big winners in the cafeteria.

Teach them, also, about obscenity etiquette, like the importance of not cursing in front of adults, as a matter of respect, and because it might lead to a visit from Child Protective Services.

Teach them about restraint. Tell your children, “Children, go forth and curse righteous. But remember, like everything thing else in this world, foul language is best delivered in moderation. Use your four-letter words sparingly. And don’t forget to mix it up. Don’t just use the F-word, use the S-word, too. And the P-word, and the A-word. Remember to use all the delightful nuggets in the J-word series, and D-words, and even the B-word, though never against women, unless they are total C-words.

If W. and I had kids and lived in South Pasadena, No Cussing Week would be a holiday. Once a year, on the first Saturday in March, the Decker Clan would go on a field day. We would decorate the family SUV with tin cans and ribbons–like the newlyweds do–only instead of writing “Just married” on the back, it’ll say, “Get bent, South Pasadena!” Then we’d cruise down Main Street blaring Too Short at top volume.

For lunch, we’d take the crew into McDonalds. When it was our turn at the register, I would face the kids and shout, “OK, you little bastards, whaddya want?!” To which they would respond, “We want the happy meal, motherfucker!” Then we’d laugh and cuss and make fart noises with our armpits until the manager had no choice but to kick us out and we would have no choice but to give him the unanimous finger as we stumbled toward the door doubled over in laughter.

“You see I’m not proper, I’m rarely polite / Too Short, Too Short, don’t say it tonight.”
–From “Cusswords” by Too Short

Originally published in CityBeat March 2008

Ed Decker
03/14/08

This is a devastating blow to cartoonists such as Max Cannon, Tom Tomorrow, Jen Sorensen, Derf, Lloyd Dangle and others. They see this as the beginning of the end of their industry, or so they say on their various blogs and message boards.

Derf (creator of “The City“) wrote, “We have reached the apocalyptic final struggle for the future of cartoons.”

Tom Tomorrow (“This Modern World”) has been commenting on what he perceives as a general lack of appreciation for alt-weekly cartoonists: “The only way cartoonists could get even less respect would be if we presented our work in the form of handmade knit doilies thrust upon random strangers on the street.”

And then there’s Max Cannon (“Red Meat”), who wrote the central essay of the debate. It’s an open letter called “The Alternative Comic Apocalypse Has Begun,” which begins with Cannon complaining that he has “slaved for many years” to bring us his comic strips.

Now, I love alt-comics as much as the next guy, but, really, Tom Tomorrow, you don’t get no respect? Let me see if I can’t find a waah-kerchief for you to bawl into. And Max, dude, did you actually say that you “slaved” over your work? Are you for real? You’re not picking cotton under a blazing Mississippi sun, man. You’re not digging ditches in pools of raw sewage. You draw cartoons. If cartoon-drawing is anything like column-writing, you sit at your desk with your wine and your weed–Big Sonic Chill dripping its pollen from your clock radio–and an expensive computer doing all your heavy lifting.
Slaved?

Max Cannon averages $15 for each cartoon sold. Multiply that by the 70 plus newspapers in which Red Meat appears, and you get more than $1,000 per strip.

Wow.

I won’t reveal how much my column earns, except to say that it can’t even buy me a small bindy of coke and an hour with a bottom-dollar street hooker. I have to choose one or the other, so don’t tell me about hard times, Mr. Maximillian McWhinyFace!

Not that I’m complaining. I am grateful for this column and its modest earnings. Because there are a bizillion artists out there, writing, drawing and sculpting in obscurity, never to be paid a dime for their labor of love, or receive fanfare–going out of their effin minds every day craving something that resembles an audience or a paycheck.

“The stark reality,” continued Cannon in his “Apocalypse” post, “is that very soon, there won’t be any of your current favorite alternative comic strips for you to read at all–not even online. Here’s why: none of us make our living from our website…. Our websites are like a free gift to you….”
Well, thank you so much, Max-o. Thank you for this gift that allows us, your humble subjects, to frolic in the electronic treasure trove of your genius.

Pffft.

You keep a website because it makes good business sense. You keep it to maintain a presence on the web. You keep it because, like most artist-writer-sculptor types–you need to be seen. You are the classic example of a narcissist, and the more you hawk the idea that your website is for our benefit, the more it proves what a wildly unchecked egotist you are.

Get this. Some cartoonists have even taken to asking for donations, such as Lloyd Dangle (“Troubletown“), who wrote that his website will now have to be viewer-supported.
“That’s why I’ve added the Donate button,” he explained.

Well, how ’bout that? A mother-fluffin’ donate button!

Dude, Lloyd, don’t you see the folly of your ways? You are asking strangers–who are probably broker than you–to support your little hobby so that you won’t have to go out and get a real job like ditch-digging or cotton-picking. If I were a ditch-digger or a cotton-picker, and I saw your donate button–oh yeah, I’d donate something all right.

In defense of alt-weekly comic-strip writers, most of them understand why the newspapers need to make cuts. They just don’t think it should be them who gets cut.

“… [C]omics always appear in the top five of what readers turn to first….” argued Max Cannon in “Apocalypse.”

“Weeklies should be adding… cartoons, which are both popular and inexpensive,” complained Derf on his blog.

And Jen Sorenson (“Slowpoke”) wrote that if comics disappear, “they’ll just stop picking up the paper.”
These cartoonists are all carriers of a disease that I call Adult Onset Self-Importantitus, which causes the sufferer to have delusions about their value to their employer and to society.

Heed these words, Max, Jen, Tom and everybody else who stumbles upon this paragraph: You are all expendable. No matter how smart, how capable, how integral you think you are, you are not. And the sooner you understand that, the sooner you lose your Go-ahead-and-try-to-make-it-without-me attitude–the sooner you will stop looking like the tantrum-throwing child-mayor of Bitterville.
Perhaps you don’t care what I think. But I tell you what, I will never view those cartoons in quite the same way ever again. The next time I read “This Modern World” or “Red Meat” or whatever, no matter how funny it is, it will only be funny with an asterisk.

Ed Decker
02.18.09
There were some angry responses from the alt-weekly cartoonist community. Most notably, these:
Lloyd Dangle (“Troubletown”)
Jason Yungbluth (“Deep Fried Comics”)
And this brief entry on Tom Tomorrow’s (“This Modern World”) “Douchebag Watch”

It was in e-mail form. It was anonymous. It contained only one word but the word was huge, about a 72-point font if memory serves. The word in the e-mail was “bigot” and it was so big, it damn near filled up the entire computer screen.

Now I’ve had this word used against me before, but never so large, and never by itself, which always made it easy to dismiss. After all, how could I be a bigot? I’m the bigot hater. I detest bigotry with all the marrow in my bones.

But this e-mail was different. There’s just something about seeing a 72-point-font insult, hovering before you like an alien spacecraft in the middle of the night, that makes you start to wonder about things. So against the better judgment of my lizard brain, which had spent a lifetime building up a wall of denial between it and my conscious brain, I looked up the word “bigot” (multiple times) and, according to just about every definition I read, my neo-cortex is screwed.

To paraphrase the various definitions, a bigot is a person who is intolerant of any creed, opinion, belief, behavior or group that is different from their own.

Uh oh!

Hard to ignore the black-and-whiteness of that definition. It might just as well have read, “Hey Ed, you’re a bigot!” and included a photo of me recoiling in horror when encountering a midget.

