TV Show Review: Fringe

Fringe is a breath of creative fresh air in a world of substandard, idiotic and just plain dull television. Just when it seemed that network TV had given up and allowed cable to carry the burden of entertainment, Fox gives us an intelligent, engrossing, thrilling, compelling and even tongue-in-cheek hilarious new series that promises to deliver even more as the mysteries unfold.

I must admit I was skeptical about the show from the previews and I don't feel Fox did the show justice with their promotional efforts. It made the show appear as if it were going to be a nonsensical mess which couldn't be further from the truth. The writing, directing and acting take what could potentially be unbelievable stories and make them feel so natural that you can imagine yourself having the same experiences as the characters, even when those experiences involve armies of beings who go from birth to old age in a day.

Yes, some of the subject matter is a little out there, but that's the point. Oliva Dunham, played by Anna Torv, has been drafted from the FBI to head a secret team investigating "The Pattern," a series of strange, unexplained phenomena. That's where the X-Files similarities end. Though I loved the X-Files, this show doesn't suffer from many of the problems the X-Files had. It is much more cohesive, realistically played and intriguing. It is also not so overly secretive and mysterious that it leaves the viewer behind. Yes, there is an overall mystery and lots of things we don't know yet, but each episode is a self-contained adventure that can be enjoyed on its own while still adding to the overall story.

The chemistry between the characters and the witty, realistic dialogue are two things that sucked me in immediately. Josh Jackson as Peter Bishop and John Noble as Walter Bishop are incredibly believable as an estranged father and son with a tenuous yet obviously loving relationship. When you put these two together with Anna Torv's Olivia Dunham, the results are often hilarious as Peter acts an interpreter for his brilliant scientist father who has spent the past seventeen years in a mental institution.

One of the funniest scenes I have ever witnessed on television in my life occurred as Peter and Olivia were driving Walter to his lab after springing him from the institution. In the midst of an intense conversation between Peter and Olivia, Walter suddenly announces that he has pissed himself. "Just a squirt," he announces to a beleaguered but not particularly surprised eye roll from his son and an even funnier lack of reaction from Olivia.

The exchanges of witty dialogue are delivered with excellent acting and punch up the believability factor. These characters actually talk to each other and interact with each other in ways that people do instead of the ways that TV characters often do which is often flat and one dimensional. The actors bring life and texture to their characters and make the viewer care about their journey.

The journey itself is equally intriguing as Peter struggles with his desire to care for and get to know his father on the one hand and his desire to get the hell out of town on the other. He also finds himself caught up in wanting to unravel the mysteries of "The Pattern" after he witnesses first hand some of the strange events. Olivia finds that she has entered a world where knowing who to trust is no easy task. She already knows she's not getting the full story on anything from the man who set her on her mission and wonders how many answers the head of Massive Dynamics, the Microsoft-esque mega company can provide. Are they truly hoping she will discover the secrets of "The Pattern" or are they behind them?

Only time and many intense and riveting adventures will tell, but I, for one, will be watching to see exactly how it unfolds. Let's just hope that the writers and producers of Fringe realize the good thing they've got going and not try to tweak it unnecessarily as so many shows seem to want to do

Depression Politics

The American government is about to spend 700 billion dollars in the biggest economic bailout since the Great Depression, and all the while President Bush will still not even utter the word, "recession." What's up with that? Perhaps we have moved from recession into depression already during the time our leaders were trying to deny anything was wrong.

Gas prices so high the average person couldn't afford to fill their tanks? Groceries so high we can barely feed our families? Jobs disappearing at the fastest rate in decades? Yeah, what could possibly be wrong.

Now that they have finally woken up and smelled the decaying corpse of what was once the American economy, they've decided to do something about it. I can't help but think this is a purely political attempt by Bush and the Republicans to make him look (I'm trying not to laugh as I type this) like a hero by putting yet another bandaid on a severed artery so close to election time.

