Hugh Hefner died

I suppose he thought he was immortal, and tried to keep the important parts going with Viagra, but no man lives forever; and yesterday Hugh Hefner died of natural causes in Los Angeles. He was 91.

Playboy was founded in 1953, and has been going for 64 years. I’ve heard it’s now abjured most nudity, though of course I haven’t seen it (when I read it, it was only for the stories [LOL], though I did have a letter to the editor —solicited by the magazine published in the August, 2006 issue). They sent me a free copy, which now sits on my shelf next to issues of Science and Nature where I published articles or book reviews.

Say what you will about Hefner, his objectification of women, and his glamorizing of the materialistic lifestyle, but he was still an advocate of many good liberal causes, and the magazine had some great interviews and fiction. The New York Times ends his obituary with this:

Mr. Hefner will be buried in Westwood Memorial Park in Los Angeles, where he bought the mausoleum drawer next to Marilyn Monroe.

And, as a bit of self-aggrandizement, here’s the one time I appeared in Playboy, going after Michael Ruse. I will fight accommodationism in the universities, in the public squares, in the journals, and in the salacious magazines:

UPDATE: I jut got an email from Michael Ruse, whose article I was criticizing in my letter. The contents:

   “Yes but I got the last laugh”

Indeed: all I got was a lousy copy of the magazine containing my letter.


  1. GBJames
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    I guess I should cut him some slack if only for Playboy’s having published that letter.

    Still, I was always bothered by Playboy’s sexism, even before I was aware of the word “sexism”. All-in-all I see Hefner’s influence as a net negative.

  2. Liz
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Sad to read about this. Hugh Hefner and Dennis Quaid were birthday babies with me. April 9th.

  3. Randy schenck
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    To read the articles was always primary…right. Hefner was not just a nudie magazine, as he often said, it was a life style. Although a life style for the rich and famous he always had a liberal following. I don’t remember exactly why but went to the playboy club in London, way back around 1971 while on my all expenses paid trip to England. My one time visit was all I needed to know it was a bit out of my range. I recall the eating areas were on the bottom floor or two and on up from there was all gambling. I believe all the playboy clubs were closed long ago.

  4. Joseph McClain
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    I’d like to attend Hef’s funeral. Just for the eulogies, of course.

  5. BJ
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Hefner’s magazine published many of the greatest American writers of the 20th century, from Nabokov to Vonnegut. He also published interviews with and laudatory pieces on tons of important civil rights and other political figures, such as MLK. While one might or might now consider his work in the pornographic realm sexist, he also had an enormous hand in the liberalization of sex and sexuality in what was a far more prudish country before his influence upon it.

    Whatever one might think of the pornographic portion of Hefner’s publication, I think his contribution to American society and its liberalization in myriad areas was an enormous net positive.

    • Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      I thought he was a creepy, dirty old man growing up, but in retrospect I am grateful for his contributions to America for publicizing important issues and illustrating that it’s worth talking about complex issues rather than hiding from them.

      • frednotfaith2
        Posted September 28, 2017 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        Hef started out pretty young — he was only 27 years old when he published the first issue of Playboy, and managed the coup of finding & purchasing the nude photo of Marilyn Monroe for only $500 to use as the first centerfold.

  6. boggy
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Romans 6:23 says it all- ‘The wages of sin are death’. 80-odd years of fornication have brought its inevitable reward.

    • GBJames
      Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      Of course, those are the wages of virtue, too.

      • BJ
        Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:47 am | Permalink

        Hell, just the wages of living. Only way to avoid death is never being born.

    • Liz
      Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:51 am | Permalink

      How is fornication a sin? I wasn’t sure if this was sarcastic or not.

      • boggy
        Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:26 am | Permalink

        The bible has several verses disapproving of adultery and fornication which are described together.
        And yes, I was being sarcastic.

        • Liz
          Posted September 28, 2017 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

          I see. Thank you. I wasn’t sure on the sarcasm. Even though it’s not a sin, I think there’s sexual shame ingrained in many societies. It’s in men and women but maybe more in women. It should really not be so secret or special or whatever. Sex is not sacred. It’s also not sinful. Meaning it’s special but I think people erroneously believe that it’s sacred or supposed to be sacred. Or spiritual. It’s not.

