If I were Tom Crusie’s agent, right about now I’d be pulling him aside and give him this little bit of advice. SHUT UP and just be pretty.
Let me get this out of the way first. As an ACTOR, I am a fan of Tom Cruise. I’ve yet to see him in a film where he’s been weak, and that’s really saying something when you consider how many films the dude has been in. However, the man is starting to come down with a little celebrity disease I call “Russell Croweism”. It’s a condition that some very talented and gifted actors get when they seem to develop an overwhelming desire to self destruct their careers.
The saga continues with Cruise as he was being interviewed on The Today Show by Matt Lauer. Lauler asked Crusie about his criticism of Brooke Shields for using anti-depressants. Cruise then accused Lauer of not knowing what he was talking about. It got worse:
“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.”
Oh… well excuse me DR. CRUISE. How dare anyone question your vast medical knowledge! You are obviously all knowing and the rest of us should just shut up. We shall just remain silent and bask in your glory.
Will someone give this man a knock on the head please?!? I bet Steven Spielberg is on his way over with a baseball bat as we speak to shut Cruise up until after the release of War of the Worlds. Since when did the golden boy of Hollywood become such a jackass?!?! I guess I should write to Nicole Kidman Mimi Rogers and ask them.
I’d like to bring to your attention a new documentary called
“Prescription: Suicide?”. The film takes an intimate look at
the personal impact of anti-depressants on children, teenagers
and their families. The film premieres on Nov 10, 2005 at 5:30pm at the Ft Lauderdale 20th Annual International Film Festival.
This film will shed more light onto the arguments that were raised here.
David
If I was a woman I wouldn’t mind Tom Cruise so much, he’d be an animal in bed and f@#k me so hard that he’s break the bed! With all of his rage from his strong views on anti-depressents and crap and all of that couch jumping and Katie Holmes slamming mayhem, theres no going back now, hes a great actor who has just gone crazy or senile with old age, or he’s taking to many depressents, or maybe he just doesn’t give a damn anymore and is showing his true colors and making an ass outa himself is just his nature, who knows?
But he has a great history of even greater acting, now it must be a crappy feeling when you relaize that people only like you for your great acting, but who cares? Some actors and artists I love them for both what they do and who they are, but with most of them its like a light switch and its either on or off, door number 1 or door number 2, for here or to go, and with Tom Cruise I can only respect and love him for his acting, he makes my teeth cringe together and I want to hit him hard in the head and duct tape his mouth shut.
The worst part is I think he’s acting like a freak but it doesn’t matter, I’m still gonna see his movies. I would like to think I wont but thats a lie. I’m a big fan of the Mission movies and since he is currently filming the next I know I’ll be there for it. So all in all I guess it doesn’t matter how he acts. Go be a freak you nutcase. Just make good movies that’s all that matters. Who knows mabey he’s the next Gary Busey. They could have a show together, that would get good ratings.
I’ve been reading up on this issue for quite some time, and I’ve noticed a few things that are almost always present in regards to the people posting comments:
-Most to all of them are anti-Scientologists.
-Many of the anti-Scientologists don’t actually comment on Tom Cruise’s comments, but rather Scientology, its Church and founder, L. Ron Hubbard.
-They have conflicting information on why Scientology is so bad. Such as one person will say if you are a Scientologist you can’t talk to anyone who disagrees with Scientology while another one says if you are a Scientologist you can’t have contact with any non-Scientologist.
-Most of the commentors give hypocritical/contradictory statements, such as, “Tom Cruise should only talk about acting.” So a computer technician should only talk about computers? “Tom Cruise isn’t a doctor.” Neither are you. Why are you commenting? “He has never had a child of his own so how would he know about Postpartum Depression?” Well, you’re right. It’s physically impossible for him to give birth. However, if you have to experience something to be able to comment on it, every doctor that ever did research on cancer would have had to have cancer, and that would slow things down. I could go on but there are TONS of these.
-There are always some comments regarding Tom’s looks, acting and movies.
-Someone feels the need to mention Katie Holmes and the whole “Tom Kat” thing.
-Often someone says Katie is converting to Scientology. If you convert, however, you have to give up your pre-existing religion and nowhere has she said she is no longer Catholic.
-99% of the commentors don’t display any real knowledge of the subjects Tom is talking about other than perhaps their own personal experience with whatever mental illness they or someone else had.
-99% of the commentors have no medical degree themselves.
-Almost always no one mentions the follow-up “Today Show” interview with the Harvard professor that supported Tom Cruise.
-Most used hate-filled juvenille remarks that look as though they had been written by some “bada*s” 14-year-old.
There are probably a few other things but I can’t recall them off-hand. But all these are telling of something….
