Russia vs Georgia: the Bloody Olympics

Georgia vs Russia, the contest the world is paying attention to during commercial breaks for the Olympics.

OK most of us westerners aren't very familiar with the politics of Russia and former soviet provinces, but the country Georgia has possession of a few regions that object to Georgian control, and have been given some degree of support from Russia - encouraging them to be independent. As far as I can tell this has been going on for a while, and tensions have steadily increased up until August 7th when Georgia made an aggressive move (an assault and artillery bombardment) to take back control of South Ossetia, a region that wants to split away from Georgia and either become independent or else part of Russia.

Russia responded to this aggression by marching an enormous and overpowering force into Georgia and more or less occupying it. Crushing through the comparatively small and disadvantaged Georgian police and military. The counterblow is criticized (rightfully) of being a display of overwhelming and unnecessary force. Hurting countless civilians who didn't need to be affected by this avoidable war.

Since then Russia has been slow in leaving Georgia and has made it clear they support South Ossetia in becoming independent or becoming part of Russia, it is up to South Ossetia. The west including NATO in general and the US in particular are in favor of restoring the original boundaries, borders, and troop locations as quickly as possible. Georgia favors this also. While South Ossetia wants to no longer be a part of Georgia.

Let's also factor in oil interests. Russia has been incredibly stingy with its oil, cutting supply which has directly hurt Europe who imports a great deal of their oil from Russia, which is also why Russia is becoming an increasingly wealthy country. The EU's oil interests in Georgia have to deal with a planned set of pipelines that will run through Georgia and help wean Europe off of its addiction to Russian oil. This would obviously hurt Russia. So the EU and the west are giving favorable treatment to Georgia, partially because of oil interests, and Russia is using South Ossetia as an excuse to disrupt Georgia, partially out of oil interests. That isn't the only thing going on here, but I believe it is partly involved. Significant enough to consider, at the very least.

So all players have their own self-interest involved with their pressure to either restore order how it was, or reorganize by splitting South Ossetia from Georgia, and no one is truly "right" about what to do. Because there really isn't a right answer, or rather, there really isn't an easy answer, but form an ethical standpoint a right answer may exist. It's just hard to spot without more information.

I've just told you the extend of my knowledge, so I don't claim to know what the right answer is. But in my opinion I think I can understand every position. And while I condemn Russia for its cruel and excessive use of force, I also can understand their support for South Ossetia. And while it really shouldn't be Russia's business, if the province of South Ossetia strongly wishes to be apart from Georgia, I don't see that as a bad thing. It really ought to be up to them to decide. And while the trumpet of preserving national sovereignty may be blown at my reaction, I will quickly point out that I see little difference between Russia's support of South Ossetia, and the US' support of Taiwan from China. China sees Taiwan as Chinese, they see themselves as independent, the US sees them as independent. Georgia sees South Ossetia as independent, they see themselves as independent, Georgia sees them as part of Georgia. I think this is a pretty sound comparison.

I support the idea that Taiwan is independent from China. Why? Partly because I believe they have established a better quality of life. But more importantly they strongly want to be independent, strong enough to fight if need be. So, they ought to be independent. By that same right and justification South Ossetia ought to be independent from Georgia. As far as I can tell. Which means I must also criticize out involvement beyond humanitarian aid and encouraging Russia to behave more fairly, I can see no reason why we should oppose their interest in South Ossetian independence. Provided they don't instigate a war. But remember Georgia attacked first, even if it was on its own land. Or what it saw as its own land.

Someone will probably point out that I fully support Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War, which seems inconsistent with my idea that a state ought to be independent if they want it bad enough to fight for it. And you're right, it is inconsistent. And perhaps I feel the way I do in part because of the result, it was worth it in the end. But I think a larger part of me supported the action against the confederates because of egregious human-rights violations. We can debate all day about whether it was justified to use military force to preserve the union, and I'll have mixed feelings about it (after all the colonies rebelled against the British back in the late eighteenth century - which may or may not have been justified). But one thing I feel absolutely convinced about is the Civil War was justified because slavery is evil beyond evil, and must be stopped at all costs. That might not be enough to get Congress to declare war, just like Congress seems cool with ignoring problems in Darfur, but I will always support well-thought-out action in defense of basic human rights no matter who they are or where they live. If Russia intended to make slaves of Ossetians, or if Russia intended to protect Ossetians who already owned slaves - slaves Georgia would free, then I not only would support aggressive action in the region, I might grab an M-4 and head there myself.

