left biblioblography

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

'The Haunting In Connecticut' - A (Non) Movie Review

I can't help but get more than a little irritated when this sort of thing happens. ‘Based on a true story!’ trumpets the trailer (and/or headline). And when you delve into it? Utter horseshit:

The Real Story Behind 'The Haunting in Connecticut'

The new film "The Haunting in Connecticut" tells the story of the Snedeker family, who in 1986 rented an old house in Southington, Connecticut. Allen and Carmen Snedeker moved in with their daughter and three young sons. While exploring their new home, Carmen found strange items in the basement: tools used by morticians.

The family soon discovered — to their horror — that their home had once been a funeral parlor, and the eldest son began seeing ghosts and terrifying visions. The experiences spread to other family members and got worse: Both parents said they were raped and sodomized by demons; one day as Carmen mopped the kitchen floor, the water suddenly turned blood red and smelled of decaying flesh; and so on.

So – insanity’s hereditary, right?

Finally the family contacted a pair of self-styled "demonologists" and "ghost hunters," Ed and Lorraine Warren, who arrived and proclaimed the Snedeker house to be infested with demons.

The scariest part? It's all true, supposedly.

The Snedekers have told their story many times, including on national talk shows and in a Discovery Channel TV show. The film's poster states in capital letters at the top that the movie is "based on true events." Yet others aren't so sure.

Cue X-files weird ominous foreshadowing music. So, is there anything to it? Guess what:

Investigator Joe Nickell reports in the May/June issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine that the Snedeker's landlady found the whole story ridiculous. She noted that nobody before or since had experienced anything unusual in the house, and that the Snedeker family stayed in the house for more than two years before finally deciding to leave.

Apparently being assaulted and raped by Satan's minions for months at a time wasn't a good enough reason to break the lease.

No doubt, there’s probably some nimbulb on a discussion board floating out on the internet who’s trying to float the argument that somebody’s trying to censor reality. I can hear it now: “Of course the landlady claims otherwise! She wouldn’t be able to rent the place if she told the truth!” Anyways, yes, insanity’s hereditary:

The Snedeker's story first came to light in horror novelist Ray Garton's 1992 book "In a Dark Place: The Story of a True Haunting." In an interview in "Horror Bound" magazine, Garton discussed how the "true story" behind "The Haunting in Connecticut" came about.

Garton was hired by Ed and Lorraine Warren to work with the Snedekers and write the true story of their house from hell. He interviewed all the family members about their experiences, and soon realized that there was a problem: "I found that the accounts of the individual Snedekers didn't quite mesh. They couldn't keep their stories straight. I went to Ed with this problem. 'Oh, they're crazy,' he said.... 'You've got some of the story — just use what works and make the rest up... Just make it up and make it scary.'"

I guess pandering is a true American art form.

Garton, who had accepted the job expecting to have a real "true story" to base the book on, did as he was told: "I used what I could, made up the rest, and tried to make it as scary as I could."

Though the Snedekers stand by their story, it seems there is little or no proof that anything supernatural occurred at the house. Whether or not the Snedekers actually believed their story, they stood to make money from the book deal. They were aware that the Lutz family — of Amityville, New York — profited handsomely from selling the rights to their "true story" of a haunted house. "The Amityville Horror" has long since been revealed as a fiction by investigator Ric Osuna and others. Interestingly, the Warrens were also involved in the Amityville case.

Fiction passed off as memoir or true story is certainly nothing new, from William Peter Blatty's book and film "The Exorcist" to James Frey's debunked bestseller "A Million Little Pieces." Filmmakers have a long history of touting movies as being based on true stories, when in fact they have little or no connection to any real events.

As for "The Haunting in Connecticut," Garton notes, "I suspect the movie will begin with the words: 'Based on a true story.' Be warned: Just about anything that begins with any variation of this phrase is trying a little too hard to convince you of something that probably isn't true."

So – caveat emptor and all that. I’ll be skipping this bit of skullduggery grounded on my principles: I ain’t throwing money to liars.

Read More...

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Suffer The Children? Usually, It Is The Children Who Suffer – Sometimes Unspeakably

devil_cannabilism

Cross posted @ God Is 4 Suckers!


QUICK ADDENDUM - as I was unable to implement the (read more) widget at all, I have modified post so it can be read in its entirety (and please do read it all the way down before commenting!).

Just horrendous:

San Antonio baby found stabbed, decapitated

Police say mother, whose bail is set at $1 million, told them devil made her kill newborn

Update: San Antonio police say a woman accused of beheading her 3½-week-old infant son used a knife and two swords in the attack and ate some of the child’s body parts, the Associated Press reports.

San Antonio Police Chief William McManus told reporters Monday that Otty Sanchez’s attack on her son, Scott Wesley Buchholtz-Sanchez, was “too heinous” to fully discuss.

But he says Sanchez ate part of the newborn’s brain and bit off three of his toes before stabbing herself twice.

Police say the 33-year-old Sanchez told officers who were called to her house early Sunday that she killed her son at the devil’s request.

Sanchez is charged with capital murder and is being held on $1 million bail. She is recovering from her wounds at a hospital.

In what police described as one of the most gruesome crimes against a child in recent memory, a newborn boy in San Antonio was stabbed, decapitated and mutilated early Sunday.

His 33-year-old mother claimed responsibility, police said.

Otty Sanchez told police that she was "hearing voices" and that the devil made her kill Scott Wesley Buchholtz Sanchez, whom she gave birth to on June 30, San Antonio police spokesman Joe Rios said.

A knife and two swords?

Is there a biblical precedent? Yes, there is:

  1. Leviticus 26:16 "I also will do this unto you... You shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it."
  2. Leviticus 26:29 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat."
  3. Deuteronomy 28:53 "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters."
  4. Deuteronomy 28:57 "And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them."
  5. 2 Kings 6:28-29 "This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him."
  6. Isaiah 9:19-20 "Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm."
  7. Isaiah 49:26 "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine."
  8. Jeremiah 19:9 " And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend."
  9. Lamentations 4:10 "The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat."
  10. Ezekiel 5:10 "Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers."
  11. Micah 3:2 "Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; Micah 3:3 Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron."
  12. Zechariah 11:9 "I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another."

Yes, each of these practices/verses are debatable. No, there’s not enough evidence to suggest any of these passages inspired the crazed woman. There is sufficient evidence the world round that religion (AKA superstition) provides a safety umbrella under which the mentally ill can seek shelter, regardless of ideology (I’d restrict it to monotheism: pantheists are likely too confused to act upon their ‘voices’).

I’ve mentioned this before, that religion is NOT a force for good in this world. I have also maintained (much to the chagrin of some of my cohorts here) that I consider religion an excuse, and that mental illness is a biological not an ideological affliction.

Having all this logic and data well in hand, I posit that it’s the societal taboo against religious criticism that enables people like Mrs. Sanchez to fall beneath the radar. Where obvious issues like glossolalia are glossed over, and the hearing of voices if ignored, usually ends in deep tragedy.

It is a constant  battle – but religion must go. It is an anachronism that costs lives, psyches, and enormous resources better used to improve the life of our species.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Up Or Down? Choose, And Make Your Reservations Now!


You have a 75% chance of going to hell!

The Hell Quiz
www.thehellquiz.com


It's pretty much official, You're going to HELL! If you don't make some big changes in your life, you'll have your very soul ripped from you. Don't let the evil consume you! (Unless you want it to)

www.thehellquiz.com

So, did you want to go to heaven? Act now, and this site will guarantee no waiting in the queue at the pearly gates! (Funniest part at the bottom reads:

Less than 0.000001% of our travelers have had problems making it to Heaven through this unique, exclusive program.

Hmmm…wonder if I can get frequent flier miles? Oh wait – that’s only if I reincarnate, right?

And for the people you utterly loathe – get them a free ticket to ride…downstairs!

And find out if you’re headed downstairs via the Hell Quiz.

Read More...

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Allegories Gone Wild – The Hand Writing In The Stars (Are They Sirius?)

Cross posted @ God is 4 Suckers!

“We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking to the stars” – Oscar Wilde

Man is the creature who gazes upwards. We view the expansive sky with wonder as well as trepidation. When Nature flails upon us, we flinch. When the sun shines upon us, we smile. When the sun sets, small motes of light fill that grand expanse, and all of these elements combined with pareidolia inspired (or frightened) our ancestors into wild tales.

And sadly, we have not yet outgrown this as a species.

I stumbled upon the phrase ‘Astrotheology’ recently at a discussion over at Pharyngula, and dipped briefly in the well. It proves to be a drink of various divers’ woo.