Perhaps he’s right? And if we all did a little research instead of assuming doctors (of any religion or any cult)held some unattainable knowledge then we’d know why he was right. You don’t HAVE to rely on other people to learn or understand or research.
Tom Cruise, whether liked or not, has the freedom to chose any cult, religion or belief that we all do. Has he committed an atrocity? People with various philosophies or beliefs do – look up http://downingstreetmemo.com for instance to see what is done by so-called Christians.
I don’t believe Cruise has committed a heinous crime or harmed anyone – and unless he does, surely bad-mouthing his actions only serves to reflect badly on our own religion or philosophy?
As for understanding the issues before slamming the person, a little research on Ritalin would help. How it was approved for use, the corruption behind the approval. And most importantly the effects on children, known 30 years ago, recorded in follow up studies on children placed on Ritalin. Then a little more thought and research to work out why Ritalin is still on the market.
The very disturbing follow-up of children on Ritalin thirty years ago is here:
http://www.audiblox2000.com/learning_disabilities/ritalin-effects.htm
The equally disturbing effects on crime levels in Vancouver are here:
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/health/PSYCHIATRY.htm
AS for SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that psych meds are based on, probably the most damning of all statements was from the Paxil manufacturer itself, in a legal document:
“…In May 2003, the maker of the SSRI Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline (√¢‚Ǩ≈ìGSK√¢‚Ǩ¬ù), announced that it was withdrawing claims contained in its promotional material for Paxil (called Seroxat in Ireland and the UK) that the drug worked by normalizing levels of serotonin. GSK acknowledged that the link between depression and serotonin levels is unproven and that such claims √¢‚Ǩ≈ìwere not consistent with the scientific literature.√¢‚Ǩ¬ù
Finally, from a British site quotes, from an MD over there who used to be a consultant for the pharma industry, with regard to psych drug clinical studies being falsified where deadly side effects were written up as nausea:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=182310&messageid=1108216551
Dismissing or discrediting information simply based on personal dislike or religious prejudice is stupidity. Valid evidence of risks and dangers is as relevant to your future (and that of your children) whether it comes from a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Moslem, a Scientologist or a Little Green Man from outer space.
Why not put all that unattractive personal prejudice, jealousy, malice, gossip, to one side and listen to what Cruise said, not how you perceive him or what his religion or cult is. Then research for yourself before coming to conclusions. It might one day save your life.
I think for me Tom Cruise is basking in the lime light a little too long about all this Scientology crap. But that’s because I’m a Christian. It’s all going to sound different to the 3/4 of the population in the US and world even, who are the same as I.
Yes, we are all entitled to our own opionions, and yes, I might even put money on the statement above that Scientology is a cult; but I’d have to say that without back up, Cruise’s statements are null and void to me. You can convince me that something has legtitmacy to it IF and only IF you have back up to your statements. My husband was able to convince me that prostitution legality has merit to it based on standards of having that the girls are checked, and are safe to say no if she wants.
The fact that Cruise got all huffy in his Lauer interview proves that he wasn’t prepared for the conversation to turn the way it did. Had he known, I believe he’d have sounded more articulate and fluent about the topic in which he is so fascinated. In this case, Cruise’s statement about KNOWING the stuff in which you believe, has heart to it. Matt Laurer and Katie Couric are bottom feeders when it comes to asking questions. They are the only ones I know who will ask a “how do you feel” question with a straight face after someone’s legs have been blown off by a land mine.
The difference b/w Christianity and Scientology is the issue of faith. Scientists only believe in what they see; Christians in what they feel. There will never be a medium, where both sides can come together and say, “cool, we agree on something”.
Now, I am not blaspheming the Christian good book, but who’s to say that all the authors who wrote most of the books in the Bible didn’t make it up in the same way the dude made up Scientology. There are, in fact, two stories of creation in the Bible, and several facts that have been “left out” when it comes to the Exodus of the Jews in our happy-go-lucky sunday school sessions.
We should give Cruise room (albeit…very LITTLE) to openly discuss for that which he has passion. It’s a free world, and there’s little that any of us can do about it — including not going to see his War of Worlds, which you’ll only just see in the privacy of your bedroom later anyways (admit it!).
I am a Christian and believe whole heartedly in the Word, and also think Scientology is a load of horseshit. But, we shouldn’t waste time on small things like Cruise, when he’ll get it up the ass in the afterlife, with them aliens who supposedly made the world anyhow.
DId you know that the final teachings of scientology say that 70 million years or so ago billions of aliens from other overpopulated planets were sent to earth were they were mass murdered. And their souls survived all this time and now there are thousands of these alien souls inside each one of us.
This is kept a secret from new members of scientology until they can be manipulated enough so that they will believe this piece of science fiction as fact.