But that isn't the case. And I understand the Russian/South-Ossetian side of this, even though I disagree with their methods. In fact, make that strongly disagree. But methods aside, their argument does make sense. And should be listened to.

MOTIVATORS - BECAUSE EVERYONE "NEEDS" "MOTIVATION"

OK - So, you've all seen the "motivator" posters hanging up in various schools and businesses, right? (That was a rhetorical question, I know the answer is yes.)

Well, I'm at work staring at one right now, a particularly annoying one, and I got the idea to make a few of my own. No, bear in mind, these took me only a little over an hour to make (for the whole set), and my flashiest tool is MS Paint, so don't be too critical :P But, without further ado... prepare to be motivated.



















This one is a bit more political in nature, but I couldn't resist. Especially because I think he's both a complete idiot and a barely articulate boob.

The Cynic's Dictionary

I decided to begin a small, self-written dictionary. Here are a few excerpts.

Blogging - The art of expressing one's personal beliefs and opinions to an infinte swarm of people worldwide--who will never read them.

Chivalry - Male dominance over women since the 14th century.

Computers - Constantly out-of-date, magical boxes designed to break down and frustrate users.

Creationism - ... see also magic tricks.

Cynicism - A lonely and embittered glimpse through the crystal window of reality. See also sanity.

Faith - Forming any conclusion without sufficient reason, logic, or evidence.

Happiness - An elevated emotional level that seems to be the purpose of all life and existence. See also unobtainable.

Patriotism - The essential quality of knowing God values you and your neighbors more than people who live farther away.

Publishing - A process designed to find the worst writing and put it on the shelves.

Sadness - The antithesis of happiness. A state-of-being comprising 99.9% of humanity at any given time. See also employment.

Treasure - An attachment or dependence on any idea, object, or group of objects, that exceeds the need to live. See also gasoline.

Making a Splash: A Message to GWC

This is a response to GWC pawns, who openly acknowledged the existance of my Anti-Gwc community while on the radio. They said "I'm not sure what their beef is."

Well, personally, my beef of choice is fillet mignon, but if you mean my beef--in terms of why your bogus school is an illegitimate pseudo-academic cult, then my response is a bit more lengthy. But first a commercial.

A memo From Thomas Jefferson's dead ghost: "Stop slandering my name!"

Now that's out of the way, I must pause for thought. Ahh Gerge Wythe "College." You suck so much, let me count the ways...

Ahem...
You claim objectivity and academic rigor, you lack both. You make
false promises, such as "breadth and depth," which is mathematically
impossible given a finite time structure, and you do so shamelessly.


The narrow nature of graduate education is essential, and reading a
lot of basic-level essays and speculative books, over a wide range of
topics, is no substitute for an advanced, hands-on education, even in
the humanities. And certainly not worth your absurd tuition rates,
despite all your propaganda and programming.


And the holy writ of the founders, no matter how many of their names
you invoke, is not the authority on human thought, not in this
century. (Pretending otherwise is voluntary ignorance.) Yes, read
them, yes, consider their ideas. But expand your reading material,
open your mind, and provide classes with structure, professors with
meaningful (and provable) expertise, grades and standards that force
students to work hard and be competitive. Regular exams that take
adequate time, and actually push the students to their limits, instead
of two-minute "comprehensive," vague, oral exams. Test on the
specifics, and expand your idea pool. Teach math and science just as
heavily as Locke and Descartes.


Reading pure philosophy, attending soft debates, and dabbling in art
is not an education which completely prepares students for the real
world awaiting them. Your school lacks diversity in both cultural and
academic ideas. Your atmosphere is purely conformist, and the so-
called objectivity is warped by religion, specifically Christianity.
The study of religion is useful, but a bias toward a specific set of
religious ideas is a distortion. And certainly not objective.


An unhealthy anti-establishment feeling prevails there, and distrust
for the government and society are awarded with high marks, with or
without substance, while progressive ideas are frowned upon and
rejected.


