You have probably heard the news of the latest controversy. It’s inescapable.

George Lucas fiddled with the classic Han/Greedo Cantina scene again. This may be the fourth time, for those keeping track at home.

Apparently, he snuck it in before the Disney+ release last week.

For those who were around in 1970-something, you may remember the iconic scene. Han Solo is waylaid by the bounty hunter Greedo just after Obi-Wan Kenobi secures passage for himself, Luke Skywalker and the droids to Alderaan on the Millennium Falcon.

Seems a certain Jabba the Hutt has no time for smugglers who drop their shipments at the first sight of an Imperial ship. Also seems Han doesn’t have time for Greedo, because he dispatches the green fella without hesitation.

Because we all know, Han shot first.

Until he didn’t. When it came time to re-release the original trilogy in the 1990s ahead of the much-maligned sequels, Mr. Lucas decided to use much-advanced CGI to add to his original vision in many places. The response was mixed, and for traditionalists, difficult to swallow. But the Cantina scene was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Not wanting one of his saga’s heroes to be seen as the kind of man who would shoot someone down in cold blood, Mr. Lucas chose to add a shot from Greedo that appeared to come first.

Now, a moment of perspective: in 1977, while he had hopes and dreams, Lucas didn’t really have a saga to dream about, Star Wars could easily have been a one-off. His concepts for sequels, if there were to be any, were still in the design stages. There is no way he could have envisioned his original movies would have attained a mythological quality. Legends? Canon? Expanded universe? Midi-chlorians? Whills? What is this babble? 

But by the mid-1990s, he probably should have known better. The backlash was harsh. The galaxy’s favorite scoundrel would let Greedo get the jump on him, and it was only the fact that the bounty hunter was a worse shot than a storm trooper that saved Han? That was unacceptable. “Han shot first” t-shirts became a thing.

Granted, the change didn’t really hurt anyone. It’s a split second in a great story. It isn’t Hayden Christensen showing up for a curtain call. Still, if you were going to change things based on where the story went in subsequent “episodes,” I can think of a scene or two that could have used more attention. But I digress.

Obviously, Mr. Lucas has felt the heat all of these years, because with the launch of Disney+, he has again edited the scene. Not content to give diehards their scene back, he made the shots simultaneous.

Oh, and Greedo says “Maclunkey.”

Wait, what?

The social media reaction (of course) has been priceless. Apparently, if you are a student of these things, what he truly says is “ma klounkee” — “This’ll be the end of you” — something established in The Phantom Menace. Whatever. Lucas has succeeded in defusing the anger in the room.

Maybe it’s because those of us who were most up in arms about who shot when in the first place have reached a point in our lives where it just doesn’t make a difference anymore. Or maybe, it’s because it’s just so silly, but “Maclunkey” is now a thing.

Hats off to George Lucas. I can only hope the foresight he had to hold on to the Star Wars merchandising rights repeats itself, and he holds the sole rights to Maclunkey. Because I have a new catchphrase, and I need me a t-shirt!

It’s been nearly 20 years, yet I remember the conversation vividly.

I had been “between opportunities” for nearly a year and was trying to find work. I had received a phone interview with a company and was nearly finished with the call when the Human Resources representative asked me one final question.

Are you a smoker?

As it so happens, I was, and had been in the process of quitting for several weeks. I was proud of myself, having gone from a pack-and-a-half-per-day habit to just a handful. My next step was going to be to completely stop.

Taken off guard, I said as much to the interviewer.

The response was quick, “I’m sorry, we can’t hire you. You are a user.”

A "user?" I was dumbfounded. The conversation ended quicker than it took you to read it.

My first response, after shaking off the shock, was to walk across the street and buy a pack of smokes.

Few subjects get people on their soapboxes faster that tobacco use. In many ways, this is understandable. It is a dirty habit, triggers allergies in some, smells bad and, of course, causes damage through second-hand smoke. Cigarettes lack the cache of cannabis. Even folks who get lit and climb behind the wheel often feel justified in ostracizing smokers.

Few these days see nicotine as an addiction that needs to be treated in the same vein as alcohol or drugs, yet I can tell you first-hand it is a hard habit to break. It is a running joke among smokers that they quit every day, but there is truth in that statement. In the intervening years since I first quit, twice fell off the wagon. 

I can only speak for myself, but the the urge to have something in my hand while having a drink or a coffee will strike me when I least expect it. That hasn’t changed in 20 years. And I still have the same gut reaction to anti-smoking advertising saying, “smoking is stupid.” It is definitely not the reaction those campaigns desire. 

So, I have followed the debate on vaping with great interest.

I have never had the desire to vape. So long as the tobacco smells nice and I do it outside, the occasional pipe is acceptable. But in it I see a good cigarette alternative — it satisfies the need to have something in hand, to go through the motions, in a way that gums or patches do not. It is a clean delivery system. And it eliminates the worst byproduct of tobacco use — damaging second-hand smoke.

