Video of the Day: HUBRIS: THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR

Tonight marks the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq which began the Iraq War.
Here is an eye-opening and eyebrow-raising documentary about the lead-up to the Iraq War.

Word of the Day: REFORMER

On February 11 of this year, the Vatican confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI would step down from the papacy, ending his leadership of the Catholic Church worldwide.  He would be the first Pope to step down since Pope Gregory XII, nearly six centuries ago.  (Pope Gregory stepped down as a result of the Great Schism in the Catholic Church, more specifically the Western Schism, which resulted in two popes -- and, near the end of the schism, three popes -- in order that there would be one singular head of the Catholic Church.)  Pope Gregory XII's stepping down was under outside pressure.  If you want to get a little more specific, Pope Benedict XVI would be the first pope to step down without outside pressure since Pope Celestine V, whose papacy lasted just over five months in 1294.

On February 28, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI ended his nearly-eight year papacy, resulting in "sede vacante", or vacant seat.  He is now referred to as Pope Emeritus.  ("Emeritus" means "having served one's time".)

The Papal Conclave to elect the next pope convened with 115 cardinals this past Tuesday, March 12.  It concluded the following evening, March 13, after only five ballots, with white smoke emanating from a smokestack -- black smoke means no pope elected yet -- and bells ringing.  Just over an hour after the white smoke was seen, it was declared "Habemus Papam!", or "We have a Pope!"  Stepping out onto the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio would now and forever be known as Pope Francis.

His papacy has a number of firsts attached to it already.  He is the first pope from outside Europe in almost thirteen centuries (Gregory III, 731-741 A.D.); the first to come from the Southern Hemisphere (Argentina); the first from the Americas (Latin America); the first to take the name of Francis (after St. Francis of Assisi); the first to take a name never taken before in 1,100 years; and the first Jesuit to be elected pope.  His taking of the name of Francis seems to indicate a strong emphasis on humility and helping the poor, which he has done much of while in Argentina.  

Signs of how he intends to live out his papacy could be found at his first appearance (when he asked for the crowd's blessing for him, and bowed to receive it, before he offered his blessing; wearing a simple white cassock) and on his first day (going to the hotel where he stayed before entering the conclave in order to pay his bill; opening the seal to the papal apartment and supposedly commenting, "There's room for 300 people here.  I don't need all this space.").

One of the words being used early on to describe the hopes for his papacy is "reformer".  At a time when the Catholic Church is in such turmoil, both internally and in public perception, it has been accepted that a reformer is badly needed.  Indeed, a reformer is needed.  As a former Catholic, thus an outsider looking in, I also agree a reformer is undeniably needed.  Not that I personally or spiritually have anything invested in this, but I do hope Pope Francis will be the reformer that is so sorely needed at this time.

The question that begs asking, aside from "will he or won't he", is what kind of reform will he bring?

There are several definitions for the word "reform".  Some of them are:
to put or change into an improved form or condition;
to put an end to something unacceptable by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action;
to induce or cause to abandon evil ways;
to become changed for the better.

The "improved form or condition" and "introducing a better method or course of action" would certainly be goals of Pope Francis' much more simplistic ways.  It will be interesting to see how that carries over to the Catholic Church at large.  (He was quoted as saying he wanted a "poor church for a poor people".)  Regarding the inducing of or causing the abandoning of evil ways could be the way to address, hopefully seriously for once and all, the financial abuses and child abuse cases of the Catholic Church.  It has not been, as is widely suggested, secular influences alone that have caused the downslide of the Catholic Church.  The closing or merging of Catholic schools, the closing or merging of Catholic churches, and the large number of multi-million dollar settlements have been brought on internally, not externally. 

The are many Bible verses and passages that speak of reaping what you sow.  The time of sowing has been, and I believe still is, going on for a very, very long time.  The time of reaping has been, and continues to be, at hand.  

At one time, the ostentatious nature of the Catholic Church (i.e. the Vatican, many of its individual churches) seemed fitting.  Anything that seemed as "common as the people" couldn't have a sense of high importance and, I would argue, the aesthetics of grandeur fed into that perception.  Such grandeur (i.e. altars, chalices, clerical garb) was helpful, I believe, in getting those who were much simpler folk (i.e. country-dwellers and distant villagers) to be impressed with the church's importance.  Yes, the Catholic Church did have a much deeper message than merely appearances, but appearances helped to make first impressions...and you know what they say about first impressions.

