2) An Alternate Universe = Alternates of almost the entire cast:

We get to see who each character might of been had the world been slightly but fundamentally different.

3) Crazy WTFISGOINGON?!?!?INEEDTOKNOWINEEDTOUNDERSTAND!! Scenes:

4) A Creative Team with Some Serious Ovaries

They set up and followed through with an extremely risky sci-fi storyline that completely rewrites everything the audience has learned and come to love about Fringe in the past 3 years. The shared history, the barriers-overcome, the character defining moments – all gone, wiped away within less than a second during a season finale with little explanation.

Now, for most shows (sci-fi or not) such a move would be the beginning of the end of audience loyalty and the first step towards cancellation. But Fringe executed the plot shift so frackin’ well that instead of being frustrated and angry, Fringe fans are thrilled and starving to see where the writers are headed and how they’re going to answer all of our lingering questions. We also trust the writers won’t screw us over unlike some shows which shall remain unnamed.

5) B Storylines that don’t suck

Sometimes you just want to yell “I DON’T CARE! GET BACK TO POLIVIA!” But in reality, the B storylines are more than just filler – they keep us grounded in the premise of the show – a crew of FBI agents and consultants who  investigate a series of seemingly connected scientific anomalies known as “fringe events” in order to discover a larger mystery. Plus, these side stories allow us to explore every science fiction theory known to man with the help of a host of  talented guest stars.

6) They Can ACT!

I’d post videos but the scenes with the most stellar acting give away too much of the plot and I’m trying to avoid outright spoilers. So instead I will just say that the show doesn’t just depend on the crazy events and plot twists. We are deeply attached to regular character. Even the ones we hate. I despise Fauxlivia with a vengeance - but I would be disappointed if she were cut from the show. Same goes for peripheral characters like Astrid, Walter’s baby sitte- I mean lab assistant. And in my opinion, John Noble is hands down one of the best, if not the best, actor on american television right now. Anna Torv has gone above and beyond my original expectations of her and has proven herself to be an exceptional actress, Olivia is by no means an easy character to play. And while the show started off slow for the Peter Bishop character (he was awfully one-dimensional for far too long), Joshua Jackson was finally able to show off his acting chops in the Peter-heavy season 3 and is sure to continue to  impress this season, which will likely center around his struggle to navigate and understand the realities of the unfamiliar world he’s ended up in.

This entire post is just a way for me to channel my excitement for my favorite day of the week:

Isn't it strange how well anti-tea party imagery works for this post?

For a long time I resisted reading Three Cups of Tea. Now, I feel vindicated. I always feel uncomfortable with the idea of reading about someone who explains how they went to a foreign land and “saved” the people there. It’s a story we’ve all heard before… again…. and again… and again. It can feel like propaganda or poverty-porn if the story isn’t told with both honesty and tact. And it’s not the first time that it turned it there was more than a little embellishment involved. The fact that this particular book and it’s author became ridiculously famous (like house-hold name, Oprah book-club famous) was even more irritating.

Does this mean I’m happy that it turns out 90% of his story was falsifications and exaggeration? No, not quite. But I am happy if this leads to more critical assessment of stories like his. And maybe, just maybe, more attention will be given to the people and the stories that focus on the often disappointing, frustrating, and very very difficult work that real philanthropy professionals do.

Stories like his sound too good to be true… because they are. It takes more than a positive attitude, a good idea, and some capital to bring about social change. A lot more.

In the past month everyone and their mothers  colleagues has written about this mess.

This is my favorite take on it so far. 

Sure, it’s his fault he lied. But it’s ours too for being so quick to believe and celebrate him.

___

On a related sidenote… I am really concerned about how the public downfall of CAI and Mortenson will affect how the general public, and in turn government officials, begin to analyze nonprofit spending. One issue that many members of the media and the public were particularly outraged about was the fact that CAI spent more money on employees than on the actual work. But that is, in fact, a very simplistic and way of looking at nonprofit spending.

Paying the employees IS paying for the actual work.

Often, the people on the ground in small nonprofits burn out from the sheer dedication and stress that comes with their profession. Whether or not the percentage of salary in a nonprofit’s budget is appropriate is something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It’s very dangerous to start with the assumption that any nonprofit spending 41% of their funds on salaries is shady, is somehow fooling its donors, or is giving the shaft to its beneficiaries. That does not take into account the kind of work the nonprofit does, the expenses it accrues, and what role the staff plays in certain aspects of this work. Unfortunately, that is exactly the idea that is being perpetuated across the country to a public that doesn’t necessarily understand the philanthropy world (and let me tell you, it is most certainly a world of its own).

I don’t mean to contradict myself. I am still pro the public and media looking at nonprofits more critically, but I am also pro the public and media being more informed in their critique (that’s for you Kristof, you arrogant…).

I understand the want for some kind of standard to judge organizations by, but again, dangerous territory.

—–

UPDATE: I just read this. Which says exactly what I was thinking in a much less … nice… way.

via

Instead, it was a post about how a project he had some early involvement in had not only taken off but had become a full-fledged production. The film, The Athlete, has won several awards and is now in the running as one of the top 65 films being considered for a nomination for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars. That, in itself was exciting. But there’s more!

