This is more of a theme than a quote, as it’s repeated in various forms throughout the movie. But my favorite instance is the first:
Fennyman: So what do we do?
Henslowe: Nothing. Strangely enough , it all turns out well.
Fennyman: How?
Henslowe: I don’t know. It’s a mystery.
Shakespeare in Love
Marc Norman & Tom Stoppard
No, not games to control your mind (we’ve been doing that forever). Rather, a game controller that reads your brainwaves. Simultaneously cool and creepy. Let’s just hope it remains a read-only device.
In another bizarre spirit/geek/life crossover, a link to an article about loving your enemy is at 400 diggs and counting.
Maybe there’s hope for the world yet. 
I’m assertively non-political, but I just watched this speech by Obama and it impressed the hell out of me. It’s all about his perspective on how religion should work in a pluralistic society. He’s addressing it primarily from a political perspective, but the attitude he presents really carries on to life in general. It’s 40 minutes long, but well worth it. This is awesome stuff.
It’s rare that my three blog categories of geek, life, and spirit collide outside of my mind, but recently just such an alignment has taken place. In the event that you’re not an Internet geek, you may not be aware that in recent weeks a hacker group called Anonymous has declared war on Scientology. This has lead me to some interesting thoughts on nonviolence.
What spurred this was noticing that I had been rooting for Anonymous without even really realizing it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Scientology. Their history of abusive and violent activities is well known. But the individual human beings that compose the group are still aspects of the Sacred and deserve to be treated as such. And, though they have some very valid reasons to be upset, the actions of Anonymous are certainly "violent" in the larger sense of dividing Life against itself.
But how does one decide what is a good course of action and what is not? In a way, Scientology is no more a cult and no less a religion than any other "faith". Every tradition has its share of atrocity committed in its name, and many of them as official policy. And when you look at the specifics of what the traditions believe, Scientology isn’t really that much more absurd than most, and is less absurd than some. So I don’t think we can dismiss them out-of-hand as just a cult with no legitimacy as a religion.
But what rights should religions have? Clearly, they shouldn’t be allowed to hurt their members. But people of all manner of faiths have been volunteering for abuse in the name of salvation for millennia. Shall we be the ones to decide when people don’t know what’s best for themselves?
And what of a religion’s attacks on non-adherents? Scientology has viciously attacked their critics in any number of ways. But, again, this is par for the course for many traditions. But how should we respond? Going on the offensive as Anonymous has is ultimately self-defeating. It’s simply not possible to force a change of perspective upon another.
At the same time, when confronted with violence we feel compelled to act. To do something, to somehow make it better. This seems to be universal. The most basic level of this response is the primal dichotomy of fight or flight. But I think our basic challenge as a species right now is to raise ourselves above instinctive reaction. We must find a place of conscious choice or we will surely destroy ourselves.
But what should that intentional action be? Conflict is real, it won’t be undone by pretty words. Indeed, addressing conflict is crucial for change. If we do not directly face the causes of violence, in ourselves and others, they will only grow.
What should we do?
"There ain’t no way to make the bad man stop" - Grace Potter and the Nocturnals