Friday, January 2, 2009
Holocaust 'Greatest' Love Story a Hoax
Holocaust 'greatest' love story a hoax - CNN.com
Of course the guy wanted to do good, and he followed a strong dream he had with his deceased mother giving him a message to pass on his love story over the world, but really, what a BAD BAD idea!
I can understand the years of guilt the guy must have felt seeing how the whole world would be enticed by his story, knowing that it simply wasn't true. I am glad he finally came clean about it, but that does not seem to ease off too much of the upset.
Please don't do it. Don't use fabricated or strongly embellished stories, either positive or negative, to promote a "good cause". It removes credibility to whatever truth may be to valid and legitimate criticism once the hoax is revealed. In the present case, revisionists may even use it to bolster their denying that the holocaust ever existed.
The reason I am not tagging this story as off-topic is because of this, and I hope you will see the connection:
Ultimately truth is on its own the most moving and powerful story there is, and this is one of the reasons I like Kendra Wiseman''s story best among several ex stories I read. It has the right balance of pro and con, consideration and criticism, drama and perspective. The fact that it is masterly written doesn't hurt either.
Update: BRINGING DOWN THE HOAX - I know the link is in the comments but sometimes people don't check out comments. Interesting backstory of the backstory, and an enjoyable read. Also, I believe the guy, for what it's worth.
Oprah Winfrey once dubbed it the "greatest love story" she had ever heard: a boy held at a Nazi concentration camp during World War II and a girl on the outside who tossed him apples to keep him alive. They eventually married and grew old together. [...]I am really pissed about this, though I am not sure why exactly. Might be that the fact my father was a concentration camp survivor himself may unconsciously kicks in.
But over the weekend, Herman Rosenblat issued a statement through his literary agent, Andrea Hurst, acknowledging the story of how he met his wife was made up.
Of course the guy wanted to do good, and he followed a strong dream he had with his deceased mother giving him a message to pass on his love story over the world, but really, what a BAD BAD idea!
I can understand the years of guilt the guy must have felt seeing how the whole world would be enticed by his story, knowing that it simply wasn't true. I am glad he finally came clean about it, but that does not seem to ease off too much of the upset.
Please don't do it. Don't use fabricated or strongly embellished stories, either positive or negative, to promote a "good cause". It removes credibility to whatever truth may be to valid and legitimate criticism once the hoax is revealed. In the present case, revisionists may even use it to bolster their denying that the holocaust ever existed.
The reason I am not tagging this story as off-topic is because of this, and I hope you will see the connection:
Many Holocaust scholars had long cast doubt on the Rosenblats' story.Professor Ken Waltzer, the director of Michigan State University's Jewish Studies program, said he began raising questions to the agent and publisher in November, suggesting that the story was fabricated. But he says his numerous queries went unanswered.
He says he told the editor that the story is "at best embellished and perhaps invented."
"The idea of a prisoner being able autonomously to approach the fence not just once, but every day at the same time, ... none of it seemed plausible," Waltzer says. "That fence was right next to the SS barracks, so to go to the fence, which was also punishable by death, was to risk death."
In a letter to "The New Republic," which first began questioning the validity of the Rosenblats' story, Waltzer said he was also disturbed about why few others had come forward to point out holes in the couple's account.
"Less understandable is the widespread belief in their story -- by the culture makers, including the publisher and movie maker and many thousands of others who have encountered it over a decade," he said. "Second, such belief suggests a broad illiteracy about the Holocaust and about experience in the camps -- despite decades of books, serious memoirs, museums, and movies. This shakes this historian up."
"This memoir was at the far end of implausibility, yet until yesterday, no one connected with packaging, promoting, and disseminating it asked questions about or investigated it. Some actively resisted such investigation and tried to shut mine down."Worst even:
New Republic special correspondent Gabriel Sherman told CNN another disturbing element is that Herman Rosenblat really is a Holocaust survivor who "didn't need to embellish his love story, because his own story is so powerful."If you feel that you have something to tell, by all means please do so, but please try to refrain from temptations of bringing in adornments that grossly distort reality (or worst even completely make up stories) because you think your story is not powerful enough on its own.