It was deeply disturbing.

That’s the reason I looked it up so many times. I was hoping to find an entry that contained some sort of redeeming disclaimer such as, “A bigot is a person who is intolerant of any differing belief, creed, behavior or group–unless they deserve your intolerance, like midgets, who are taking all our jobs away, and door-to-door Jehovah’s Witness enthusiasts, who I tolerate as much as I tolerate house flies crawling on my hamburger.”

But no such exception did I find, causing me to understand that my lizard brain, and Mr. Anonymous Letter Writer and all the accusatory letter writers before him, were right–I am, quite literally, inarguably, a bona fide 72-point-font bigot–sans serif!

Because there are all sorts of groups I cannot tolerate, like Jehovah’s Interlopers, as you now know, like Muslim extremists who torture women in the public square, like redneck yokels who hold Barack “Hussein” Obama’s middle name against him and like Southern evangelical mystagogues who claim they can heal by faith.

I have no tolerance for Yakkety McYakkies who pull up a nearby bar stool and won’t stop blabbering into your disinterested ear until you punch them in the face. I have no tolerance for the parents of cute babies who cannot resist showing a frame-by-frame photographic rendering of that time their child piddled on the dog and, to be perfectly honest, I’m no big fan of cute babies, either.

I hate drivers who blare horns at other drivers’ minor traffic infractions, people who shit on Mexicans who work in jobs of servitude and guys who brag about all the women they’ve banged, whether true or not.

I hate gorgeous SoCal model-types with smoking-hot bodies that don’t bring money to bars because they know they can coerce lonely guys into buying their drinks, and I’m not crazy about the guys who fall for it, either.

I loathe hippie pot snobs, professorial beer snobs and excessively patriotic, love-it-or-leave-it, motherland-supremacy snobs. I despise ebullient male cheerleaders, female comedians (Judy Tenuta excepted), and Jewish American Princesses who use Aqua Net® and still listen to the St. Elmo’s Fire soundtrack.

But of all the groups I simply cannot tolerate, the faction that continues to crawl like flies upon the hamburger of my sanity is flabby black chicks who have shows on television.

I don’t know what it is. It’s not because they’re overweight, nor that they are black nor female. Individually, I’m totally down with them being on television.

But when you combine the three, they become something else–a creature, a fiend, a beast that is more than the sum of its parts. When you combine them you get, well… you get Star Jones. You get Queen Latifah (ugh!). You get Oprah “Look-at-Me-I’m-on-the-Cover-of-My-Own-Magazine-Again” Winfrey. And worst of all, you get Sherri Sheppard, of The View, who belongs to another collective I can’t stand: Talk-Show-Hosts-Who-Believe-the-Earth-is-Flat-and-Say-So-on-National-Broadcasts.

The point is I can no longer hide behind my old wall of denial. I have looked up the definition and the definition is clear: Edwin Decker is a bigot. What’s worse, I have no intention of changing. I’ve already made peace with this fact. Indeed, I’ve already created a bigger and better wall of denial, a new-and-improved justification, which is this:

Isn’t everybody intolerant of somebody?

According to the aforementioned dictionary definitions, aren’t we all bigots? And if we are, doesn’t it make sense that we should distinguish between the different types.

It’s like cholesterol. There’s the good kind and the bad kind: Bad bigots are the bigots who do genocides, who create and manage slave trades, and who scribe or vote for repressive legislation.

I consider myself to be a good bigot.

Sure, there are many groups I am intolerant of, but I don’t act on my intolerance. I don’t go fat-black-chick bashing. I don’t try to round them up, or keep them down. I don’t vote for laws that deny their right to marry each other, vote, or adopt. I don’t even wish they’d leave the country. In fact, I prefer that they stay. My hatred for any particular group is a warm gooey puddle of pleasure in which I like to rollick like a bimbo in a mud pool. But you will never see me oppressing any group I can’t tolerate. You will never see me try to keep them from exercising their rights to free speech, freedom of assembly or due process. All I do is write editorials about how much they suck and then happily move on to the next group that deserves our intolerance.

Edwin Decker
06/11/08

I just read a poll that reported 16 percent of California Republicans (as of this writing) support Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee. Sixteen percent! The poll has him tied with Fred Thompson for second place. In Michigan and Massachusetts he’s in first place. Christ-in-Hell, the guy won the Iowa Straw poll.

It’s inconceivable to consider, but Mitt Romney has a reasonable shot at being our next president. To that I would like to say, “Um, hel-lo! People! Haven’t you heard? Mitt Romney is a freaking Mormon, a member of the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints! Do you know what that means? It means the man is about a dozen french fries short of a combo meal.”

“The people of [Iowa] have sent a message to the rest of the country,” Romney declared in his straw-poll victory speech.

Oh, Iowa has sent a message, alright–and the message is: Iowans are nuts! They’re bonkers! Insane! You have to be several Sundays short of a calendar month to vote for a Mormon for president.

Just look at some of their beliefs. On top of all that Old Testament voodoo that the Latter Day Saints have in common with other Christians, Mormons also believe in all this other crazy-ass shit that is even more unbelievable. For instance:

• Mormons believe God has designed a special underwear he wants us to wear.

• Mormons believe the Garden of Eden is in Spring Hill, Mo. (which is daft considering everyone knows it’s located on a tropical cloud island floating in the sky).

• Mormons believe that John the Apostle is still alive, healthy, un-aged and walking among us, incognito, doing Christ’s work (the fact that he is a couple thousand years old but doesn’t look a day over 280 doesn’t seem to bother them).

• Mormons believe that if you live a proper life, you will be reborn as a god in the afterlife.

• Mormons believe that God, the Supreme Being and inventor of the universe, has not always been that way but attained supreme-being status through “righteous living and persistent effort”–which is just goofy. OK, if God was originally a human who lived a perfect life, thereby upgrading himself to god status, then how could he have invented the universe? The universe would already have had to exist for him to excel in it. And if God didn’t invent the universe, then who did? Well, that would have to be another god, a higher god–the Head Honcho God–meaning the deity Mitt Romney worships is a temp.

And did you know, as my friend Victor Patton informed me, “that Mormons believed up until the late 70s that blacks were descendant of Cain, and therefore could not be members of the church?” Yeah Victor, don’t you have to leap right off the bridge of reason and splatter yourself upon the concrete of insanity to believe all this LDS hoo-ha? Especially knowing what we know about their founder Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith was a third-rate con artist. A scamp. Of his more famous swindles was his seer stone hoax. He claimed to have enchanted rocks that could divine where certain treasures were buried and would gladly find that buried treasure for you for a modest fee.

So people kept paying him money and, because stones can’t see shit, he kept not finding any treasure. This was the kind of person the founder of the Latter Day Saints was. So, after all of Joseph Smith’s scams and schemes, wouldn’t you have to be berserker than a dung beetle dangling in a spider web to believe anything that came out of his mouth? Especially his incredible story about how The Book of Mormon came to be.

Joseph Smith claimed to be visited by an angel named Moroni who told him to go up a hill and locate a series of golden plates (later to become The Book of Mormon), which were engraved with the word of God.

Joseph Smith also claimed that God told him to take multiple wives.

Now, I ask you, which is more likely–that Joseph Smith was tiring of his wife’s vaginal topography and wanted to explore other options, or that God spoke to him via ancient biblical angels and wrote stuff on golden plates that he hid in the mountains?