I’m sure tom Cruise is a high ranking member of scientology, so if he knows this, how can he believe it???
this is too funny
http://tomcruiseisanidiot.com
wow, way to go
The Cult Awareness Network
Scientology’s takeover of CAN is the subject of this broadcast. Stacy Brooks is one of those interviewed.
[Note: WARNING! The Cult Awareness Network (CAN) was recently bankrupted and bought up by Scientology. We strongly recommend you do not contact them for assistance.]
60 Minutes/December 28, 1997
Transcript
Descriptions of video in italics. VO=Voiceover of Lesley Stahl.
LESLEY STAHL (in studio): There was a time if you were worried about your son or daughter being in a cult, you could get help from a small, non-profit organization called the Cult Awareness Network, or CAN, for 20 years the nation’s best-known resource for information and advice about groups it considered dangerous. Among them was Scientology, a church not known for turning the other cheek. But church officials say Scientology is just another tax-exempt religion that helps millions of people worldwide, including actors John Travolta and Tom Cruise. And while Scientology did attack its enemies in the past, church officials say they don’t do that anymore. But recently, the Cult Awareness Network was forced into bankruptcy, and its leaders blame the Church of Scientology.
New CAN office
VO: Today, CAN is under new management.
RECEPTIONIST (answering phone): Hello, Cult Awareness Network.
VO: Now, when you call looking for information about a cult, chances are the person you’re talking to is a Scientologist.
Workers at CAN office
VO: Ashley’s one; so is Bob. Everyone we met in the office was a Scientologist. Last year, a member of the church bought CAN’s name, logo, and hotline number in bankruptcy court for $20,000.
STACY YOUNG: This is a dream come true for Scientology.
VO: Stacy Young would know. She was a member of the church for 15 years, including its elite Sea Organization. She also worked in the Office of Special Affairs, and was managing editor of its “Freedom” magazine.
Stacy Young at her computer, cat jumping down on the desk
VO: She left in 1989, and has been a paid consultant in lawsuits against Scientology.
YOUNG: The Cult Awareness Network was the only organization in the country where parents could call and say, you know, “I’ve lost my child into this cult. What do I do?”
VO: She says Scientology sets out to destroy anyone who criticizes it.
YOUNG: Someone who speaks publicly against Scientology is targeted for a campaign of harassment, character assassination, financial ruin. There’s a policy that says, specifically, “If possible, ruin them utterly.”
VO: She is talking about a church directive– this one– the “Fair Game” law, that says a person or group that publicly criticizes the church is “fair game,” and can be “destroyed.” Stacy Young and others do not believe the church when it says it no longer harasses its enemies.
STAHL (in front of Scientology building, by sign saying “Can you increase confidence and self respect?”): Now, the church says, Scientology, originally known as Dianetics, is a benevolent religion, with anti-drug programs and literacy projects that helps its followers increase their confidence.
Camera backs up to show rest of the sign–on top of the sign is a picture of the “Dianetics” book
STAHL: A central doctrine goes like this: 75 million years ago, a tyrant named Xenu transported people from outer space to Earth, dropped them in volcanoes, then exploded hydrogen bombs on them. That experience is the root of all human misery today.
VO: Scientology offers to help people overcome that misery, charging as much as $50,000 in a year. It’s one of the reasons why “Time” magazine calls Scientology “The cult of greed.”
VO: One of “Time’s” principal sources was Cynthia Kisser, who was CAN’s executive director.
STAHL: You said, “Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious, and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen.” Whoa, that was very powerful. Do you stand by that?
KISSER: Oh, more than ever, more than ever. I mean, everything they’ve done since then just proves that quote.
VO: Cynthia Kisser says a Fair Game attack on CAN started in the 1980’s, and Stacy Young says she was part of it.
YOUNG: Some of the staff who were assigned to the Cult Awareness Network would brief us about…
STAHL: You mean there were people specifically assigned?
YOUNG: Oh, yes, that was their whole job. that was all they did.
STAHL: Was CAN?
YOUNG: Was CAN, that’s right. And so, our whole orientation was, well, what have you done this week to get rid of CAN, and how, how well have you done to discredit the leaders of CAN? How much progress have you made on disrupting this group?
Footage of Scieno picketers with signs saying “CAN is a hate group”, “No more hate, no more riots”, “Stop hate mongering in Los Angeles, don’t support CAN”, “CAN kidnappers get out of LA”, Stop Religious Hate Crimes, Stop Ku Klux CAN”.
VO: To do it, she says the church used picketers at CAN’s conventions, and waged smear campaigns.
VO: Attorney Kendrick Moxon does most of the church’s legal work, and he is a devout Scientologist.
STAHL: We are told, Mr. Moxon, that a small army of private investigators was hired by your law firm to go out and dig up dirt on members of CAN “Cynthia Kisser specifically” and anything else they could find. Is that true?