And to top the list, your degrees are fraudulent, and your optimistic
promises are shamefully thoughtless. Any institution that coaxes
impressionable young adults with silvery words and flattery, grabs
them by their unwitting, academic balls, and psychologically strong-
arms them, squeezing out every last drop, (from absurd fees and rates
to a loss of socio-cultural normalcy), forcing them to invest so
heavily into something that is completely empty. That is a great
shame.


And that is our beef.


We are the witnesses, we are those who’ve kept our distance, and those
who have been personally victimized. We see what is happening, and who
benefits and who doesn't. And the students are getting the very
profound shaft. Your school has no right to be considered legitimate
in the eyes of productive society in general, or academia in
particular.


You are a few self-proclaimed social experts and "professors"
networked together to spread your extreme political and religious
beliefs, and to live off the backs of sympathetic parents and ill-
informed students, whose futures are anything but bright.


How could we not have a beef?


I have answered your question, so I dare you to answer mine: How do
you sleep at night? Is it by ignoring reality and its inevitable
consequences? Or is it simply, you just don't care what happens to
your pawns? How do you look yourself in the mirror and keep from
laughing, or crying? Staring into your eyes, do you really see a world-
class expert? Someone worthy of the absurd, undeserved salary you are
taking? Do you truly believe you are legitimate? Did you expect your
"free-lunch" to go unnoticed?


It is sickening, plain and simple.


But if it's any comfort, I'm sure the people on you panel outnumber
the people in your listening audience, which lessens the impact of
your embarrassing attempts at wit.

A Question

This is a question that has been pressed on my mind as of late. It is one that is deeper than I previously thought, and I think neither side is immediately superior.

So I put it to you:

Which would you rather embrace? A painful truth or a pleasant lie?

Would you rather be happy and deceived, or in pain but wise?

Anonymous VS Scientology

Because I don't want to get sued by an overly energetic legal team, or chased around by an army of black vans, I am putting up a short disclaimer: I do not certify that any of the statements below are absolutely accurate, but they are as correct as I know how to make them with my source material. (Which is basically the unrestricted internet.) I would not be surprised if everything stated below was correct, but I can't promise that.

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." L Ron Hubbard.

Hubbard was an early science fiction writer, back in the days when the genre was relatively new, and anything that looked futuristic (like a picture of a rocket on the cover) was a guaranteed sell. Like all ideas emerging for the first time, this genre began as something less than it currently is. In this case, incredibly underdeveloped, gimmicky, and even more far-fetched. But some of the most hackneyed fiction of all, also happens to be at the center of the beliefs of the Church of Scientology International.

It begins with a space opera about an alien emperor Xenu and his galactic confederacy that ruled the galaxy for "eighty trillion years." (note: scientists mark the age of the universe at about 14 billion years.) This confederacy, measured as of 75 million years ago (so fairly recently by the 80,000,000,000,000 years standard) included 26 stars and 76 planets, such as Earth which (to them) was called "Teegeeack." (Apparently including the use of roman letters) Hubbard claimed that modern science-fiction is merely a recollection of events that actually took place millions of years ago. (Which is interesting since a lot of science fiction pieces, when compared, inherently contradict each other.) And that Xenu, for whatever reason, brought billions of frozen people to earth, in special space planes that "looked exactly like Douglas Dc-8s," and subsequently stacked them around volcanoes and exploded them with hydrogen bombs. Leaving all kinds of disembodied alien spirits wandering around, known as "Thetans." Which apparently started possessing the indigenous life forms (which at the time would have been dinosaurs) combining to form us. While this is the primary belief, so to speak, of Scientology's mythological explanation of the universe, Hubbard also taught about other alien civilizations, less we forget about the Espinol, Helatrobus, and of course the Arslycus. He taught that the earth had been invaded by aliens on several occasions, most notably by the Fifth Invader Force in the year 6235 BC. One can only guess that they we repelled by an allied coallition of dinosaurs. (Actually no, the dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the cretaceous period, about the same time Xenu was blowing aliens up next to volcanoes.)

