When The Avengers, issue #1, was first published in September 1963, a creation of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, it had a somewhat different cast then the movie version released on May 4, 2012. After the group’s classic battle cry, “Avengers Assemble,” an odd blend of Marvel’s most popular characters put aside their personal differences, but not without difficulty, to save Earth from global peril. In the comic book version they included Iron Man, Ant Man, Wasp, Thor, The Hulk and later, Captain America. Over time other members joined as some of the original members left.

Many of Marvels heroes had imperfections that tended to make them social outcasts, competitive and antagonistic towards each other and unable to combine their powers to unite as a group. Much of the 2012 film adaptation is spent on this same struggle, overcoming their ego’s to find common ground and save the planet. Picking Joss Whedon to write and direct the film was a brilliant choice as it brings him back to his creative roots.

Whedon is best known for his highly successful creation of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, another super hero trying to fit in and have a normal life as the chosen one with a destiny to rid the Hellmouth of demons. Buffy ran for seven seasons and became a cult classic. So Whedon brought a unique understanding of the misunderstood hero with a dark side trying to find a place in the world while carrying a burden. This is also one of the main themes of The Avengers movie, and it is reflected in a witty script with the right amount of humor and drama that is just as endearing as it was in the Buffy universe.

The Avengers movie is by far the most energetic of the Marvel films with outstanding special effects, but what makes it stand apart is that it is a fast moving action film with numerous character conflicts that make it more than just another summer blockbuster and proves that you can have both a high budget action film, ($220 million dollars), while bringing something new to the development of each character.

The ensemble cast includes some of the actors who already played their characters in a starring role in other films. Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man, Chris Hemsworth as Thor and Chris Evans as Captain America. Mark Ruffalo takes over as The Hulk, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, director of S.H.I.E.L.D and finally Scarlett Johansson who plays Black Widow with Kung Fu moves that resonates with some of the moves that Buffy used.

As he did as the villain of The Avengers, issue #1, Loki, the north god of illusion and mischief,  tries to reign supreme on Earth by causing mayhem between the heroes and stealing The Tesserat ( a fouth dimension analog of a cube with unlimited power), using it as a bargaining chip to bring an alien race from outer space to conquer Earth. Loki, portrayed by Tom Hiddleston plays the role with relish and a devilish grin that brings to mind Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker in The Dark Knight. If he cant rule Asgard, then Earth will be his domain and humans will bow to him as the god he claims he is.

Once the ego’s of the Marvel heroes are put aside and saving the planet becomes the common goal, the action and special effects intensify with the alien attack directly over Stark Enterprises in Manhattan. The film is well acted as the ensemble cast first struggles to take the threat seriously. Iron Man plays it rogue up until the final battle begins. Dr. Banner is calm and tempered as he tries to control his transformation into The Hulk. Thor doesn’t seem particularly interested in working with mortals to defeat his half – brother, and Captain America is still trying to figure out his life in the twenty-first century after being frozen in suspended animation for sixty years.

What is so unusual is that rarely do we have a film with a complex combination of personality conflicts played out in the main characters with blockbuster action and special effects. This is largely due to Whedon who deserves much of the credit for the film’s success, as his ability to combine all of the elements in a solid script filled with just the right amount of humor makes it all work. The Avengers is highly recommended in 2D, 3D, or perhaps 4D when the technology becomes available.

For a complete list of characters and credits for choreography, score and special effects, click on the IMDb link. It has a running time of 2 hours and 22 minutes and is rated PG-13.

Why The Incredible Hulk is Green

Puerto Rico (”rich port“), with a current population of 4 million and comprising the main island and several smaller islands, has a complex and “rich” history. Very little is known about it prior to Columbus’s arrival, not surprising since the history of North America as taught by schools in the United States   began with “Columbus.”

The island has been known by several names before it was called Puerto Rico. When Columbus arrived on his second expedition to the New World in 1493, he named it San Juan Bautista in honor of John the Baptist. The Tainos called the island “Boriken (Boriquen)“. It’s unclear where its current name came from, but it was known as Puerto Rico soon after Ponce de Leon became its first governor in 1508.

According to Wikipedia, the first attempt to uncover Puerto Rico’s origins was described by Fray Inigo Abbad y Lasierra in 1786, three hundred years after the first Spaniards arrived. The first settlers are believed to have originated from the Oronico valley in South America who migrated through the Caribbean, inhabiting the Antilles from Trinidad and Tobago to Puerto Rico. Recent archaeological expeditions found evidence of their existence on the island of Vieques (1990), dating approximately to 2000 BC. Among the early tribes that were believed to descend from the Taino was the Arawak Indian Culture. They were the dominant society until the Spanish arrival in 1493.

The Spanish brought diseases which spread throughout the indigenous population, affecting the labor force, necessitating the Spanish to bring African Slaves for replacements to transform Puerto Rico into the entry port of the Caribbean on its way to South America, Mexico and parts of what is now the United States. Although the French, English and Dutch occupied the island at various times, they were not there long enough to affect the culture or language until the United States invaded Guanica in 1898 at the beginning of the Spanish American War. Subsequently, Spain was forced to secede Puerto Rico to the United States in the treaty of Paris (1898).

Under US occupation, in the early Twentieth century, Puerto Rico was treated as a conquered adversary, controlled by the American military with its governor as a political appointee of the US President. It wasn’t until 1917 when the Jones-Shafroth Act granted US citizenship to Puerto Ricans under “commonwealth status” that free elections established its ability to choose its cultural path. The first gubernatorial election was held in 1948, however full and equal voting representation in the US Congress afforded by statehood still eludes Puerto Rico.

Part of the problem Puerto Ricans faced under US occupation had been from the pharmacutical industry and other businesses which established a strong foothold on the island due to the tax breaks afforded by their commonwealth status. Vast areas of the island were “cultivated” for its natural resources and forests destroyed to build factories to support commercial interests of the mainland while doing little to enrich the economic life of the population other than provide low paying jobs. Puerto Rico also acutely suffered from the great depression and natural disasters such as hurricanes by losing jobs from those companies. Many migrated to the mainland, primarily New York City, where they and the second and third generation comprise a large percentage of the Latino population while maintaining ties with the island, and wanting a vote in the future status of the island. As time passes, fewer inhabitants remain that were born before citizenship and between 1898 and 1917. In many respects, it remains “a Third World country” with areas of poverty and high unemployment and less financial benefits afforded states or foreign countries receiving aid from the US government.

Over the years, Puerto Rico has been presented with three choices, independence, statehood or commonwealth, each time they have chosen commonwealth, however protectorates, territories or commonwealth status are fast disappearing in the Twenty-First century as more subtle economic and cultural imperialism increases by advancing technology. Puerto Rico will not be able to retain its current status indefinitely. They will be faced with choosing the future extent of its cultural uniqueness by relinquishing American citizenship with all the benefits and protections it provides in an increasingly uncertain world. The future for Puerto Rico will be either independence or statehood.

New years Eve is a milestone to celebrate in 2011. So much has happened this year, all those roller coaster ups and downs this past 365 and 1/4 days: earthquakes, tsunami’s, volcanic activity and changing weather patterns to political and financial upheaval and the loss of Jobs and Taylor. They are now footnotes of history, recorded and thought of as landmarks, as Earth rotates on its tilted axis wobbling around the sun.

Some say the final day of December is unnecessary, although they acknowledge that December Thirty-First is the last twenty-four hour period defined by the vertical line (The International Date Line), intersecting the Pacific Ocean as it moves to the east, thus completing one rotation of Earth as it revolves around the sun; they also claim that the instant the planet reaches the line is where the new cycle begins for Earth, dismissing the need for a Thirty-First day of December as an illusion. The International Date Line, they argue was an arbitrary concept created by scientists, mathematicians, politicians and religious leaders of the time to define the orderly transition of Earth’s spin, towards the east.

Nevertheless, this is a remarkable achievement since it took everyone, everywhere to agree for the system to work. Perhaps there is hope that there is something else on which they can all agree.

