If you aren’t familiar with Scientology, you should read up on what complete horseshit it is:

If you can believe it, some people seriously subscribe to this, which was founded by a bad science fiction writer named L. Ron Hubbard, a few years after telling a convention of sci-fi fans that the way to make lots of money is to start your own religion:

75 million years ago, the galactic overlord for this sector of the galaxy was called Xenu. He was in charge of 76 planets, including Earth (at that time known as Teegeeack).

All of the planets Xenu controlled were over-populated by, on average, 178 billion people. Social problems dictated that Xenu rid his sector of the galaxy of this overpopulation problem, so he developed a plan.

Xenu sent out tax audit demands to all these trillions of people. As each one entered the audit centers for the income tax inspections, the people were seized, held down and injected with a mixture of alcohol and glycol, and frozen. Then, all 13.5 trillion of these frozen people were put into spaceships that looked exactly like DC8 airplanes, except that the spaceships had rocket engines instead of propellers.

Xenu’s entire fleet of DC8-like spaceships then flew to planet Earth, where the frozen people were dumped in and around volcanoes in the Canary Islands and the Hawaiian Islands. When Xenu’s Air Force had finished dumping the bodies into the volcanoes, hydrogen bombs were dropped into the volcanoes and the frozen space aliens were vaporized.

However, Xenu’s plan involved setting up electronic traps in Teegeeack’s atmosphere which were designed to trap the souls or spirits of the dead space aliens. When the 13.5 trillion spirits were being blown around on the nuclear winds, the electronic traps worked like a charm and captured all the souls in the electronic, sticky fly-paper like traps.

The spirits of the aliens were then taken to huge multiplex cinemas that Xenu had previously instructed his forces to build on Teegeeack. In these movie theaters the spirits had to spend many days watching special 3-D movies, the purpose of which was twofold: 1) to implant into these spirits a false reality, i.e. the reality that WOGS (Hubbard’s derisory term for anyone not a Scientologists) know on Earth today; and, 2) to control these spirits for all eternity so that they could never cause trouble for Xenu in this sector of the Galaxy. During these films, many false pictures and stories were implanted into these spirits, which resulted in the spirits believing in all the things that control mankind on Earth today, including religion. The concept of religion, including God, Christ, Mohammed, Moses etc., were all an implanted false reality that to this very minute are used to control WOGS on Earth.

When the films ended and the souls left the cinema, they started to stick together in clusters of a few thousand and remained that way until mankind began to inhabit the Earth. Today on Earth all the spirits of these aliens have attached themselves to our bodies and are the root cause of the false reality that all but Scientology’s “Homo Novis” or OT 8′s on earth experience. It is the job of all Scientologists to remove this false reality from the world by auditing each and every space alien spirit and human on earth and the entire universe to CLEAR. For those who oppose Scientology and stand in their way like the Lisa McPherson Trust and all Scientology critics, Scientology promises to do away with them “quietly and without sorrow”.

When Tom Cruise (who is a proselytizing Scientologist) was on Matt Lauer’s show and the conversation turned to Scientology, Cruise said this:

Scientology is something that you don’t understand. It’s like you could be a Christian and be a Scientologist.

It is a religion. Because it’s dealing with the spirit. You as a spiritual being. It gives you tools you can use to apply to your life.

Way to piss off every Christian in existence, Tom. Because, you know, I don’t remember any references to Lord Xenu in the Old Testament, but maybe I’m wrong. I’m sure you’ve done a lot of critical analysis on all religions before choosing one that makes you pay to find out that a bunch of souls are stuck to your head like a wad of gum.

Oh, it gets better. You should understand that Scientology doesn’t like the medical profession, psychiatry in particular, most likely because it takes away their business. Imagine the egg on their face if all those souls were just a chemical imbalance, or unresolved issues with one’s father. Ha! Those silly Scientologists! Anyway, here’s a further excerpt from the article:

When Lauer mentioned Cruise’s earlier criticism of Brooke Shields for taking anti-depressants, Cruise told the “Today” show co-host he didn’t know what he was talking about.

“You don’t know the history of psychiatry. I do,” Cruise said.

The interview became more heated when Lauer, who said he knew people who had been helped by the attention-deficit disorder drug Ritalin, asked Cruise about the effects of the drug.

“Matt, Matt, you don’t even — you’re glib,” Cruise responded. “You don’t even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, OK. That’s what I’ve done.”