MOXON: No, it’s not true.
STAHL: Now, a lot of lawyers hire private eyes to dig up dirt on people. I mean, now, we were even hearing…
MOXON: I don’t know. I know… I’ve heard that people do that, and I know that the media does that, but I don’t know that a lot of lawyers do that. I don’t do that.
VO: He acknowledges using private detectives, but not for the purpose of digging up dirt.
Picture of detective permit for Michael Shomers
VO: But former private eye Michael Shomers says Moxon’s law firm hired him to do just that.
SHOMERS: Find the sleaze–to find the hidden alcoholism, to find the hidden drug abuse, if that was the case.
STAHL: The sex life?
SHOMERS: The sex lives.
STAHL: Bad debts?
SHOMERS: Correct.
Scientology org in Washington D.C., handwritten notes about Cynthia Kisser and other CAN members – some excerpts include “loose cannon?” “rude, crude acolholic?”. “Con. Waxman”, “Cynthia Kisser” are highlighted.
VO: He says he got his marching orders during a meeting right in the Scientology Church in Washington, D.C. He says a staffer briefed him on CAN, and jotted down notes that Shomers kept. He says he was told to investigate CAN and its purported allies: I.R.S. officials, and Congressman Henry Waxman of California. And he was told to dig up enough dirt on Cynthia Kisser to destroy her reputation and intimidate her into silence.
Another highlighted part of notes: “Topless dancer at Blue Note (15 years)
STAHL: It says “Topless dancer at the Blue Note in Tucson, Arizona. Cynthia Kisser.”
SHOMERS: That’s correct.
STAHL: So, did you investigate that?
SHOMERS: Yes, I did.
STAHL: Was she a topless dancer?
SHOMERS: No.
STAHL: Did you tell the Church of Scientology–
SHOMERS: Yes, I did–
STAHL: …That these were…these allegations were not true?
SHOMERS: That’s correct.
MOXON: I don’t know if she’s a topless dancer or not.
STAHL: Did you tell our producer that you didn’t believe that was true?
MOXON: I told your producer that I thought, looking at Cynthia Kisser, it seemed improbable that she could have been a topless dancer because of the way she looks.
Moxon walking down hall
VO: Yet despite his own view and the evidence from investigator Shomers, Moxon, also a minister in the church, persisted in bringing it up.
MOXON: I mean, that… we got a declaration already indicating that she had been a topless dancer.
STAHL: I can’t believe you are continuing to talk about her being a topless dancer.
MOXON: Why? That was one of the allegations.
STAHL: But you’ve even said you don’t even think she was one. That’s character assassination.
MOXON: I don’t–Lesley, there’s a declaration from a woman swearing that she was a topless dancer.
STAHL: Were you a topless dancer?
KISSER: No. And later, the person that they claimed told them that retracted it, issued a retraction, saying that it wasn’t true.
Pictures of “Freedom” magazine, anti-CAN Scieno literature
VO: Kisser says Scientology also used its publications to label CAN a criminal outfit, and then contacted police and members of Congress with specific charges. President of the Church of Scientology, Reverend Heber Jentzsch, repeated the accusations to us.
JENTZSCH: Kidnapping people, holding them against their will, beating up on people, pistol whipping, safe houses where they hold people against their will, rape of their victims, that sort of thing.
STAHL (in office): Jentzsch accuses CAN of kidnapping people out of cults and then trying to deprogram them. Defenders of the practice call them “rescues,” which are perfectly legal when they involve youngsters under 18. But Scientology says CAN was involved in illegal deprogramming of adults, and they sent us reams of documents they say are examples, including the sworn declaration of a former deprogrammer named Mark Blocksom.
Moxon and Jentzsch sitting together
MOXON: I’ve got it right here.
STAHL: OK.
MOXON: Mark Blocksom said he was involved in a number of…of kidnappings. He said he was involved in one with Cynthia Kisser, where he actually worked for CAN. He got… he got many referrals from CAN. He said most of his referrals were from CAN.
Mark Blocksom walking down sidewalk
VO: So we tracked down Mark Blocksom and asked him about it.
STAHL: How would you describe that sworn declaration of yours?
BLOCKSOM: It’s embellished, to say the least. It’s not – it’s not true.
STAHL: You lied.
BLOCKSOM: Yes, I did.
STAHL: Why did you lie?
BLOCKSOM: I saw it as a means to maybe get… support my habit.
Blocksom walking down sidewalk
VO: He says he was a drug addict when he signed that declaration five years ago after he was approached by one of Moxon’s private detectives. Blocksom maintains there was an implied promise of money, which never materialized, if he could implicate CAN and Kisser in illegal deprogramming. Clean and sober now, Blocksom wants to set the record straight.