A year is not a long time to wait to find out what will happen, if anything, on December 21, 2012. The Mayans calculated it as the end of the cycle we are now in and the beginning of another. From their experiences natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and volcanic activity surrounded the passage from one cycle to the next, and all of them they noticed, tended to be on a cataclysmic level. There was no reason for the Mayans not to think that this cycle would be any different.

Some fatalists point to metaphysical texts such as those from Nostradamus and others throughout history, usually scripted in archaic language and open to interpretation, about this date. Their range of credibility is wide, and conventional thinkers discount coincidences as any more predictable than seeing chaos within order, or visa versa.

Many scientists point to convincing evidence which does support the claim that the climate change now occurring is from human manipulation of the environment. The disagreement is about how close we have come to the point of no return, and what needs to be done to restore the balance, resulting in essentially no action.

Some within occult circles see this change as a tangible point in the evolution of consciousness. They claim a spiritual alteration will occur, and its effects might not be immediately perceived. How this will manifest is still left uncertain.

Perhaps this will be the day extra-terristrials will make contact with Earth, possibly to offer their help in solving our environmental problems. Will we accept it? or will it lead to suspicion and mistrust?

We only have to look back and recall , “To Serve Man,” a third season episode (#89) of The Twilight Zone, based on a short story of the same name by Damon Knight. It was first published in the November 1950 issue of Galaxy Science Fiction. The story was adapted by Rod Serling for television and directed by Richard L. Bare. It was the episode that everyone was talking about the next day.

The story told in 25 minutes is narrated in flashbacks by Michael Chambers, a linguist who is now on a space craft on its way to an alien planet. The Kanamits, a race of nine foot tall aliens came to Earth, a year earlier. Speaking telepathically to the United Nations, they offered their technology to help us solve our environmental and social problems, during the height of the cold war. The outline of their offer is presented as a book entitled, “To Serve man”, and given to the world freely. The initial reaction is skepticism and suspicion. Soon, by ending famine, showing us how to achieve energy efficiency cheaply and by  curing all sorts of diseases, the Kanamits  earned humanities’ trust. In less than a year an exchange program had begun, transporting humans to the Kanamits home planet.

As he is boarding the steps of the spacecraft, Chamber’s assistant who is helping him translate the text, runs up to gate and yells, “To Serve Man, its a cookbook.” But its too late for Michael Chambers who is being fattened up for the menu.

A year is not a long time to wait to find out what will actually happen, if anything, on December 21, 2012. But the countdown has begun and all eyes will be focused on unusual events that may occur in the coming year leading up to December 21, 2012, including first contact with alien life.

The current financial crisis has less to do with economics than it does with stubbornness. A radical faction of the Republican Party has taken control of the debate and refuse to budge on anything by demanding their positions be accepted without compromise.

They claim that their power, (of numbers), reflects the statistical composition between the parties elected to Congress and is strong enough to stonewall any policies that conflict with their own; creating a stalemate by preventing the ability to credibly govern since they are there, according to them, to express the will of the constituents who voted them into office.

The problem lies not only with the politicians, but with the electorate who voted them into office based on regional concerns and the anger which results with the delay in gratification to see changes in what is perceived as a failure to resolve some of the most serious economic problems, most of which are global and based on such things as climate changes which require international cooperation.

Events in life almost never play out as they were initially envisioned, and the future offers many circumstances that cannot be anticipated on election day. Should politicians be rigidly held to the promises they made during the campaign after which events often change, a result of fluid conditions that cannot be anticipated until they happen?  Or should other criteria be used to elect them to office?

Are we doomed to a cycle of changes in administrations every time politicians are rigidly held to promises made that are impossible to keep. Or should we be looking for another basis to decide who will legislate and lead?

Unfortunately, people vote on the basis of anger and frustration, seeing the banking system as wall street and the financial markets reek with greed, owing allegiances to their stockholders who are concerned less with what is best for the public then lining their own pockets.

Human nature tends to demand short term outcomes more than long term results which may take years or decades to see. However by that time, the increased changes in advancing technology creates new challenges that cannot be foreseen from a present perspective.