Before you answer, keep in mind, the man was a well-known cad. He would try to coax women into having sexual relations with him by saying it was what God wanted. When they refused and reported his misconduct to the tribe, Smith would claim he was merely testing the lady’s virtuousness and that she had passed the test. And people bought it! Eventually, Smith realized that con job wasn’t getting him all the action he was hoping for, so he changed his story to “God told me to have multiple wives”–and they bought that, too!

Incidentally, a Mormon who still practices polygamy is called a “fundamentalist.” Mitt Romney supporters are quick to point out that he is not a fundamentalist, does not practice plural marriage and is still married to his first wife. Some people view this as a virtue. I view it as further proof that he is the wrong man to be president. Because he doesn’t even have the nuts to practice his religion properly.
Mitt Romney’s version of Mormonism is watered-down, circumcised, mutilated and abridged. The only true Mormon is a fundamentalist Mormon because polygamy, according to Joseph Smith (their messiah) and the Book of Mormon, is a mandate from God. Not a request, not a suggestion, but a direct order from the One Big Boss. Oh sure, you have to be a stepsister short of a Cinderella tale to be a fundie Mormon, but at least you’d be consistent. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is crazy and inconsistent, which makes him the last guy on Earth whose fingers you want on the buttons of your missile silos.

The End

In the end I guess, there is really know way to be certain which sources are most correct. Suffice to say, Mormons choose to believe their sources and I choose to believe mine.]

Ed Decker
10/03/07

I was working on my column with the TV on when I heard the reports about the bridge in Minneapolis collapsing. It sounded pretty bad, so I stopped what I was doing, started watching, and was quickly disgusted.

What I found bothersome, aside from the obnoxious media feeding frenzy, was something that was stated in the early hours of the reportage. What they kept saying–all the anchors on all the stations, incessantly, repeatedly, until they were absolutely certain that they had gotten the message across–was that terrorism was probably not the cause of the collapse.

Which is fine, I suppose, if you don’t mind the media reporting on things that haven’t happened. But what I found most troubling was the way they kept hammering it home, and how there was a tone of relief in their voices as if to say, “Whew! Thank God– not a terrorist attack!”

Because I don’t understand what difference it makes. What does it matter that it wasn’t terrorists who felled that bridge? Does it mean that you and I are safer in this world? Does it make the victims any less dead?

I’m not saying they shouldn’t report what caused the calamity. Of course they should. But does it make it any better to know that the bridge collapsed from natural causes, such as corrosion? Is dying from terrorism somehow worse than dying from natural causes?

Terrorism is natural causes. It’s all natural causes. All the crap that can kill us is part of the natural order of things and it’s just illogical to be more afraid of terrorism than earthquakes, or tsunamis, or car accidents, or disease, hurricanes, twisters, or even a goddamned anvil falling out of the sky and crushing your skull.

Terrorism is just one in a long list of things that might kill us and is actually pretty low on the likelihood list. Statistically speaking, it falls somewhere below an avalanche killing you and above an anvil landing on your skull.

I don’t know if this comes as good or bad news for you, but I find it utterly liberating: I find it liberating to know I’m more likely to get crushed by a wall of snow than snuffed by a terrorist. (I don’t even ski!) I find it liberating to not fear terrorism. And since this is his main weapon against me, I find it liberating to know that by controlling my fear, my enemy is diminished.

Not that I don’t ever experience fear. It’s just that, well, been there done that, you know? Many of you are too young to remember the air-raid drills, the bomb-shelter commercials and the straight-up terror we felt during the Cold War. I only caught the end of it, but I was pretty scared there for a while. In fact, that’s how I know that living life in a state of dread is just a colossal waste of time. Because, in the end, nobody I knew ever got killed by a communist. It was the drugs, and the guns and the cancers that picked us off one by one.

It’s not our fault that we are Darwinianly designed to act like frightened rodents in the face of danger. But to not overcome it leaves us vulnerable to the small group of douchebags who know how to wield our fear against us. People like George Bush and Osama bin Laden have at least this much in common: they are both experts in Pavlovian conditioning. And we are all their dogs, conditioned to tremble at the mere mention of terrorism, which is why, when the bridge collapsed, all the anchormen and women on the TV screen–themselves shivering in their swivels–kept repeating “Not a terrorist, not a terrorist!” until we exhaled in relief.

However, there is no reason to feel relief that it was not a terrorist attack that took down that bridge. If anything, if you really think it through, it would’ve been better if it was. Because terrorist attacks don’t grow on trees. They require time, money and luck. If the bridge collapse was a terrorist act, then it would be that much longer before another attempt against us could be made. But if it wasn’t terrorism, well those people would still be dead and an al Qaeda attack would still be looming.

So, no, knowing the disaster was caused by wear and tear, or incompetence, or greed won’t make me feel any safer the next time I drive under a bridge. To me, they’re all the same. All the things that can kill me are just anvils falling out of the sky. Sure, the anvils come in different colors, but color doesn’t matter much when an anvil crashes through your skull. You’re never gonna hear a brain surgeon say, “Nothing to worry about folks. He only got hit by a yellow anvil.”
———————————————
About a year ago, a small prop plane crashed into an apartment building on East 72nd Street in Manhattan. I remember how all the broadcasters were squawking, “Is it al Qaeda?” I remember thinking how freaking obvious it was that it wasn’t.

Their targets are symbolic. They’re not going to waste their efforts crashing a two-seat prop plane into a no-name apartment building. But the mere fact that it was an airplane and that it hit a building freaked people out. And isn’t that exactly what the point of terrorism is? To keep us in a permanent state of freaked-out?
They want us to think that every bridge that collapses, every truck that backfires and every twig that snaps behind you when you’re walking alone at night is somehow al Qaeda lurking nearby. And it just burns me up knowing these hoofsuckers are watching and laughing as our news broadcasters cry out, “Not a terrorist, not a terrorist!” every time a cat gets stuck in a tree. It burns me up to think of them high-fiving each other over the fact that it has been nearly six years since 9-11 and we still need to leave the nightlight on, still need to be coddled by our mommies in the media. It burns me up knowing their sinister plan was a success. Their tactic was true. The terrorists have won.

EJD
08/08/07

The term is ‘moral relativism,” and it has been hijacked by Bill O’Reilly and his fellow hardcore, right-wing, often-Christian TV and radio blabbermouth types who splash it around like high-school swimming-pool bullies shoving chlorinated tsunamis into the eyes of defenseless nerdlings.

Like ‘unpatriotic” and ‘against the troops,” ‘moral relativism” has become a term of bludgeoning and marginalization. It’s usually employed when discussing hot-button issues like gay marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution and/or pornography. Whenever anyone–usually of the liberal and libertarian ilk–defends such unwholesome activities, O’Reilly and other hardcore, right-wing, often-Christian blabbermouths announce that these defenders are ‘moral relativists,” then shut off their microphones and shout them down to size.

Which is not only rude; it’s also wrong. It’s wrong because they are not using the term correctly. Moral relativism is not simply a synonym for tolerance.

Dictionary.com defines relativism as ‘a theory that moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or cultures holding them.”

For example, if one culture maintains bestiality is taboo while another embraces it, the moral relativist concludes that neither is wrong. So whether yours is a system of democratic capitalists, theocentric autocrats or dog-fucking savages–it’s all okie-dokie because there is no universal ethical code by which to measure them.