BLOCKSOM: Well, I spoke with Kendrick Moxon not long ago.
STAHL: Did you tell you had lied?
BLOCKSOM: Yes, and it irritates me that they persist in using this statement as a propaganda tool to support their position about Cult Awareness Network.
STAHL (in office): But the church accuses CAN of coercing Blocksom’s change of testimony. For its part, CAN says that while it did permit deprogrammers to attend its conventions, it was never involved in illegal deprogramming, and in fact, CAN was never charged with a crime
Michael Shomers
VO: Even Michael Shomers, the church’s own investigator, couldn’t find any evidence of one.
STAHL: Did you ever find that they were deprogramming people, or involved in that?
SHOMERS: Never heard anybody at any meeting at any time.
STAHL: Ever mention deprogramming.
SHOMERS: No.
STAHL: So when you sent your reports in into the Church of Scientology, were they disappointed with you?
SHOMERS: Yes, they were. They just keep on going. There had to be something. They knew that there just had to be something, but there simply wasn’t anything.
Cynthia Kisser, picture of bunch of letters sent by Scienos to CAN, including “Model Letter” with “(to be put in own words)” hand written on top
VO: Cynthia Kisser says the church’s final assault on CAN began when hundreds of Scientologists from around the country wrote virtually identical letters asking to become members of CAN. Included among them was this model letter with instruction “to be put in your own words.” Fearing, she says, the church was out to take control of CAN, Kisser denied their applications to join.
Legal papers
VO: CAN was then hit with a barrage of lawsuits by individual Scientologists, claiming religious discrimination.
KISSER: I got hit with 12 suits in one week. I would open the door, a process server would give me a suit. They were suing us all over the country, sometimes simultaneously.
Document titled “Scientology-related cases CAN and members have faced” with the lists of plaintiffs, defendants, and jurisdictions
VO: In all, CAN was hit with more than 50 lawsuits. Even though most of the suits were eventually dropped or won by CAN, she says the cost of defending them, nearly $2 million, drove CAN to the brink of bankruptcy.
Moxon and Jentzsch
STAHL: Would you concede, Reverend Jentzsch, that at least part of the motivation for the lawsuits was to get CAN, was to silence them?
JENTZSCH: I would say that the individuals who were involved definitely wanted to do something about CAN. What are you going to do when they’re trying to destroy you? Look, if you’re a Jew–
STAHL: You’re saying nothing–
JENTZSCH: If you’re… if you’re… if you’re a Jew, no… no Jew is going to cry about the fact that the Nazi Party is gone. If you’re an African-American, no one is going to cry that the KKK is gone. I am not crying because CAN is gone, OK? They were a vicious group–
STAHL: That’s not my question–
JENTZSCH: They tried to destroy us.
STAHL: My question is, would you concede that at least part of what happened with those lawsuits was a deliberate attempt to harass and intimidate them into silence?
JENTZSCH: No, absolutely not.
STAHL: Well, you’re not going to make us believe that there were these 30 or 50 lawsuits that’s… all sprang up, you know, just serendipitously. There must have–
MOXON: They didn’t–they didn’t spring up serendipitously. A number of Scientologists came to our firm and said, “I’m being discriminated against by CAN.” We have these complaints–
STAHL: Well, wait–
MOXON: In the computer.
STAHL: Who was telling them to try to join?
MOXON: Nob–Oh, who was telling them to try to join CAN in the first place?
STAHL: Yeah.
MOXON: I don’t know. It was a kind of a grass-roots movement of Scientologists that wanted to go to CAN and dialogue with them.
YOUNG: 50 people all across the country suddenly all decided in unison, “We need to sue CAN.” I don’t think so. This is not the way it works.
VO: Stacy Young says she sat in on staff meetings where the litigation campaign against CAN was discussed.
YOUNG: Once they put CAN in their sights with regard to litigation, it was only a matter of time before they were gonna find a case that they could use to put them out of business.
VO: That case came in the person of Jason Scott, an 18-yr-old member not of Scientology, but of a fringe Pentecostal church in Bellevue, Washington. One of CAN’s volunteers referred Jason’s mother to a deprogrammer, who kidnapped Jason.
Lesley Stahl and Jason Scott walking down sidewalk
VO: CAN was never charged in the case, and the deprogrammer who was, was acquitted. Jason says a lawyer in Moxon’s firm then recommended that he file a civil suit.
SCOTT: He’s like, “This thing is worth millions. Let’s get ’em.”
STAHL: Did they specifically say that you should sue CAN?
SCOTT: Mm-hmm. Oh, yes. That was, that was the kicker, is CAN. “We’ve got to get CAN involved.”
