It seems that at least one member of the Australian parliament has had enough of the Church of Scientology.
Independent Australian senator Nick Xenophon tabled letters with the Australian parliament this week from former members of the Church of Scientology that accuse the organization of torture, coerced abortions, embezzlement and more crimes. According to the Times of London, Mr. Xenophon made some very sweeping claims against Scientology:
Scientology is not a religious organisation, it is a criminal organisation that hides behind its so-called religious beliefs …
The letters received by me which were written by former followers in Australia contains extensive allegations of crimes and abuses that are truly shocking – crimes against them and crimes they say they were coerced into committing.
These victims of Scientology claim it is an abusive, manipulative, violent and criminal organisation, and that criminality is condoned at the highest levels.
While nothing is definite yet, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is calling for investigations into the accusations which the Church of Scientology mearly says they are the angry ramblings of disgruntled former members. “Many people in Australia have real concerns about Scientology,” Prime Minister Rudd said. He also commented, “I share some of those concerns. Let us proceed carefully and look carefully at the material he has provided before we make a decision on further parliamentary action.”
The list of allegations include (again from the Time of London):
Paul Schofield admitted to being part of a campaign to cover up the facts surrounding the death of his two daughters, including two and a half-year-old Kirsty, who died during a purification program.
Aaron Saxton confined and tortured a follower and coerced females to have abortions, one who used a coat hanger for fear of punishment. He also has details of murder confessions from members in the US, information that was never passed on to police.
Carmel Underwood was put under “extreme pressure” to have an abortion, and witnessed a young sexually abused girl being coached on how to keep it secret.
Anna and Dean Detheridge, who were forced to reject a gay relative, provided evidence that personal information was used to blackmail and control them.
Kevin Mackey revealed how he handed over nearly a million dollars in exchange for services and products after he was conditioned by the sect.
Peta O’Brien was discouraged from seeking treatment for cancer, was cut off from her son and provided evidence of being assaulted.
While the Church of Scientology can claim these are the ramblings of disgruntled former members, but these fit in with numerous stories from anti-Scientology sites such as Xenu.net that have been collected over the years.
While this is the first time I have heard claims of coerced abortions, it is far from the first time I have had stories of Scientologists being forced to reject (known as “disconnection” in the Church) family members. Paul Haggis, the Oscar winning screenwriter who recently left the Church, told a story of how he was forced to disconnect from relatives who had left the Church. The Church denies that this policy still exists, but the evidence continues to mount that it indeed does.
All of these claims are of course nothing more than claims at this time, and as with any time I write about Scientology, I highly recommend you do your own research into the organization. I would, however, say, that if the government of an entire country is becoming interested in investigating them, doesn’t that say something isn’t completely right here? Again, do your own reading, but for those of us who already speak out against Scientology, this is a major step in the right direction.
[hat tip to Jo for pointing out this story to me on Twitter]
Natalie Portman, like Bono, needs to learn to shut up.
Every single person in this world is entitled to their opinion, and to their freedom of speech. I obviously consider this one of the main tenants of the world as I shoot my mouth off here on my blog on a constant basis. I feel everyone should have opinions, and they should also feel free to express them, but you know how that old saying goes about “opinions are like …”, you know the one I mean. Well, Ms. Portman has apparently discovered that orifice on her body.
This story is a couple of days old now, and I have been debating since it broke if I even wanted to talk about it. I am about to tell someone (believe me, I know I am writing this for myself and no one else) to keep a certain “I’m better than you” attitude to herself when I run a blog where I rant about Scientologists on a regular basis. However, some things are just so monumentally stupid that you can’t stop yourself from commenting.
You see, Ms. Portman wrote an article for the Huffington Post about how she has converted from being a vegetarian to an out spoken vegan. I have no problems with vegetarians or vegans in any way, my belief is that is their choice, good for them. However, just like I won’t wave meat in their face, I prefer the not wave their choices in mine. I’m willing to have open discussions on the subject so long as they remain civil, but this is one of those subjects like politics that rarely does. I have known many of both types of people over the years, and we have never once had a problem … course, none of them before have likened me to a rapist.
Yes, you read that right … a rapist.