What I like about this worldview is that it recognizes the right of any society to set its own system of mores–that every culture knows what’s best for itself because every culture is beholden to its own unique geographical, political and historical circumstances, which also happens to be the premise of America’s (dying) emphasis on local government and states’ rights.

Also attractive about moral relativism is that, by definition, it deters colonialism. When one culture believes itself to be superior to another, it uses that belief to justify invasions, assassinations, forced religious conversions and all the other predictable, colonialistic bullcrap these so-called superior societies pull on those they consider morally inferior.

The problem, however, is that when you follow relativism down its inevitable slope of slipperosity, you plummet into a dark and ugly paradox. Because, if it’s true that anything any society does to itself is A-OK, then what about Adolph Hitler and his Holocaust? What about Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Pol-motherfucking-Pot? What about every tyrannical society that ever kneeled at the altar of the iron maiden? By definition, moral relativism concedes that tyranny and genocide are not amoral. And you’re just not going to find too many people who subscribe to that worldview who don’t have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on their MySpace friends list.

Indeed, I’m closer to a moral relativist than anyone I know. And the reason I say that is because, when asked the ‘Was Adolph Hitler evil?” question, I am the only person I know who might consider answering, ‘No, I do not believe Adolph Hitler was evil.”

Now, before you lurch off the toilet and howl in protest about the hideous remark I just made, let me say, in my defense, that I’m not a true moral relativist. A better label would be agnostic moral relativist. As with anything else, I think maybe it’s true or maybe it isn’t. But the reason I can even consider the potential non-evilness of a beast like Adolph Hitler is because I’m not quite certain that evil exists at all. I just wonder sometimes if the Holocaust and other acts of genocide aren’t like tsunamis, or earthquakes, or disease, or computer hackers, or forest fires, or man-eating sharks, even. Yes they are destructive entities in this world, but destructive entities–whether designed intelligently or Darwinianly–are part of the ecosystem of the universe. So the question is, if something is vital to the ecosystem of the universe, how could it be wrong, immoral or evil?

Yeah, I know, it’s an extreme position, but don’t you wonder what would happen to the planet if all the bad people, the bad animals and the bad organisms disappeared and suddenly everything and everyone was good? I have a nagging suspicion that if that happened it would be very, very bad.

However, when I debate this position with my liberal or libertarian friends, all they ever hear are the words ‘Hitler” and ‘not evil,” then pounce on me like street thugs on a drunken tourist in the middle of the night. It is a position they cannot fathom, will not tolerate and loathe to their very core, which is exactly how I know there simply aren’t that many moral relativists out there.

That’s how I know the hardcore, right-wing, microphone-shutting blabbermouths are full of shit when they call a liberal or libertarian a moral relativist. Because your typical liberal or your typical libertarian does believe in right and wrong. It’s just that their right and wrong is different from the right-wing blabbermouth’s idea of right and wrong.

For instance, liberals and libertarians think it’s wrong to discriminate against people based on their sexual preferences, wrong to criminalize a sexual business transaction between consenting adults, wrong to let the government dictate a woman’s reproductive rights and ludicrous to suggest they lack morality. But isn’t it always the same thing with the right-wing blabbermouths? Their idea of patriotism is the only idea of patriotism, their idea of family is the only idea of family, their idea of morality is the only idea of morality, and if you dare to argue, they sharpen their quiver of catchphrases and aim them at your face. This in itself is reason to consider them entities of pure evil. However, when they use the catchphrases incorrectly, well, that’s evil and pathetic.

And now, a relevant joke:

A: He stayed up all night wondering if there was a Dog and if it would be wrong to fuck it.

EJD
07/11/07

[Author's note: the following is an excerpt from the original column that was not published because of space constraints and for fear of identifying myself as a raging nerd for referencing Star Trek in an article about philosophy].

The Excerpt:
Incidentally, do you know who is a fairly famous moral relativist that I admire?: Gene Roddenberry. Indeed, the show Star Trek was a moral relativist’s paradise. And did you know Star Trek was based on the expeditions of another famous moral relativist, Captain Cook, who I also admire.

“Captain James Cook was an English explorer, navigator and cartographer. He was the first to map Newfoundland. He made three voyages to the Pacific Ocean during which he achieved the first European contact with the eastern coastline of Australia, the European discovery of the Hawaiian Islands, and the first recorded circumnavigation of New Zealand.”¹

Like me, Gene Roddenberry must have been a fan of Captain Cook because he was the model for Roddenberry’s franchise character, Captain Kirk.

Consider the similarities of their names: Captain James Kirk and Captain James Cook.

Consider the similarities in their bios: Both were sailors. Captain Cook commandeered the Endeavor to new and distant lands, Captain Kirk sailed the Enterprise to new and distant planets.

Both grew up on farms in rural villages. Both kept journals. Captain Cook wrote in his that he’d sailed, “farther than any other man has been before.” Captain Kirk wrote in his star log about boldy going, “where no man has gone before.”

“Cook rowed jolly boats ashore, accompanied by his naturalist, his surgeon and musket-toting red-jacketed marines. Kirk ‘beamed down’ to planets with the Science officer, (Spock) surgeon (McCoy) and phaser-wielding, red-jerseyed expendables. Both captains set out to discover new lands, rather than conquer and convert.”²

On Star Trek, they called that ideology, The Prime Directive. The Prime Directive stated that the commissioned federation explorer was not to interfere or in any way upset the natural state of being of whatever species or civilization they encountered. Even if that new species was eating its young and fucking the Tribbles, The Prime Directive mandated they not interfere.

And The Prime Directive is a direct cribbing of Captain Cook’s policy for encountering aboriginals and natives in the lands he discovered. Cook was criticized often for this approach, as most of Europe believed itself to be civilized and that it was their duty to conquer, convert, and modernize the primitive cultures their explorers encountered.

Cook was ahead of his time though. He wrote this about the aboriginals he encountered:

“Being wholly unacquainted not only with the superfluous but the necessary conveniences so sought after in Europe, they are happy not knowing the use of them. They live in Tranquility which is not disturb’d by the Inequality of Condition.”
Cook, like Kirk, had no interest in conquering – only in observing, appreciating, perhaps interacting – but never interfering; a core value of moral relativism.

2. From Into the Blue by Tony Horowitz

I was in the gym, on the exercise bicycle, reading Rolling Stone when I laughed so hard I nearly fell off my bike. The article was about Matisyahu – the reggae, pop, hip-hop, beatboxing orthodox Jewish sensation who is currently blowing up the circuit. This article, like everything else written about Matisyahu, explored the lingering question that follows him everywhere he goes. That question is this: How does an orthodox Jew front a reggae, hip-hop, pop band without contradicting his orthodoxy? Anyone who knows anything about Hasidism knows it is a religion chock full of rules, many of which would make being in a hip-hop, pop reggae outfit highly complicated. For instance, according to Hasidic law, Matisyahu (born Mathew Miller) must not have contact with women to whom he is not related, which means he can’t even shake their hands when they want his autograph.

“It’s hard to [say no] to every other person who comes up to you,” he complained in the RS interview. “It can come off as disrespectful.”

When I read that quote, I laughed so hard my left foot actually careened off the pedal and my body sharply tilted left-ways as I thought to myself, Did he really say that? “Come off as”? It can come off as disrespectful? As if it’s not actually disrespectful; it just sort of appears that way. Well I have news for you Matis. When you refuse to shake someone’s hand simply because she is a woman – that’s what disrespectful is, you twit. That is the essence of disrespectful. It is the poster-encounter for disrespect. If you were to look up “disrespectful” in the dictionary there would be a picture of Matisyahu lurching back in horror at a woman’s outstretched hand.

