The St. Petersburg Times is running a series on the Church of Scientology that has some pretty eye-popping allegations, particularly with regard to Church leader David Miscavige. For those who have long argued that the Church is a cult (most recently in Europe) the exposé will likely reinforce their views.
The newspaper reports bizarre and abusive conduct by Miscavige, including hitting high-ranking officials and forcing them to play a game of musical chairs (where the losers allegedly are banned from the Church).
The Los Angeles Times also has a story alleging rampant corruption in the Church.
The series on Scientology is something of a surprise. Many reporters that I have spoken with over the years are privately reluctant to do Scientology stories because of the Church’s aggressive reputation in responding to press. The Church has a history of suing critics and pursuing members who have joined the movement opposing Scientology. This has led to recent lawsuits ( and here) and complaints. Recently, Scientology also was barred from making edits on Wikipedia because of what it viewed as a pattern of misleading or false changes on sites referencing the Church.
For the first part of the three-part series, click here.
For the second part of the three-part series, click here.
BIL: “What I’ve been called IRL”. In real life?
I take your point. There are few words that I make usage exceptions for because words IMO are just descriptors and as such inherently neutral. The word that drives me nuts is Nazi. The trend to use Nazi as shorthand for fascist is perverse in the extreme IMO. Depending on the debate I’ll use fascist routinely but I stay away from Nazi.
What the Nazi’s did was so singularly monstrous that if you’re going to use it there should be a parity of atrocity. ‘Pol Pot was a Nazi’ is descriptive of a kind and parity of action that is acceptable IMO. “Femnazi” is outrageously poor usage. (Um, is the statement ‘Rush should be castrated for popularizing “Femnazi”‘ too over the top?)
There are few good uses for the word Nazi. That’s not to say I haven’t just thrown it out there on occasion but I do try to recognize and respect that the word transcends its use as an acronym. Or a cheap shot.
I can leave it at that also.
Lotta,
You think what you like, but I think you are missing the issue. Attacking one’s patriotism is a McCarthy tactic. The Neocons didn’t invent it. Hell, Americans didn’t invent it, it’s a tactic old as nations, but the next question is inevitably “Are you now are have you ever been . . .” It’s junk and has no proper place in political discourse either formal or informal other than the noted propaganda and smear purposes. I’ve been known to hurl some fire, but I’ve never used that fire for that very reason. The unlearned lessons of history are doomed to repeat. It’s not only junk, it’s highly at risk of turning into high comedy considering in that the person in question’s citizenship is suspect as Mike S evidenced. I don’t hide behind patriotism. I’ve made it clear time and again I’m for the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration. My loyalty to the USA ends should those principles and documents be abandoned. I’m no jingoist. But that doesn’t mean I have to have my patriotism questioned without taking action either. I respect the rights of others, but I do expect them to reciprocate. Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but it’s the weapon of choice of fools and the untrustworthy (those who don’t have your interests or freedoms at heart) – neither of which I have a duty to tolerate let alone quietly. In a martial arts class, you learn to turn an attackers weapon against them. He brought the broken bottle of “un-American Brand McCarthy Ale” and I fed it back to him. Same thing.
Again, you are mistaking the usage of the words “un-American” with the usage of the tactic. I don’t give a damn what he calls me. I’ve been called a lot “worse” than that by other trolls if you just want to use the offensive yardstick. What I’ve been called IRL without flinching would make your hair turn plaid and go into witness relocation. I’d have thought you’d have realized by now I have very thick skin. But the tactic of attacking one’s patriotism? Unacceptable from anyone. And I do mean anyone. We were boxing and he pulled a switchblade? I don’t care he owns one. I care he pulled it.
I’m going to make a not too huge a leap of logic and state that most of the regulars here and quite a few of the transients are here because they are concerned about human rights and crimes against the Constitution. No one wants witch hunts. I’ve said all along the issue that keeps me coming back is seeing criminals who attacked the Constitution put in jail regardless of party affiliation, but “un-American” has a bad history in addition to the modern abuses by people like Jim.
The House Un-American Activities Committee.
The tactic itself is Anti-American and that’s un-American. I don’t care what name he calls me. The words themselves have no particular ju-ju as it were. I have a very Carlin take on language. What Jim did tactically is simply a danger to the ideals of our Founding Fathers. History tells me so. More than once in American history alone. Would you like a side order of Stalin’s Pogroms? They’re beat flavored.
You seem like a very free spirited, well reasoned and caring person as it clearly informed what you’ve said and I admire that but civilization does need some boundaries. History suggests that not wielding the patriotism stick in this context is a real good one. Something to think about and I’ll leave it at that.