In her defense of Jonathan Safran Foer’s book, Eating Animals, which she says is what brought about the change in her views, she postulates a scenario that would be the most awkward dinner conversation ever.
I say that Foer’s ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just “This is tasty, and that’s why I do it.” He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don’t believe in rape, but if it’s what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).
I think there is a small difference between eating, something all humans have to do to live, and an act of violence taken upon another human.
As I said earlier, I have known many vegetarians and vegans over the years, and to see me, you would have no doubt I eat meat. I have always been able to get along because they know they aren’t going to change me, and I have no desire to change them. I applaud their convictions to be honest, but when you begin preaching to me, that is when I have a problem with you, no matter what the subject might be. If I respect your decisions, surely you can do the same for me? The quickest way to turn me off to your beliefs or causes is to lecture me, which is exactly what it sounds like Ms. Portman plans to begin doing.
This has always struck me as one of the biggest problems with this sort of “debate”: the other party automatically assumes I have made my choice out of some form of lack of education on the matter, and it is now their duty to correct that. You have no clue how or why I have made the decisions I have made, and you instead of trying to “educate” me, or confronting me at a dinner party about it (Anyone else think Ms. Portman’s dinner part invites just dropped like a rock?), how about you stick to your choices and I’ll stick to mine?
It is a beautiful thing to have convictions and to stand up for them, but if your plan to get your voice heard is to liken people such as myself to being a rapist, well … good luck with how far you’re going to get.
It isn’t normally newsworthy when someone decided to leave their religion, but when someone leaves the Church of Scientology, and airing its dirty laundry on the way out, that makes it newsworthy.
Paul Haggis wrote Crash (for which he won an Oscar for Original Screenplay), Million Dollar Baby, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and many other projects. It also appears that Mr. Haggis has been a practicing member of the Church of Scientology for the past 35 years.
Long time readers of this blog will be well aware of my bottomless hated for this “Church”, so my extreme pleasure at seeing such a notable figure leaving the organization should come as a surprise to no one. However, why did he leave? Well, it seems that Mr. Haggis has become disenchanted with the “Church” over its support of Prop 8 in California, and also over the fact the Tommy Davis, the head of Scientology’s Celebrity Centre, has publicly stated that the “Church” no longer enforces the practice of “disconnection.”
For those unfamiliar with this term, disconnection is the polite term for cutting off all contact and dealings with someone who chooses to leave the “church”. Mr. Haggis saw Mr. Davis deny that this policy was still enforced on a television interview, but Mr. haggis claims that a mere year and a half ago, he and his wife, actress Deborah Rennard, were told told to cut off all contact with her parents as they had been kicked out of the “church” for an unknown infraction. Apparently Ms. Rennard followed the orders, painfully, but Mr. Haggis refused to cut off her parents from their grandchild. Mr. Davis has since been quoted as saying that Mr. Haggis is wrong about this.
The last straw for Mr. Haggis was that 10 months ago Mr. Davis promised him that something would be done about the “church” vocally supporting Prop 8, but as time dragged on, and nothing happened, Mr. Haggis chose to leave the “church.”
What follows is Mr. Haggis’ letter to Mr. Davis, which is possibly one of the most embarrassing documents from a former member to ever come to light. The original source of the letter is the blog, Moving On Up A Little Higher which has details of how they received the letter. The letter has also been authenticated by Ziggy Kozlowski, a publicist for Haggis, who said the letter was originally intended to be private.
Tommy,
As you know, for ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology of San Diego. Their public sponsorship of Proposition 8, a hate-filled legislation that succeeded in taking away the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens of California – rights that were granted them by the Supreme Court of our state – shames us.
I called and wrote and implored you, as the official spokesman of the church, to condemn their actions. I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated.
In that first conversation, back at the end of October of last year, you told me you were horrified, that you would get to the bottom of it and “heads would roll.” You promised action. Ten months passed. No action was forthcoming. The best you offered was a weak and carefully worded press release, which praised the church’s human rights record and took no responsibility. Even that, you decided not to publish.
The church’s refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word. Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent.