Come off as?

Picture the scene: It was a great show. You rocked the house. You just finished shaking the hands of 35 filthy rasta-wonks, when this adoring post-pubescent female approaches you – tells you how much she loves you, how your music changed her, and how, maybe, it even saved her life. Then she extends her hand to you for some gorgeous human-to-human contact and you actually, unbelievably, somehow have the brick-like balls to tell her no.

Come off as, my ass.

At best, Hasidic Jews treat women like second class citizens – at worst, like diseased whorehouse gerbils that were once stowed in certain customer’s assholes. Can you imagine what that must do to the collective psyche of Jewish women? That and all these other execrable tenets such as how females must sit in the back seat of the car when other males are present, or how they’re generally not allowed to speak unless spoken to, and how they must cut their hair when they marry so as not to risk attracting other men – it’s a fucking institution of disrespect man, and so far from come off as that I almost laughed myself right off an exercise bike.

Do you know how hard it is to fall of a stationary bike?!

I know what you’re thinking Matis. You’re thinking it’s not your fault. You’re thinking that these are the rules of your religion which you must obey. But you weren’t born into Hasidism. You adopted it when you were 20 years old. I would understand more if you were born into it, or brainwashed at birth to believe that all this misogynistic rooster-shit you abide somehow brings you closer to Hashem. But you weren’t born into it. You chose Hasidism. You observed it. You researched it. You saw how they treated women and still said, “Yup, this is the religion for me. You even read The Talmud, with its embarrassingly vulgar regard for women: Such as Shabbat 33b which states women are “light minded,” or Swidler, 3 which claims, “A woman is a pitcher of filth with its mouth full of blood,” or Kiddushin 49b which says, “Ten measures of speech descended to the world; women took nine,” which means in lay terms – they talk too goddamn much – leaving you with little doubt that this was a culture that did not respect women and why your disrespect for them is not incidental. So please, please please Matisyahu would you stick your “come off as” right up the place where the gefilte fish don’t swim.
———————————————————————————————————–
There is a line in the RS story that I found telling: “In accordance with Jewish law [Matisyahu] has had to stop stage-diving at shows so as to avoid the risk of contact with women he is not related to.”

The part of that sentence that interests me is, “has had to stop,” because it means that, at least for a while, he had been stage diving. So why all of the sudden did this become an issue? My guess is somewhere along the road he received a phone call from one of the elders telling him to stop.

Imagine that phone call. . .

Brring

“Hello.”

“Hello Mathew, it is I, the Grand Exalted Imperial Highness of Hasid. Do you have a minute?”

“Of course your greatness.”

“This thing you do, where you leap into the crowd and then body surf across it. You must stop immediately.”

“But why, Your Imperialness?”

“Because there are women out there that are not related to you, you schmendrick! Some of them are menstruating fer crissake!”

“Yeech!”

“I’m just so disappointed in you Mathew. Reggae? Really!? Why couldn’t you play the klezmer music like a nice Jewish boy? Klezmer is a great music Mathew. I never tire of ‘Hava Nagila.’ Why won’t you play ‘Hava Nagila?!’

This article originally ran in San Diego CityBeat Magazine on March 8, 2007.

• Click here to read the angry responses sent to CityBeat letters department.
• Click here to read my follow up column in response to the angry letters.
• Click here to read the Jewish Sightseeing story about this column.
• Click here to read the Jewish Sightseeing interview with me about my column.
• Click here to read a multiple-post, message board attack on me and this column including my comments near the bottom.

EJD
03/08/06

Below are only a fraction of the letters we received in the aftermath of the Matisyahu article Just Another Yahu that ran in CityBeat Magazine on March 8, 2006.

This piece was a real firestarter. Angry readers emailed it to friends and family and soon it was whisking across the country, inflaming people in dozens of states who then wrote us to express their disgust. There were, of course, threats of boycott. The Anti Defamation League was notified and they in turn grilled Editor Dave Rolland on the phone for publishing it.

If I have any regrets about writing this article it’s would be the damage and discomfort I caused the magazine. Yes, I took a lot of heat for writing it, but Dave and the magazine took even more for publishing it. Advertising dollars were lost because of this column meaning that it jeopordized the magazine and all those who work for it and for that, I apologize.

And now, with no commercial interruptions, edwindecker.com presents….

The Shitstorm

Dear Ed Decker,
In regards to your article SORDID TALES Hasidic rapper should have known better,
Your opinion of this artist is very narrow minded and raciest. Your points are offensive, you are not willing to judge a man based on if he is musically talented or not, rather if he looks the part and shares the same religion as you. Your article was entirely anti-Semitic and does not take any regard for other peoples beliefs.
rosshartnett@gmail.com
—————————————————————–
Mr. Decker,
I was apalled by your anti-semitic remarks! Are you a skinhead?
-Ty
—————————————————————–
Hello to you Mr. Pecker… I mean Mr. Decker,
No, I do mean Pecker; after you called Matis a ‘twit’ (yep, it will be TWIT FOR TWAT- translated ‘wit for that,’ but I am sure you misread it). Thank you for writing Sordid Tales. Your articles was actually enlightening and meaningful, leaving readers with one curiosity. You very clearly managed three objectives with the entire article. The meaningful part-That we all know a fool when we see one, but not when we are one. Very well done< BRAVO!!

The enlightening part-That you possess a grossly immature frustrated libido. The entire article focused on sexuality regardless of the props. And the curiosity part?- readers are left wondering if you will pass the fifth grade this year? Try asking Matthew Miller for an interview next time you want to verbally assault like a first year literary shock jockey. Your disappointment in Matis is now our disappointment in you.
Sincerely,
Caroline
Caroline5765@aol.com
——————————————————————-

I enjoyed Mr. Decker’s article much better in the original German. The editing just isn’t what it was when Goebbels was on staff, but still a decent effort. I’m reasonably sure that the surname ‘Decker’ translates as ‘wanker’ in the southern German dialect, but I’ll have to check on that.
–Matisyahu fan
——————————————————————-

Dear Mr. Decker,
Concerning your recent article SORDID TALES Hasidic rapper should have known better
I of course feel you have the right to express your opinion, uninformed as it may be, due to your protection under the first amendment of freedom of the press. As well, I have the right to respond, protected under that same amendment, freedom of speech. And also Matisyahu Miller has the right to shake or not shake any hand he prefers, protected by that very same amendment, his freedom to practice religion.

You state in your article “At best, Hasidic Jews treat women like they are second-class citizens, at worse like diseased whorehouse gerbils that were once stowed in certain customers’ assholes”. Would you agree that women treat men as “second class citizens” for they are also forbidden by religious law to touch any man unrelated to them, and even their own husbands at times. In fact, men and women are equal, and have equal rights and protection under Jewish law. It is because of that mutual respect, and God’s unmatched understanding of the human psyche that this commandment not to touch each other has been created. I believe, that a country where women are convinced their goal in life is to star in “Girls gone Wild”, “Americas Next Top Model”, and “The Bachelor” is the real disrespect.