G’night all, I have a big day tomorrow- This kind of brought a smile to my face(and a ‘Whaaaaat?’ head-shake)in a pre-verted and irrational way; it’s worth at least a hundred Wall Street bonus caps if your bent morally; not that I’m admitting to anything:
retirees torture financier
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25683738-401,00.html
The only virtue of laws and a society that enforces them is that their absence burdens victims with enforcing justice. Not a good thing
Former Federal LEO
1, June 24, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Well lottakatz, I ’bout fell off my chair. Thank you for clearing that up.
————
Really? Why?
*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*
Be very, very, careful FFLEO. Very. VERY. 🙂
LOL
🙂 Never mind you big ol’ Stetson wearing gallute you 🙂
Buddha Is Laughing
jim byrne 1, June 22, 2009 at 11:15 pm
“Do you really want to be on the side of tolerating that which is stupid, perverse, or irrational?”
As long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others; YES!
—-
Well there’s your problem right there. It’s two fold.
First, …. Second, there is problem and quite simply it’s you if that is truly how you feel.
************************************
Dude, for the love of Allah, read that exchange. “there is problem and quite simply it’s you if that is truly how you feel.” That’s the issue. That statement is so wrong and it’s a very strong and personal statement. I was amazed by that statement. That statement was so amazing to me I didn’t even find it odd that Jim would say he couldn’t believe the “un-American rhetoric”. The way to avoid being called un-American is to avoid saying someone (implicit to me; everyone who believes similarly) is a problem if they believe something so fundamental to a persons concept of their national (American/Constitutional) identity.
I don’t really care that the right has hi-jacked ‘un-American’. They tried to hi-jack the flag too. Think of a cuss word that fits easily with ‘* them’ and you know how I feel about that. I don’t fly a flag any more often or less often because some *hole wants to wrap the rape of the Constitution in it. I’m one of those people that think the flag is strongest when its burning in citizen protest. If it tweaks you up that someone would use un-American to characterize your/Mespo’s rhetoric that’s your spin on it. A personal insult met with a personal insult (implied but there) is just parity. I agree “Words can be a rough game”. I see parity, you see something else.
Who’s full of *? I put a smiley behind it, jeeze, ‘you’ was meant as generalized. It was a statement of philosophical outlook. I’ll not put a smiley behind it if I were ever to mean it personally regarding anyone but I’d rather not get that twitched up over 0’s and 1’s. It’s not healthy. Better to make a salad and have a beer.
Apparently you nor Mespo want to put people in re-education camps for thoughts or actions that are legal so I’m fine with that. We can agree on that. I’m still amazed that such you would use the word ‘problem’ in such a personal way regarding someone who reflects my political philosophy but really, if that’s the worst characterization I (and probably most of the people here including you) had to deal with professionally or personally we would have lived a blessed life. I think I can learn to get over it, with time and effort; maybe just another beer 🙂
I will though check out the link, I’m sure it’ll be interessting.
The following post is why Jim departed. Buddha, you know that I like you a lot, I have said that several times, and I recently repeated it, but telling people to go ‘fornicate’ themselves and to ‘lube up’ is simply unfair and not a debatable style any reasonable self-respecting debater would engage. As Gyges mentioned, Prof Turley ‘warned’ you before and you issued a mea culpa and vowed never to do what you have just done, in my estimation.
To be sure, this blawg would *not* be the same without you and I am not sure that it would continue to ‘thrive’ if you departed or were booted off. I prefer to see a daily Buddha Green.
Your logical arguments are fine and meaningful without the high school giggle-spit vulgarity and those threads of yours with such crudity, I skip over—just as I do with the real trolls like MSNBC, etc. Again, I have no right to moderate what I consider trash talk, but I am asking you as a cyber-friend to tune out just the “Lube up, Buttercup” type comments that only denigrate your intelligence, in my eyes, and reflect negatively on Professor Turley and this blawg.
By all means at your disposal, continue to hammer people hard with on-point, definitive refutations/rebuttals and make them squirm in your logic; however, please do not demean them with ad hominem nonsense that is non-rebuttable with any decency. If any regular here told me to do the things you told Jim Byrne to perform, I would definitely leave this blawg because the most accomplished logician cannot reasonably rebut anonymous vulgarity across the Internet.
Thanks.
_________________________________________
Quote:
Jim Byrne
1, June 23, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Buddha said; Lube up, buttercup.
Wow Buddha! You’re a true assett to this blawg.
I won’t stoop to your level. And I will not continue to provide commentary on a blog that permits such.
You win! I hope you’re happy.
Much thanks to Prof. Turley for providing, what has the potential of being, a forum to debate our differences.
Goodbye
End Quote}
____________________________________
Gyges
IS: “If we’re going to have this discussion, we’re going to need to define conservative and progressive. I suggest we both go to Wikipedia (or other encyclopedia or dictionary) and use their definitions.”