If there were a literature genre called "God-Awful," this would in it. This stinks of the most ill-contrived, campiest, cheesiest, least-clever, most unbelievable fiction ever thought up. This is the stuff for bad eighties cartoons and cheap comic books, even The Power Rangers scream with realism by comparison. I don't know all of the details, nor how L Ron Hubbard accumulated this information (aside from inventing it), and I'm no Operating Thetan Level 15, but I'm pretty sure that one of the lesser known tenets is that Buzz Lightyear was crucified for our sins.

I don't mind people believing crazy things. For example some people think Noah's Ark housed polar bears next to tropical toucans; along with elephants, insects, fresh-water fish, and several metric tons of food and water. People have bent the rules of reality in order to form myths as a way of explaining what they can't, to get some kind of closure to a perplexing doubt, or else simply as an expression of human art, who isn't excited by a fanciful tale, or a bit of fantasy?

If people want to believe Hubbard, a professional fiction writer, is actually a prophet bearing the truth, and the truth is Xenu, they are free to believe it. I might dismiss them as fools, but I won't oppose their right to cling to their ignorance.

But it's almost impossible for me to believe that anyone (even scientologists) actually believes the story above. Mostly, I assumed it was an agreed upon farce, some kind of filler "doctrine" to help maintain the image of being a religion. (A religion has to believe in something, after all.) But the more I research, the more I think that some of these people actually believe these tall tales in the most literal sense.

And that just blows my mind.

Almost as much as wondering what "the hook" is.

What, exactly, attracted people to scientology in the first place? I don't know. Except to say the people (inherently) want to believe in something. They want to belong, they want to group up and form communities, expand their identity by sharing it with others, common family, common friendships, common clubs, common religion, etc. But that doesn't explain why that common element is Scientology.

Why not form organizations that celebrate box elder bugs or the new coke?

Cleary people won't rally around "just anything." So why scientology?

I can't believe it's the good story. I can't prove that it isn't, but let's be real here ... that would be freaking retarded. No, this is my impression: Sentology began with Hubbard’s books called "Dianetics," which I know precious little about, except they were some sort of self-help book, probably based on ideology he invented for his fictional universe. For whatever reason, these were well accepted and the farce began.

So, aside from being based on stories that are inexplicably stupid, what is my real beef with Scientology? That's simple.

Scientology isn't very nice.

Hubbard was well known for scheming how to get a lot of money, his primary skill was writing fiction, and he mentioned early on that religion was a useful mechanism for controlling others and escaping tax payments. All of this gives him plenty of motive to "make it all up." (All of this was before skimming millions of dollars from the Church's accounts and sending them to discreet locations over seas.) He had motivation to be a manipulative, power-hungry, lying, thieving bad-apple. (And his later acts in life proved it.) So, Scientology started off as ill-conceived from the get go. A scam designed to generate money and influence. In other words, Hubbard was hungry for power. His one tool to get it? Fiction.

Several controversies have surrounded Scientology from its beginning. Earning the church a reputation for bludgeoning its critics with an army of lawyers, mistreating and abusing its members, and paying little respect for the law. A few in particular stand out to me. The worst was called Operation Snow White.

In the 1970's Hubbard organized its church to infiltrate various government agencies with the intention of purging unfavorable records regarding the church and Hubbard himself. They succeeded in infiltrating 136 government agencies, consulates, and foreign embassies. Most notably the IRS. It remains the single largest infiltration of the United States government ever. The FBI eventually got to the bottom of it in 1977, when they raided several scientology properties. They even discovered evidence that Scientology was behind framing Paulette Cooper for false bomb charges, and an effort to frame the mayor of Clearwater, FL for false hit-and-run charges. Among other things.

The only thing that kept Hubbard out of jail was the fact that during this phase of his life he was sailing around with a fleet of ships, as a self-proclaimed Commodore, sponsored by the pocketbooks of church members. Where he was doing all kinds of drugs, spending time with young girls who changed his clothes, picked up his cigarette ashes, and obeyed his every whim. He also enjoyed abusing his crew members by cruel punishments like throwing them into the sea, blindfolded, from large heights, at danger of hitting the side and being torn by barnacles.

The point is, any religion that sponsors conspiracies that undermine the government, disrupt justice, and promote dishonesty is no kind of religion in my book.