Jewish law always has and always adapt to the world around it within the borders of its own law. However just because you and the world around you consider it normal and respectful to shake hands, doesn’t mean he should lay down his beliefs. In fact any girl at any concert of his, many of whom are not Jewish or have no affiliation with orthodox religion are completely respectful if not inspired by his unwavering beliefs, and would be dismayed if he went ahead and violated that system.

Had Matisyahu been Amish, or from another religious sect that had similar negative commandments I am positive your article would have been very different. And yes I did just imply sordid anti-Semitism- but I can because I am protected by the first amendment.

Instead of reading about him in Rolling Stone, you should go down to a concert and see him, and speak to fans, female one preferably. But first please take a sensitivity course, on religious sensitivity or sexual sensitivity, or both.

Ari A. Burack
———————————————————————

Decker, Man, i got to say, you come off like an ignorant dumbfuck. claiming you know shit about a religion is as funny as picturing your fat ass on an exercise bike. read up a little more on life, religion, and the like, take a high school journalism class, and then see how much you know.
cmicpace@gmail.com
——————————————————————–

Dear Ed Decker,
Thanks for standing up to the pathological hysteria of “anti Semitism”. The Jewish community is still playing the victim and lashing out in tribal response to any criticism of Israel or the Jewish community. The Holocaust was another time in another place.

My father died in a Nazi slave labor camp. Only by separating truth from fiction and learning from our history can Jews once more follow their progressive roots and contribute to the liberation of the entire human race. We are not the chosen people.
We must have compassion for others and fight like hell to save the human race from war, bigotry, fundamentalism and greed. Fortunately the American Jewish community is safe and prosperous in the year 2006.Its time they ceased their self-absorption and faced the real problems of the world. They could regain their reputation as
champions of the underdog and advocate for those who are truly oppressed.
Tanja Winter
———————————————————————

THE FOLLOWING IS A LETTER FROM THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE SENT TO THEIR MEMBERS AND CC’ED TO ME AND EDITOR DAVE ROLLAND:
——————————————————————–
Dear Colleagues:
It has come to our attention this afternoon that Edwin Decker’s column
“Sordid Tales” in CityBeat should be insulting to the entire Jewish community. We have attached a link below so you will have the chance to read this disgusting column yourself.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4131

In it you will find a disturbing perception and rather vile portrayal of the Hasidic community’s alleged view of Jewish women. Although directed at Hasidic Jews, this negative representation affects our entire community. Our Associate Director, Tina Malka, spoke with David Rolland, the editor of CityBeat. When she told him the Anti-Defamation League had received scores of complaints, his response was that he “doesn’t care if it is offensive to Jews.” He went on to say that “progress happens through conflict” and it is the job of his reporter, Mr. Decker, to be provocative and to even offend in order to start a conversation.

We suggest that you continue this “conversation” and urge you to write a response to CityBeat. Your letter should be strongly worded but carefully written. The editor should hear from as many of your constituents as possible. You can send your response to editor@sdcitybeat.com.

Thank you,
Morris S. Casuto
Regional Director
Anti-Defamation League
7851 Mission Center Court, Suite 320
San Diego, CA 92108
Tel: 619-293-3770
Fax: 619-293-7010
E-mail: mcasuto@adl.org
———————————————————————
THIS IS A RESPONSE FROM ONE OF THE ADL MEMBERS ALSO CC’ED TO US
——————————————————————–
Sorry Morris, but although I find the style of Decker’s writing a bit over the top and colorful – but no doubt appropriate for the audience to which it is addressed — I think he makes valid points. Innocent men and women are being massacred in the illegal
Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld invasion of Iraq ostensibly waged in part because of how women are treated and mistreated by so-called Muslim fanatics. How many
Jews support that effort? How many Hassidim? In my book, all fanatics are dangerous because they are blinded by their beliefs to our common humanity (however flawed).
Matasyahu is just another nut case – hey, he’s in show business! You don’t like him? Don’t buy a ticket. You disagree with Decker’s take on Matashahu’s mixed up values, good. It promotes dialogue about fanaticism. I’m all for that. Even Jews can be flawed.

Respectfully,
Mark Newman
(not on behalf of Dor Hadash – but you sent it to me)
——————————————————————
Dear Sir,
I am glad that you pointed out that Matisyahu doesn’t respect women. I went on his fan board, and all of these people are claiming that your article was anti-semitic. I like that about people in general in America right now, that they believe that calling sexism out in a culture is racist. I think the general issue here is that it’s hard to believe in someone’s sincerity to a religious cause when they are on myspace, and tour to make people money, and are in the press to make money. I like how people are so down for a white rich person to convert to something and co-opt something black. It’s awesome to me that people don’t know what sexism is (treating people a certain way because they are one gender or another is sexist). People love to be
concerned about women soooo much, and their well being, that they
accept someone not touching people because of their sex a ‘gift of glorification?’ Come on.

Imagine this scenario: So I was with my friend, and we saw some people I know, and we walked up to them. I’m shaking hands and greeting everyone, but my friend
doesn’t shake another of my friends’ hand. I go, “Why won’t you shake
his hand dude?” He says to me, “Oh, I’m sorry, I just have so much respect for black
people that I won’t touch them.”

That’s not racist? Treating people different because of race is something that is a part of anti-semitism. Treating people differently because of their sex is part of sexism. I don’t see how the assertion otherwise is made without contradicting itself immediately.
Thank You For Your Time.
geoff@geoffmakesmusic.com
——————————————————————–
Ed, you are my hero,
Every time that idiot [Matisyahu] comes on the radio I just want to toss my cookies. I do not understand what the fascination is. In fact, any time I refer to him I call him Matisjackoff or Matiswhackoff. My question to others would be if it were 10 or 20 years ago would this guy even get a sniff on the airwaves? PLEASE STOP THE INSANITY!!!!
He doesn’t even come close to a good Reggae artist such as Bob Marley or any of the music from the Ska era of the 1980′s.
Sincerely,
David Katz
Pacific Beach
Dkatz1@san.rr.com
——————————————————————–
Mr. Decker:
I greatly doubt there’s any chance that someone who writes as venomously, vulgarly (and conceitedly) as you did in your recent article Just one more Yahu could possibly reconsider his opinion when invited to investigate the matter further, so I’m probably wasting my time suggesting you read the link to the subject of the role of women in Judaism and opening myself up to a volley of your prejudiced vitriol to boot. Really, don’t bother; it would be neither persuasive, nor even painful, if that’s your aim, to receive a predictable tirade from you.

Although I’m not all that well versed in Judaism, it occurred to me, as it apparently didn’t to you, that a Hasid’s practice of not shaking unrelated women’s hands may have something to do with encouraging sexual modesty or restraint (in the man) rather than showing contempt for women. But I suppose you have no patience for such an interpretation. You know what cultural practices really mean. Anyone who doesn’t assimilate their understanding to your Truth about how people have to live can only be a reactionary against the cultural mountain top you occupy. So if a Jew is offered pork, he can only be showing contempt for the host when he refuses? That’s the only thing that can be in his heart?