STAHL (in office): So Jason sued. Kendrick Moxon was his lawyer. And despite CAN’s insistence that it had nothing to do with illegal deprogramming, the jury disagreed, so did the judge, and the $1.8 million CAN was ordered to pay Jason forced it into bankruptcy.
Article with headline “Washington man awarded judgement against CAN, other defendants”, CAN newsletter with headline “Cult Awareness Network files Chapter Seven Bankruptcy/ceases daily operations”
New CAN office
RECEPTIONIST (answering phone): Hello, Cult Awareness Network.
VO: And that’s why, when you visit CAN’s new headquarters in Hollywood, you can find out about all the good things the Church is doing.
New CAN pamphlets: “Facts about deprogramming: A stain on our heritage of religious tolerance”, “A novel approach: How to bring family and friends back together”, and “Fact vs. Fiction: Scientology: the inside story at last”
STAHL (in studio): Since Stacy Young began speaking out, she believes the church has waged a “fair game” attack against her, including what she calls attempts to sabotage her business, a small non-profit animal sanctuary in Seattle. The Church denies it. We, on the other hand, deny the Church’s accusation that we have a conflict of interest in this story because producer Richard Bonin has an aunt who’s a lawyer involved in litigation against the Church. Though that’s true, our producer’s Aunt Lita had nothing to do with our story.
Let us not forget where Scientology comes from..A scence fiction writer by the name of L.Ron Hubbard MADE it up. Come on, the guy just wanted to see if he could fool people into following a cult and created one – fabricated it out of thin air with his wonderful sci-fi imagination – and must be laughing his ass off on the other side ( if there is one)
A sci-fi writer created a cult for fun, as an experiment to see how people reacted and look at it now – thousands of suckers no better than any needy, irresponsible individual that falls for ANY cult rhetoric are involved in this. It seems too easy to manipulate and brainwash people.
Scientology is just another CULT, and has all the trappings of CULTS, down to the secular brainwashing of otherwise semi-intelligent people.
Let us not forget how much MONEY they rake in each year AND the fact that they are branded as a CULT in many European countries and BANNED from operating there.
Poor, ridiculous dude Tom, he’s only stating simple Scientologist dogma since what comes out of his mouth is what’s in his soul = nothing. Is Tom truly working on his soul? If Tom’s not searching for Wisdom, Knowledge, Counsel, Understanding, Fortitude, Piety, and Fear of the Lord in his worldly yondering = then Tom’s completely full of shit. I caught on to some fake compassion though, when Tom said he cares about everybody so much at the Matt Laur interview. I guess Tom wanted to feed all some Scientologist tidbits by expanding into and coming out of his actor shell with human Scientology crap which is sorely lacking in science and wisdom. Truth is Tom’s behavior was the new Jackass craze, and someone at “TomCruiseisanIdiot.com” said Tom must be suffering from “RussellCroweism” … maybe he can work it off with vitamins and exercise… it’s more like Tom needs some “ecorcise”
Let’s compare:
Tom Cruise: Actor, Awards: Acting hoo-ha, training….well, acting.
John Nash: Some math guy. Awards: Some Nobel thing….meds? Geez, maybe it’s a hoax.
Tom, catch a clue, get a grip, as has been said. Shut up, play roles in movies and just look pretty, it’s all you are good at.
Research? I noticed Tom didn’t site any of his research. I’ve done research on various things, and guess what, Santa is real, Bigfoot had a facial at a great spa in Vegas and ghost children push cars over railroad tracks….Cruise needs to check his research for viability.
Let’s compare:
Tom Cruise: Actor, Awards: Acting hoo-ha, training….well, acting.
John Nash: Some math guy. Awards: Some Nobel thing….meds? Geez, maybe it’s a hoax.
Tom, catch a clue, get a grip, as has been said. Shut up, play roles in movies and just look pretty, it’s all you are good at.
In the news:
“PARIS, Freedom — Renowned scientist and leading world authority in Psychiatry Tom Cruise has formally accepted an invitation by Harvard University to lead its Psychiatry Dept. Cruise plans to restructure its Schizophrenia treatment program.”
From Uncyclopedia ;)
Recent behavior suggests to me that Mr. Cruise may be on some sort of prescription drug himself. And all the recent talk of high-priced prescription drugs seems further proof of that. Or maybe he NEEDS the precscription drugs he speaks of but is too embarrassed to admit it to himself and/or too afraid of what it means that he may need them.
sorry. i have to say that cruise has been acting pretty normal here lately. actually, he’s been showing a little balls.
other than the whole katie holmes thing. i think that’s a bit strange. but not abnormal.
but other than that, all he’s done is stand up for himself. the water microphone dude got what he deserved, and he hadnt been publically humiliated like that if it wasnt for cruise saying “Screw that.” And my hat’s off to him for once.
i don’t see what all the fuss is about here. doesn’t lauer know that ritaline is actually just another version of cocaine? Everyone i know that is insane is on ritaline.
hello
tom thinks since he is a relatively good actor he is above all of us. he must be eating 2 much mad cow burgers, plus LILLY good job with ur post, short and sweet
Cruise’s behavior in recent weeks would suggest that HE may be on some type of prescription drug(s) which might explain his obsession with the subject of late as well as his ability to pronounce all the drug names properly and their supposed effects, sideffects and effectiveness – I certainly can’t.