          • Liz
            Posted September 30, 2017 at 8:54 am | Permalink

            Also, it’s important not to use the word “spiritual” especially regarding this as it is not useful vocabulary. I mentioned in a previous post that I don’t believe in souls but that I question what a soul is. For clarification, I occasionally question, not what it is because it’s not anything separate from our physical bodies, but why other people use the word. Additionally, if anyone knows of any books or papers on the evolutionary history of orgasms, I am looking for information. I haven’t found much. For example, when certain chemicals or hormones were first present and in what species and how those are different among different species. Anything is very appreciated. Thanks so much.

      • JonLynnHarvey
        Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:37 am | Permalink

        The word “fornication” has changed meaning at some point to first denoting sex with a prostitute to now denoting sex between two unmarried people.

    • Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      Sounds like a fair trade.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 28, 2017 at 10:17 am | Permalink

      Not sure about the sin’s wages, but its fringe benefits have always done well by me.

    • Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      He was 91. God sure took his time getting round to “punishing” Hugh Hefner.

  7. Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    I wonder if Hugh would have loved me or hated me. The feeling’s mutual. I suspect he goes down as a controversial figure in modern history, feminism and the sexual revolution. It’s easy to look back on public figures who were a product of their time, or even considered forward thinking within it, and say ‘oh but this was wrong and that was sexist/racist/offensive.’ Society and the media move on, and these characters of history do not, frozen forever in the channel they carved. Rest in Peace Hugh.

    • GBJames
      Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      It wasn’t hard to say ‘oh but this was wrong and that was sexist/racist/offensive’ at the time.

      I’m old enough to remember.

      • Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:46 am | Permalink

        I suspect the reasons he was considered offensive at the time were slightly different from those that he might be considered offensive now. We can’t put all the pornography controversy at heff’s feet. He was hardly the only one.

        • BJ
          Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:50 am | Permalink

          And I’ve always seen pornography as something healthy and necessary. The pornography business itself is often not healthy, but that’s a problem with how the business is run and the lack of proper regulation, not the idea of pornography itself.

          It’s funny how things change. In the 70’s and 80’s, conservatives were railing against the evils of pornography and feminists were calling it liberating and healthy. Now the conservatives don’t seem to care, and it’s the feminists railing against the evil and the supposedly mentally scarring effects (upon the consumer) of porn.

        • GBJames
          Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:50 am | Permalink

          No, the reasons are the same. Treating women as plastic objects. The objection was/is not that he traded in pornography. It is that he treated women as ornaments for pleasure.

          • BJ
            Posted September 28, 2017 at 10:04 am | Permalink

            I’ve never really understood this argument. All pornography treats the subject as an “object,” insofar as the definition of “object” seems to be within these arguments: something to be seen and the image used for pleasure, without consideration for any other aspects. But what is wrong with this? Neither men watching women in pornography, nor women watching men in pornography (nor, for that matter, women watching women and men watching men) are interested in the personalities of the people on screen. They’re not interested in their backstories or interests. The only purpose of pornography is visual titillation. If that’s the definition of using the subject as an “object,” is all pornography sexist? If so, is it sexist toward both men and women, and, if not, why is it only wrong to view women within the confines of pornography in such a manner?

            Each and every one of us view people to whom we are attracted but will never know as an “object” by this definition. When we see a stranger walk by and have the inevitable thought that they are attractive, we have no more information than physical appearance. All of us do this, and I don’t see how it can be in any way changed, nor how it is harmful. It only becomes harmful when you actively treat individuals in your own life in this way. Viewing people on a computer screen or TV in this manner hurts nobody.

            • BJ
              Posted September 28, 2017 at 10:05 am | Permalink

              And, to be clear in my last paragraph, this is how Hefner seems to have treated the women on an individual basis in his personal interactions with them. This was and is wrong. I’m merely arguing that it wasn’t and isn’t wrong in his pornography, as there is no other way for pornography to be.