It isn't just the secular folk (non-churchgoers, non-believers, atheists, etc.) who have seen what has been going on and have been screaming for an end to the abuses, but Catholics, and other religious persons, have been crying out as well.  How can the Catholic hierarchy say that only outsiders or troublemakers, of whatever kind, are the problem when those among your own numbers have abused or been abused?  Your house is not crumbling from the outside in, but from the inside out.

In the gospel of Matthew, there is a parable of Jesus' called the parable of the wise and foolish builders.  It reads, "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.  The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock.  And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand.  The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell--and great was its fall!"  (Matt. 7:24-27, New Revised Standard Version)

So, Jesus' words included the abuse of power and the giving of a bad name to religion as good things?  Worthwhile things?  Desirable things?  Perhaps there should be a parable about pretending your house is built on rock when it is actually built on sand.

Last summer, I wrote a similar article on this topic with emphasis on a case against a priest in Philadelphia.  My interest, albeit as no longer a member of the Catholic Church, is a personal issue for me.  I think any institution is prone to abuse.  The key is not simply having guidelines in place to avoid it as best as possible; those are preventative measures.  The key is what is done when it happens.

And so, at this time of crossroads within the Catholic Church, there are 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide who will be watching, I'm sure with great anticipation and hope, as to what Pope Francis does.  Will his simplistic and humble approach reform the church's approach in general?  As I have always understood it, Jesus never operated in any other way than simplistically.  A lot less ostentatiousness and a more down-to-earth and meet-the-people-on-their-level approach would not hurt, in my opinion.   

And yet, I wonder what role do simplicity and humility have in the reformation that is needed regarding long-standing abuses?  What key are they to that kind of reform?  Pope Francis is only a few days into his papacy and, barring any unforeseen tragedy, time will tell as to what keys he holds and to what kind of a reformer he will be.

Terry

Word of the Day: REVERSE

On July 2, 1964, then-President Lyndon Johnson signed The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which addressed race, society, religion, minorities, and women with regard to discrimination.  Just a little over thirteen months later, on August 6, 1965, President Johnson also signed into law The Voting Rights Act of 1965, reinforcing the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, by saying that no state is permitted to impose discriminatory voting qualifications.  It disallows states from requiring anyone from doing anything that could deny qualified citizens their right to vote without the oversight of the U.S Justice Department.  Such practices, at the time (under Jim Crow laws) directed primarily toward black persons (i.e. literacy tests, poll taxes, naming how many soap bubbles were in a bar of soap, naming how many jelly beans were in a jar) were considered legal requirements. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 were a one-two punch against discrimination in this country, in general and in regard to voting.

Part of the passing of the Voting Rights Act included revisiting it, voting on it again, and it would be passed, or not, for a duration so many years, and then revisited for another vote that number of years later.  After its initial passage in 1965, these provisions were revisited after two five-year increments (1970, 1975), a seven-year period (1982) -- at which time, some of the provisions were made permanent -- and after a twenty-five year period (2007).  However, it was in 2006, one year before the expiration date, that then-President George W. Bush signed the provisions into law once again.  His signature renewed the act for another twenty-five year period (lasting until 2032).

One of the provisions, specifically Section 5, reentered the news on Wednesday of this week when the case of Shelby County [Alabama] v. [Attorney General Eric] Holder came before the Supreme Court.  The case is an appeal of a 2011 ruling in a District of Columbia district court to uphold the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act related to the 2006 renewal as a possible unconstitutional overstepping of authority by the U.S. Congress.  During the hearing, Justice Antonin Scalia made what I call a shocking statement about the Section 5 provision of the act -- the provision requiring the U.S Justice Department to approve any changes in voting procedure to ensure those changes are not discriminatory.  The law covers, with exceptions for certain cities or districts, eight states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas); certain counties or cities in six states (California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia); and certain townships in two states (Michigan, New Hampshire).  All of these areas were heavily allowing or enforcing voting discrimination to take place many decades ago.

Four years ago, just two years after President Bush signed the last extension of the law, Justice Scalia stated that, since it passed unanimously, its extension was a means to undermining the law itself.  No, he did not see it as support for the law simply growing, which it has done in every continuance since 1970, to a unanimous vote in 2006.  (I do not mean that as an eventuality that finally arrived, just that such has been the history.)  He cited the Sanhedrin, a former Jewish high court system, having a rule regarding the death penalty whereby any unanimous votes on it rendered it invalid.