Ultimately truth is on its own the most moving and powerful story there is, and this is one of the reasons I like Kendra Wiseman''s story best among several ex stories I read. It has the right balance of pro and con, consideration and criticism, drama and perspective. The fact that it is masterly written doesn't hurt either.
Update: BRINGING DOWN THE HOAX - I know the link is in the comments but sometimes people don't check out comments. Interesting backstory of the backstory, and an enjoyable read. Also, I believe the guy, for what it's worth.
Second Chance Tries to Garner Support
Rehab Center Tries To Garner Support: Letters Sent To State Legislators
On Wednesday, [Joy Westrum, president of the soon-to-be evicted Second Chance rehabilitation program], sent out an e-mail to several state senators and representatives asking them to "encourage the mayor and the city of Albuquerque to do everything possible to resolve any legitimate concerns regarding the lease with Second Chance" for the old West Side jail building. [...]
Judges, law enforcement officials and elected officials have been critical of the program for its unconventional treatment methods, its unwillingness to disclose financial information and its alleged ties to Scientology.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Religious Freedom Watch
I was not prompted to make a blog entry when I observed the reaction of Scientologists to the hideous Anonymous harassment I just posted about, in which they seemed to genuinely believe critics still indulge in the type of forcible deprogramming depicted in the deprogramming manual.
However, I was prompted to do it when I read this blog entry, because the two situations are very similar.
It surprised me to see this entry because the Life Repairman has been blogging for quite a while now... I thought he would be more knowledgeable about criticism. Yet, he only now discovers a site that existed for years already, and he is quite stunned by it. Of course, he does not realize that almost for sure, that web site is created and maintained by the CoS.
What is more, he actually beliefs that critics are really the way they are being depicted in this web site, and of course he is horrified:
Not that what either side say about the other is necessarily false. It may have a basis of truth, and sometimes more than just a basis, but eventually each side end up demonizing the other to the point that it completely distords reality.
This is the tragedy of the Scientology controversy, and why we see so much ugliness on each side.
However, I was prompted to do it when I read this blog entry, because the two situations are very similar.
It surprised me to see this entry because the Life Repairman has been blogging for quite a while now... I thought he would be more knowledgeable about criticism. Yet, he only now discovers a site that existed for years already, and he is quite stunned by it. Of course, he does not realize that almost for sure, that web site is created and maintained by the CoS.
What is more, he actually beliefs that critics are really the way they are being depicted in this web site, and of course he is horrified:
These scumbags are the lowest of low. The crimes many of these wackos are accused of include kidnapping, child molestation, theft, extortion, copyright infringement, stalking, drunk driving, frivolous lawsuits, harassment, forgery, embezzlement, to name a few.Then, he of course falls in precisely what the CoS wants him to believe:
EVERY negative or crazy sounding rumor (all lies) about Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard on the Internet was started and spread by one or more of the criminals exposed on this site.And now see how reading the kind of (xenu.net) horror stories critics run against Scientology (in the same spirit and manner the CoS run its horror stories against critics), just confirms him in his belief that the CoS is right regarding critics:
Every one of the usual negative rumors I've ever seen on the Internet about Scientology was either a flat out lie, or was something completely normal that was twisted and slanted to sound crazy and weird.We are in a situation similar to what I wrote in my Deprogramming Manual blog entry above, in which critics are demonized by the CoS, and in which critics, by their own beligerent attitude, confirm Scientologists in the depiction made of them by the CoS.
Not that what either side say about the other is necessarily false. It may have a basis of truth, and sometimes more than just a basis, but eventually each side end up demonizing the other to the point that it completely distords reality.
This is the tragedy of the Scientology controversy, and why we see so much ugliness on each side.
The Deprogramming Manual
The other day I was looking at this video, which I commented otherwise on Nov. 30. Apart from the sheer harassment factor, something else caught my attention.
In response to Anonymous' attack (frankly distasteful and ugly, it remains to be said nevertheless), the Scientologists accused them, with all apparent seriousness, to be associated with deprogrammers who horribly torture their victim.
And I thought to myself: "What? They still believe that?"