I joined the Church of Scientology thirty-five years ago. During my twenties and early thirties I studied and received a great deal of counseling. While I have not been an active member for many years, I found much of what I learned to be very helpful, and I still apply it in my daily life. I have never pretended to be the best Scientologist, but I openly and vigorously defended the church whenever it was criticized, as I railed against the kind of intolerance that I believed was directed against it. I had my disagreements, but I dealt with them internally. I saw the organization – with all its warts, growing pains and problems – as an underdog. And I have always had a thing for underdogs.
But I reached a point several weeks ago where I no longer knew what to think. You had allowed our name to be allied with the worst elements of the Christian Right. In order to contain a potential “PR flap” you allowed our sponsorship of Proposition 8 to stand. Despite all the church’s words about promoting freedom and human rights, its name is now in the public record alongside those who promote bigotry and intolerance, homophobia and fear.
The fact that the Mormon Church drew all the fire, that no one noticed, doesn’t matter. I noticed. And I felt sick. I wondered how the church could, in good conscience, through the action of a few and then the inaction of its leadership, support a bill that strips a group of its civil rights.
This was my state of mind when I was online doing research and chanced upon an interview clip with you on CNN. The interview lasted maybe ten minutes – it was just you and the newscaster. And in it I saw you deny the church’s policy of disconnection. You said straight-out there was no such policy, that it did not exist.
I was shocked. We all know this policy exists. I didn’t have to search for verification – I didn’t have to look any further than my own home.
You might recall that my wife was ordered to disconnect from her parents because of something absolutely trivial they supposedly did twenty-five years ago when they resigned from the church. This is a lovely retired couple, never said a negative word about Scientology to me or anyone else I know – hardly raving maniacs or enemies of the church. In fact it was they who introduced my wife to Scientology.
Although it caused her terrible personal pain, my wife broke off all contact with them. I refused to do so. I’ve never been good at following orders, especially when I find them morally reprehensible.
For a year and a half, despite her protestations, my wife did not speak to her parents and they had limited access to their grandchild. It was a terrible time.
That’s not ancient history, Tommy. It was a year ago.
And you could laugh at the question as if it was a joke? You could publicly state that it doesn’t exist?
To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?
And that is when I read the recent articles in the St. Petersburg Times. They left me dumbstruck and horrified.
These were not the claims made by “outsiders” looking to dig up dirt against us. These accusations were made by top international executives who had devoted most of their lives to the church. Say what you will about them now, these were staunch defenders of the church, including Mike Rinder, the church’s official spokesman for 20 years!
Tommy, if only a fraction of these accusations are true, we are talking about serious, indefensible human and civil rights violations. It is still hard for me to believe. But given how many former top-level executives have said these things are true, it is hard to believe it is all lies.
And when I pictured you assuring me that it is all lies, that this is nothing but an unfounded and vicious attack by a group of disgruntled employees, I am afraid that I saw the same face that looked in the camera and denied the policy of disconnection. I heard the same voice that professed outrage at our support of Proposition 8, who promised to correct it, and did nothing.
I carefully read all of your rebuttals, I watched every video where you presented the church’s position, I listened to all your arguments – ever word. I wish I could tell you that they rang true. But they didn’t.
I was left feeling outraged, and frankly, more than a little stupid.
And though it may seem small by comparison, I was truly disturbed to see you provide private details from confessionals to the press in an attempt to embarrass and discredit the executives who spoke out. A priest would go to jail before revealing secrets from the confessional, no matter what the cost to himself or his church. That’s the kind of integrity I thought we had, but obviously the standard in this church is far lower – the public relations representative can reveal secrets to the press if the management feels justified. You even felt free to publish secrets from the confessional in Freedom Magazine – you just stopped short of labeling them as such, probably because you knew Scientologists would be horrified, knowing you so easily broke a sacred vow of trust with your parishioners.
How dare you use private information in order to label someone an “adulteress?” You took Amy Scobee’s most intimate admissions about her sexual life and passed them onto the press and then smeared them all over the pages your newsletter! I do not know the woman, but no matter what she said or did, this is the woman who joined the Sea Org at 16! She ran the entire celebrity center network, and was a loyal senior executive of the church for what, 20 years? You want to rebut her accusations, do it, and do it in the strongest terms possible – but that kind of character assassination is unconscionable.