From the FAQ:

Does Jordan believe in God?

(Presuppositional spoiler alert! You guess it!)

Yes, most certainly!   Jordan has always believed in the presence of God.  But he is also well-aware, through years of study, that man-made religions are the product of "The Powers That Be."   Jordan sees no problem whatsoever with the words and teachings attributed to Jesus in the Bible's New Testament.  

I heard ominous foreshadowing music at the ‘Powers That Be’™ phrase – did you?

Jordan believes that the Bible -- both Old and New Testaments -- is a profoundly important work of benefit to mankind.   This is especially true of the New Testament story of Jesus.   Jordan believes that the New Testament is a brilliantly conceived story which is in fact an encoded metaphor.   The correct understanding of the metaphor in the New Testament story have been purposely concealed by the Church throughout the ages. 

‘An encoded metaphor’? Where have we heard that term before?

In Jordan's view, the entire belief system we call Christianity, in all of its various forms and denominations (not the Bible) as it exists in the world today, is a fraud foisted on the unsuspecting peoples of the world.  Overall, the Church is a world-wide money-grubbing criminal conspiracy, owned behind the scenes by "The Powers That Be." In Jordan's view, it is time for the Christian Establishment world-wide to be seen for what it really is: an enemy of both God and factual Truth.

(Points finger to head, rotates finger, whistles)

Jordan further feels that the entire Christian church in the world today is a creation of the same "Powers That Be" who have given us the corrupt world that we live in.   It is time for the Christian Church to be exposed for the profound evil that it represents in this world.  It is also time for the encoded metaphor, hidden for years, to be brought to light for the benefit of those who recognize that there is nothing of any redeemable value in the Christian church today, and who wish to worship God "in Spirit and in Truth."   In the very near future, Jordan will be presenting the encoded metaphor for the first time here on his website.

“And for only 19.95, I’ll throw in a set of Ginsu knives!” Really, they call it a ‘messianic complex’ for a reason.

In conclusion, Jordan has the highest of respect for the Divine Presence in the universe that men have called "God," and believes that the New Testament is a profound and brilliantly-written metaphor which needs to be explained to those who are sincerely longing and searching for the truth of our existence.   Explaining for the first time the encoded metaphor in the New Testament is surely now "an idea whose time has come."  This hidden encoded story will be presented by Jordan Maxwell on this website very soon.

Because of course, in the 50-odd years of this alleged ‘research’, Maxwell didn’t stop and think that instead of saying ‘god is’, he should’ve asked the question, ‘is god’? An entirely different meaning is acquired via the juxtaposition of this question. (Of course, I don’t know offhand if he has any ‘demons’ – but that should be enough wordplay for one post.)

And of course, Maxwell’s not the only person with this crazy idea in his head – the link leads to yet another preacher who claims to have ‘an amazing message’ cloaked in allegory and dressed up in eyesore fonts and colors.

The video provided is fairly intriguing but has a few major errors in it (crucifixion predates the Romans, for one) – and as such, should not be considered a final say in the matter.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Because Bible Study Makes Men Docile – Or, Maybe Not!

Yahweh’s grandson had a bit of a temper tantrum…

Cops: Screaming He Was "Son Of Jesus," Man Beat Children, Men With 2-by-4

MANCHESTER — - A local man, who police said spent a portion of his morning reading the Bible before running into the street screaming he was "the son of Jesus" and beating several people with a 2-by-4, is to be arraigned this morning in Superior Court in Manchester.
Police suspect Ruben Vasquez Jr., 24, was "on something" [Editor’s note: YA THINK?!?] as he allegedly assaulted two men and two children, age 1 and 3, and a police officer.
Police were called at 7:10 a.m. Tuesday to the area of 55 Holl St. for the reported assault. The caller told police that a man was running down the street, screaming he was the son of Jesus, and hitting people with the 2-by-4. Those who Vasquez allegedly struck were treated and released at Manchester Memorial Hospital, said Manchester police Lt. Chris Davis. All suffered bruises.
Police chased Vasquez, and he fought with them as they tried to arrest him, they said.
Vasquez, of 47 Holl St., was charged with two counts of risk of injury to a minor, four counts of second-degree assault, assault on a police officer, criminal trespass, third-degree criminal mischief, interfering with police, disorderly conduct and attempted first-degree assault.

I’m betting it was Matthew 10:14 – unless someone out there can cite a better verse?

Read More...

Monday, July 20, 2009

Forty Years Ago Today, Men Walked On The Moon – And Yes, The Moon Hoaxers Are Just Crazy People

Today marks the 40th anniversary of America landing on the moon. A tremendous feat and a testimony to Man’s will and curiosity about the stars.

And for every triumph of Man, there’s at least a dozen crazy people who insist that

  1. It never happened, or
  2. it happened, only they have the REAL details.

Case in point - Bart Sibrel:

Bart Winfield Sibrel is a Nashville, Tennessee-based filmmaker who claims that the six Apollo moon landings between 1969 and 1972 were hoaxes. He has made two films putting forward his claims A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon and Astronauts Gone Wild.

Contents

Dealings with Apollo astronauts

Most astronauts have refused to grant him interviews due to his questionable tactics used in attempts to obtain footage of them as he challenges them that the moon landings were a hoax. He approaches all three astronauts of Apollo 11 at different times and also interviews Eugene Cernan, Alan Bean, Alfred Worden and John Young. In each case, the astronauts are dismayed at the nature of the interview and each ends the interview shortly after Sibrel challenges them about the authenticity of the NASA footage. Where some interviews are in the astronauts homes, others are at public appearances and in the case of Michael Collins, the setting is outside of a supermarket.

The most infamous incident involved Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. When he arrived, Aldrin claims Sibrel was there demanding that he swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon. When Aldrin refused, Sibrel called him a "coward and a liar and a thief." Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw and the incident was captured on video. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and did not actually injure Sibrel, and so no charges were filed but the incident was covered in the media.

Pretty solid right hook for a 78 year old man. Go Buzz! (C’mon, admit it, there are times where some of us ARE tempted to pop the loonies in the mouth.)

Anyways, to paraphrase Harlan Ellison, “my species, we ain’t so goddamned dumb after all!”

Read More...

Saturday, July 18, 2009

The Politics Of Framing And How It Costs Lives…

Cross posted @ God Is 4 Suckers!tomtomorrowmedicine

It’s no secret that I’m a capitalist, despite accusations of Neo-Marxism, and all that crap: I’ve talked to real communists before in China, and they tend to agree that a meritocracy needs to be in place, otherwise an even sharing of the wealth would result in an uneven distribution, as some people work harder than others. Or, to quote myself:

“Communism would be a great idea, if people knew how to share.”

I’ve heard a great many folks (some of them are atheists) who despise and carry on about ‘socialized medicine’. The nutshell version is that they don’t want to pay extra out of their wallet to benefit some lazy asshole who can’t pay their bills.

There’s just so much that’s wrong with that on so many levels, I have a hard time choosing where to start ranting and raving exactly.

First, some operational definitions prior to sallying forth:

Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating public or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation. Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution and become the transitional stage from capitalism to communism.

Of course, idiots like Rush Bimbo are foursquare against it, and the term ‘socialist’ has replaced ‘liberal’ in the latest polarization (non) issues. Because of course, socialized medicine isn’t quite the boogeyman the ReichWingNuts claim that it is:

Socialized medicine is a term used primarily in the United States to refer to certain kinds of publicly-funded health care. The term is used most frequently, and often pejoratively, in the U.S. political debate concerning health care.

Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina, maintains that the term does not mean anything at all. Exact definitions vary, but the term can refer to any system of medical care that is publicly financed, government administered, or both.

The original meaning was confined to systems in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care professionals.This narrower usage would apply to the British National Health Service hospital trusts and health systems that operate in other countries as diverse as Finland, Spain, Israel, and Cuba. The United States' Veterans Health Administration, and the medical departments of the US Army, Navy, and Air Force would also fall under this narrow definition. When used in this way, the narrow definition permits a clear distinction from single payer health insurance systems, in which the government finances health care but is not involved in care delivery.

More recently, a few have used the term more broadly to any publicly funded system. Canada's Medicare system, most of the UK's NHS general practitioner and dental services, which are all systems where health care is delivered by private business with partial or total government funding, fit this broader definition, as do the health care systems of most of Western Europe. In the United States, Medicare, Medicaid, and the US military's TRICARE fall under this definition.

