With respect to the title of this Blog post, let me cite that I realize that this is a theme which includes an almost infinite number of candidates worthy of consideration, but feel a particular individual has placed himself or herself well ahead of the other "contenders." I have also remained silent on this topic and this individual until now, but can do so no longer.

Although ditsy, blonde Jessica Simpson and her two marketable assets — neither of which is singing or acting, hint, hint — annoying, trashy, future divorcee Britney Spears, conceited, thoroughly clueless, trend disciple Paris Hilton all warranted consideration, all fell short this year. The titleholder for the most annoying celebrity of 2005, and for the foreseeable future for that matter, is none other than the nauseatingly neurotic, entirely egocentric, midlife crisis mired individual by the name of Tom Cruise.

What makes Tom Cruise worthy of being crowned the world’s stupidest celebrity, someone out there may ask (assuming someone actually disagrees)? For those who have a differing opinion, I will attempt to remain as objective as possible throughout the first portion of this commentary, and ask the same of you.

Support information, comments, and/or arguments will follow, but first, with all opinions aside, let me pose some objective yet pertinent questions that have come to mind. Note: before reading the questions, leave all opinions on antidepressants, postpartum depression, related prescription medication, Scientology, et al, at the door.

1. What are Tom Cruise's credentials, from a impartial, recognized educational institution, that establish him as an authority or a professional on the inconceivably vast subject of 'life'?
2. What are Tom Cruise's credentials, from a impartial, recognized educational institution, that establish him as an authority or a professional on the broad subject of psychology?
3. What are Tom Cruise's credentials, from a impartial, recognized educational institution, that establish him as an authority or a professional in anatomy of the human body?
4. What are the sources for his studies and knowledge of the subjects on which he considers himself educated and/or experienced — namely, neurology, behavioral biology, computational biology, ecology, ethology, genetics, pharmaceutical chemistry, psychopharmacology, biopsychology, neuropsychology, epistemology, and human behaviorism, just to name a few?
5. How much time was devoted to the study of each of these subjects?
6. What scientific research — in the form stating and testing hypotheses, and determining a conclusion supported by scientific evidence — has he done to reach his conclusions?
7. What has been his firsthand experience with disorders such as depression, bi-polar disorder, anxiety disorders, etc.?
8. A central belief of Scientology states, "What is true is what is true for you. No beliefs should be forced as 'true' on anyone." How does he then explain his criticism of Brooke Shields' belief in the benefit of antidepressants in her battle with postpartum depression?

If he could answer the above questions, perhaps Tom Cruise could silence the critics and even gain credibility, thereby increasing the popularity and acceptance of scientology and its beliefs. However, I will not be holding my breath, in as much as I doubt any of Cruise’s "sources" for his acquired knowledge stretch beyond pro-Scientology essays and papers.

Although my personal opinions on Tom Cruise are completely unrelated to and disconnected from the above questions, they should be evident based on my comments in response to various statements made by Tom Cruise.

Statements made in an interview with Matt Lauer on 25 June 2005:

Cruise: "No, you see. Here's the problem. You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."

Where did you study the 'history of psychiatry' Tom? Any data can be manipulated in various ways in order to support multiple arguments. It is therefore entirely plausible that a "history of psychiatry" written by an individual who shares a similar opinion as the Scientology community will attempt to provide arguments supporting their opinion. The same argument holds true for an individual who is a staunch supporter of psychiatry.

However, the general field of psychiatry is so immense and varied that I do not believe Cruise is the erudite historian of psychiatry he believes himself to be. Reading some essays, thesis papers, hypotheses, or one-sided literature on a subject does not make a person an expert.

Cruise: "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance."

Making a statement such as this with no accredited, supporting data, let alone irrefutable evidence, is indicative of a person with tunnel vision towards a pre-established conclusion, regardless of corroborating or contradicting facts.

Cruise: "The thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation, okay. And she doesn't understand the history of psychiatry. She doesn't understand in the same way that you don't understand it, Matt."

How does Tom Cruise know that neither Matt Lauer nor Brooke Shields knows or understands the history of psychiatry? With respect to postpartum depression, unless Tom Cruise was or is a woman, and has given birth to a child, what experience can he claim to have on the subject other than what is printed in black-and-white in a textbook? Further, what business is it of his how Shields chooses to live her life? While Cruise may harbor suspicion of the psychiatry community, does this also mean everyone else must share either the same or a similar opinion strictly because it is his opinion?

Lauer: "Well, if antidepressants work for Brooke Shields, why isn't that okay?"
Cruise: "I disagree with it. And I think there's a higher & better quality of life."

The above exchange only exemplifies the pertinent question: What business is it of Tom Cruise what decisions and opinions Brooke Shields makes with respect to living her life? Moreover, what "duty" is it of his to pressure others’ to blindly adopt his opinions?

Cruise: "Matt, Matt, you don't even — you're glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is."

So now, Cruise resorts to name-calling? Since he is throwing stones, perhaps Dr. Cruise could enlighten us as to exactly what elements and compounds make up Ritalin, and how each particular element and/or compound supports his argument against Ritalin.

I should also take a moment to point out what a eunuch Matt Lauer is.

Cruise: "Matt, Matt, you don't even — you're glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate & read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay? That's what I've done. Then you go & you say where's the medical test? Where's the blood test that says how much Ritalin you're supposed to get?"
Lauer: "It's very impressive to listen to you because clearly, you've done the homework. And you know the subject."

I cannot help but spotlight and ridicule Matt Lauer for his obsequious passivity, something far too common in the mainstream media when celebrities are involved, as if he would be out-of-line to do anything but smile, give an uncomfortable little laugh, and disregard Cruise’s I insultingly scornful, better-than-thou attitude. I am curious as to what part of Cruise’s ego-driven, near senseless, evidence omitting, highly opinionated rambling impressed Lauer, and why he found it so stirring.

Cruise: "And to talk about it [Ritalin] in a way of saying, 'Well, isn't it okay,' and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is."

Ironic that Cruise would broach the subject of being responsible when he is so recklessly calling upon others to espouse his beliefs strictly because they are his beliefs. Some of his statements directly contradict scientific evidence, which is nothing if not objective. While the potential for error always exists, I am more inclined to lean toward the facts of scientific experiments over one individual who offers no supporting evidence to validate his opinions and statements.

Cruise: "What is the ideal scene for life – okay? The ideal scene is someone not having to take anti-psychotic drugs."

The "ideal scene for life" is nothing more than an unfeasible façade because of the perpetual array of interfering factors that arise every day of one’s life. Based on the above statement, Tom Cruise falls into the category of an idealist who wants to deal with an idyllic world rather than the actual world in which we live. While a self-regulated amount of idealism is a good thing, one need also possess a level of realism. The late journalist Sydney J. Harris once observed, "An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run."

Perhaps the objective for Mission Impossible III should be to convince Tom Cruise that he likes listening to himself speak far too much, especially given the lack of substance in what he has to say.