So, I am now painfully aware that you might see this an attack and just as easily use things I have confessed over the years to smear my name. Well, luckily I have never held myself up to be anyone’s role model.
The great majority of Scientologists I know are good people who are genuinely interested in improving conditions on this planet and helping others. I have to believe that if they knew what I now know, they too would be horrified. But I know how easy it was for me to defend our organization and dismiss our critics, without ever truly looking at what was being said; I did it for thirty-five years. And so, after writing this letter, I am fully aware that some of my friends may choose to no longer associate with me, or in some cases work with me. I will always take their calls, as I always took yours. However, I have finally come to the conclusion that I can no longer be a part of this group. Frankly, I had to look no further than your refusal to denounce the church’s anti-gay stance, and the indefensible actions, and inactions, of those who condone this behavior within the organization. I am only ashamed that I waited this many months to act. I hereby resign my membership in the Church of Scientology.
Sincerely,
Paul Haggis
Ps. I’ve attached our email correspondence. At some point it became evident that you did not value my concerns about the church’s tacit support of an amendment that violated the civil rights of so many of our citizens. Perhaps if you had done a little more research on me, the church’s senior management wouldn’t have dismissed those concerns quite so cavalierly. While I am no great believer in resumes and awards, this is what you would have discovered:
* Founder, Artists For Peace and Justice,
- sponsoring schools, an orphanage and a children’s hospital in the slums of Haiti
* Co-Founder, BrandAid Foundation and BrandAid Project
- marketing the work of artisans from the poorest countries in the world,
* Board Member, Office of The Americas
- supporting peace and justice initiatives around the world
* Board Member, Center For The Advancement of Non-Violence
* Member and active supporter, Amnesty International
* Member, President’s Council, Defenders of Wildlife
* Member and fundraiser, Environment California and CalPirg
* Member and Award Recipient, American Civil Liberties Union
* Member and supporter, Death Penalty Focus
* Member and supporter, Equality For All
* Fundraiser, NPH (Our Little Brothers) – for the children of the slums of Haiti
* Member, Citizens Commission on Human Rights
* Patron with Honors, IAS
And formerly:
* Trustee, Religious Freedom Trust
* Board Member and fundraiser, Hollywood Education and Literacy Project
* Board Member and fundraiser, For The Arts, For Every Child
– supporting art and music in public schools
* Board Member and fundraiser, The Christic Institute
- supporting Human Rights in Central America
* Founding Board Member, Earth Communication Office
* Working Board Member, Environmental Media Association
* Fundraiser, El Rescate – Human Rights for El Salvador
* Fundraiser, PAVA – Aid and Human Rights in Guatemala
Awards for outspoken support of Civil and Human Rights:
* Valentine Davies Award – Writers Guild of America
“for bringing honor and dignity to writers everywhere”
*Bill of Rights Award – American Civil Liberties Union
*Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award – Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
*Peace & Justice Award – Office of the Americas, presented by Daniel Ellsberg
*Signis Award, Venezia, World Catholic Association
*ALMA Award – National Council of Latino Civil Rights
*Ethel Levitt Award for Humanitarian Service – Levitt & Quinn
*Prism Award – Entertainment Industries Council
*Humanitas Prize (2) – Humanitas
*Legacy Award, for Artistic and Humanitarian Achievement
*Environmental Media Award – EMA
*EMA Green Seal Award – EMA
*Image Award – NAACP
*Creative Integrity Award – Multicultural Motion Picture Association
*EDGE Awards (2) – Entertainment Industries Council
*Artistic Freedom Award – City of West Hollywood
*Catholics in Media Award – Catholics in Media Associates
And many dozens of fundraisers and salons at our home on behalf of Human and Civil Rights, the Environment, the Peace Movement, Education, Justice and Equality.
My hat is off to Mr. Haggis as this is not an easy move to make in Hollywood circles.