When I was in the CoS (and that's nearly 30 years ago now), I was also given to read horror stories, mostly based on the "Deprogramming manual", supposedly written by Ted Patrick, but in reality almost for sure a forgery by the CoS itself. I found it horrible that this kind of crime would still be allowed to go unpunished in our modern society. It is only when I got to read the actual Ted Patrick book, "Let Our Children Go", that I realized I had been lied by the CoS regarding forcible deprogramming.
Don't get me wrong. I still think forcible deprogramming is a terrible crime that should not go unpunished. But, compared to what the "Deprogramming Manual" depicts, it almost is child play.
And there I see Scientologists, 30 years later, who still believe this is what forcible deprogramming is, and who still think critics are criminals who indulge in it... Incredible...
They can't be more wrong. First, what the deprogramming manual describes is extremely exagerated, to the point it has little to do with it anymore. Second, forcible deprogramming itself has almost entirely dissapeared and is almost not practiced anymore. Third, not all anti-cultists supported it at the time, see Nan McLean, for example. Even less now. Fourth, not all critics are anti-cultists.
But, apparently, this seems to be what at least some Scientologists still believe. And you know what? Anonymous coming up with their frightening masks and gross slogans, harassing Scientologists and taunting them with Xenu, are playng right into the CoS' propaganda. It confirms to them that critics are indeed evil people associated with evil deprogrammers.
In response to Anonymous' attack (frankly distasteful and ugly, it remains to be said nevertheless), the Scientologists accused them, with all apparent seriousness, to be associated with deprogrammers who horribly torture their victim.
And I thought to myself: "What? They still believe that?"
When I was in the CoS (and that's nearly 30 years ago now), I was also given to read horror stories, mostly based on the "Deprogramming manual", supposedly written by Ted Patrick, but in reality almost for sure a forgery by the CoS itself. I found it horrible that this kind of crime would still be allowed to go unpunished in our modern society. It is only when I got to read the actual Ted Patrick book, "Let Our Children Go", that I realized I had been lied by the CoS regarding forcible deprogramming.
Don't get me wrong. I still think forcible deprogramming is a terrible crime that should not go unpunished. But, compared to what the "Deprogramming Manual" depicts, it almost is child play.
And there I see Scientologists, 30 years later, who still believe this is what forcible deprogramming is, and who still think critics are criminals who indulge in it... Incredible...
They can't be more wrong. First, what the deprogramming manual describes is extremely exagerated, to the point it has little to do with it anymore. Second, forcible deprogramming itself has almost entirely dissapeared and is almost not practiced anymore. Third, not all anti-cultists supported it at the time, see Nan McLean, for example. Even less now. Fourth, not all critics are anti-cultists.
But, apparently, this seems to be what at least some Scientologists still believe. And you know what? Anonymous coming up with their frightening masks and gross slogans, harassing Scientologists and taunting them with Xenu, are playng right into the CoS' propaganda. It confirms to them that critics are indeed evil people associated with evil deprogrammers.
Littles Brothers Are Watching You
In a rather interesting article, called "The Orwellian power of anonymity", the Canadian National Post makes a parallel between Anonymous, or rather the phenomenon of anonymity on the Internet, and the Big Brother concept popularized by Georges Orwell's book "1984".It claims that, in spite of the myth of us living in a Big Brother surveillance society, the Internet makes it increasingly easy to be anonymous, and as anonymous, influence major world events.
He uses the the Anonymous vs. Scientology phenomenon as one of three examples:
What is remarkable is not that the Internet makes it possible to obscure your identity, but that online anonymity is now seeping into the off-line world. [...]I agree that this is a most remarkable phenomenon, as exemplified by the thousands of masked protesters suddenly popping up out of nowhere to protest the CoS in Feb. and Mar.
Despite the lack of a leadership structure, membership list or other organizational accoutrements, Anonymous -- which draws its name from the pseudonym used by most 4chan members -- quickly established a Web site and plan of attack.