Thanks for the once removed tip of the hat. I enjoyed this series of postings of yours because one of the first things I learned about negotiation was that you had to have a common language, always take a little dictionary with you and ask for explicit agreement that words meant what they meant based on a standard reference and note that in the docuent as needed. I just ate that up because I love the dictionary. It became a joke in my office that rivaled my love of misplaced punctuation.
The dictionary saved my butt more often than I can count in negotiations, arguments and briefs to third parties etc. I would have our secretary drag our big Random House to negotiations and set it on the table next to her for easy look-up. It was theater but it made a point and every point counted. LOL. You’re a guy that’s been around the track a time or two I see. I’m thinking I’d have liked to have you on my team back in the day.
For better or worse what drives us as lawyers is stoking the crucible of ideas that either tempers thought or consumes it. That Jim Byrne doesn’t want that heat is understandable but not admirable. At no point did anyone attack Jim (or lotta for that matter); it was an attack on an idea–unformed though it may have been. If he took that as insult and packed up his marbles, how revealing and so be it. BIL was exactly right in calling out that old tactic of questioning one’s loyalty when reason fails. Simply put, no one has the obligation to suffer foolish ideas or insults gladly, and Byrne’s purposeful misstating of counterpoints and impugning the patriotism of someone who has contributed and contributes much on daily basis to this blog gets my “Irish” up. Some may lament JB’s absence, but I relish it. Bring out the next troll.
Well lottakatz, I ’bout fell off my chair. Thank you for clearing that up. I should have known that Jill would have known another woman’s’ postings…female intuition.
I agree mostly with you about Jim Byrne. I think our crew of well-educated bulldogs was a bit unfair and I think we are misusing/overusing the term troll, kind of like we are misusing terrorist, generally speaking; too broad of a nomenclatural brush for me. I actually learned something from the crew’s back-and-forth with Mr. Byrne.
lotta,
Speaking of The Holographic Universe, you might like this. It’s a scholarly paper, a dissertation for some class or publishing project, I’m not sure, but it was good.
“Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” by Alan D. Sokal (1995)
It’s online. Here’s the link.
http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
Don’t be intimidated by the title, lol, it’s actually pretty interesting if you are fascinated by the nexus of physics and philosophy. I found it being discussed over on Popehat’s blog.
FFLEO, Jill, Mike A
Thanks for your support of my ideas. I respect your ideas so that means a lot to me. I’d also like to have a respectful consensus with Mespo and BIL since I am generally in agreement with them and value their input. I think we’re getting there once the issue is cast in a fundamental light. Also, I still feel kindly toward BIL for “The Holographic Universe”, I’m making progress on it. 🙂
I suspect that folks may have gotten into an ‘attack’ mode from arguing with IA here and elsewhere and didn’t actually consider Jim’s posting, take it for no more- or less- than it was and responded more harshly than it warranted. Still, I never met good bait I didn’t want to rise to if I had the time. Busy day today so I got back here late.
I’d like Jim to come back also. One of the posters here said that hanging around this blawg changed their mind. Good for them! That’s a pretty heavy concept generally reserved for a religious epiphany or an excellent hallucinogenic drug. I value the arguments here because some of them have been clarifying for me also.
Jim, what I have read of his (yours if you’re reading) actually struck me as a semi-loose-cannon liberal. I share that trait un-apologetically and liked the company. Sometime just a flat-out, simple declaration of intent and viewpoint is refreshing and brings a discussion from ‘tittle and jot’ territory back to fundamentals. The posts of Jim’s I remember seemed like ‘right, get back to basics, argue the higher principle’ type statements. I could be confused though; he should continue to post to clear up my possible confusion. :-).
FFLEO: I’m a female, and I love a nice Stetson. At one time my hair looked kind of like the avatar- nice swath of wild and independent white to one side, but I was never as pretty as Johnny Depp. He IS easy on the eyes and Sweeny is a great one for justice- how could he not be my avatar?
I fear I’ve said too much 🙂
lotta,
Live and let live is fine. I think you mistake the nature of what just happened though. Jim didn’t get the hammer because “he is a “problem” because he advocates a live and let live attitude- short of illegal/infringing acts- perpetrated by ignorant, stupid irrational, perverse, (and I’ll expand that to cover) craven, wrong-headed, rabidly misogynistic, bigoted, foolish, unenlightened fellow citizens as a recognition of their right to free thought, speech and action”. The live and let live was fine. The defense of that right was fine. Using the label “un-American” in the context he used it, well that falls under the bear description I gave you earlier.