            • GBJames
              Posted September 28, 2017 at 10:15 am | Permalink

              I don’t know that there’s much to be gained in a dispute over good vs. bad pornography. It isn’t about porn. I never really though of playboy as pornography. Playboy (the magazine, the clubs, the whole Hefner thing) was all about treating women solely as objects.

              If this doesn’t say “sexist” to you I don’t know how to respond.


              • BJ
                Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:47 am | Permalink

                As I said very clearly in my followup, Hefner himself treated women as objects. It’s when you treat women as objects and nothing else, all the time, that it becomes a problem. But pornography is inherently treating anyone on screen as an object, because the people do not exist in one’s own physical space. They are there solely for sexual pleasure. If one was to treat the people on screen in that way in personal interaction, that would be wrong. But the person on screen is not hurt by being treated as a pornographic image, as (1) they are unaware of your personal use of the material, and (2) that is what they signed up to do. Unless one thinks pornography itself is wrong, treating the people (both male and female) on screen as objects within the confines of using pornography isn’t wrong.

              • GBJames
                Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:53 am | Permalink

                BJ…. You keep trying to make this an argument about pornography. It isn’t. The link above is to a typical Playboy-style image. It isn’t porn. It is sexist objectification of women. Can’t you tell the difference?

                Playboy was a projection of Hefner’s attitudes. His attitudes towards women were sexist. That’s the problem. Not that he published soft-core porn.

              • BJ
                Posted September 28, 2017 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

                From each comment you’ve responded to:

                — “And, to be clear in my last paragraph, this is how Hefner seems to have treated the women on an individual basis in his personal interactions with them. This was and is wrong.”

                — “As I said very clearly in my followup, Hefner himself treated women as objects. It’s when you treat women as objects and nothing else, all the time, that it becomes a problem.”

                For the last time: the entire argument I made WAS about pornography, and the idea that pornography itself is harmful objectification. The image you posted is an image of Hefner and the way he treated women in his personal life; it is not from his pornographic magazine. For the third time now: Hefner was a sexist in the way he interacted with women in his personal life. I have made it clear that I consider the behavior depicted in an image like that sexist in two previous posts. I said it in the followup to my very first post on the subject, and then again in my next response to you.

                I don’t know why you’re arguing with me about the small part of my posts that wasn’t about pornography when I’ve made it clear every time that we agree objectification is bad in personal interactions, as in Hefner’s interactions with women, which I directly referenced when denouncing such behavior.

              • GBJames
                Posted September 28, 2017 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

                BJ: You should be arguing with someone else. I’m not involved in a discussion of the merits of pornography. I’m commenting on the detrimental consequences of Hefner’s life which aren’t, IMO, that he traded in porn.

                You seem intent on limiting his mistreatment of women to his private life. I’m intent on pointing out the very public sexism of his business life had a negative affect on lots of people. Read the comments of others on this page for examples.

                It seems to me a rather irrelevant side-issue that porn, in some sense, often objectifies people. It might be true but it isn’t relevant when assessing Hefner’s life (IMO).

            • darrelle
              Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:34 am | Permalink

              “Neither men watching women in pornography, nor women watching men in pornography (nor, for that matter, women watching women and men watching men) are interested in the personalities of the people on screen. They’re not interested in their backstories or interests.”

              This doesn’t seem accurate to me. I’ve no doubt that some people are like this. But I think more typically that people are interested in the personalities and back stories of strangers that they find attractive and people they are attracted to in pornography they are viewing.

              I think it is common for people, even for men, to have a desire to know other’s they are sexually attracted to. In my experience, such as it is, it is pretty typical for there to be a very strong emotional relationship involved in any sexual activity. In the case of watching porn or a chance sighting of a sexually attractive stranger people commonly model a personality for the person they are attracted to based on at-the-moment perceptions, experience and imagination. Sure, it is fantasy. And they may be disappointed when / if they learn more of their amour’s actual personality. But they have a desire that involves more than the mechanics of sex.