I especially would like everyone to note the part of the letter where Mr. Haggis wonders what other lies have been told by the “church” … could this be a reference to the old policy of “the enemies list” wherein the “church” used to keep files and evidence on everyone identified as an enemy to them? It’s a bit of a stretch, and the “church” claims that policy ended years ago, you know … sort of like they claim they stopped disconnection.
Hard to believe it, but this is the 2000th post on this blog.
Now, that isn’t 2000 consecutive days (I’m at 1,662 days), but it is a total of 2,000 separate posts that I’ve made, some of them even before I started this non-stop run attempt. It really isn’t that large of an accomplishment compared to most big blogs, some that can do that many posts a month, but when you are the lone writer on a blog, I think it’s worth some form of acknowledgement.
So I thought I would do a quick walk down memory lane of a few of my favorite posts.
Who Is The Best James Bond?
No clue why, but I really liked doing this post, and people seem to like it also as it continues to get new visitors every day. It was just kind of nice to discuss something that has been a part of pop culture for so long, and is something just about every one has some sort of an opinion on. I don’t think any two commenters had the exact same order of which actor played the role the best, but that was half the fun.
It’s nice to do something on here once in awhile that actually feels like it might open someone’s eyes to the things going on in the world around them. If I can ever get even one person questioning the motivations of the Church of Scientology, then I’ll feel like I’ve accomplished something.
I know, I’m cheating by just listing a group of posts, but it’s my blog, and I can if I want!
A lot of friends have asked me privately if there is something in my past that causes me to write about the teacher sex scandals, as in have I ever been sexually assaulted by a teacher. I can tell you without hesitation that absolutely nothing like what these teachers have done has ever happened to me. I simply write about these stories because I have known a great number of teachers in my life, and in general I just find it disgusting that any teacher would betray the trust of the student, their family and the community. So, if they do it, they should be talked about.
I have actually pondered spinning those stories off into their own blog, but that is something I am weighing the pros and cons of at the moment.
47-Year-Old Susan Boyle Wows The Judges On Britain’s Got Talent
For all of the negative things I write about on this site, it is nice sometimes to write about a positive, uplifting story. Susan Boyle was definitely one of those stories, and kudos to her. And, yes, I did actually spin stories about her off into their own blog at SusanBoyleFandom.com which I am still updating with various tidbits about her and her upcoming album entitled “I Dreamed A Dream”.
I know my favorites seemed heavy on recent posts, but that is partially because I think I am finally finding my voice as a blogger. One would certainly hope I have after this many posts!
I am excited about the future, and have no intentions of stopping blogging any time soon, so here is to 2,000 more posts of my rambling!
It may be hard to believe, but there was once a time where a movie based on a comic book being released was like some sort of weird dream. It was rare, and it was even rarer that they were actually good. Luckily all of that has changed over the years, and the rule of thumb now seems to be more towards actual quality and care being put into the productions based on the comic book art form.
With the new Watchmen movie being talked about by every one, it seems like a good time to discuss what some of the best comic book movies are up until now. The question is do you judge them solely as a movie or how faithful they are to the source material? I think this is one of those instances where you have to do a little bit of both. Some succeed as movies in spite of a total difference from the books that spawned them, and others are so dead on faithful that it almost feels like you watched the artwork come to life.
In case you were wondering what qualifies me to speak on this subject the answer is 33 years of comic book collecting, 15 & 1/2 years managing a comic shop and a well-known harsh eye for movies. So go ahead and click to find a list of what I find to be the best movies based on comic books, and then let me know what your top choices are. Continue Reading ->
The winners for the 81st annual Academy Awards have been announced, and, not too much to my surprise, I have seen hardly any of these films so far. I have been dying to see Slumdog Millionaire, and surprisingly, it is actually in my town now! I’m going to try to sneak out of work and see it as soon as possible.
That being said, there weren’t too many surprises with this year’s awards. Slumdog Millionaire winning just about everything was expected, but I find it fascinating for all of the awards it won, it received no acting nominations. Did the script just magically appear on screen without anyone acting it?
- Kudos to Kate Winslet for finally winning on her sixth outing. She is a great actress and has been deserving for some time of winning.
- Heath Ledger put in an amazing performance in The Dark Knight, but I wonder how much of his win was his passing away and how much was truly the role. I felt he was deserving, but you will alway shave to wonder.