As we all know, we need to trust cult-member movie stars instead of our doctors. I’m sure that when Tom says he’s “read the research papers” and knows the “history of psychiatry,” what he means is “My Scientology teacher gave me selective, incomplete, or simply falsified data that I took unquestioningly as absolute fact because I’m a mindless, spoiled automaton, and I really needed to advance in my classes. I think I got more souls stuck to me, because I’m a little stuffed up today.”

As a liberal, I’m pretty tolerant of other people’s religions, but Scientology? That’s just plain dumb.

§659 · June 24, 2005 · 2 comments · Tags: , , ,

Bush’s chief political adviser, Rove said in a speech Wednesday that “liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”

Then…

The White House defended Rove’s remarks and accused Democrats of engaging in partisan attacks.

What?

§655 · June 23, 2005 · 6 comments · Tags: ,

Two news items from CNN.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

What? Eminent domain is a tolerated if unpopular thing as it is. Shouldn’t there be some sort of protection for land/homeowners from businesses that are leaning heavily upon “local governments”? Even if strip malls and hotels will bring in extra tax revenue, is that any excuse to infringe upon the rights of private ownership? A lot of things might be profitable, but that doesn’t mean the government can do them.

O’Connor said it best in her “stinging dissent”:

“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” O’Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

Even more hotly debated (rimshot) is the issue of flag-burning. You might recall that SCOTUS declared it a free-speech right in 1989. Now it’s coming up again.

The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the [World] Trade Center,” said Rep. Randy [Duke] Cunningham, R-California. “Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”

Yeah, that’ll really show those terrorists, right? I think perhaps the firefighters cared more about extinguishing burning Americans than burning flags. Despite what Liam Neeson says in Batman Begins, the flag is nothing more than an arbitrary symbol, one that paradoxically stands for a virtue that allows its desecration. I’m not a proponent of flag-burning, per se, but making flag desecration illegal? Anybody who voted for this in the House can kiss my First Amendment-loving ass. Still, I’m hopeful that this will fail in the Senate, or at least in the state ratification process.

§654 · June 23, 2005 · 3 comments · Tags:

[get the PDF] [updated 25 January 2006]

The advent of literary Modernism in the early 20th century fueled a larger cultural movement. By the 1920s, women across the globe were winning the right to vote and work as the cult of domesticity began a slow but sure dismantlement (a process still occurring today). Victorian moralism, along with its notions of courtly love, was viewed by the progressive margins as antiquated and meaningless. As people—veterans of the Great War, victims of urban sprawl, even the bourgeois literary elite—began to feel increasingly disenfranchised by a society no longer described by the dominant written culture, a massive moral, cultural, and literary shift pushed writers in a new direction, insistent upon a new and different idiom for describing human life and relationships (Childs 2). Read more…

§566 · June 21, 2005 · 4 comments · Tags: ,

The God of Small Things The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy
Publisher: Harper Perennial
Year: 1998
Pages: 336

A female writer publishes a book, in English, containing numerous unabashed references to sex, incest, and feminism that anger a lot of conservative Indian men. A positive thing? I agree.

The God of Small Things is one of those novels that works its way through a succession of flashbacks that explain that story. In short, the important thing is not what happened (that’s made obvious early on), but why, and how. The main family, ravaged by India’s horrible caste system. The book is a sort of rebellion against a culture that attempts to divide and categorize everything and everyone, told in dreamy, abstract prose (Roy’s skill with the English language is remarkable for a non-native speaker). My only complaint on a stylistic level is that sometimes Roy will drop a bomb word that apparently doesn’t evoke the same reaction in India as it does here. At one point in the book, she makes reference to a baby coming out of her mother’s “beautiful cunt.” Now, I’m not a censor (far from it), so it’s not that the use of the word “cunt” offends me, but it’s a bit blunt for Roy’s normal style. There are other passages that are similarly afflicted.

In addition to addressing India’s Love Laws and this instrinsic violation of human dignity, the novel deals peripherally with the effects of years of colonization upon India’s culture. How a former plantation house turned into a tourist trap for screaming white kids; how traditional cultural dance performances were shortened down to a few minutes so as not to bore the tourists; how traditional Indian mores are being confronted by up-and-coming writers like Roy.

For its few flaws (it is a first novel, after all), God of Small Things is an excellent book, and a look outside of the typical American domestic novel. A recommended read for a bit of multicultural reading.

§647 · June 15, 2005 · Comments Off · Tags: