Monday, August 30, 2010


After a short twitter discussion (twiscussion? twonversation?) with @biblealsosays, I was inspired to start a little series I would like to call, "You're wrong and here's why." The first
portion will be religion-based and the first religion covered will be Scientology.

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

The founder's background

Lafayette Ron Hubbard didn't do too well at George Washington University. He finished his first year with a 1.2 GPA, landing him in academic probation, and earned a 1.25 the next year (~1.22 overall) before dropping out. Shortly after leaving the University in 1932, Hubbard led an expedition of fifty students to collect specimens for the University of Michigan and to videotape pirates, from what I can gather. After visiting 3 out of 16 planned ports of call, his expedition fell apart due to financial problems.

His failure continued in 1941 when he entered the Office of Naval Intelligence in a PR role. Somehow, he skipped every rank before Jr. Lieutenant. When the Navy grasped his ineptitude for such a position, he was sent to work on a submarine, where for two days he led a battle against two submarines that no one else could verify ever existing. Of course, he was relieved of command shortly thereafter. He was sent to the Coronado Islands, where he was once again relieved of his position after "performing unauthorized gunnery practice." In 1947, he saw some form of reason and sought psychiatric help from VA.

Beginnings of Scientology

Hubbard wrote an astonishing 138 books from 1933 to 1938 with some adventure novels and his much-more-well known Science Fiction. I've heard that he was classified with some of the greats (or at least published in magazines within a few pages of them), but I can't say anything one way or the other since it's not relevant and I haven't read them.

His most important work was titled, "Dianetics," described as a current scientific guide to mental health, was first published in the magazine, "Astounding Science Fiction," which was later expanded to an entire novel in 1950. Critics of his work included more famous writers such as Isaac Asimov(best known for I, Robot) and Jack Williamson(Asimov's role model).

Creation Mythology

This creation story is one of my absolute favorites. I could go into depth, but I've got a cartoon that can express it so much better than me. There are only a few things left out that should be expanded upon: When Xenu left the Galactic Confederacy, he used Pyschiatrists to trick citizens into the journey to "Teegeeack," the 'original' name of the planet on which we now reside. This is why Scientologists are vehemently against any form of assistance from psychiatric medication. They instead get their help from "auditors," who use E-meters(which now have been officially proven to do absolutely nothing) to remove clinging Thetans from human souls. As Thetans are removed, human potential increases to superhuman levels(earned at various levels of purity, known to Scientologists as Operating Thetan levels, or OTs which increase with purity), including the ability to stop time, fly, teleport, etc.

With a story like this, you might ask how there are any converts at all. I probably should have warned you prior to that last paragraph that the head of any human below OT3 that is exposed to this information will explode. Well, that used to be the official statement, but when coupled with one of their chief ways of theft, it falls to pieces. Couple that with their personality quiz recruitment tactic (Do you find yourself blablabla? A or B? Regardless of your answers, the auditor explains to the test-taker exactly how screwed up they are and how Scientology is the only way to make the taker better.), and you have an insecure bully who can only grow by demeaning the emotionally and mentally weak.

What takes the cake and what is the most vehemently offensive portion of Scientology dogma is that the E-meter sessions are a paid service to the church:
"Scientologists who are interested in accomplishing the major goals of Scientology -to become Clear and develop their capabilities as Operating Thetans - should expect to be investing heavily in their spirituality. Costs can vary considerably depending upon the needs of the individual, but a rough estimate suggests you'll be paying $128,000 to reach Clear, another $33,000 to reach OT III, and an additional $100,000 to $130,000 to reach OT VIII, which is the highest level currently available." -Altreligion
This would be somewhat accurate if paid salvation was the only method of thievery they employed. After reaching a higher level, the "Church" has been known to claim a clerical error of sorts, forcing an OT to repeat levels and their accompanying payments, allowing a possible never-ending loop of payments.