However, the article also points to what is the weakness of the movement, and something I have been hamering down since the start:
"It used to have to be verifiable facts. It seems to me as I read things now that anonymous sourcing is a way to disguise gossip," Mr. Alboim said, adding later, "People seem free in the age of all-news television to go on the air and report whatever it is they heard in the last 15 minutes."And that's precisely my beef with them.
In spite of them chanting "Dox or STFU" and claiming that they "keep on researching Scientology every day and get more informed about it", they still have not encompassed the wealth of scholarly researches into Scientology, they still go around displaying grotesques "Scientology Kills"signs, they still peddle a typical and outdated anti-cult approach.
As I wrote already, the day I'll see Anonymous protest the ugly German discrimination with the same enthusiasm they protest the CoS abuses, I may start to believe they made some headways from classical OG (mis)representations. To this day, I have not seen that, quite on the contrary.
As for the masses who protested the "free speech abuses" of a copyrighted, leaked, out of context, video being put down the Internet, they are just as misguided and superficial.
In other words, the Anonymous movement is certainly striking. Ideas are original and inventive, the masks, the lulz, the caek... it's great! But, you know what? It also is terribly shalow.
They may be able to spread memes around cyberspace in lighting speed, but it never seems to raise above the LOLCat level.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Hope
Well, I am not sure what to make of it, but the idea certainly has potential, and the story moving:
There are some games in which cheering for the other side feels better than winningThanks to Graham for pointing it.
Valkyrie and Scientologists
In this blog, a Scientologist, after having watched the film "Valkyrie", is furious against the German government for its discrimination towards Scientologists, as compared to Cruise now defending the "Good German" image.
This is one of the things I find remarkable in Cruise's choice.
As I blogged already, I declared his choice a winner already before the release of the film, on the sole ground that he did it out of the depth of his soul, no matter the concrete outcome. That these outcomes are now turning out to be good, very good even, there was no way of knowing that at the time, so this remains admirable.
The second thing I find admirable in Cruise's choice, is that he pushed through with this idea in spite of all the wrong (and I hope in time they really will be looked upon as serious wrong) Germany does in its discrimination towards Scientologists. That Cruise could put all this aside and push through with an idea in which he believed in, in spite of all that wrong, is truly commendable.
I invite Scientologists to share the same spirit. Obviously, discrimination is ugly, very ugly even, and when it translates in actual mass killing, abominable. But the two issues really are separate. The noble way is the Cruise way, at least in this case, and eventually it may do more to change pre-conceived and prejudiced idea than any angry and accusatory reaction. Or not. This just does not change the beauty of the act by itself.
This is one of the things I find remarkable in Cruise's choice.
As I blogged already, I declared his choice a winner already before the release of the film, on the sole ground that he did it out of the depth of his soul, no matter the concrete outcome. That these outcomes are now turning out to be good, very good even, there was no way of knowing that at the time, so this remains admirable.
The second thing I find admirable in Cruise's choice, is that he pushed through with this idea in spite of all the wrong (and I hope in time they really will be looked upon as serious wrong) Germany does in its discrimination towards Scientologists. That Cruise could put all this aside and push through with an idea in which he believed in, in spite of all that wrong, is truly commendable.
I invite Scientologists to share the same spirit. Obviously, discrimination is ugly, very ugly even, and when it translates in actual mass killing, abominable. But the two issues really are separate. The noble way is the Cruise way, at least in this case, and eventually it may do more to change pre-conceived and prejudiced idea than any angry and accusatory reaction. Or not. This just does not change the beauty of the act by itself.
Three Types of People - Those That Are Good at Math and Those That Aren't
I just blogged:
The reason I find it worth blogging about it separately is because it reminds me of what I once webbed about Kathy Waddell's comment on a similar joke:
Castaneda reported at that time that he has sentenced 11 individuals to the Second Chance Center since late last year. He said seven have completed the program and five were currently in the residential drug rehab program that takes six months to complete.Seven and five would of course make 12, not 11, but let's assume this is just a typo somewhere.
The reason I find it worth blogging about it separately is because it reminds me of what I once webbed about Kathy Waddell's comment on a similar joke:
There are three types of people in the world... Those that are good at math and those that aren't.
