Update: Brooke Shields Educates the Orangutan
Frankly, I don't know much about Brooke Shields, and what I did know, I didn't like. . . always seemed to me that she was the product of a pushy old broad (her mother) who had no sense about how to be a loving, caring parent. Brooke always seemed, to me at least, to be one of those lost souls whose identity, as an individual, got mangled in her mother's mad rush to make her a celebrity of some sort.
Well, in my eyes she's redeemed herself. One, she's done much to help us all understand the trials faced by many young mothers who suffer after the birth of a child; and two, she's helped us understand what an idiot Tom Cruise really is. Too bad that his movie, War of The Worlds, seems to be ranking in the money at the box office this week, but I will take some comfort in the notion that not one penny of it came from my pocket. . . stay away from the theater. . .he's a religious zealot!
Beyond the zealotry, it amazes me that one would engage in a war of words, as Cruise has done, and come to the battle so totally unarmed. Stupid!
See Ms. Shields Op-Ed response to Tom Cruise in the NY Times July 1, 2005 edition; it's nothing short of excellent!
Ever on the watch,
Davy Crockett
posted by James A. Flynn @ 9:28 AM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
I totally agree with you. Tom Cruise really needs to learn to not open his mouth if he doesn't have the knowledge to back it up. And what was up with his beef against Ritalin on the Today Show? I'm glad he's apparently perfect, now he needs to realize not everyone is.
I am not sure why you say he has no knowledge to back him up? Must be what you want to be true!
He is mostly right. Today's pill poppin society, with direction from the phsycologists use drugs far too readily, especially for children. Many reports to back that up.
I can't say how scientology runs today, but the founder's principles were pretty sound. Like most - there are the pluses and the minuses.
Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, Religion with out science is blind." I guess he would like scientology!
Bt the way, Brooke had some good points too. They both do us a favor by bringing talk to the forefront!
It's interesting that if you Google Davey Crokett and Scientology you get results...
Quiet! The association might be to much for him. . .he might change his name!
To put Einstein in the service of a position that he so clearly rejected is not just disingenuous but is in fact dishonest, recklessly careless, or sum such thing as that. In November 1930, Einstewin wrote a lengthy essay in the New York Times Magazine, Nov. 9 issue, expressing his views on the subject: Science and Religion. See pp 1-4; That essay has been reprinted numerous times and is commonly available. The excerpt below expresses the essence of his view.
"When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
Albert Einstein, 1930
I don't think one has to read very much Einstein to know that he found nothing in the religious practices of his time to venerate. To suggest that he might approve of Tom or of his deeply felt relationship with scinetology is to engage in a fantasy that defines my ability to comprehend; it's so totally beyond my ken.
davey, you're a verbose mofo...
keep it up.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home