Perhaps ethics, morality, judgement and the willingness to compromise should be the basis for electing officials to office, and those who cling to rigid philosophies should be thrown out of office. Even the framers of The Constitution knew the world would change and expected politicians to reflect those changes and act with eclectic resolve.

What do you think?

The recent execution of Troy Davis, convicted of murder twenty-two years ago in Georgia has  reawakened the issue of the death penalty and brought it to public consciousness. Does termination of life constitute a rational way of averting murder, a form of retribution felt to be based more on revenge than justice.

Many who support the death penalty are also pro-life when it comes to abortion. Mr. Spock would submit that this is illogical. Life is life, whether it’s a sinned life or an innocent one. Kirk might respond, “But life is not logical, Mr. Spock, the truth lies somewhere between instinct and unknowable forces that come to play when conditions are right.”

Scotty would say in a heavy Scottish accent, “Aye, but ya gotta look at this as a mechanical problem. Society is like a star ship floating around with all the  gravitational forces pulling the hull in all sorts of directions. If one system in the ship fails to work the way its supposed to, then it can run adrift and get caught up in unidentified cosmic things like a wormhole, losing control of navigation, pulled into that black demon and spit out in an alternate reality where people are put to death because of overpopulation. How do you choose who lives and who dies?”

Gandalf might say, “Many that live deserve to die. Some that die deserve life, can you give it to them Frodo? Do not be so eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

The Bible says in Matthew 5:38-40 “You have heard that it was said, ‘eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”

If a child asks , “But suppose the person who was struck on the right cheek hit someone else first, where does it begin and where does it end?  Society might say, “Listen to the sermon and when you grow up, you can be the one to decide what is the truth and what is not.” On the other hand a wise person might add in a calm reassuring tone, “But keep all hailing frequencies open.”

Putting aside the criminal justice system and its flaws, many would agree, if not swayed by prejudice or anger, and in the privacy of their own thoughts,  that putting someone on trial for murder with the death penalty as an option for the jurors to choose isn’t the best way insure that justice is served. The only thing worse is executing someone without a fair trial even if they are innocent. “Someone has to pay for this.” In this instance, guilt or innocence becomes less important than the process of putting the whole thing to rest until another compelling case again reawakens the issue once again.

In the film, BUtterfield 8 (1960), there is a tense moment when Elizabeth Taylor who portrays Gloria Wandrous shouts in a confrontational outburst with her mother. “Mama, face it, I’m the slut of all time.” A moment of clarity from a woman who was judged “loose,” or perhaps it reflected one persons attempt to live a passionate life without the constraints of guilt.

Many scientists question whether the guarantee of confidentiality and anonymity are enough to get people to answer inquiries about sex, honestly. Usually, the most  unconventional of fantasies, the thoughts that flirt with danger and border on the taboo, urges played out in mental privacy, are the ones that are most exhilarating although not for public scrutiny, let alone personal acknowledgement.

Looking at sexual behavior candidly becomes difficult when one is caught in the theologically defined battleground of good and evil, provoking a tendency to view oneself with the noblest of motives and thus compromising objectivity especially when compartmentalizing sexual events becomes a basis for privacy..

Scientific surveys may not be reliable measure of the way fantasies translate from scenario into behavior because they are frequently influenced not only by how moral boundaries are defined and socially appraised but also applied differently for each sex.

Men and women are not treated equally when it comes to morality, and exploring these differences has been the subject of great literature, cinema and controversy. Women who express their sexuality openly are viewed as sluts while men under the same circumstances are portrayed as sowing their oats, unless they are gay. Imagine how Elizabeth Taylor as Gloria Wandrous would have been treated if she were a man.

An essential part of communication with others is a function of the ability to vocalize sounds, write symbols and use body language. If physical conditions altered radically, we would be forced to adopt new techniques to break the isolation. In such a case a broad imagination could create infinite possibilities if we are able to suspend our disbelief of what can change.

Imagine waking up in a completely underwater existence while all our recollections from living on land are conscious, and we fully remember breathing and speaking. There is no memory of how we got here, nor is an explanation given for the transformation, what it means, or how it could have happened. Then, the challenge is being left alone with others in the same conditions to figure out ways to communicate with each other. Where would you begin?