Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Friday, July 01, 2005
Here's why I plan to see "War of the Worlds" today
My Dad got me the complete radio series of “The Shadow” when I was 7 or 8. I couldn’t get enough of it...my brother and I also loved listening to Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. There is something magical about listening to old radio shows like Shadow and WOTW, and well read books on tape, isn’t there? Especially for kids.
OK, I have another movie recommendation, since I am sure you haven’t gone out and rented House of D.:
The Machinist, with Christian Bale at 120 pounds (He was at 220 for his next movie, Batman.) I just rented it and it was excellent. It’s about a guy working in a machine shop who hasn’t slept in a year. I had new found respect for Bale after seeing it.
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 07/01 at 09:23 AMI have never been a fan of Tom Cruise but it was refreshing to see someone who is willing to question the drugging of so many in this country. He was willing to not “think in the box” and that has angered many. His encounter with Matt Lauer was good to see. He broke through one of our national taboos and questioned authority. We need more of that!
Posted by rosemarie on from 07/01 at 09:42 AMOl’ Tom is just playing back the anti-psychiatry propoganda he gets fed by his Scientology cult. And while I don’t necessarily disagree with some of his sentiments regarding better living through chemistry, he is not exactly thinking outside the box but, rather, thinking within a different box. And people hate having their boxes opened up, evidenced by his aggresive defensivness when asked to prove his points or demonstrate his authority for making the statements he made regarding another person’s treatment for depression.
Posted by Rev Joe on from 07/01 at 11:04 AMI’m a big Spielbergo and HG Wells fan so I’m planning it see it too. Please post your “review” of the flick after you see it Mickey. I would like to read what you thought of it.
I don’t know what to make of TC. Part of me just feels sorry for the guy. I think he’s been a celebrity too long and the pressure is getting to him.
This blog had some interesting things to say on the subject of him and scientology.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/06/firm.html
This clip just cracks me up every time I see it.
http://www.zippyvideos.com/153109597471325.html
Beware it’s a 4meg download.
Orson will always be the man.
Here’s a site that has all the Mercury Theatre on the air radio plays available for DL.
http://www.mercurytheatre.info/Enjoy!
Posted by Luna_C on from getting the library done, in BC 07/01 at 12:26 PMRev Joe...I respectfully disagree with part of your statement. It should not matter if TC is opposed to some forms of conventional Phara-medicine because of his interest in Scientology or not. The point is that he made some valid arguments. He spoke mainly about Ritilin but there are problems with all sorts of drugs. The whole issue of thimerosol in vaccines is something that should concern everyone. Injecting mercury into the blood stream of new born infants defies common sense, especially if the only purpose of the mercury is to increase the bottom line of the drug companies by extending the shelf life. TC said, in one interview, that taking anti-depressant type drugs treated the symptoms and did not get to the root of the problem. If wanyone out there knows of a “happy” pill with no side effects, let us all know about it.......I might be wrong about this but I think that one of the young Kennedy men was recently scheduled to do a TV interview about Thimerosol and at the last minute the interview was cancelled because of industry pressure. Does anyone know anything about that?
Posted by rosemarie on from 07/01 at 01:35 PMI think this is what Rosemarie is talking about: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7395411?rnd=1118847082861&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1059
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/01 at 04:20 PMI always cringe when I learn that a high profile celebrity has agreed with something I think. Debating it almost always comes down to defending them, rather than the issue itself. The merit of the ideas themselves becomes secondary. If they change their views, as people often do, their high profile becomes an issue again.
Posted by Harry on from 07/01 at 05:04 PMThanks, Mickey. I had not read that Rolling Stone article. Harry, good comment there. I always cringe when I find myself agreeing with an expert. I will never forget the image of all of the doctors at the Congressional Committee hearings on tobacco. One after another they raised their right hand and swore to tell the truth. They all said that tobacco was not harmful. Experts often have agendas and can be bought. About celebrities...I don’t care if a celebrity has a high profile, low profile, or no profile. The only thing that matters is their argument.
Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from 07/02 at 06:47 AMMy problem with TC isn’t that he’s a celebrity/well known personality. It’s that he is a whacked out member of a whacked out cult that has a vindictive psychotic obsession with debasing the field of Psychology. I’m not disagreeing with most of what he said, and certainly much of Psychiatry deserves to be debased. I just don’t think this particular messenger should be embraced. It reminds me too much of the late Forties/early Fifties when some scientists and medical professionals were breaking away from the unfounded conventional wisdom that stated that adding fluoride to drinking water was a good, safe idea. They knew that fluoride was a nasty, toxic by-product of industry, who had been trying for years to find a way to dispose of this poison (in fact prior to a chemist from Alcoa coming up with the great idea to put this substance in our mouths, fluoride was a major ingredient in rat poison). But about this same time some fringe groups like the John Birch Society jumped on the anti-fluoride bandwagon, claiming that it was a communist plot and other such nonsense, and pretty soon anybody who was against fluoridation of the drinking water was tarred with the same “crackpot” label as the fringe element. So while I agree with much of what the “actor” said, he and his cult are not the group I want on my side in the fight. He was smart enough not to take it further and insist that people with psychological troubles just need to come down to the “Church,” grab the tin cans, and have a completely untrained member “audit” your life for you so you can become “clear,” but that ultimately is their alternative solution - along with the draining of one’s bank account. I have quite a bit of direct experience with this cult. Rest assured ol’ Tommy is not bucking authority, just displaying his allegiance to a different authority. If you want people to take seriously the concept of initiating healing through nutrition and exercise, Tom Cruise isn’t the spokesperson you want.
Posted by Rev Joe on from 07/02 at 10:19 AMRev Joe...Whether or not TC is a “wacked out member of a wacked out cult” is not the issue. The issue for me is that many people are being drugged and also many more are diminished as human beings by being subjected to “therapy”. All cults deserve criticism but also do all pseudo sciences. TC and his felllow members in the Scientology movement are not the only ones who hold the views about Ritilin etc. that he expressed. To me, believing in the the benevolence of the pharmaceutical corporations and their magic pills is probably a bigger mistake than joining any cult.
Posted by rosemarie on from 07/02 at 07:05 PMThis article by Charley Reese about Tom Cruise is worth reading.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese206.htmlPosted by rosemarie on from 07/05 at 05:47 PM
Next entry: Aliens, vegans, Paul Harvey, and some words from a King
Previous entry: Larry Flynt says:
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