To me your article illustrates a proverb of Solomon, Do not be hastily upset, for anger lingers in the bosom of fools. Ecclesiastics VII:9
Bob Tassoni
Carlsbad
Petrarchus@aol.com
——————————————————————–
THESE ARE THE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
——————————————————————–
Editor,
I’m Jewish, and I can’t say that I agree with the Hasidic way of life, but I must tell you that this article is really offensive. You may think you’re trying to affect change, but you’re not going to do it this way – that is for sure. I can’t remember the last time

I saw something this antisemetic in a public publication in a long, long time.
“At best, Hasidic Jews treat women like they are second-class citizens, at worse like diseased whorehouse gerbils that were once stowed in certain customers’ assholes”

We have affiliate companies that advertise in your publication. Not any more. I also plan to send this article to ‘ads by google’ and let them know I am withdrawing our substantially large account with them unless they remove you from approved sites to advertise on.
Martin Goodman
———————————————————————
Dear Editor,
I am writing in regards to your recent article about Matisyahu. I am appalled by your description of Hasidic Jews and all the nonsense Edwin Decker came up with. As a Hasidic Jew, and someone who knows Matisyahu personally, I find very little truth in this article.

As an editor, I would think it is in your interest to corroborate what’s written in an article prior to publishing it, but obviously you didn’t take the time to do so. I hope you be a little more honest with your readers in the future, and perhaps ask some Hasidic wives how they feel and in what manner they are treated+ I’m sure you’ll be surprised with the answer.

On a side note, Matisyahu belongs to a Hasidic sect called Chabad Lubavitch, they are known for being a lot more open and do a lot of outreach work. I’m sure you can look them up locally in San Diego, or online at www.chabad.org

Sincerely,
Chaim Davidson
chaimbru@mail.ru
———————————————————————-
Editors,

The article by Edwin Decker, “Sordid Tales” is not only bigoted, insipid,and insulting, the author is obviously an uneducated neaderthal who has no idea what the term “respect” is.

It is a shame that your publication does not have the intelligence and moral responsibility to recognize this piece of trash for what it is, and instead opted to publish it. Shame on you.

Simi Zuckerman
Carmel Valley, SD
——————————————————————–

Dear Editor:
It was a real disappointment to read Edwin Decker’s angry article “Sordid Tales.” There were a number of misstatements about Judaism that went beyond the line of disrespect (e.g. “Hasidic Jews treat women [at worst] like diseased whorehouse gerbils”) to being simply hateful. It tarnishes your otherwise excellent publication.
It is not just Hasidic Jewish men and women that do not touch each other unless they are related, but all traditional Jews. These rules are, for the most part, related to “tzniut,” the laws of modesty. The Jewish way is to project oneself less externally, to develop our own internal spiritual depth. Fighting superficiality seems more relevant today than ever.

Regarding the quotes from the Talmud, without discussing which people those quote were referring to, for what time, etc., it is worth noting that there are many unpleasant things said about men. Men come off especially poorly regarding their sexual behavior and morality. And don’t forget the stories of Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir, who often corrected his teachings and was more authoritative on many Jewish issues.

The fact that Matisyahu has tried to find a bridge between a more spiritual life and his beliefs, and still continue his work, is the story of an admirable struggle. This effort should be applauded rather than nastily ridiculed.

Aside from the litany of insults and degradation, the article was especially upsetting in that it asserted that Judaism is disrespectul to women. This is simply not true: Judaism treasures women immensely. Judaism does not view G-d as a man as do many other religions, and we teach that G-d has both female and male qualities. With the millenia-old rights to buy and sell property or enter into contracts, Judaism has been far ahead of “Western” countries in terms of women’s rights. Marital relations in a Jewish marriage are the woman’s right, not the man’s. Every Friday night, we read Proverbs 31, which praises women for their business savvy and success. Your publication may walk a spiritual path different than that of Judaism; that is to be commended and respected. However, the slander of one of the world’s great spiritual systems, with profanity and disdain, is not the way for you to move down that path. You should recognize that is simply wrong, even if you are not religious.

Sincerely,
Adam Sragovicz
San Diego, California
asragov@gmail.com
—————————————————————–

Dear Editor,
I am appalled that you allowed an article such as Edwin Decker’s
“SordidTales” pass your desk. Please read my email below to Edwin and pass it on to him.
Elissa Z.
—————————————————————-

Editor,
I just read the pathetic Sordid Tales article by Edwin Decker. After reading Edwin’s absurd persoanl distortion of Judaism, Hasidism and the treatment of women, I am failry sure that he did, in fact, fall off his exercise bike- and cracked his head.
One of two things probably provoked Edwin to write such trash. Either he was
facing a deadline and ran out of ideas- or his own Jewish roots resulted in
self hatred, and he is squirming in his own skin.

Poor Edwin- sounds like he tries to justify self loathing by distancing
himself thru fabrication and ridicule.

Edwin needs help- and Citybeat should know better than to allow emotional
vomit to pass as journalism. Get a new writer or Citybeat will be thought of as a joke. I can’t imagine your advertisers will want to be tainted by the garbage you just printed- so lose Edwin and hire someone that can actually write the truth.
Sheila Schwartz
——————————————————————–

Dear Editor,
I finished reading Edwin Decker’s article, and could not contain the loud
guffaw of disbelief that emanated from my belly. What Decker writes is so far off base that it goes beyond the pale of being insensitive, rude, wrong, and bigoted (all of which is most certainly is) to land squarely in camp of being absurdly stupid and laughable.

It is amazing to me that you would allow Decker’s article — if it can be called that; a rant against Judaism is a much more accurate description — to be published. Did you not read it before your magazine went to press?

Did it not occur to you that by making such allegations, Decker would render your magazine as one with the reputation of loving sensationalism more than journalistic integrity? I am choosing to believe that you simply did not read the article, and thus did not know what sort of trash you were printing — it is a much more comforting thought than the alternative, which is that you knew full well what grotesque inaccuracies were to be printed, and you simply did not care.

Decker, in order to write with such venomous hatred against Hasidism and Judaism, must be a self-hating Jew — or else someone that a White Power group has on their payroll. I tend to believe the former, which makes your printing of this piece all the more suspect and sad. Hopefully one day Edwin Decker will take the time to get off his bike and look himself in the mirror and ask himself — what did he gain by slagging off a religion besides some free personal advertisement and a direct line to the bigots
marketing group? Truthfully, I wish him luck, because if it is self-hatred, it will come back around one day to kick him in the pants. And that will not be pretty.

Sincerely,
A disgusted reader in PB
———————————————————————
THE FOLLOWING 3 LETTERS ARE FROM MY FRIENDS BACK HOME IN NY – THEY ARE JOKESTERS AND NOT BEING SERIOUS. ESPECIALLY THE FIRST.
——————————————————————–
Editor,
I always thought that the Black-Jew alliance was a forced marriage of convenience and my very dark indeed friend Edwin Decker has reinforced that suspicion. As a decidedly light-skinned but none-the-less chocolate tinged black of Irish descent (or so-called “high black”), I read with barely contained delight the salvos that “Black’n Decker” lobbed at our pale faced through-the-sheet-fucking counterparts. It reminded me of the fact that I hate all Jews except for the ones I know.
JOHN JANUARIO

Editor,
Every time Ed comes back to Monroe, I have to travel over there to
visit his sorry ass. The conversation inevitably turns to the subject
that Kiryas Joel is not only expanding exponentially but that they are
soaking the welfare rolls at the same time. They are now a bigger
burden to the local system than the “Newburgh Blacks”. And they have
big houses and big cars. Ed constantly defends them, to the point
where I have begun to research the Decker genealogy. Stay tuned.
DAVE MASELLA

Editors,
I introduced Ed to Matisyahu. Therefore the Jew Times should
interview me. Ed forgot to talk about the sex through the plastic
sheets thing. Once that gets out, everyone will take his side.
MASELLA
———————————————————————

Dear Mr. Decker,
Just want to point out if you want to find disrespect in the Hip Hop/Reggae music culture you’ll find much more of it in the music of the majority of artists that refer to women as “Hoes and B**ches”. Or perhaps the advantage most musicians take of there stardom and having a woman at every port. “It’s hard to be a pimp in this city” (or something like that) just won the Oscar award.