Justice Scalia didn't mind being unanimously approved by the Senate (98-0) in 1986 to sit on the Supreme Court, though.

Justice Scalia expanded on his comments from four years ago, by stating the following from the bench on Wednesday: 
"This Court doesn’t like to get involved in racial questions such as this one.  It’s something that can be left to Congress.

The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation, in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear, was — in the Senate, there — double-digits against it.  And that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term.  Double-digits against it in the Senate.  Then it was reenacted for 7 years.  Single digits against it.  Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it.  And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it.  And the House is pretty much the same.  Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this.  I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.  It’s been written about.  Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act.  And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution.  You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.

That’s the concern that those of us who have some questions about this statute have.  It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.  There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now.  And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this.  The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.

Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act.  Who is going to vote against that in the future?"

Justice Scalia believes that the Voting Rights Act perpetuates racial entitlement?  Really?  Well, Justice Scalia, you have the first letter and the number of syllables correct: it is not entitlement; it is equality.  As far as the idea of racial entitlement, it is not the Voting Rights Act, or its last reenactment, that perpetuates racial entitlement.  White persons denying persons who are not white the right to vote is racial entitlement.  ("We're entitled to vote, while you're not.")

If the Voting Rights Act is struck down by the Supreme Court, it makes the controls to put this train in reverse more accessible.  Anyone who has followed the news is aware of attempts to disenfranchise voters -- mostly blacks, other minorities, and the poor -- that have been well under way for some time.  Through voter ID cards, gerrymandering (redistricting voting districts), huge cutbacks on early voting, etc., keeping certain persons from voting seems clearly to not be an unfortunate side effect of these processes, but a desired goal.  Wasn't that same goal of keeping others from voting the reason for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voter Rights Act of 1965 in the first place?  Wasn't that same goal in our past?  Wouldn't a reversal mean that every sore throat from screaming and every sore pair of feet from walking at public protests...every person directly affected by "separate but equal" environments...every person who was publicly humiliated...every person who was severely beaten, some with permanent injuries...every person who shed their blood...and every person who died for equal rights, went through all that for nothing?  Yes, it would.  

That cannot happen!  That must not happen!

Justice Scalia, it is clear that you want the country to go backward and there is a likely racial component to that desire.  I suspect that not every justice on the court shares your views, or shares them as vehemently as you do, but I fear that too many might.  After seeing something happen that I never that would -- the Citizens United decision three years ago -- that lies firmly on the carpet of culpability resting at the foot of the same Supreme Court on which you sit (and which you voted in favor), that "too many" sharing your beliefs will equal "enough" to strike down the nearly-fifty-year-old law.  

I admit to not trusting all the time two of the three branches of government, executive (President) and legislative (Congress), from time to time.  The third branch, judicial (Supreme Court), seldom grasped my attention in the same way.  However, that is no longer the case.  The judicial branch has become just as untrustworthy as the executive and legislative branches have been.  

Justice Scalia did get one thing right, although not in the way he intended it.  When he said, "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes", he is correct.  Our history shows that white persons were entitled to vote, while black persons were not, and it took us all the way up to 1965, the latter half of the twentieth century, to begin to change that.

Terry

Word of the Day: EUTHANASIA

No doubt the title of this blog entry got your attention.  "Euthanasia" is a loaded word, emotionally packed on both sides of the issue.  Here in America, that word still invokes memories of news stories involving Dr. Jack Kevorkian (aka "Dr. Death") and his administering of assisted suicides to patients deemed terminally ill and who wanted their suffering to end during the 1990's.  The idea of death with dignity, including Death with Dignity laws having been passed in Washington state and Oregon, was, and remains, the impetus for assisted suicides.

In this entry, however, I want to focus on a story out of Belgium that took place two months ago, but just recently came to my attention.  It's the story of twin brothers, Marc and Eddy Verbessem, who were euthanized late last year.  The 45-year-old twins were already deaf when they learned they were also beginning to go blind.  It was their deafness and pending blindness that were their reasons for petitioning to be euthanized. 

You read that correctly: their deafness and blindness -- pending blindness, that is -- was the basis for their argument in favor of euthanasia for both of them.  Apparently the twins were so close, growing up together and living together in their adult life, that felt they had no other option since they were so emotionally distraught about their deteriorating situation.  As Belgium is one of just three countries that allow for euthanasia on non-terminal cases -- Switzerland and the Netherlands are the other two -- the twin brothers looked for a hospital that would honor their request.  Initially turned down, their request was finally accepted, following a two-year search.  Once they received confirmation, family noted that they were relieved their suffering would end soon.

Marc and Eddy Verbessem were euthanized on December 14, 2012.

The usual understanding of euthanasia is the peaceful ending of someone's life who is suffering from a terminal illness or whose quality of life is irreversibly affected in a negative manner.  It is also known as mercy killing.  In the case of the Verbessem brothers, I'm wondering about the illness that reports say they had.  I haven't seen what the illness was, so I am assuming it had something to do with their loss of hearing, their loss of sight, or both.  I'm also wondering about their quality of life.  They would have to become dependent due to the loss of those two senses, something they did not want. 

What appears from the reporting on this story as the real tipping point for the brothers was the knowledge that they would not only be unable to hear each other, but would also be unable to see each other.  That thought was their ultimate unbearable weight.  That thought was the catalyst for their decision to end their lives.

I neither presume to know the depth of emotional distress the brothers experienced, nor do I feel it is appropriate for me to condemn their decision.  It is also important to remember here the special bond that twins have for each other and how that must have played a part in this.  All I can offer here is simply my agreement or disagreement with their decision, while acknowledging my lack of access to inside their brains.

I do believe the loss of any of our five senses (sight, touch, smell, taste, hearing) is never an easy thing with which to deal, let alone live with it.  To lose more than one sense is hardly easily dismissed, so I know they did not have an easy burden.  Nonetheless, I would offer my disagreement with their decision.  My disagreement is not, and cannot be, based in knowing better than they do.

My disagreement is with their basis for requesting euthanasia.  While I am certain that they were extremely distraught, I feel ill at ease with their being unable to bear not being able to see each other as a reason for ending their lives.  I can understand about their having to become dependent, as I care for my legally blind mother who is dependent on me, but at forty-five years of age, they could have been able to learn to have some sort of a functional life.

I also disagree with Belgium, as well as Switzerland and the Netherlands, making euthanasia available to non-terminal cases.  It would seem to require that any non-terminal individuals requesting for euthanasia should be put under an even stricter scrutiny, although I believe that if it is legal and offered, then it really should be reserved for solely terminal cases.

I am not arguing pro or con regarding euthanasia, but I feel that something which is no small consideration -- clearly a life-changing decision -- was not applicable to their situation.  My fear is that anyone who is extremely distraught for whatever their situation is, or issues are, will see this as an open door to change the nature of euthanasia.  It is called mercy killing because it is intended to show a suffering individual mercy at the end of their life.

Marc and Eddy Verbessem's decision is their decision; no one can take that away from them.  My concern is that this will change the nature of euthanasia, where mercy killing is transformed into convenience killing.  

Terry

Word of the Day: FINALE

Recently -- two weeks ago today, to be exact -- a weekly television program of which I was a huge fan ended its run after five years.  It seemed likely that the show would only last two seasons, but a huge fan campaign gained the show a third season.  Getting a fourth season seemed far more unlikely, but the fans from Twitter went into super-tweet mode and, voila, season four was given a green light.  As hard as getting a fourth season was, it was felt by many that a fifth season was just about impossible.  Elongated negotiations made it seem we were right.  

In addition to viewer input, it was likely that the show only had thirteen more episodes to reach 100 episodes total -- the magic number to get a show syndicated.  Syndication is sustained revenue for the networks long after a series' final episode has aired.  It was announced in the Spring of last year, late in its fourth season, that a thirteen-episode fifth and final season was green lighted.  And so, what began as a new series in the Fall of 2008 wrapped up five years two weeks ago.

The show to which I am referring is Fox Television's 'Fringe'.

The show was a science fiction series.  Here's a description from the show's website:
Set in Boston, the FBI's Fringe Division started when Special Agent Olivia Dunham enlisted institutionalized "fringe" scientist Walter Bishop and his globe-trotting, jack-of-all-trades son, Peter, to help in an investigation of an airline disaster that defied human logic.  After the defining case was solved and furthermore revealed to be one of a series of unusual incidents linked together, the unlikely trio -- supervised by Special Agent Phillip Broyles and assisted by FBI Junior Agent Astrid Farnsworth -- was formed.

The main cast, mentioned in order of the above description, was:
Anna Torv as Special Agent Olivia Dunham
John Noble as Dr. Walter Bishop
Joshua Jackson as Peter Bishop
Lance Reddick as Special Agent Phillip Broyles
Jasika Nicole as Junior Agent Astrid Farnsworth

Other actors in significant recurring roles were:
Kirk Acevedo as Special Agent Charlie Francis
Seth Gabel as Agent Lincoln Lee
Blair Brown as Nina Sharp
Leonard Nimoy -- yes, THAT Leonard Nimoy -- as William Bell

There has been much talk, particularly among the show's fans, but also among some television critics, about John Noble getting an Emmy Award for his work on the show, which has not happened.  I would agree wholeheartedly.  His work has been particularly stand-out, not only for his pure acting chops, but also redefining, I believe, the archetype of the mad scientist.  It is probably likely that he won't because of the show being of the science fiction genre, which is not a huge favorite of television (or motion picture) award voters.  If he has any chance at receiving the gold statuette, it may be this Fall, when the awards honoring this past season (2012-2013) are handed out, since the show has now ended its run.  Award shows tend to give awards to series or actors at their end or their beginning, as a kind of "Welcome to the neighborhood" or "Thanks for the memories" gesture.

To be fair, however, everyone mentioned above gave anywhere from a fine job to an outstanding job in his or her own right week after week.  Everyone did such a great job with their roles, including playing anywhere from two to five versions of their character -- and even one character playing another character (taken over by that other character) -- that it truly falls into two categories: a solid ensemble cast and a cast that you cannot imagine anyone else playing those roles.

Although I have had my gripes about the writing on the show leaving a number of unfilled holes and some rather unusually sloppy writing in the last season -- a criticism I am not alone on -- the writing overall, looking at the entire five years, was intelligent and, at times, flat-out witty.  The boundaries were stretched for creative purposes, but the fore-fronted science element had some sort of truth to it.  That gave the show a sense of authenticity, even it was far-fetched authenticity at times to both the casual and regular viewer alike. 

I'm not here hawking a television show that I am just crazy over, especially now that it is finished (which would be silly), and I just think everyone should watch it.  I am not that kind of television viewer.  Perhaps it's due to my age -- I am a couple of years outside the "desirable demographic" for television advertisers -- but I don't get all silly and head over heels for a program.  To be frank, I used to when I was much younger.  That is not a commentary on younger viewers -- as if to say they "just need to grow up" -- not at all.  That does, however, lead me to my larger point.

I do not find television, as a whole, very entertaining, and I haven't for many, many years.  Not just "reality TV" programs, which, for the most part, are a particular waste of time, but programming in general seems to have gone from being a field of creativity and skill to a wasteland that is, for the most part, void of any creativity and skill.  People in front of the camera being famous for being famous and people behind the camera collecting paychecks.  Television twenty, thirty, forty years ago, and even further back, was far better that it is now.  I can remember television before cable, when we had only seven or eight stations (using "rabbit ears" to get the signal) and programming was far superior then than it is now.  That is probably why I was silly and head over heels for programs back then.

Most of what I watch now on a regular basis, now that 'Fringe' has finished its run, are news, a few documentaries, and political pundit shows --  I find politics both fascinating and entertaining -- and although my comments on reality TV earlier , I do have to admit to liking one show of that genre, 'Ghost Hunters', which airs on the SyFy cable network.  Most of my television viewing has followed that pattern for years (except for 'Ghost Hunters', which I didn't start watching until last year).  Why?  The lack of creativity, in my view, in television programming.  

The means that, unlike my former self of twenty, thirty, and forty years ago, I haven't followed any television series (and I mean scripted, serialized series) for a long time...because none have been worth my time.  The last show prior to 'Fringe' that really caught my attention was a short-lived drama called 'The Nine', which ran for only thirteen episodes during the 2006-2007 season.  It centered on nine individuals who were held hostage during a bank robbery, and each episode showed bits and pieces of what happened during the stand-off as well as the memories each individual had of the experience.  It was slow-moving, but interesting enough for me to come back each week.  The show was, as I mentioned, short-lived.  That was two seasons before the debut of 'Fringe'.

The show which ran for more than one season and which I followed religiously week after week was one that aired from 1990-1991, one-and-a-half seasons -- a mid-season replacement for the 1989-1990 season, and a full season for the 1990-1991 year -- and to which I gladly called myself a "Peaks Freak" as a fan.  The show was 'Twin Peaks'.  It was one of those shows that was so bizarre in its own right, maybe even more bizarre than 'Fringe' in many ways, that it appealed to mostly just die-hard fans.  

I don't really count 'The Nine', even though I watched most of the episodes, as the last show of any substance (more than one season) that I really followed like a fan.  So, between the end of 'Twin Peaks' and the beginning of 'Fringe', there's a period of seventeen years.  Seventeen years of not following any show that adamantly for more than, well, less than one season.  Then, the Fall of 2008 came along, 'Fringe' debuted, I was instantly hooked, and I have been a five-year, full-term fan.

Hooked to the point of being a fan of the show, whereby I have seen every single episode of the 100 produced, have purchased boxed sets of previous seasons (I have 1-4 and waiting for 5), wrote a blog about the show, and even appeared as a co-host of a podcast about it ('Following the Pattern').  I am a true fan of the show.

The ultimate point to all of this is that those who put together, produced, and presented 'Fringe' are collectively responsible for this one individual finding something extremely special to watch.  It not only held my attention consistently (even when I hated season four overall), but it showed that creativity, real creativity, can be had on television.  It showed that the combination of talent, ability, skill, creativity, and imagination can come together and make something wonderful to watch week in and week out.  

Not only that, but it also provided, via social media, a viewership family (what is referred to as the "Fringe universe") that connected people from around the world as fans of the show.  I have personally been in contact with people from Britain, Germany, and Mexico, in addition to many other parts of the United States.  It has been an amazing experience, both in front of the television and in front of the computer!

In addition to the actors I listed early on, I want to give credit to the main production crew of the show as well:
J.J. Abrams, Executive Producer (and co-creator)
Alex Kurtzman, Executive Producer (and co-creator)
Roberto Orci, Executive Producer (and co-creator)
J.H. Wyman, Executive Producer
Jeff Pinker, Executive Producer (seasons 1-4)
Joe Chappelle, Executive Producer
Michael Giacchino, Musical Composer (season 1-3)
Chris Tilton, Musical Composer (seasons 2-5)
Chad Seiter, Musical Composer (season 1)

And the production companies:
Bad Robot Productions
Warner Bros. Television

And, of course, Fox Television.  And many thanks to its executives to allow the show to end on its own creative terms...an extreme rarity in television!

While I cannot say this show will spill over into my watching more and more series, I can say with heartfelt sincerity a huge thank you to all involved with 'Fringe'.  You all made television, at least with your one show, worthwhile, and that meant a lot to me!  I am sorry to see the show end.

(And yes, I, too, would like to see a 'Fringe' movie as soon as possible.)

Terry

Word of the Day: NEW

Happy New Year, dear readers!  I hope your holidays during December as well as the New Year's holiday went well and that you had much happiness in your lives during that festive time.  My holidays were, as usual, small scale, but they were nonetheless enjoyable.

Well, we find ourselves in a brand new year, 2013.  In terms of the Gregorian calendar, which is the most widely used calendar system in the world, we are now in the thirteenth year of the third millennium, denoted both as C.E. (Common Era) and A.D. (Anno Domini).

In Chinese culture, specifically their zodiac, 2013 is the Year of the Snake.  It is relative to those born (at least in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries) in the following years: 1905, 1917, 1929, 1941, 1953, 1965, 1977, 1989, 2001, and 2013.  Being born in the Year of the Snake symbolizes being analytical (non-impulsive), materialistic, creative, problem solvers; preferring calm and steadiness over chaos and frenetic situations; and keeping feelings to themselves.

While most of us acknowledge this year as 2013, other calendars from various cultural traditions numerically mark this year differently.  Some examples are the Juche calendar of North Korea and the Minguo calendar of China, both of which designate this year as 102; the Hebrew calendar denotes this year as 5773 (changing in September, not next January); and the Holocene calendar (which begins at 10,000 B.C.) marks this year as 12013.

In addition to all of that information, I am able to write this because we are all still here.  The doomsday that was supposed to be December 21, 2011, did not happen.  (Big surprise.)  After roughly two years of heightened hubbub about that late-December date, the Earth started off intact, and ended the same.  I always understood it -- in terms of "the world as we know it will end" -- as a beginning of a mass shift in consciousness, a kind of attitudinal, perceptual, and beliefs-based paradigm shift.  (Yes, new agey, I know, but hey, I think we need a paradigm shift.)  Of course nothing of the kind took place on that very day.  Such a large-scale shift would not and could not happen on one singular day...unless H.G. Wells was right about Martians.  The whole Maya calendar phenomenon is explained well in this video from NASA, titled Why the World Didn't End Yesterday, and ironically released before December 21, 2012.

The Maya mindset was of marking time and the continuation of time, not the ending of it.  In fact, there is nothing with regard to the Maya calendar, or anything in Maya prophecies, that even deals with the end of time.  According to Maya priest and historian Carlos Barrios, Maya elders have viewed December 21, 2012 as a rebirth.

So, we have a new year filled with twelve months of new opportunities to create a new paradigm, if we so choose.  Twelve months of opportunities to make new friends, to learn new skills, and to possibly go in new directions in our own lives.  It can also be a time to take stock of ourselves -- the proverbial looking in the mirror -- and to reassess, to see ourselves in a new way...or perhaps to collectively see ourselves as we used to centuries ago.  That, too, is key to a much-needed paradigm shift.

Or we could just say, "Eh, it's just another year."

Terry

Word of the Day: INSANITY

Within my three-part posting titled 'Massacre' earlier this year, I made reference to the massacre at Columbine High School thirteen years ago and how someone at my church could tell how deeply troubled I was about it just by my facial expressions.  Just five months ago, I wrote the three-part 'Massacre' posting regarding the mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.  Just five months ago!  Now, I am writing about another school shooting, only this time the vast majority of those murdered (twenty out of twenty-seven) were children just six or seven years old.  

Early on here, let me state that am as heartbroken as I am fed up with events like the one that took place this past Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Massachusetts.  I have never had children, but I am stunned at this news.  I am also finding a passionate fire welling up in me, more than ever before, in terms of those in power MUST take appropriate steps in response.

One of my questions for those in power is What is it going to take for you to do the right thing for those you are supposed to serve, the American citizens?  What, indeed!

Many references in the news and on political pundit shows have been to the massacres at the Aurora movie theater and at Columbine High School.  To any of you who have been keeping up with the news, those markings of time -- April 1999 (Columbine), July 2012 (Aurora), and December 2012 (Sandy Hook) -- are not the only sadly significant moments of such tragedies.  Here is an incomplete list of some of them:
April 20, 1999 -- Columbine High School (deadliest U.S. shooting at a high school)
March 21, 2005 -- Red Lake Senior High School
October 2, 2006 -- A one-room Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania
April 16, 2007 -- Virginia Tech (deadliest U.S. school shooting of all time)
January 8, 2011 -- Former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords and others
July 20, 2012 -- Aurora movie theater shooting
August 5, 2012 -- Oak Creek Sikh temple in Wisconsin
December 11, 2012 -- Clackamas Town Center shopping mall
December 14, 2012 -- Sandy Hook Elementary School (deadliest U.S. shooting at an elementary school)

As I said, that is only a partial list.  Is that sad enough, disgusting enough, angering enough yet?

School shootings are not a phenomenon beginning at the end of the twentieth century C.E.  (In fact, the first attack on a school, which was with bombs, not firearms, took place eighty-five years ago.)  You could probably trace non-school-related public shootings and massacres back to the gangster era in this country...further back, a few centuries back, if you include the U.S. Civil War and the murders of Native Americans.

Face it, part of the identity of the United States of America, current culture and historic past included, is not an attention to weapons and murder, but a regard for and an obsession with weapons and murder.  The idea of "frontier mentality" is not misplaced here, and feelings about the right to bear arms (the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment) within the borders of this very country differ from region to region.  

Personally, I would prefer no one had weapons.  That includes not only individuals, but governments and other leaders of state around the world.  That is my preference.  On a practical level, however, I cannot see removing all weapons as feasible, just to follow my preference.  (The U.S. government, military, and police forces would keep theirs, anyway.)  Since the Second Amendment guarantees the right for individuals to bear arms, I feel that anyone who is SANE, CAUTIOUS, and RESPONSIBLE should be allowed to do so.  SANE, CAUTIOUS, and RESPONSIBLE are unequivocally vital!