There have been several instances of Scientology abusing its members, both reported and rumoured, but perhaps none is more famous than the case of Lisa McPherson. Who died of a pulmonary embolism in the care of Scientology in 1995. Following her death the church was indicted with two felonies, abuse and neglect of a disabled adult, and practicing medicine without a license. The charges were dropped after the medical examiner changed the cause of death to "accident." After enormous legal pressure from the church.

Lisa was involved in a minor car accident, responding paramedics originally weren't going to take her to the hospital except she exhibited strange psychological behavior. She refused psychiatric help, in keeping with the beliefs of Scientology, and she was taken away by scientologists to the "flag land base," for "rest and relaxation." But there administered an "introspection run down." She was kept in isolation and observed, while she exhibited even stranger, even self-violent behavior, and repeatedly refused food. This lasted for 17 days. Her attendants contacted a scientologist doctor, asking for a prescribed anti-biotic for an infection she had developed, but he refused saying she should be taken to a hospital. They took her to his hospital, a long trip that bypassed four others, because they feared she would be given psychiatric care elsewhere.

By the time they arrived Lisa was already dead. The original coroner's report said Lisa had deteriorated slowly, going without fluids for days, had several bruises and sores, was underweight, and she appeared to have cockroach bites. The autopsy concluded Lisa had died of a pulmonary embolism caused by bed rest and severe dehydration. The church sued that doctor for defamation.

I'm not going to speculate about exactly how Lisa died, or what was involved. But there are enough of these instances for me to make the decision that Scientology is a pretty bad organization. Most recently they have been suspected as having a hand in the spontaneous death of a noteworthy critic and filmmaker, who died in the middle of producing an expose meant to criticize scientology. He was healthy, and his friends and family stated that he was happy, but his death was ruled a suicide within only a few hours.

Again, I am not at all saying that Scientology killed him, or was involved, nor am I saying it wasn't. I just don't know. But this is part of what sparked an internet driven anti-scientology movement by a group calling themselves Anonymous.

Anonymous is a surprisingly large, not clearly organized, collection of people from around the world. Originally they "attacked" scientology through illegal and disruptive methods. Prank calls, facetious threats, black faxes, slowing down websites, things of that nature. (This was January 2008.) But as the months rolled forward the illegal tactics were set aside, perhaps when the group realized just how enormous--and potentially influential--it was. Changing instead to organized legal demonstrations, handing out flyers, etc.

Because you're probably wondering, I am not part of Anonymous. But I am sympathetic to their cause. And when I watch some of their videos online and read their blogs, I have to say I like their sense of humor.

I too think Scientology is taking advantage of its members and doesn't deserve its tax-exempt status, which, I feel, ought to be revoked. I doubt anything spectacular will ever come from this movement, but then so do most of the members of Anonymous, I would guess. These are people who gather together with masks from the V for Vendetta film, share inside internet jokes, play music, and even make fun of themselves. I like their casual, humorous attitude. And I'm not at all afraid of violence initiated by demonstrators.

But what I hope the group does accomplish is to help increase public awareness of scientology, and potentially help along a movement to rescind the sect's tax-exempt status.

So to them I say good luck. Or in their own native tongue, "Rick-Roll those noobs," and "Anonymous > Scientology," and of course, "Go Legion!"

Michael Bay and Citizen Kane

Having read several film reviews one thing has always been consistent. Michael Bay is always trashed on, whether it's his own film getting a bad review before it has even been seen, or whether it is some other director being compared to "drivel, like something Michael Bay would produce," it seems that nobody in the ever-so enlightened film community likes him.

I don't mind a group of people "in the know," collectively loathing somebody. That sounds fun. But I don't understand why it's Michael Bay. I liked The Island. I liked Transformers. I don't understand what the basis of this criticism is.

One reviewer is happy to point out that Michael Bay's "shallow" and "cliched" filmmaking is a far cry from the majestic art that is Citizen Kane.

Well, good! Because Citizen Kane sucked! I'm tired of critics raving about it, inflating its sense of awesomeness. It was dreadfully boring. I give Citizen Kane one star! Take that rosebud! It's about time someone pissed on your parade.