He had his choice in language. He paid the price of that choice. He resorted to a propagandist smear tactic one time too many for me and I took action. You act as if either me or mespo somehow banned Jim. We can’t. This isn’t our blog. Jim left of his own volition because he’d been made to look like a disingenuous propagandist by more than one person. Vince, Mike S and mespo all disassembled him. That I was the straw that broke the camels back is of no concern to me. Words can be a rough game, he shoulda wore a cup, but at least no bones get broken. This isn’t Iran. But unless the Prof banned him, he’s free to come back and either reform his ways or get run through the shredder again. Also his choice.
If I want to hoist an attacker upon his own words, I’ll do it. It’s my nature. You don’t like the way I handled it? I’m not trying to anger you, because I do genuinely like you lotta, but too bad. I don’t work for you although your displeasure is duly noted. I was exercising my Free Speech Right just as Jim was and you are in voicing your displeasure. If the Prof disapproves he knows all he as to do is ask me to leave. Hell, I do as the regulars ask me 95% of the time. You didn’t like my explanation? I don’t owe you an explanation or a justification. I gave you one because your a nice person and deserved an answer, but you’ll have to take what you got. You think I’m full of crap? That’s your right too just as it is your right to say so. I’ll defend that right. Just don’t be offended if I exercise my Right to Ignore or my Right to Disagree. Again, because it wasn’t the disagreeing that got Jim in trouble. I personally think education benefits us all and that tolerating ignorance as a matter of societal systemic health is a bad thing. If you want to lump in with Jim and defend the right to be ignorant and ignore the duty I feel everyone should ethically owe to work to better us all as a species, that’s your choice to make as it was his. The disagreement wasn’t at issue. It was his tactics. Anyone willing to drop to the “un-American and elitist” smear tactic when cornered in that context is using, as I illustrated, Neocon demonization language – propaganda – and I’ll treat them with the same kindness Jim received. Feel free to skip it should it happen again. But there’s a difference between “run off” and “run away”. Jim wasn’t run off.
Lottakatz,
Well, a fine lotta help you aint! Better half pertains to either spouse–boy n’ girl–and a’cussin’ up a storm these days don’t mean just a man’s words.
You need to defend your honor man!…or woman. Look what Jill et al is sayin:
_________________________________
Jill:
“Lottakatz, at least, laid out a point by point reading of your arguments. I think it is fair to take *her* seriously and dispute *her*, but your statement above is a personal attack which *she* does not deserve.”
*************
I merely took *her* argument to its absurd logical extension. Not a personal attack on her but her reasoning. That’s precisely the difference I am arguing for.
___________________________________
Most ‘portantly, Gyges said I should be tippin’ by Stetson hat your way, by we Southern men juss do not do that to other men!
I thought you are male, that avatar ‘n all…
I second Mike A. entirely!
lottakatz, hear, hear. Great points.
Buddha Is Laughing
lotta,
“Yeah, what mespo said. Freedom of Speech is not the equivalent of the Freedom From Ridicule. Freedom To Be Ignorant, on the other hand, is a choice a person – citizen or not – is free to make.”
Then we agree.
“Just like when someone says something aggressively stupid, they shouldn’t be shocked when they get the smack down. I was willing to let Jim be as stupid as he wanted up to the un-American comment”
If he is a “problem” because he advocates a live and let live attitude- short of illegal/infringing acts- perpetrated by ignorant, stupid irrational, perverse, (and I’ll expand that to cover) craven, wrong-headed, rabidly misogynistic, bigoted, foolish, unenlightened fellow citizens as a recognition of their right to free thought, speech and action, then so am I.
I think it’s fundamental to a free society to have that attitude and un-American to not have that attitude. I even defend what I believe un-American thought, speech and action so long as it meets the ‘not illegal/infringing’ test. That is exactly the great virtue of a free society and the American ideal IMO.
I and the better-half belonged to the ACLU for years. We stopped sending them money out of laziness. When the Nazi’s (M*****-F*****s all) wanted to march in Skokie (?sp), a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago and were denied the permit, the ACLU went to court to overturn that ban as an infringement of the 1st Amendment. They (ACLU) lost thousands of members, they were bleeding resources. The better-half and I decided that not only was it our duty to re-up our membership but to send them extra money, which we could hardly afford at that time.
I’m a bleeding-heart liberal, a long-time problem, and damn proud of it.
I’ll defend your right to ridicule my attitude even as I tell you you’re full of c***. It’s my nature 🙂
========================
Former Federal LEO: “Lottakatz, Are you a Mr. or a Ms.?”
See second to last para above 🙂
BIL:
you have a job?
Bye now, go find a new playmate. I have traffic.
Full Moon Over Shrimp Cocktail.
It’s not just descriptive of your performance IS, it’s a double entendre that says a lot about you.
Enjoy.
BIL:
are you taking your pants off for a little “self endulgence”? Please, no need to announce this.