Freedom inextricably includes responsibility, and rights include the same.  Strike responsibility from the equation in any way, shape, or form, and you are no longer discussing freedoms or rights...you are declaring open season on the citizenry.

To the issue of safety, it is true that no one can be safe 100% of the time.  Injury, sickness, or death can happen to anyone at any time.  Parents will always try to keep their children as safe as possible.  For your own lives, staying home all the time wouldn't protect you 100%, either.  You might be safer than most, granted, but something can happen to you at home as well.  "100% safe" is a fallacy.  As President Obama said at his address at the interfaith vigil held in Newtown this past Sunday, "No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society...but that can't be an excuse for inaction."  I would add that it can't be an excuse to do too little (a band-aid on a broken leg), either.  Something must be done, something significant, something measurable, something far-reaching.

Far-reaching should not and must not include an undermining of the rights of the those who are sane, cautious, and responsible gun holders -- which, by the way, includes the vast majority of gun holders in this country.  Punish the many for the few never has settled with me, and it won't in regard to gun control, either.  To those legal and responsible owners who are afraid of such an undermining, I get it.  Washington, however, better get it, too.  This problem is not just guns and rifles.  It includes mental health, which has been steadily given less and less necessary attention year after year for some time now.  It does not include media (i.e. films, video games, etc.), as many like to place the blame, but it does on the involvement of parents telling their kids over and over again that those same movies and games are fantasy, not reality.  They are escapism, not realism.  I've seen hundreds of movies and television shows with violence and they have never inspired me to commit any acts of violence on another person, and I believe that the vast majority of others who see violence act in the same manner.  

It also includes political structure, which means that politicians need to sever ties with gun manufacturers for their own and those companies' profits, for such is the influence of destruction.  It also displays an evil distortion of "U.S. citizens" as only them and not the population at large.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  What this meant at that time and for several generations after related to enforcement of laws, insurrections, invasions, national defense, self-defense, and tyrannical government.  In any of the shootings I mentioned above, or any mass shooting, for that matter, tell me how the shooters are enforcing any law, protecting against insurrections or invasions, defending the country, defending themselves, or fighting a tyrannical government.  The instances where any of those points were somehow reasons (and distorted reasons) for the murderers to do what they did would be few and far-between.  They would be too few and far-between to do little to nothing in response.

If the conversations that lead to progress include law enforcement, gun manufacturers, the mental health community, citizen groups, and victims, then true change for the better can be had.  It will be to our peril if not.  On that note, I'd like to address the National Rifle Association (NRA).  I have read lately that majorities of the members of the NRA would like to see changes in gun laws.  However, the members do not run the NRA gun lobby; the NRA leadership does.  So, the leadership needs to address this.  Why hasn't the NRA publicly denounced, in no uncertain terms, these acts of violence?  Why hasn't the NRA publicly stated, again in no uncertain terms, that they are for gun owners' rights, not the rights of anyone to get his/her hand on firearms?  In other words, why don't they just come out and demand that the right to bear arms is not synonymous with the right to unload reason?  Are they so narrow-minded that they really believe reasonability is in direct opposition to a Constitutionally-guaranteed right?

The NRA recently released a statement saying it was "shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown".  It explained its silence regarding the massacre in the following way: "Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting."  Yes, common decency is good, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that, when NRA rallies are many times held in or near the towns in which such tragedies occur.  (Note to the NRA: The mourning, prayers, and the full investigation have not ended yet.  I'm just saying.)  They also want to make "meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again." 

Pardon my cynicism, but I'll believe that when I see it.

It is not just those who are insane who commit these horrific acts of violence, but the state of how things are in this country that is insane.  The U.S. has the highest number of gun owners in the modern, civilized world along with the highest numbers of deaths via firearms in the modern, civilized world.  I have never heard any gun owner, and I know a few, give any reason why an individual MUST have weapons (and even gear) of war -- not hunting or self-defense, but war -- in their possession.  I haven't heard one reasonable justification yet because there is no reasonable justification to be found.  None.

Are we, as a society, sad enough, disgusted enough, angered enough yet to make the necessary changes to stop (or at least to greatly curb) this insanity?  We better be.

Terry