Anyone who is dumb enough to applaud this quick fix and say, "Look at what a great job the Republicans did fixing this problem," needs to remember who got us into this huge financial mess in the first place. By all means, vote Republican this election if you can afford ten bucks a gallon for gasoline, you're so rich you don't need a job and you don't care how much your maid spends on groceries for your family. If you're a real, working person, you might want to consider casting a vote for the Democratic candidate.

Whatever happened to proofreading?

Google released it's new Chrome web browser and freaked a lot of people out with the terms of service (TOS) that went along with it. Basically, the wording made it sound as if everything that was transmitted or viewed via Chrome belonged to Google, including irrevocable copyrights. From the way it was worded, it was reasonable to assume that Google would be claiming a copyright to any content the user posted to the web using Chrome.

Google has said this is absolutely not the case and that the wording in the TOS was basically copied and pasted from another Google product in error. They have said they will be correcting the language for future downloads and that the new TOS will retroactively apply to anyone who has already downloaded Chrome.

Mistakes happen, but I can't imagine that a company as large as Google didn't have a team of marketing people, then a team of lawyers, then a team of something else read over the TOS before making such a major product launch. Whatever happened to proofreading?

This points out a major problem with Internet communication. The focus these days is on immediacy, getting the information out as quickly as possible. Just because we can, however, doesn't always mean we should. Taking an extra day to have the TOS proofread would have saved Google a lot of headaches and embarrassment.

We definitely need to take a step back and embrace some of the enduring principals of print communication. In the old days, once something was put out in print, it was out there forever for all the world to scrutinize. Sure, you can easily go back and change a mistake you've made on the Internet, but odds are someone somewhere has already saved your erroneous version and about 50,000 others have probably passed it around on social networking and other sharing sites.

What some may consider outdated practices such as proofreading and following proven writing standards actually existed for a reason. The basic principals of journalism, writing and editing have fallen by the wayside in today's technologically advanced society, but they are definitely worth revisiting.

And Yet, if We Call Her a Bitch...

Further proof that the Republican Party is divisive and intolerant has come in the numerous reports that Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said, "So Sambo beat the bitch!" in describing Barack Obama's win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant. The quote was originally reported in the L.A. Progressive blog and attributed to Palin by "Lucille," an unidentified Alaska waitress.

It has become obvious Mrs. Palin is a good speaker, but to be able to alienate both African Americans and women in one short statement is a feat nothing short of amazing. Using some of the most offensive language possible, she has shown her lack of respect for two groups of people and indicated clearly that she has an incredible lack of self-restraint.

Are those characteristics we really want in a potential leader of our country? I, for one, think not. I believe there are a great many African American and female voters who will agree. John McCain has been quoted as having used the term "bitch" in reference to Hillary Clinton, showing just how much respect he has for women.

Whether or not we feel the term may be justified, it is incredibly ignorant and unprofessional for a politician to be throwing it around. It can be argued that they are people with opinions, but they are also running for very important public offices. They know that every word out of their mouths at this point is going to be scrutinized and analyzed, and yet they cannot exercise the restraint to stop saying stupid, offensive things.

If they can't even keep their mouths shut and keep from throwing out offensive racial and gender based slurs, then how can they be expected to practice diplomacy and tact in dealing with leaders of other countries? Some of those leaders of other countries happen to be black and some even happen to be women. Disrespecting our own people is bad enough, but when you have a President or a Vice President who makes disrespectful comments to or about another world leader, you have the potential of having an international crisis on your hands.

I am a big defender of freedom of speech and don't deny that Palin and McCain have the right to say whatever they want to say. However, I have the right to point out that what they're saying is making them appear ignorant and intolerant and I hope that others are picking up on that as well. Keep their comments in mind when you go to vote.

Should Employers Provide Benefits to Same-Sex Partners?