The film is a about world-wide sports legend, Abebe Bikila. The Ethiopian Marathon runner who was the first African Athlete to win an Olympic Gold and the first Athlete (Atletu) EVER to win twice in a row. And he did it… barefooted. Take that Glass Ceiling.

There is A LOT more to his story as an athlete than a lot of people know, and it seems that his life was certainly a story worth telling, and worth watching.

There’s a lovely kind of balance in the fact that not only did Bikila make history, but so has a film on his life. The film is the first Ethiopian film to ever be in the top films being considered for an Oscar. Fitting, no?

Watch the trailer below:

Watch it.

Via

He was recently interviewed by Initiative Africa and I wanted to point out some of the parts that I found most interesting.

First he talks about the money, which some opponents say is far too much for said prize:

You give the largest prize in the world, $5 million to a worthy African leader, $500,000 over ten years and then $200,000 for life. That’s a lot of money for a former head of state.

Mo Ibrahim: Really, if you compare the income of an African head of state with the CEO of any medium-sized company it would not appear that big at all. The role of leaders in changing their countries is very important. If a leader comes to power and manages to take millions of people out of poverty or stop a civil war, that is a wonderful act that really needs to be recognised and honoured. What we are doing is to honour those people who offered exceptional leadership in their countries and to do this really is very small by comparison. Don’t forget that the Nobel Prize is $1.5 million and while I have full respect for the prize, why is writing a novel or writing a nice poem is more important than saving millions of lives ?

He’s preaching truth here. If we take a look at some of the more crooked African leaders, they are making SOME SERIOUS BANK. It’s actually pretty scary. It makes sense, to me, that those who forgo the opportunity to use corruption and greed to take from their people should be rewarded. Some may think that we shouldn’t reward leaders for good behavior –  being honest and putting their people first - that’s a given, it’s what they should do. Unfortunately, in many countries (Africa and elsewhere) such behaviour is NOT the norm, and it takes a lot of work and bravery to go against already corrupt systems to do what they should.

And do you think African presidents hope to win this prize for the prestige or for the money they can get?

Mo Ibrahim: I think both. Prestige of course is more important and it will increase by the time because a prize gains credibility over time. The Nobel Prize was not that prestigious five years after it started it took some years to achieve its credibility and we hope to do it much faster. The money really just helps free a president who left office. An African president who left office really have no life after office unlike Western leaders. Western leaders end up in the boards of major banks and major companies earning millions of dollars a year; they write books and memoirs which earn them millions of dollars; on the speech circuits they charge hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech. What can (former) African leaders do, they don’t have these facilities. We would like to offer a dignified way for a hero of the African people to be able to continue to work for the civil society without worrying about earning a living. That would be something very good. When you look at what our laureates are doing in Africa … so far we have three laureates – we have President Mandela, President Chissano and President Mogae. The work they have been doing … well I really don’t need to go over it.

This I found interesting. I don’t know if it’s just me, but it sounds like Ibrahim is suggesting that the money allows them to live comfortably enough that they will be less inclined to get involved in shady business or political ventures due to interest in their financial rewards.  Is that just me?

Let’s talk about the youth of Africa. President Obama invited more than 100 young African leaders to Washington to talk about good governance. Wasn’t it an issue he should have raised with African leaders, African presidents?

Mo Ibrahim: I’m very delighted, I’m very delighted for this initiative really because he put his finger on it: it’s the issue of governance. If we had been governed well we would have been in a different place and that’s what we need to tell young people. Whenever I tour Africa the first place I go to is to universities to speak to our young people and to tell them: ‘We have failed you. We, the past generation which came after independence, we failed our people.’ Now it’s up to them to produce clean, proper governance for Africa. That will change really the whole situation.

I found the above piece particularly poignant. There is way too much of the blame game going on. Ask any actor involved in the development of an African country and it’s likely that they will blame everyone else for setbacks.  It’s colonialism, it’s the West, it’s the World Bank, it’s the UN, it’s IMF, it’s neo-colonialism, it’s capitalism, it’s too much AID, it’s not enough AID, it’s this, that, and the third. Now, I’m not saying that each of these institutions and practices haven’t played a role. They most certainly have. But Mo Ibrahim is shouldering the blame, as a representative of his entire generation, and doing what he can to move things forward. Even if I have my reservations about the accuracy of his data, I find this move admirable.

And to end this post I think we should look at Mo’s very apt response to questions about why there hasn’t been a winner of his Prize in the past two years. It made me smile.

This is the second year in a row that the Ibrahim Prize for good governance hasn’t been given to an African leader. I have one simple question: Why?

Mo Ibrahim: Let me start by saying that I don’t sit on the prize committee. I’m not a member of the prize committee. The prize committee is very prestigious and is completely independent from the board of the foundation. It runs its business in a confidential manner. That committee is one of the most prestigious committees in the world today: it has three Nobel laureates, it has two or three past presidents – wonderful people – and it is their decision which we have to respect. But if the prize is for exceptional leadership why should we expect to find an exceptional leader every year? The same question was asked by the BBC in London after our announcement. So I said to the journalist: ‘Ok, I’m willing to offer this prize for a European leader who left office in the past three years, who did exceptional work and who transformed his or her country. Can you suggest someone for me?’

And what was his answer?

Mo Ibrahim: He was silent. He smiled and he was silent. It’s three months now and he is still silent.

Via