And although it is amusing, it can also be an invitation to explore. While on the surface many things look like there are only two oposing sides, in reality there is a third, a neutral or more balanced "side" also.
Second Chance Therapy Working
I only followed the Second Chance issue, a drug rehabilitation center for inmates, from afar.
Apparently, Scientology critics have been blasting the center because "Some of its training manuals are based on research by L. Ron Hubbard" - irrespective of whether the program is effective or not.
It seems the center will now have to close because it built a sauna within its premises, for which it did not have a permit, and also for housing inmates from other counties who may not have been eligible for the rehabilitation program. Abruptly shuttling people from the facility on Christmas Eve, caught on camera by police officers watching the facility after they had been tipped off, did not help.
This being said, Carlsbad Magistrate Judge Henry Castaneda who assigned inmate to the center finds it a pity that the center would have to close, because, as he reports, the results have been very positive:
Apparently, Scientology critics have been blasting the center because "Some of its training manuals are based on research by L. Ron Hubbard" - irrespective of whether the program is effective or not.
It seems the center will now have to close because it built a sauna within its premises, for which it did not have a permit, and also for housing inmates from other counties who may not have been eligible for the rehabilitation program. Abruptly shuttling people from the facility on Christmas Eve, caught on camera by police officers watching the facility after they had been tipped off, did not help.
This being said, Carlsbad Magistrate Judge Henry Castaneda who assigned inmate to the center finds it a pity that the center would have to close, because, as he reports, the results have been very positive:
"They have been successful on coming out. They have learned from the program. I see them on the street and they look healthy," he added. [...]Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chaves, himself, though he terminated the city's lease with Second Chance (who has until Jan. 31 to vacate the facility), qualifies the abrupt termination of the center as "an unfortunate end to what could have been an alternative drug treatment center".
Castaneda reported at that time that he has sentenced 11 individuals to the Second Chance Center since late last year. He said seven have completed the program and five were currently in the residential drug rehab program that takes six months to complete.
Castaneda said the individuals he has sent to the program through the court's alternative sentencing program had been habitual drug offenders. Since their completion of the program, he noted, he sees them on the street but has not seen them back in court.
"They are holding down jobs and they look healthy," he said Monday.
Anonymous' Video on Washington Post's Most Viral of 2008
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/artsandliving/style/2008/bestofweb/gallery.html:
Tom Cruise and Anonymous
Way back in January, before he made nice with Matt Lauer, Tom Cruise was still Creepy Tom -- a state of being exemplified nowhere better than this leaked Scientology promo video. Cruise rambles, he cackles, he avoids proper nouns and he proclaims himself an "the only one who can really help" at car accident scenes.
It was classic unhinged celebrity voyeurism, but the story got really interesting when a group calling itself "Anonymous" posted a response video, in which it vowed to bring down the Church of Scientology. The two minutes of eerie digital voice-over eventually led to real-life protests in more than 100 cities.
Somebody Pass Me the Oxygen Mask
Germany, which had gone into hysterics when word of the film first broke, has gotten around to seeing Tom Cruise's portrayal of national hero Claus von Stauffenberg in Valkyrie. And the German critics have warmed to the picture, which ennobles the men who finally got around to taking their shot at killing Adolph in the days just after D-Day.
I found it serious, smart, a real straight no chaser thriller. The nasty buzz on it, predictions of "Razzie" nominations based on a seething hatred of all things Cruise, seems on firmer footing with those who haven't actually seen the film.
Fox News' Roger Friedman's nasty dust-up with getting banned from seeing the film in a preview has led to him calling it a "Nazi apologia." Well, somebody pass me the oxygen mask. I love it when anybody working for Seig Heil on your dial uses "Nazi" in a sentence-- be he Bill O'Reilly or Roger Friedman.
In any event, reviews on the movie are mixed to positive, over all. And I found a few Cruise-crushing sites spinning the German reaction to the film as "negative." I'm not sure if "lightning rod for criticism" translates into box office for anybody other than Michael Moore.
Fox News Roger Friedman - Not a Man at Peace
I was wondering why Fox News commentator and film critic Roger Friedman would slam Valkyrie with such absurd arguments as he threw in an article entitled "Is Horrible 'Valkyrie' Tom Cruise's Nazi Apologia?", at odd and against the overall positive reception of the film.