Some of the best and most progressive companies are already offering employee benefits for same-sex partners of employees. Others are dipping their foot in the pool by providing those benefits in places where they are mandated to do so, such as Massachusetts. According to an online article on HRhero.com Excerpted from Arkansas Employment Law Letter, written by attorneys at the law firm Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., Massachusetts became the first state to legally recognize gay marriage in 2004. Same-sex couples are required by law to be treated the same as heterosexual couples in that state. However, there are many other states who do not legally recognize those marriages, so a company with employees in Massachusetts as well as other states would not be required to treat all its employees the same.

This is where the issue becomes murky because the laws are different everywhere across the country. It boils down, most of the time, to the employer's choice of whether to provide employee benefits for same-sex partners of their employees. Most forward-thinking companies have already discovered the richness and unique synergy having a diverse workforce can offer and have embraced the idea of providing the same benefits to all their employees, regardless of sexual orientation.

The major issue is fairness for all. It takes nothing away from heterosexual couples to offer their same-sex counterparts the same benefits they enjoy. As a matter of fact, it's only fair that they should receive the same benefits since they are providing the same service to the companies for which they work. To deny the domestic partner or spouse of a homosexual employee the benefits to which everyone agrees the spouse of a heterosexual employee is entitled is nothing short of discrimination.

Of course, since there isn't an overwhelming consensus on the issue, it is still up for debate and each company must decide where they stand. Those who want to attract and keep the brightest and best of employees will, no doubt, eventually see that rewarding them all equally will only sweeten the pot of a talented and enthusiastically loyal workforce.

Who someone chooses to love and spend their life with has absolutely nothing to do with what type of employee they will be. However, the respect and equality with which one is either treated or not will go a long way toward determining the quality of work they perform for their employer. The companies who are smart enough to figure this out will be the ones offering full and equal benefits for same-sex partners of their employees.

What do you think?

Let's get some discussion going. What do you think about some of the issues discussed here? Speak your mind and let the world know what you think. Any and all comments are welcome and will be respected, even if you completely disagree with what I've written.

Thanks,
Bruce

What's Happening to the First Amendment?

Anyone who's even remotely interested in the erosion of First Amendment rights in this country should take a moment to read today's AP article by Associated Press Writer P. Solomon Banda entitled Balancing free speech with protest rights.

Here's my two cents worth on a related topic...

Should protesters be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US?

Before I state what I'm sure may be an unpopular opinion, let me start by saying that I have a nephew who is a Marine and I am extremely proud of him, as I am of all our men and women serving in all branches of the armed forces. I am thankful for their sacrifices and I applaud them for their courage and bravery.

However, as a person who values my freedom of speech above all else, I have to take the stance that protesters should be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US. It is simply a matter of preserving free speech and freedom of expression, which are part of what our brave men and women are fighting for.

Whether any of us agree or disagree with the point the protesters are making is completely beside the point. We must stand beside them as American citizens and vigorously defend their right to say whatever it is they want to say and make their point in whatever way they choose to express themselves, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights or break any laws. Peaceful assembly is legally protected in this country and one of the things we should be thankful for.

This does not, however, give anyone the right to resort to violence or to overtly disrupt the operation of those recruiting offices. There are fine lines between being heard and being disruptive which have to be addressed on a case by case basis.

Anyone who supports the view that protesters should not be permitted to picket military recruiting offices should take a moment to think about that position. If we allow our freedoms to be taken away one by one, it's only a matter of time until something you hold dear is under attack. How would you like to be told that you no longer have the right to write any article that supports protesters being permitted to picket military recruiting offices? How about being told that you can't write anything that doesn't show 100% support of the current political administration?

It may sound far out or left-wing, but it's not that absurd to think that we could find ourselves living in a society where we are told what we can and cannot write. That's what freedom and speech and freedom of expression protects. If we allow one form of suppression of those rights, it's only a matter of time until other forms of suppression show themselves. I, for one, value my freedom to express myself, right or wrong, popular or unpopular, too much to see anyone else lose those rights and that freedom.