              Most people don’t want just sexual gratification, even from porn. They want an emotional relationship with the other person. I really feel sorry for people that, for whatever reason, are incapable of loving whoever they are having sex with, even if just in the moment, even if just in fantasy. And I don’t mean that as a put down in the slightest.

              • BJ
                Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:50 am | Permalink

                Of course, most people who are saexually attracted to someone and are interested in actually meeting and having personal interaction are interested in these things. I am far more interested in a woman’s intellect and capacity for kindness than their looks. This is why I made it clear that I was talking about lack of interest in these things only within the confines of using pornography, or when seeing a person walk by but never interacting with them or seeing them ever again. We all, both male and female, have the thought “wow, that person is attractive” when someone our type walks by. There is nothing wrong with that, and in that way, we all treat other people as “objects” (though, again, I object — heh — to that word when discussing this phenomenon). The problem comes when that’s all that interests you if you actually interact with or have a relationship with that person. Then you really are treating someone as nothing more than a sexual object, and that is wrong.

            • Liz
              Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

              Well said here and in the following comments on this thread. I agree.

              • Liz
                Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

                To clarify, @BJ.

              • BJ
                Posted September 28, 2017 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

                Thanks. I just feel like we often get confused these days about the difference between being normal sexual beings versus being sexist people who think of people as nothing but objects for sexual gratification. It leads to a demonization of not just bad or sexist behavior, but healthy sexuality as well. And becoming increasingly puritanical with regard to healthy sexuality isn’t healthy for anybody, or for society.

              • Liz
                Posted September 29, 2017 at 9:06 am | Permalink

                Yes. I’m with you on that. @BJ

            • Posted September 30, 2017 at 2:52 am | Permalink

              It might hurt those who engage in excess just as alcohol can be dangerous . When pornography becomes a life style it robs us of sensitivity to real people . We cut ourselves off and inhabit a fantasy world . The internet can have exactly the same effect and in many advanced countries young people are having to be deprogrammed . The human mind is very easily locked into a mind-set in many areas of life . ISIS is a very good example of mind-set and is very difficult to break. The intelligent are extremely susceptible and if they gain sufficient power they can wreck society ; Hitler is a classic example .

            • Laurance
              Posted September 30, 2017 at 5:40 am | Permalink

              Viewing people on a computer screen or TV in this manner hurts others when that attitude is taken out into the real world. It’s hurtful when a husband gets to treating his wife in the same exploitative manner. It’s hurtful when a man (or a woman) brings that same smutty, snickering, dehumanizing attitude into the real world with real people.

          • Claudia Baker
            Posted September 28, 2017 at 10:09 am | Permalink

            Yes. That’s the bottom line here. Women as objects. Not cool.

            • Posted September 28, 2017 at 10:22 am | Permalink

              Women get treated as sex objects all the time in various ways. Which can be confusing for some people when they try to consider sex-positive feminism. While stopping women of their ability to demonstrate their sexuality is no more liberating than classifying them as nothing but sex objects, the problem lies in the widespread inability for men to view them as both a person they can respect, and a sexual being. It’s all down to the big double standard. It still exists. Yes, women may do as we please. But we will be judged and labelled for it in a way no man would. Would any man be expected to choose between being a sexual being and a respectable husband/father/employee/citizen? Clearly not.

          • jimroberts
            Posted September 28, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

            Of course attractive women are ornaments for pleasure. But they are not just ornaments for pleasure. Suppose you admire a scientist for her brilliant insights or ingenious experimental techniques. Is she thereby just an object for stimulating your intellectual pleasure?

            • GBJames
              Posted September 28, 2017 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

              If adding the word “just” makes you feel better, I’m fine with it.

            • Laurance
              Posted September 28, 2017 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

              I don’t get it. I don’t see why this should be a problem.

              I do admire people for their scientific abilities. And indeed my intellectual pleasure is stimulated by hearing about scientific accomplishments.

              But that doesn’t mean that I have to forget that the people making these accomplishments are also PEOPLE who have lives of their own and hopes and dreams and families and people they love.

              I see no reason why it can’t be possible to see beautiful people – and enjoy their beauty – and recognize that they have more happening for them than just beauty.