Most industrialized countries, and many developing countries, operate some form of publicly-funded health care with universal coverage as the goal. According to the Institute of Medicine and others, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.

The term is often used in the U.S to create an understanding that the health care system would be run by the government, thereby associating it with socialism, which has negative connotations in American political culture. As such its usage is controversial.

Tom Tomorrow’s comic actually provides a succinct view of the Right Wingers’ weirdo viewpoints.

Of course, we all use some form of socialism in our daily lives. Everyone has the right to walk down a sidewalk – because all of our taxes paid for it, no? We certainly don’t eject homeless people from the sidewalk (unless of course, they’re breaking some kind of law/social contract) – and the chances are good that the hypothetical homeless is likely not paying taxes. And – wait a minute, is that a library card in your wallet? So my taxes are paying for your ability to borrow a free book, as well as mine?

And who are the lackwits who oppose and/or opposed it?

When the term "socialized medicine" first appeared in the United States in the early 1900s, it bore no negative connotations. Otto P. Geier, chairman of the Preventive Medicine Section of the American Medical Association (AMA), was quoted in The New York Times in 1917, praising socialized medicine as a way to "discover disease in its incipiency," help end "venereal diseases, alcoholism, tuberculosis," and "make a fundamental contribution to social welfare." However, by the 1930s, the term socialized medicine was routinely used negatively by conservative opponents of publicly-funded health care. Universal health care and national health insurance were first proposed by U.S President Theodore Roosevelt. President Franklin D. Roosevelt later championed it, as did Harry S. Truman as part of his Fair Deal and many others.

However, at around this time it was ardently opposed by the AMA which distributed posters to doctors with slogans such as "Socialized medicine ... will undermine the democratic form of government." Ronald Reagan once recorded a disc exhorting its audience to abhor the "dangers" which socialized medicine could bring. Other pressure groups began to extend the definition from state managed health care to any form of state finance in health care. In more recent times the term came up again in 2008 U.S presidential election by the Republicans and in particular in a July 2007 campaign speech, when Rudy Giuliani made a direct connection between socialized medicine and socialism. Giuliani claimed that he had a better chance of surviving prostate cancer in the U.S than he would have had in England. The tactic backfired as according to cancer experts cited in fact check articles by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, the St. Petersburg Times and its PolitiFact.com, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times and others criticized Giuliani's use of statistics as "false" and very "misleading" for drawing conclusions that were complete "nonsense".

Health care professionals have tended to avoid the term because of its pejorative nature, but if they do use it they do not include publicly funded private medical schemes such as Medicaid. Opponents of state involvement in health care tend to use the looser definition.

The term is widely used by the American media and pressure groups. Some have even stretched use of the term to cover any regulation of health care, whether publicly financed or not.The term is often used to criticize publicly provided health care outside the US, but rarely to describe similar health care programs in the US, such as the Veterans Administration clinics and hospitals, military health care nor the single payer programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. The term is almost always used to evoke negative sentiment toward health care reform that would involve increasing government involvement in the U.S health care system.

Medical staff, academics and most professionals in the field and international bodies such as the WHO tend to avoid use of the term. Outside the US, the terms most commonly used are universal health care or public health care.[citation needed] According to health economist Uwe Reinhardt, "strictly speaking, the term 'socialized medicine' should be reserved for health systems in which the government operates the production of health care and provides its financing".Still others say the term has no meaning at all.

I for one would be happy to pay more taxes for this. Because while the thought of the government bureaucracy and the red tape resultant is daunting, the fact of the matter is, people’s lives are dramatically affected by medical costs. It is true that we have the best and most exhaustive medical care, those costs can prove to be ruinous if a citizen is horribly hurt, or becomes terribly ill.

On a personal note, I find it ridiculous that proper medical treatment should be based on pay scale: it is a travesty to those of us who care about our fellow man (or woman); it is a horrendous mindset to say that certain specific rights should be based on the pocket book; and it is indicative of a deep disconnect that people afflicted with poverty should watch their children die, while the rich need not worry about such things.

Because whether we call it ‘socialized medicine’ or ‘universal healthcare’, a nation is only as strong as its healthiest members. And trust me, brothers and sisters, a weak body assails the brain, weakening that in return, and those that survive the trial may not prove hail of heart or of mind. Small wonder the poor run to religion: the doors of education are closed, and likewise the doors of proper health maintenance.

Till the next post then.

Read More...