I think it’s refreshing to see an artist that has values and abides by the Hassidic custom that all ones physical contact belongs to ones spouse. Imagine how secure his wife must feel in her love knowing her husbands values. Do you think that there is music artist’s wife out there that has that same feeling of security that their husbands love is reserved for her.

Rabbi Chaim Bryski
Director
Chabad Jewish Center of Thousand Oaks
ShulaBryski@msn.com
———————————————————————–

Ed,
SIMPLY: YOU ARE A FOOL, STUDY BEFORE YOU WRITE.
starguardian@yahoo.com
———————————————————————-

Hi Edwin,
I wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed the Sordid Tales- “Just one more yahu” from the March 8th issue. Absolutely fantastic!! hear hear, so brilliantly stated, and true, true true…and best of all you said it all with such candid humor, hilarious!. I can’t wait to share with my friends.

I happened to pick up the San Diego City Beat while on a recent mini vacation for my Mom’s birthday in San Diego area, I live with my two teenagers(14yrs and 17yrs old), in Irvine, Ca and make it my business to keep updated on the music and entertainment world, hence knowing where and what my teenagers are taking in.
They had downloaded and enjoyed Matisyahu’s song from Napster, but, yes, having some Jewish roots and knowing about all the rules, we had also discussed and wondered how he was pulling it all off….so yeah,..without coming off as disrespectful….lol…keep up the reality checks needed for some of the new up and coming music trends.

Love the way you write Edwin.
Yours sincerely
Maxine.
maxeen2u@yahoo.com
———————————————————————

To Whom it may concern:
Regarding the article “Just one more yahu” in the San Diego Citybeat, I feel that this is nothing more than an article of hate written by someone who has obviously never been part of any orthodox Jewish society. It is further obvious that Mr. Decker has never spoken to any Chassidic women.

Now, if this article had only stated that Mr. Decker felt offended by Matisyahu following a religion which promotes sexual modesty, I would have no issue. However, when he blatantly shows his disgust for Jews and takes quotes from the ancient Talmud out of context, he has crossed the line.

First of all, the Talmud is a description of the legal system of ancient Israel, a society gone for more than 2000 years. Even if you had quoted the Talmud correctly, and it was anti female, how could you logically hold Chassidim accountable? Secondly, trying to say that Matisyahu and Chassidim in general are disrespectful of women without knowing or having lived in their community is slander of the worst kind, especially these days when women’s rights are so very important.

To conclude I want to say that there has to be room for hate in a free society Mr. Decker. I do not disagree with that. But next time please label your article as such so unassuming readers do not think that what you have written is actually correct or well researched, and instead realize that it was just the rant of an anti Semite trying to sound legitimate.

Sincerely,
Ethan Brookes
Slomoucsd@hotmail.com
——————————————————————–

29) Dear Sir,
I am glad that you pointed out that Matisyahu doesn’t respect women. I went on his fan board, and all of these people are claiming that your article was anti-semitic. I like that about people in general in America right now, that they believe that calling sexism out in a culture is racist. I think the general issue here is that it’s hard
to believe in someone’s sincerity to a religious cause when they are on myspace, and tour to make people money, and are in the press to make money. I like how people are so down for a white rich person to convert to something and co-opt something black. It’s awesome to me that people don’t know what sexism is (treating people a certain way because they are one gender or another is sexist). People love to be
concerned about women soooo much, and their well being, that they accept someone not touching people because of their sex a ‘gift of glorification?’ Come on.

Imagine this scenario: So I was with my friend, and we saw some people I know, and we walked up to them. I’m shaking hands and greeting everyone, but my friend
doesn’t shake another of my friends’ hand. I go, “Why won’t you shake his hand dude?” He says to me, “Oh, I’m sorry, I just have so much respect for black people that I won’t touch them.” That’s not racist? Treating people different because of race is something that is a part of anti-semitism. Treating people differently because of their sex is part of sexism. I don’t see how the assertion otherwise is made without contradicting itself immediately.

Thank You For Your Time.
geoff@geoffmakesmusic.com
———————————————————————

30) Dear San Diego City Beat,
It is difficult for me to adequetely express my shock and disgust at discovering this piece of hateful Anti-Semitism posing as journalism in your newspaper. The entire article consists of the author *laughing* at a person for his religious beliefs. Mr. Decker cannot seem to believe that a person practicing an antiquated relgion would dare raise his voice in mainstream culture. Cross-cultural dialogue should be encouarged, not mocked. Regardless of how you view the prohibtion of touching between the sexes, it is *not* meant in a disrespectful way. Mr. Decker’s article is full of innaccuries and false assumptions about Hasidic Judaism. For example, the quotes from the Talmud are at the very least taken out of their appropriate context and are quite possibly complete fabrications.

Shame on you, City Beat for publishing this hateful diatribe; shame on you, Mr. Decker, for your virulent ignorance.

David A. Schwartz
Washington D.C.
daveabe@gwu.edu
———————————————————————

32) Ed,
I just wanted to give you some support from a non-hassidic jew. I personally found your article very humorous and basically true. I’m not anti-religious, but I’m not into any orthodox or fanatical position on pretty much anything. Unfortunately, you pissed off a lot of people. Hopefully they’ll get over it once they realize that you really aren’t anti-semitic or a nazi-skinhead. Good luck. If you need any help from a “reformed” jew, give me a call. Tell your wife I said hi, I’m the one who kicked her butt in pool at Sooty’s 50th.
Geoff Levine

Hey Ed,
What an article! You seem upset and a bit bitter there. I have some questions about your article and yourself if you will.

Are you Jewish? Do you have any Jewish friends? I’m trying to understand where you are coming from with it. You see, I myself am a Chassidic Rabbi and I have heard many sides to your angry tirade before, but never quite like you put it. You seem to be somewhat knowledgeable in the Chassidic world, yet you failed to mentioned some of the other side of things. For example some of the nicer things the Chassidic world has to offer, such as meaning, deeper meaning to life and the like. Sometimes a glance cannot offer true understanding, and only after learning a bit more or taking a second look can you understand what’s really taking place.

If someone who never saw a doctor before observes an operation, he/she may think the doctor is hurting the person by cutting them open, when of course the opposite is true.

I don’t shake the hands of women I am not married to or closely related to, and I feel that when someone does, it may be disrespectful of the woman. Chasidim give great credence to touch and in doing so understand that it is a wonderful, powerful, gesture held only for those the Torah and Hashem allow such closeness. A Chassidic man would also avoid contact with a Sefer Torah (torah Scroll) before washing his hands properly due to impurities that may be on their hands this is not saying that people are bad or evil. Simply put, we poses impurities (due to no fault of our own) and much like you would take a physical shower we do so spiritually.

I don’t know if you are following what it is I’m getting at, but I think you should do some research on the topic then write another article this time with a bit more humor and understanding.

Thanks for your time,
Rabbi Mendy
Rabbi Mendy Rubenfeld