  8. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Couple years ago, my brother was visiting me in Miami, and we decided to head across the causeway to spend a long weekend on South Beach. We checked into a hotel on Collins Ave., stuck our bags in our room, took the elevator back down to the lobby. When the doors opened, there with his back to us was a guy with perfect, razor-cut silver hair, wearing a satin paisley smoking jacket, arrayed in a semi-circle in front of him, like a girls’ madrigal choir, a gaggle of buxom blondes. I stuck an elbow in my brother’s ribs, nodded in his direction, and in sotto voce said, “gotta be Hef.”

    Sure enough, it was. We didn’t see him again the rest of the weekend, until we’d checked out, when the three of us — Hef, my brother, me — ended up together on the front curb shooting the shit, waiting on the parking valet. My brother mentioned he looked pretty good considering the then-recent rumors of his death. He said he felt great and that “it’s been a hell of a run.” I thanked him for his various stands over the years in support of the First Amendment and free expression, told him I thought of him whenever I heard Sinatra sing “My Way.” He seemed to like that.

    Can’t say I was ever a “fan” of his. By the latter half of the Sixties when I was old enough to have an interest in ogling the pictures in his magazine, the whole Playboy louche-lifestyle thing already seemed corny and passé. But, in his way, Hugh Hefner made America a more interesting and dynamic place, I’ll give him that.

    • Liz
      Posted September 30, 2017 at 8:57 am | Permalink

      Thanks for sharing this.

  9. Posted September 28, 2017 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Your letter is pretty much a pitch for Faith vs. Fact!


  10. Posted September 28, 2017 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    “I suppose he thought he was immortal, and tried to keep the important parts going with Viagra…”

    Reminds me of The Love Guru:

    Guru Pitka: Tonawanda street? I know this street.

    Darren Roanoke: You do?

    Guru Pitka: Yes. At what number did you live?

    Darren Roanoke: Fifty-three.

    Guru Pitka: Did you know a Dick Withers at 85?

    Darren Roanoke: No.

    Guru Pitka: Well, it does…

    • Claudia Baker
      Posted September 28, 2017 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      85?! Sheesh, that’s generous.

  11. Posted September 28, 2017 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    I am a ’50’s girl, grew up with Playboy magazine always in the home! Totally acceptable! Watched his show The Girls of the Playboy Mansion! He will be missed! 💔

    • frednotfaith2
      Posted September 28, 2017 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

      My dad collected Playboy in the ’60s and ’70s and maybe when I was about 10 or so, I started reading through his collection of back issues — not just ogling the pictures or giggling at the cartoons, but actually reading the articles, essays, fiction and interviews, etc. Lot of great stuff in those early issues. Love him or loathe him, Hefner was one of the prominent figures in U.S. culture of the 2nd half of the 1900s and I think his influence was mostly for the better. Lot of men likely got Playboy for the girlie pictures but may have also been exposed to a lot of opinions that may have countered their deeply held prejudices and which they would never have read at all if the articles, etc., were in more proper staid magazines or even in more obviously counterculture magazines like the early Rolling Stone.

  12. nwalsh
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    I still have a box or two of old mid 60’s copies in the basement. I must dig them out to re read Shel Silverstein if nothing else.

  13. Posted September 28, 2017 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    I thought HH had died already? Maybe that was Larry Flynt or the like.

  14. Laurance
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    I have such mixed feelings about Hef.

    I’m grateful for his effect in loosening things up after the uptight and prudish ’50’s. I’m grateful for his publishing interviews with interesting and influential people (and I’m going to google and see if his interviews are online anywhere). And I’m grateful for his advocacy of freedom of speech and liberal causes.

    He had an impact on our culture, much of which was very valuable. This culture would be the poorer without him.

    But his attitude towards women damaged me. It damaged me because he supported and influenced other men to treat women badly, and one of those women was me.