I firmly believe, as adults, we all should have the right to ingest what we wish into our bodies, so long as we aren’t doing harm to others. Thus, it seems a promising solution.

Vaping existed for about a decade before taking off in 2015 when new technology from Juul Labs took it mainstream. Usage particularly spiked with teens, reversing trends away from smoking in that age group, in part, it has been argued, because of non-tobacco-flavored options.

The sudden boom caught the industry, and regulators, by surprise. As is often the case, regulations haven’t caught up.

This became apparent as vaping-related illnesses and deaths spiked in the last year, causing a public outcry leading to China banning e-cigarettes, and the Trump Administration to consider banning flavors (Trump has walked that back in the last few days).

While the spike in vaping-related illnesses over the last year is alarming, those numbers pale in comparison to smoking-related illnesses and death. It hardly seems logical to ban devices that may be beneficial without having a full understanding of the cause of illness. At this juncture, the CDC has theories, but no solid answers. Third-party sellers and the black market seem a likely culprit. 

Banning legal sales could actually drive consumers smack-dab into that market, or back into traditional cigarettes, not to mention destroy businesses and livelihoods that have grown up around a legal industry. San Francisco, for example, recently put a moratorium on vaping sales while leaving traditional tobacco untouched. That seems inconsistent, to say the least.

It was only in 2016 e-cigarettes came under the jurisdiction of the FDA. That was a grave error. Clearly, e-cigarettes should have been subjected to the same regulations as other tobacco products. They should not be marketed to children, and if they were, those who did so should be held accountable. 

But something about this move to ban e-cigarettes reminds me of that conversation 20 years ago with that Human Resources officer. I was a “user,” who offered the opportunity for a company and its representative to make a moral judgment about my character. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

It seems the worst kind of political opportunism. Exploiting an anxiety-driven public fear of youth at risk, fueled by a distinct lack of understanding how these devices work, or the market, both legal and illegal, and fanned by a breathless media. Banning based on so many unknown factors is excessive.

What is needed now is pragmatism. Study. Enforcement of existing regulations. A knee-jerk response, no matter how well-intentioned, could set dangerous precedents regarding individual freedoms, not to mention take a valuable alternative to traditional tobacco out of the hands of those who need it. 

It struck me sometime midway through Tuesday evening it was election night in two states I used to work. In a previous life, that would have meant a late night and dining on pizza or cold cuts provided by a newspaper.

It momentarily surprised me, but there was also a little bit of joy at the thought I was spending the evening relaxing in my chair watching the start of college basketball season. 

Still, it played on the back of my mind. This will publish almost a year to the day I found myself, like so many others in the newspaper business, on the outside looking in.

I wasn’t surprised. I’ve always had a feel for work situations, and as a student of the industry, I was well aware the future was always tenuous. I had hoped I could hang on until retirement, but acknowledged in recent years that was going to be a tall order.

I had evolved to a position that wasn’t necessarily in my wheelhouse, yet I needed that experience to know that. With only two exceptions, newspapers were my home for nearly three decades. Being a journalist was what defined me. Finding out I suddenly wasn’t going to be one, at least defined by a traditional “employer-employee” relationship, was a shock to the system.

In all honesty, the first feeling was a sense of relief — no longer having to get up early and commute, no more juggling the responsibilities of that job. My significant other noticed the change in me within days, and it was the new year before I had completely “detoxed.”

The future was uncertain. I had some freelance work and an unemployment benefits, but two of us on the gig economy with a kid in high school and cars and a house to pay for made clear something more lucrative was necessary, if not forthcoming.

Then, a funny thing happened. Freelance and contract work started coming my way. Many of the skills I brought to the table were being outsourced by the industry, and I could reliably fill those gaps at a reasonable price. Being “old” suddenly had a benefit — years of positive working relationships and a trustworthy reputation meant I was able to start building something on my own.

The new work situation can be time consuming. I spend a lot of time hustling to add to my contract portfolio. I still have deadlines and commitments, but the commute is now a flight of stairs to my home office. I work as hard as I always did, but I’m finally learning to draw boundaries, something I was less apt to do working for others. The finances are still a struggle, but are also one heckuva motivator.

The biggest changes, however, have been personal. In the last year, I have exercised more, eaten better and lost nearly 20 pounds. I played more golf this year than the last 15, though contrary to my hope, I have not improved any. I’ve gotten back into hobbies I have ignored for years, though I still need to practice my music more.

Most important, all those years I let being a journalist define me, I had lost sight of the most important things. The stress and responsibility I carried on my shoulders had taken quite a toll. I’m not sure my relationship with my significant other would have survived another year. I missed a lot of time with her daughter, as well. A lot of apologies were in order.

The point of all this is not to suggest everyone quit their jobs and strike out on their own, but rather to take a step back and objectively evaluate your approach to life. It is so easy to bury yourself in work and not see what is happening around you. It took a life-changing experience to open my eyes, but I’m thankful I did.