Let me ask you all a question – everyone who wants to bash Tom Cruise for his stance on psychotropic medications given to kids and uneducated adults: What do you say about those who while on these medications have suffered irreversible side effects or committed suicide or killed someone as opposed to these supposed “friends” Matt Lauer is talking about? Matt and most modern day media personnel have totally thrown out the Book of Journalistic Integrity – they research very little because were they required to do so they would find out Tom Cruise is right on the money with his perspective on Psychiatry 2K.
Little if anything has been studied about the long-term effects of Ritalin – yet millions of children have been put on it and other similar medications, many for simply exhibiting childhood antics. But I wouldn’t expect the average person to know this because the media tell you very little about these things.
Know what you’re talking about before you open your mouth.
Ritalin is More Potent Than Cocaine
By Jean West
The children’s drug Ritalin has a more potent effect on the brain than cocaine.
Using brain imaging, scientists have found that, in pill form, Ritalin – taken by thousands of British children and four million in the United States – occupies more of the neural transporters responsible for the ‘high’ experienced by addicts than smoked or injected cocaine. The research may alarm parents whose children have been prescribed Ritalin as a solution to Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
The study was commissioned to understand more about why Ritalin – which has the same pharmacological profile as cocaine – is effective in calming children and helping them concentrate, while cocaine produces an intense ‘high’ and is powerfully addictive.
In oral form, Ritalin did not induce this intense psychological ‘hit’. But Dr Nora Volkow, psychiatrist and imaging expert at Brookhaven National Laboratory, in Upton, New York, who led the study, said that injected into the veins as a liquid rather than taken as a pill, it produced a rush that ‘addicts like very much’.
Interviewed in last week’s Journal of the American Medical Association newsletter, she said: ‘They say it’s like cocaine.’
Even in pill form, Ritalin blocked far more of the brain transporters that affect mood change and had a greater potency in the brain than cocaine. Researchers were shocked by this finding.
A normal dose administered to children blocked 70 per cent of the dopamine transporters. ‘The data clearly show the notion that Ritalin is a weak stimulant is completely incorrect,’ said Volkow. Cocaine is known to block around 50 per cent of these transporters, leaving a surfeit of dopamine in the system, which is responsible for the hit addicts crave.
But now it is known that Ritalin blocks 20 percent more of these auto-receptors.
‘I’ve been almost obsessed about trying to understand [Ritalin] with imaging,’ said Volkow. ‘As a psychiatrist I sometimes feel embarrassed [about the lack of knowledge] because this is by far the drug we prescribe most frequently to children.’
However, it was still not clear why a drug that has been administered for more than 40 years was not producing an army of addicted schoolchildren. Volkow and her team concluded that this was due to the much slower process of oral ingestion.
It takes around an hour for Ritalin in pill form to raise dopamine levels in the brain. Smoked or injected, cocaine does this in seconds.
Dr. Joanna Fowler, who worked with Volkow on the project, said: ‘All drugs that are abused by humans release large quantities of dopamine. But dopamine is also necessary for people to be able to pay attention and filter out other distractions.’
But opponents of Ritalin, labeled a ‘wonder drug’ and a ‘chemical cosh’, believe it may be addictive and has dangerous side-effects. Moreover, many believe ADHD is a fraudulent title for a non-existent condition once put down to the exuberance of youth.
Professor Steve Baldwin, a child psychologist from Teesside University, who died this year in the Selby rail crash, campaigned against Ritalin. He pointed out similarities between the drug and amphetamines as well as cocaine.
Mandy Smith of Banff in Scotland has a son of eight who was prescribed Ritalin for nine months. ‘I am astonished the British Government have allowed this drug to be prescribed,’ she said. ‘It can destroy people’s lives. My son was a changed person when he took Ritalin. He was suicidal and depressed.’
Janice Hill, of the Overload Support Network, a charity for parents of children with behavioral problems, said: ‘Now we have thousands of children in Scotland taking a drug that is more potent than cocaine. What does it take before the situation is thoroughly investigated?’