This is why you're wrong

The journey to salvation, purity, Cleanliness, whatever you want to call it should be an inward journey through your psyche. I don't care if you believe that crab people created the planet from beach sand, but if you are forced to pay for these crab gods to accept you, then there seems to be a problem. If you WANT to give money out of your own free will, that's one thing, but Scientology is like Public Broadcasting: Pay $x and you get a shout out. Pay $y and you earn a duffel bag. Pay a third of a million dollars and you become perfect(assuming Scientology has their paperwork in order).

Religion should be, like Kyle Broflowski said, "all about the message." To take advantage of the curious and confused is one of the more despicable things of which humans are capable of committing. This is why Scientology is a sham, this is why Scientology is a crime against human spirituality, and why Scientologists are wrong.

(source: OT3 documents via Wikileaks)

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Bill Gates is on Twitter

I make it a habit to check Google news, Twitter, and facebook on a regular basis just to make sure I know as much as I can about the world around me. At around 6pm yesterday, a tweet from Biz Stone caught my eye. Bill Gates is on Twitter? I guess that's cool. I used to be a heavy apple addict, but I can appreciate what the man has done. I figured what the heck, I'll follow him.

I expected that to be the end of it.

Today, I've seen at least a dozen headlines showcase (google search link)how excited the world is that Bill Gates can express himself in 140 characters or less and/or that he cares what an actress from High School Musical thinks. I could really care less how many people reported on it. After all, there are tons of not-so-major sites that reported Bill joining Twitter, but I don't understand what the fuss is about. In his first five posts, he has talked to @RyanSeacrest once, retweeted him once, expressed concern for Haiti, had a extremely short dialogue with Ashton Kutcher (@aplusk), and made an in-joke concerning basic computer programming. There have been no deals to his followers, no promises of upcoming software or hardware, pretty much almost nothing of value in a tweeter at all.

I'm not saying he won't have value. I could never pass judgment on a person in such a manner. I'm merely asking what he's done for us as @BillGates. If you want a news story, ask the tweeters with no inherent value in the real world how they place so much value in what they donate to the twitterverse. Ask those of us of whom you've never heard of in the news, but maintain a strong following. Personally, I would love to figure out why almost 400 people, most of which I've never met, think that I'm interesting enough to follow.

As @Jason_Pollock says, the value of your twitter account is not in how many followers you have, but how strong your following is, as in the conversations and inherent value that tweets may have. I think my strongest achievements on Twitter have been finding a link right after the Joe Wilson incident that showed his supporters as insurance companies that was retweeted several times, and the time I may have helped @Shaq get a account (September 7, 2009 at around 1:45am). It's kind of difficult to tell if it was actually due to me, since Shaq decided not to @respond to whomever was helping him or thank them... Already, I've trumped Bill Gates' effectiveness and I've never even written a program.

Basically, I think the news media should just chill out for a bit before thinking that Bill Gates is the most exciting tweeter to follow. RT it for sure, but don't stop the presses.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010


Who I am in the real world is irrelevant. My name, unimportant. My age, misleading, and my dreams, inconsistent. I don't know exactly what I plan on doing, who I'm going to become, or even what this blog is going to be about.

This is what I do know: I'm a student, and I never plan to stop being one since I can always learn more about myself and the world around me. I'm developing my own brandand I think I'm doing quite a good job. I'm more in touch with the world around me than the average x-year-old, more in touch with myself than most, and generally smarter than the average bear.

I'm not sure I have a set direction that this blog will take me. I don't plan on getting too personal unless I somehow find it relevant to anyone besides me. My potential careers involve either heavy use of social media, journalism, or Public Relations, so it's a safe bet that I'll have reactionary posts to news in any section of the paper, maybe tech... Honestly, if you end up reading too much of something, let me know and I'll shake it up.

To contact me, you can go on any major social networking site and look up my handle, "boydrewboy." If you need links to any of my major accounts:

Before I forget, I want to thank Mack Collier. I had no idea how to start a blog post, so I google'd and you were the first entry. Thanks for getting me started!