- Hugh Jackman did a good job hosting, although the format was way different than it has been in the past. And yay for him getting to sing.
- How was Don LaFontaine left out of the remembrance video of those who passed this year? He was the voice of the movies to millions of people.
- Speaking of Tina Fey, her bit with Steve Martin was fantastic just for the thinly veiled joke at Scientology. A mighty brave move in Hollywood these days considering the big names that buy in to that sham of a “religion”. Wonder how many of the millions of people watching actually caught the meaning of that joke.
See all the nominees and the winners after the jump.
It has come to light that Ms. Cartwright is mixing the voice of Bart Simpson, and his name, with her own while making automated robocalls promoting a Church of Scientology event. Last time I checked, none of the voice actors on The Simpsons were allowed to use their famous characters voices without the express consent of the show. Somehow I find it hard to believe that such consent would be given for endorsement use with a controversial organization such as Scientology, but, of course, I could be wrong, but I find that unlikely.
The robocall was recorded on an answering machine and uploaded to YouTube. I am embedding the video below, and linking to it, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if this disappears in the not-to-distant future by either the producers of the series or the Scientologists.
This is disturbing on many levels as Bart Simpson is an endorsement that could be used to recruit children to the questionable “church”, although it does sound like this call is being placed to, or supposed to be, to existing members of the group as she uses some fairly specific terms (”auditing”, “OT 7″) that are not known to the general public. It looks like this call may have been misdirected to an OP (”Oppresive Person”, the Scientologist term for a non-believer who speaks against the group), and they never expected it to ever be known outside of their little circle of followers.
I would hope we might hear a comment from Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons, clarifying if this was done with or without the permission of the show. If it is done without their permission, it will be interesting to see what, if any action is taken against Ms. Cartwrigh for using the character and voice in such a way.
Am I biased? Sure I am, I make no effort to hide my dislike of this group, and am always looking for a reason to speak out against them, such as when “I Found The Card” last year put out there by the anti-Scientology activists Anonymous to educate people about their antics. So, yes, I do tend to jump on any mis-steps they make, and this may be one of the largest mistakes they have made in quite awhile. Let the fireworks begin!
UPDATED: One of the show’s producers, Al Jean, gave a quote to E! Online:
“The Simpsons does not, and never has, endorsed any religion, philosophy or system of beliefs any more profound than Butterfinger bars,” said executive producer Al Jean in response to the implied connection.
Uh. Where do I start except you obviously have no idea who plays in that band. You can always change the channel. Why waste your time complaining about something your [sic] not good enough to be in?
I’ll never understand people’s need to pick apart a series and make it so serious. Honestly, I don’t consider myself a rabid fan, but I have at least seen most of the original ST episodes, and most of the movies through the current gen. stuff. Stop making such an issue out of the dang minutiae and have fun. Sheesh. What does it really matter if the Enterprise is a little too swoopy, or organic, or not retro enough? That’s subjective. Watch movie, have fun, judge movie after seeing. If you could do a better job with this project they’d have hired you to do it anyway. (emphasis mine – Sean)
The post you are reading right now is the 1,694th post since I started this blog. If you follow the logic presented by these two commenters that if you complain about something, you must be jealous in some way, than I must be the most jealous person alive.
I have always labeled myself an “observer” more than a “writer”: I take in the world around me, and I comment on it. Considering I have done this 1,694 times now, yes, sometimes it is difficult coming up with things to comment on, so I go to the never-ending well that is television and movies. There is always something there to annoy me.
To answer these particular two instances that were sighted in these comments:
I am not angry with the Dancing With The Stars band because I’m not good enough to join them, I simply hate them because I am tired of hearing them screw up something as simple as a 4-4 beat.
There is no way I would have wanted the job of rebooting the Star Trek franchise because, well, I think it’s a dumb idea to mess with something people love.
I feel confident in saying these types of comments come from people who just surf through from various sources (and they never leave a real email address for follow up discussion), and if they read even more than one other post on this site, they would see the style of blogger I am… I complain… a LOT! I own it, I don’t even try to deny it, but I am fascinated by this recent trend of people saying that my complaining about something comes from my being jealous. Is this something that has happened across the entire Internet that I have somehow missed?