The Observer September 9, 2001
http://www.mercola.com/2001/sep/26/ritalin.htm
While I disagree with Cruise for insulting Lauer and trying to minimalize him in front of his audience, I have to say that I think Cruise is not only allowed to have his opinion, but probably correct in it. I think far too many people go to drugs (prescription or otherwise) as the easy fix to their problems. How many people do you know that have vials of valium or xanax in their medicine cabinet? Or can easily get them from friends or relatives? Is this really the healthiest way for us to deal with our problems? Or is it just a way for us to forget them, push them out of our minds for a few hours so we can fall asleep and push them even further into our subconcious/denial?
I’ll go see War of the Worlds. Without my wife I might add, as she is now anti-Cruise. But I think he’s a great actor, and always entertaining on the big screen.
Now, having said all THAT. If you want to see one of the funniest Cruise clips on the net, check out http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/06/tom_cruise_kill.html
It’s Tom Cruise killing Oprah. Very funny.
What I guess I dont’ get about Cruise is his fanatic need regarding how important it is to him that his religion be understood by the masses. If you actually look at the Code of Honor that Scientologists are required to follow, you will note the last one (No. 13 – a freak coincidence?) states “Don’t desire to be liked or admired,” while No. 5 states “Never need praise, approval or sympathy.”
Huh. I guess when you’re a recruiter for the church, you’re allowed to bend a few of these life rules, then?
Hey Sandro.
Yes, a guy can have an opinion… but that doesn’t give him the right to 1) Tell the other guy he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and 2) talk as if he’s an expert on something he knows very little about.
If you want to give an opinon.. just say “here’s what I personally think”. That’s cool But what Cruise did (telling Lauer that he had no idea what he was talking about) wasn’t just giving an opinion… is was acting like a jackass.\
But hey… that’s just my opinion. :)
Cheers!
come on men, a guy can hava an opinion
In my opinion, he’s right when he says that drugs are dangerous, that they are mind altering and there are often abuses. He gets over the line when he starts insisting that he knows the REAL history of psychiatry (he was already proven wrong by the Entertainment Weekly magazine after editors checked facts from a recent interview in which Cruise said that psychiatry is “a Nazi science”, that Adolophine was named after Hitler etc). Also, when he’s saying that “drugs aren’t the answer”, I wonder what alternate answer he has in mind. Maybe converting to scientology miraculously cures people, if done together with “exercise and taking vitamins”. Oh please.
And I like the IMDB comment “during an interview to promote his new film War Of The Worlds, Cruise fired off at Lauer…” – how much did they talk about the actual movie? Lately, each time someone interviews Cruise, it’s all about Katie Holmes and other subjects. I liked Spielberg’s reaction during a Dark Horizons interview, when he was interviewd together with Tom Cruise about the upcoming movie and suddenly the reporter asked “a Katie question”:
Steven Spielberg: 20 minutes went by. (Holds up his watch) That’s great. 20 minutes went by before it happened.
2:1
War of the Worlds bombs, Spielberg punches Cruise on National television.
Here’s a transcript of the discussion, for the ones who need to know details:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3tc.htm
Tom Cruise is an idiot. Let him go through postpartum or other types of depression and then run his mouth. As far as his statement that he knows so much about psychiatry, where’s the degree, Tom? I am urging everyone to boycott War of the Worlds to send a message that Tom needs an attitude change in a bad way.
Over-exposure is a double edge sword for those in the acting profession. Open your mouth, fall on the sword. Close your mouth, and you risk being pushed onto the sword.
I seriously wonder if he has had severe head trama or been diagnosed with a freaky disease. Back in the Days of Thunder and when Tom Cruise was Top Gun, it wasn’t Risky Business for us to hear about a Tom Cruise movie and run full fledge arm swinging “Fuck Ya, Were seeing a new Tom Cruise moive!” into the theatre and make asses out of ourselves. Now after Mission Impossible 2, War of the Worlds, publicity stunts(*coughkatieholmes*cough, and horrible interviews, it seems as an actor can only sell out and disappoint us so much before any more worthless crap will just give us even more drive to rip on an actor. He needs to get his shit together before he gets into that stage where he is stuck doing as reality show. So what is his fucking problem!? Times have changed, Tom is old, and he needs to bring it back down to a Jerry MacGuire role and add a gun. Collateral wa an awsome movie, I guess it doesn’t even take a year to go down the “tubes” and consider a “Mission Impossible” 3 role.
I actually got a lot of what he said. I understood that he had researched a lot of what he was talking about and he spoke with confidence, where Matt just was trying to get him into a “tagline” corner so that they could have some shock horror statement to brag about on air.
What I did get a whole whiff of throughout the interview was that Cruise can’t seem to string an intelligent sentence together at the moment. He would leap about in a sentence, not finish it, and come back to saying “man” or shake his head. He used to be quite fluent. What is that all about?