Achieving Peace and Harmony in My Own Life

Watched a rather good flick last night entitled Defiance via netflix, although apparently you can watch it online here:http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2386478/defiance_watch_online_the_entire_movie/.

( Review of Defiance, vague spoilers )

Quotes...that I got from church this morning that I'd like to share here. I am trying out the Unitarian Universalist Church near me - to see if this is a good fit. It is an old church, built and begun in 1833 and as old as the company I currently work for - 175 years old - with stain glass, and wooden benches (the church not the company). Quiet and warm and friendly, with folksongs sung and a violin playing a Beethoven prelude, last week they did Bach. So far, so good. These quotes deal with the idea of achieving peace in one's own life...or rather the topic was I want world peace, but how have I been an agent of peace in my own life?

1. The meaning of compromise is a promise to see another point of view or try things another way
2. Peace and Harmony is not achieved or arrived at by being proven right, it is achieved from compassion and understanding and compromise
3. Often when we are enraged or in the middle of a heated conflict...these are the words the other person and we ourseleves are saying or feeling, it is good to keep them in mind:

I am suffering
I am trying
I need help

And when attempting to resolve a conflict, take a deep breath inwards and think, I feel their suffering, let it out and think, I feel their suffering.

It is apparently a Buddhist view that conflict should be handled with compassion not aggression.

At the front of the church - there is a little sign that says, let us hear your stories or all your stories are welcome here. And during the church service - they stated, we are nothing without our stories. I think that is true. We are nothing without our stories.
And all our stories should be heard.

[After hearing these things and the stories that followed, I felt rather ashamed for failing at these things...then I told myself, sternly, that was in the past, yesterday, tomorrow is a new day. You can't go back you can only go forward and take what you have learned along the way with you. Try to do better tomorrow.]

The new V series vs. the old 1980s V mini-series...(sigh, I feel old, anyone else feel old?)

Finished watching the first two episodes of the new series V, and I'm not sure I like it. Feel sort of ambivalent. And it is hard for me to identify with or care for any of the characters. I don't quite know why. I think the writing is focusing too much on the paranoia and the situation or set-up and less on the individual characters issues and motivations.
In the original mini-series, also entitled "V", which aired in the 1980s on NBC, not ABC as it is now, stared Marc Singer (Lori Singer's bro, you know her from Tank Girl)in the role of the investigative journalist (here it is Scott Wolf as broadcast anchor for CNN) - the Vistors were kept a mystery for two episodes, tension was built up by the fact that people trusted them, Singer and his photographer/camerman were the only ones who weren't entirely certain - so they got on the ship, went behind the scenes and discovered - gasp! the Vistors were planning on harvesting and converting humans into food (this was revealed in about the third episode) as well as using them as breeders, experimenting on them and all sorts of other nasty things reminiscent of the Nazis. That was a big theme in sci-fi in the 1970s and 1980s - aliens using humans as food or cannibalism. BattleStar Galatica also went there in its pilot. The only humans onto their oh so devious plot were the scientists - the scientists and intellectuals could see through the happy talk and had to be herded and silenced immediately, before they revealed what the Visitors really were.

While the original compared the Visitors to the Nazis, this version appears to be doing the opposite - it is showing the visitors message of international healthcare, peace, and prosperity as an unrealistic hoax, that we should be suspicious of the unknown, and how do we reconcile the existence of God with aliens?

In the original version - the resistance were scientists and an investigative reporter. Here, the resistance is a counter-intelligence agent and a priest. And instead of fearing a fascist takeover - they fear big government, or a government promising peace and goodwill. Also, in this version the Visitors are behind all the horrible things that have happened in the world for the last 100 or so years - they caused 9/11, they caused religious strife, by infilterating us. The Visitors in this version walk amongst us and have for years, they could be our husbands, our wives, our partners, our bosses, and even the President. Sleeper agents programmed to kill us. A theme that has sprouted up again after 9/11 in sci-fi, and was last seen in the 1950s during the cold war, with flicks such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Here, we've seen it pop up in the new version of BattleStar Galatica with cylons (possibly the best and most innovative of the bunch in regards to this particular trope), in the new Doctor Who, The X-Files, Fringe, and in the canceled sci-fi series Invasion (which this new V reminds me a great deal of, yet was a lot better in some respects). I'm admittedly growing weary of this trend and wish they'd come up with something else, it like vampires is nearing its saturation point in my opinion.

The original version was a commentary on discrimination, racism, and dehumanization of the other. In the original - science was feared and ostracized. It was cheesy but you cared about the people and the theme resonated. This version appears to be a commentary on fear of change, fear of progress, and fear of scientific and technological advancement and why that is justified? It does make a rather interesting statement about media manipulation and superficial beauty that I sort of liked, but have seen elsewhere and was to an extent in the original - except the beautiful blond visitor was a guy, and the geeky teen/human who fell for him was a girl, the daughter of one of the scientists that was hiding from the visitors. The media bit is similar. Although the media was attempting to expose the visitors in the original, while in this version the media is literally in bed with them. Oh and the original took place in the surburban area around LA, which I thought this one did, until I realized, no, it was supposed to be Manhattan. It does not look like Manhattan or NYC. I happen to live in NYC and no, that is not NYC. LA? Maybe. Not as familar with it.

I hate to say this? But watching this remake, made me miss, actually miss the original miniseries. And the original wasn't that good. It did have Robert Englund playing a mentally challenged Vistor, who had decided to join the resistance, which to a degree was rather entertaining. Also I sort of liked the guy who played the head scientist, forget his name, but he's appeared in lots of tv shows.

I don't know, the new V made me squirm a bit in my seat and it did not help that I don't care about anyone. It's not the acting - I rather adore Elizabeth Mitchell as Juliett on Lost and Joel Groetsky in 4400. No, it's the writing - there's something missing and a bit irksome about it, that I can't quite put my finger on. It is however doing well in the ratings - so I have a feeling it will last. I'll try two or three more episodes before I give up on it. Who knows, it might get better. Plus it has Alan Tydek in it, even if he's playing yet another bad guy.

[Okay this is wierd - a marching band just went by playing at full volumn, no lights, no fancy clothes, just their instruments, with people following behind and two cop cars alongside. Sometimes I adore Brooklyn. Never a dull moment.]