Or, do you think it is possible that I complained about Salad Bar Etiquette due to my jealousy of their mastery of the vegetable plate building arts?
As we start another year, it’s time for me to take a look back at what struck a chord with my readers.
2008 was very good to this blog, and I have to take a moment to thank you, my readers, for an amazing year of growth! Unique visitors grew by almost 600%, and total page views was darn close to 700%! I hoped for a year of growth, but I could have never dreamed readership would be up that much! Don’t get me wrong, this blog is still a long ways away from the major leagues… a long, long, LONG way… but it is still a nice amount of growth.
So, without further ado, the 10 entries that helped me see this growth.
Who Is The Best James Bond? – Who knew people were this interested in who made the best James Bond? Published in September, this post brought in more page views in three days than this blog got total in the year of 2007. It is still getting viewed every day, some days only 1 or 2 views, but it is still looked at on a constant basis. Quite surprising, I must say.
Anonymous Takes On Scientology -This post came in second with a very healthy showing (the Bond post has about 4 times the page views), and it was also one that took me by surprise in how it took off. It didn’t hurt that members of Anonymous put links to it all over the Web, and with that in mind, I am sure I am now on the Scientology watch list. -waves- Hail, Xenu!
The Music Industry Vs Net Neutrality -This post was from January of last year, and was my biggest success to date at the time. Net Neutrality is always a touchy subject, and the music industry seemingly want to wage war on it is not sitting well with anyone, and understandably so.
How To Watch Internet Videos On Your TV -This is a very popular post, and one on plan on revisiting soon as a lot has changed since I published this last February. This was also part of the inspiration for the launching of StarterTech.com.
Olympic Beach Volleyball Uniforms -This was my second article about my anger over how women’s beach volleyball athletes were treated by the medie at this past Summer Olympics. The first article, Olympic Beach Volleyball, was only a few hundred views behind this one, but I am counting them as one entry on this list.
I will admit, from analyzing the search traffic on these two posts, they are found for all the wrong reasons, and that being mainly people looking for pictures of the athletes asses. Somehow I doubt they read the accompanying articles that say that is what I’m talking against…
Who Is The Best Doctor Who – Okay, I am not too proud to admit this was an obvious attempt to copy the success of the James Bond post, but apparently I went a little too obscure with the subject matter. It obviously still did well as a post as it made this list.
Dancing With The Stars Band – My dislike for the Dancing With The Stars band, and it’s conductor, Harold Wheeler, has turned this in to my most controversial post ever. I have received numerous nasty comments and emails about me and my opinion of these… “musicians”… and all I can say is… Keep it up! I always need more laughs in my life!
New The Dark Knight Trailer Hints At Joker Greatness – The massive upswing I saw in traffic to this post in October prompted me to write a post entitled “Just Put Down The Clown Makeup!” as I could see it was mainly being found by people looking for pictures of the Joker. Sure enough, it was all about people trying to dress as him for Halloween.
Weighty Issues For Cheryl Burke of Dancing With The Stars -Poor Cheryl Burke took a real pounding for her non-existent weight issues on the fall season of Dancing With The Stars. It was a whole lot of hype over a woman gaining a meager 5 lbs, and I personally found that the fact anyone was even calling her “fat” just silly.
Honroable Mentions – Somehow my review of a Combichrist/K.M.F.D.M. concert from 2006 was technically in my top 10 viewed posts… I have no clue why. Also, my post on Armando Montelongo also made it into the top ten, but I like to keep this list about posts published in 2008.
So, there you have it, the top 10 posts of the year for this blog. Just like last year, this list tells me entertainment related posts do well, but I will probably continue to talk about just whatever is randomly on my mind at any given time. I will say that the increased readership has made me a lot more self conscience about my posts, and what I tend to pick as the subjects, but at the end of the day, this is still just a personal blog… filled with a lot of ranting.
Thank you all so very much for making 2008 such a great year here at SeanPAune.com, and I only hope I can keep you all as interested in 2009!
It would seem Paramount is none too happy with the fall premiere of South Park that aired earlier this week.
-looks outside- Yep, the sky is blue.
Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily is saying that executives at Paramount or more than just a bit displeased about the content of the episode entitled “The China Probrem”. It wasn’t the “A” story that had to deal with Cartman trying to stave off an impending Chinese invasion of the USA, but the “B” story that dealt with the other boys trying to cope with imagery of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg raping Indiana Jones.
Yeah… you read that right.
The kids saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull over the summer, and having been dealing with the guilt of having watched their favorite adventurer getting “raped”, and not doing anything about it. Of course the rape was metaphorical for the disaster the script was, but at three separate points in the episode, we were shown Lucas and Spielberg actually raping Indiana in scenes that were homages to rape scenes from A Clockwork Orange, The Accused and Deliverance, as well as sending up all the scenes in rape movies where people will finally agree to helping the victims. At the very end of the episode we were also treated to Spielberg and Lucas raping a Stormtrooper from Star Wars… it was a very uplifting episode.
There are others who are saying the rape metaphor shouldn’t have been used at all. While I certainly do not find the traditional definition of rape amusing at all, how many times have people and writers said, “They raped my childhood…”, “They raped that character…”, “The government is raping us…” etc? The word has taken on so many meanings in our lexicon, but did anyone stop to think that was what the show was trying to portray? I heard many people say Indiana got raped by the fourth movie, so the show just took it literally, and people get worked up over it. You have to selective sensitivity.
According to Ms. Finke, Paramount execs are not happy with parent company Viacom as they also own Comedy Central, and allowed this episode to go forward. I would image a lot of their anger is because the DVD for the movie is coming out on October 14th, so having the movie picked on so publicly this close to release probably doesn’t thrill them. Also according to Ms. Finke, Paramount is planning to keep quiet on the subject in public venues as they want the issue to go away, but since when have bloggers allowed an issue to die?
This isn’t the first time Paramount has been angry at Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of the series. Back in 2006 they were also displeased with them over the Tom Cruise/Scientology episode, “Trapped In A Closet”, as Cruise was one of their biggest box office draws at the time. At that time they did complain, and the episode was pulled from the usual rotation after only one repeat airing. I think it is rather obvious that the suits at Paramount need to get a much thicker skin about things.
South Park works because all subjects are equal fodder for them, and it is just about guaranteed that there will eventually be an episode that offends you/insults something you believe in. If the show was to consider Paramount properties off limits, how would that be fair? It wouldn’t.
It concerns me that comedy writing seems to be taking so many hits from various sides as of late. Earlier this week we had the Saturday Night Live video pulled from the web over two jokes at the expense of a couple involved in the sub-prime loan disaster. Now we have South Park under fire again for making fun of another company in the Viacom family. Are we suddenly seeing the rise again of the political correctness boom from the 1980’s and comedy writers are going to have what they can write about being dictated to them by committee and lawyers?
Comedy, and all of its derivatives such as satire, should enjoy the utmost freedom under the 1st amendment, but yet it seems there are many out there who feel it should have more and more restraints put on it. Is it outright censorship? No, but suggesting things shouldn’t be written about sure is a close second.
It seems that at least one member of the Australian parliament has had enough of the Church of Scientology.
Natalie Portman, like 
Only 35 articles this week … oh no, I dropped one from last week!
It isn’t normally newsworthy when someone decided to leave their religion, but when someone leaves the Church of Scientology, and airing its dirty laundry on the way out, that makes it newsworthy.
Hard to believe it, but this is the 2000th post on this blog.
It may be hard to believe, but there was once a time where a movie based on a comic book being released was like some sort of weird dream. It was rare, and it was even rarer that they were actually good. Luckily all of that has changed over the years, and the rule of thumb now seems to be more towards actual quality and care being put into the productions based on the comic book art form.
The winners for the 
It’s episode 28… Scattercast refuses to drink the crazy juice! It doesn’t give in to peer pressure!
It has been brought to my attention by some of my very astute commenters on this blog that I am a very jealous person.
As we start another year, it’s time for me to take a look back at what struck a chord with my readers.
It would seem 