Things are a bit clearer now.
Indeed, I have seen titles in the past about a journalist being "banned" from Valkyrie's premiere (actually just not invited), but I did not pay attention to who it was. Now I learn that it was none other than ... Roger Friedman himself!
Check out this review, in which he complains about being banned but goes ahead assessing the film nevertheless.
Things indeed make a bit more sense now...
Roger has in the past delighted at slamming Cruise and Scientology, and that may have been the reason he was not considered objective enough to be invited at the premiere.
Now I don't support banning anybody from anything, but is taking a petty revenge slamming the film with absurd arguments something a dignified reporter should engage into?
Friedman should heed Cruise's example, who, in spite of ugly discrimination Germany has been throwing at Scientology, has nevertheless made a film putting them (and no, NOT Nazis) in a good light.
Things are a bit clearer now.
Indeed, I have seen titles in the past about a journalist being "banned" from Valkyrie's premiere (actually just not invited), but I did not pay attention to who it was. Now I learn that it was none other than ... Roger Friedman himself!
Check out this review, in which he complains about being banned but goes ahead assessing the film nevertheless.
Things indeed make a bit more sense now...
Roger has in the past delighted at slamming Cruise and Scientology, and that may have been the reason he was not considered objective enough to be invited at the premiere.
Now I don't support banning anybody from anything, but is taking a petty revenge slamming the film with absurd arguments something a dignified reporter should engage into?
Friedman should heed Cruise's example, who, in spite of ugly discrimination Germany has been throwing at Scientology, has nevertheless made a film putting them (and no, NOT Nazis) in a good light.
Dur Dur d'Etre Bebe
There was a French clip quite a few years ago entitled "C'est dur dur d'etre bebe" (It's Hard Being a Baby) which was an utter hit and was utter cute.
Now how about being a celebrity baby? Tom said he does not mind Paparazzi but all the flashes must take a toll on baby's eyes...
Germany's Hope Is Called Tom Cruise
This title does not come from me but from German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, whose "The Lives of Others" won a foreign language film Oscar!Would you believe it?
Indeed, ahead of its release in Germany, media commentators, so keen at other time to burst a flame against Scientology, have praised Bryan Singer's film.
Such prominent media outlets as public broadcaster ZDF and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung have given it a serious thumb up.
The ZDF was heard saying it was a "well-made and serious film" and Cruise's part "a solid performance".
Frank Schirrmacher of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung echoed praise saying the Mission Impossible star's performance as Stauffenberg would alter the global perception of Germans.
Koelner Stadt Anzeiger added: "[The fear that] the myth of the German resistance would be put through a Hollywood filter has turned out to be wrong and prejudicial. On the contrary, the American origin of this film is its biggest advantage."
To be fair, not all reviews were uniformly positive. Such is the case, for example, of the Badische Zeitung, who wrote: "The film is well-crafted, no explosive, loud war drama but a calm, chronological tale ... the main weakness is Cruise himself, who appears in almost every scene but is stiff".
This trend among German film critics was already visible back on Dec 12., in spite of claims by the gossip tabloid Daily Mail (whose unsubstantiated rumor about Cruise "living in fear" is still being echoed by many fact checking deficient news outlets) that "the movie was given a roasting by German critics".
Yeah... roasting indeed.
In fact, not only did Cruise win an incredibly risky bet making that film, but he seems to have achieved something exceptional in Germany, totally at odd with what the Church of Scientology would do out of revenge for being considered by Germany a money-grabbing cult rather than a religion. This is worth to be commented on in future blog entries.
Now is the film a "Nazi apologia", as Fox News' Roger Friedman wrote and as Barbara Schwarz claims? Does it seek to depict a "good Nazi"? No way, quite on the contrary it seeks to show that not all Germans were Nazi-alike, and this is why German media are so supportive.
Hopefully they will also realize that, in the same way, not all Scientologists are as depicted by fanatical anti-Scientologists, and ease off on their disgraceful discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