    I was married back in the bad old days, and my husband sought to imitate Hef and cultivate that sort of image. He thought he was so damn cool to have a Playboy Club Key, oooh, such a man…wanted to be a Real Playboy…

    How I hated this image of women as nothing more than eye candy, arm candy, with hooters the size of watermelons and not a brain in a carload! Women valued for what was between our legs and our willingness to put out on demand and stage a performance that would boost the guy’s ego and make him feel like a king! Ugh! My husband and his best buddy and their attitudes that women exist only for the pleasure of men! Hated it! Hated it!

    And I fell short! I never measured up! My boobs weren’t big enough! I wasn’t pretty enough! I couldn’t compete with the Playboy bunnies and centerfolds! Never good enough! I’d never be as perfect as an airbrushed (in those days, now it’s photoshop) picture!

    Hey! Damn it! That hurts! A loser because I couldn’t live up to an artificial image!

    Now I’m an old fart. 76, and people relate to me now for what I think and say and do. It’s a relief to be old.

    • Claudia Baker
      Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      Women as eye or arm candy, where large breasts and sexiness are the measure of one’s worth, is sickening and harmful. Hef is gone, but one only has to look at Trump to see that this attitude is very much with us.

      I have no respect for Hef and don’t care a wit that’s he’s dead. Good riddance. As for the “great articles” in his magazine – as a woman, having to wade through the porn to get to them, I could never do it. I refused to support the play-boy bullshit.

      I wonder if Hef had any idea how ridiculous he looked as he got more and more decrepit, with young, beautiful “bunnies” surrounding him. I just always thought of him as a moron, despite his wealth.

      • Laurance
        Posted September 28, 2017 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

        I agree, Claudia! Yes, I found him ridiculous as an old geezer surrounded by his blonde monster-mammary ornaments. Ridiculous, and pathetic as well, having to hold onto this goofy “Playboy” image. A “play” “boy”? Couldn’t he grow up? Needed women willing to be bimbos for him to be able to feel like a man?

      • Posted September 30, 2017 at 3:05 am | Permalink

        The image he presented to the world made him very rich but the internal image may have been very different if we did but know. Elvis Presley presented an image as most celebrities do but some of it broke down at the end and he proved to be as fallible as the rest of us. We are like ice bergs four fifths of us is submerged at least unless posterity reveals it. It’s why friendship is so uplifting because we can expose our failings.

  15. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    # In the 1980s the Wall Street Journal ran an article saying that the 1980s was the first decade in which someone who said he was reading it for the articles might just be telling the truth 🙂 !!

    # I used to say that the the 3 best sources of news about Church-State separation issues was the magazine “Church and State” the 7th-Day-Adventist magazine “Liberty” and Playboy.
    (Now, of course, the FFRF magazine “Freethought Today” qualifies.)

    # I came to eventually dislike the obvious airbrushing in Playboy, the girls with nary a freckle or mole. In 1982 Playboy ran some nudes of Mariel Hemingway, while simultaneously Rolling Stone ran a bunch of black and white photos of her in leotards. In the latter only, she was covered with freckles. I found the RS shots much more authentically sensual.

    # I also never liked the cartoons, but the joke page had some good zingers.

  16. Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    Very good post! I liked how he said he got the last laugh and sent a copy of the check. Wonder which will last longer, the money he recieved​ or the copy of Playboy on your shelf?

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 28, 2017 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

      The old days, I’d get a check for $7,000 like that, right away I’d spend $5k on a weekend of the dog track and tequila down in Tijuana. The rest, I’d probably just waste.

      • Posted September 28, 2017 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

        The “old days”, huh? 🙂

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted September 28, 2017 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

          Never admit to anything within the statute of limitations, is my motto. 🙂

      • BJ
        Posted September 28, 2017 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

        No Country for Old Men reference?

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted September 28, 2017 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

          Cormac McCarthy got that one from me — that’s my story, anyway, and I’m stickin’ to it.

  17. Posted September 28, 2017 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for posting your letter to the editor. Michael Ruse’s reply was the icing on the cake. (This just feeds my addiction to WEIT.)

  18. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted September 29, 2017 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    A cute headline from The Onion: “Authorities investigating Hef’s death suspect foreplay.” 🙂

%d bloggers like this: