Rachel's Excellent Adventure

This weekend I had the opportunity to see the film, Little Women, starring Emma Watson, Saoirse Ronan and Chris Cooper.

My sister had already seen it and warned me that I might not like it, but I’m a movie buff, so wild horses couldn’t keep me away from a movie like this one. The iconic Louisa May Alcott book fits into the idealized portrayal of a happy ending, but after reading a few movie reviews this weekend, I really see it a different way.

One review, posted in the New York Times, heralded Writer and Director Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Little Women to be a triumph for feminism, since it “flips the script” (yes, they used that tired phrase) from what Alcott wrote versus how her actual life turned out.

Louisa May Alcott never married nor did she have children, although she celebrated her relationships with her nieces and nephews. While this doesn’t seem remarkable on its face, literary critics have posited that the character, Jo March was a self-portrait. In the book, Jo is a headstrong, independent young woman with a passion and talent for writing. She dreams of publishing a book someday, and that ignites her imagination and keeps the story interesting for the reader.

But romance creeps into the pages, and as pre-pubescent girls, we reveled in the pages where she described all the things she looed for in a mate. Beyond the real-world stories of a war-torn country and injured father that follow, she drew us into a description of Jo getting married to her beloved Professor Bhaer. As young readers, we saw the ebb and flow of her deep and abiding friendship with Laurie and, reportedly, at the time there were legions of fans who felt that Jo should have married Laurie rather than the mysterious Professor who was austere, older and a more daring choice for young Jo. Either way, we all wanted her to finish her story as a happily married woman.

Film critics seem to think otherwise, writing that Louisa May Alcott really would have wanted her portrayal of Jo March to be that of a “literary spinster.” A tip of the cap to feminists who find men utilitarian at best, boorish at worst. I don’t see Alcott’s writings as anything except what they actually are; an idealistic snapshot of her life which happened to include a husband, children and a school devoted to teaching little ones how to read.

Why should that be so controversial, and why should it be a script that needs to be flipped? Isn’t it possible that she wrote the novel out of an abundance of aspiration? Perhaps she wanted to build a life with a husband and children. We don’t have to force intentions & feelings upon the author that simply aren’t there, just to get our own agenda validated.

So, back to the movie. Greta Gerwig portrays Jo as having a family of her own but also opening a school and publishing her book. I don’t see this as a script being flipped at all. More likely, it’s an homage to the idea that women can have it all if they persevere, try harder than everyone else and pray like crazy!

I think this was a beautifully crafted movie that took some creative liberties with the script but primarily kept it on track with the original book. Like most period-films, it graces the screen lush scenery in the snow, interior shots around the hearth and soaring dance sequences in the ballroom.

The cinematography was fantastic and the wardrobe, as you might imagine, was epically faithful to the times in terms of detail, yet elegant in color and texture. They probably could have done a better job with the soundtrack, but it was certainly acceptable. I was pleased with the supporting cast which included Hollywood heavyweights like Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper. Even Bob Odenkirk had a cameo as the ailing Father March.

The New York Times had 5 key takeaways from yesterday’s Cohen hearings. Here’s my take on each of them:

1. The president faces peril having nothing to do with Russia.

Cohen producing a check written to him, signed by the President doesn’t prove anything about what the payment was for. Why isn’t anyone else taking issue with this?

2. Possible conspiracy with Russians remains on the table.

Again, Cohen produces no evidence that the President knew about the Wikileaks email dump. Are we supposed to just take his word for it that he knew what Trump had knowledge of, just because he said so? Even working in the hypothetical, saying things like, “Wouldn’t that be great” doesn’t implicate him in the least. At that point in time, EVERYONE following that story was saying the same thing! Again, no proof, just his word.

3. Mr. Cohen explains the role of “a fixer.” “That was my job,” Mr. Cohen said. “Always stay on message. Always defend. It monopolized my life.”

Well, if that’s the best he’s got, their side is in big trouble, because ANY candidate has at least 1 lawyer on their team who is dedicated to tamping down stories in the media. Clinton is a professional at this. She & President Clinton had lawyers, like Lanny Davis (Cohen’s current lawyer) doing exactly this kind of work during the many public scandals that involved his conduct WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE; not 12 years before the election, which is the case with DJT & the Stormy Daniels payoff. P.S. Always stay on message, always defend is a pillar in the Democrat playbook. Never surrender your position. They should understand that on every level.

And, again, no one in the Trump camp really gives two craps about the Stormy Daniels case, considering then-private citizen-Trump was being extorted by a sleazy porn star who had already signed an NDA & received hush money. Furthermore, Congress should know first-hand about this stuff, considering they have a slush fund of taxpayer money devoted to settling complaints of this nature. I’m not justifying Trump’s behavior as a private citizen, but, again, him paying to keep it quiet is baked into the cake for his supporters and any other clear-thinking American.

4. Cohen savaged Trump’s character.

·        Trump’s a bigot: Prove it! You’re the scum bag who audiotaped your client w/o his consent and released it to the public. If the President was a racist, there would be audio proof of this. There isn’t, otherwise, it would have surfaced yesterday. Him calling 3rd world countries “s*holes” in the presence of his closest associates isn’t advisable, but it’s also not a high crime or misdemeanor. And it’s also not new evidence or news. Again, it’s also hearsay.

·        Trump boasts assets when it served him and understated values to lower his taxes. If this is a serious accusation, then I’d like to subpoena any CPA in America who DOESN’T do that for his clients and ask them why not?? That is exactly what private businesses are supposed to do: mitigate tax liability and maximize profit. I’d be concerned if Trump WASN’T doing those things to benefit his shareholders.

·        Trump refused to pay money owed to contractors for their services.

Well, if this is true, then bring a civil suit to small claims court. Short of that, shut the hell up about this. And, again, no evidence was presented at all.

·        Trump avoided Vietnam with a medical deferment. Yeah, so did millions of other young men during the draft, including President Clinton & Bush. The fact of the matter was that not only was he in college at the time, he was deferred for a medical condition. Incidentally, when did it become acceptable to publicize people’s medical conditions and hold those against them?

 Bottom line: Yesterday’s Cohen testimony did NOTHING to further implicate the President of anything that wasn’t already well-publicized bull crap. If anything, I believe Cohen ultimately exonerated the President of ridiculous claims of having hookers urinate on him in sex acts, beating his wife in an elevator (caught on film-of course that doesn’t exist) or having a secret love child that he has hidden for years.

Here are questions that were asked yesterday that aren’t getting any attention in the mainstream press:

1. Someone asked Cohen to name WORST thing he could think of to say about the President at this point in time. Like, what is the worst accusation you can hurl on him that hasn’t already been said in your testimony or in the press. Cohen had no answer for that at all.

2. He was asked if there was anything the President should be afraid of becoming public at this point in time. He didn’t have an answer for that at all. Nothing.

3.He was asked where the boxes of documents were that should have already been given to Special Counsel Mueller. He didn’t know where those were.

Here’s a couple of questions that WERE NOT asked yesterday that should have been:

1. Mr. Cohen, you’ve presented a check signed by the President as evidence that he reimbursed you with campaign funds to pay off Stormy Daniels the porn star. But you were his attorney for over a decade. Why should we believe that a check from him from his company’s bank account automatically was hush money reimbursement? Why shouldn’t we think that was payment for your retainer or your monthly services? I can’t imagine he’d have an answer for that at all.

2. Mr. Cohen, you recorded the President w/o his knowledge on many occasions. Why aren’t you using recordings of him to prove your most critical accusations about him being a bigot, racist homophobe or that he knew about Wikileaks or that he was active in the Russia Trump Tower project?

You can’t answer that because there aren’t any such recordings, because none of those things are true. The truth is that he’s a businessman with strong opinions on a lot of topics. He’s a salesman with a penchant for exaggeration and people exploit that to make him into a bad person when he just isn’t a bad person. His son, Don Jr, probably had a potential project for a Trump Tower in Russia, but then-candidate Trump was busy campaigning to win the Presidency, and a real estate deal on another continent was probably not forefront in his mind. And, finally, if he knew about the potential Wikileaks document dump of DNC emails, then he’s one of the millions of people who knew about it because it was leaked to the press beforehand. EVERYONE knew about it by the time Cohen says that Trump said, wouldn’t that be great?

That makes him a candidate who has an opposition research mindset, like any candidate who is interested in winning. Do you think for one second that HRC DIDN’T have an oppo team? NO! We know that she not only had an oppo team, but she also contracted a foreign-based team to draft a fake dossier on Trump that, today we found out was 100% false.

Whew, so that’s my exhaustive assessment of yesterday. Meanwhile, the President was negotiating with a tyrannical lunatic in Vietnam and working with the VP concerning the revolution going on in Venezuela. He has his hands full with Presidenting-ya know? This is why we don’t indict a sitting President.

It was almost a surreal stroke of serendipity when life was cut short for two media icons: Anthony Bourdain and Dr. Charles Krauthammer. There is no reason why these two should have known one another. After all, Bourdain was born in France and lived the globe-trotting lifestyle that most people could only dream about. Krauthammer, on the other hand lived a life of erudition and intense study; book-by-book, op-ed-by-op-ed becoming one of the most prolific thinkers of our time; a giant among giants like William F. Buckley, Jr., Dr. Thomas Sowell, Whittaker Chambers, Jonah Goldberg, Eric Metaxas, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Justice Clarence Thomas & David Horowitz.

Earlier this month, Bourdain, who has a current, award-winning television show on CNN called “Parts Unknown,” took his own life while on location in France. He left a daughter and girlfriend behind when it seemed that he was at the pinnacle of his career. I’ve scoured the news stories, and none of them indicate that it was an accident, unless you want to entertain the possibility of accidental autoerotic asphyxiation. The world was literally his oyster, as he explored cultures in every hemisphere, engulfing himself in the food, celebrations & traditions of indigenous people everywhere.

His loss hit CNN’s network personalities & the “Gourmet Foodie” world like an atomic bomb, because his personality was so bright and positive. Absolutely no one saw this coming, as no one identified a recent loss of a loved one, or cancellation of his show.

Bourdain wasn’t a rags-to-riches story, attending Vassar and achieving the highest levels of honor a chef can earn, but he does have a history of drug abuse of which he frequently spoke. By all accounts, he had not relapsed, although no one could really know for sure

Within the same week as Bourdain’s suicide, Dr. Charles Krauthammer announced that his medical prognosis was grim, having fought intestinal cancer for the past year. Like many patients who battle debilitating cancer diagnoses, Krauthammer made the decision not to stay on life support or drag out his decline in health. He wanted to truly pass away with dignity and strength; just like he lived with his disabilities with strength.

During his first year of medical school, Charles was injured in a diving accident, leaving him confined to a wheelchair as a paraplegic for the rest of his life. His accident could have sidelined him forever, casting him into the depths of depression and ultimately suicide. But he stepped up to the challenged, pushed his boundaries, graduated from Harvard’s vaunted Medical School and became a Dr. of Psychiatry, helping to create the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

In the late 70’s he turned to politics, serving in the Carter administration with a role directed toward public health & wellness, but his craftsmanship with the written word catapulted him into the ranks of speechwriters for presidential hopefuls like Walter Mondale.

As he got older, his political perspectives began to shift to the right, and his talents were recognized and utilized by the Regan administration after which he became a full-time writer & political commentator. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1987 for his contributions to The Washington Post where he wrote until the day he died. Despite his physical malady, he wasn’t afraid of appearing on television, eventually becoming a regular panelist on nearly every Fox News Channel panel show for the past 2 decades.

I found his final message to the public stirring and powerful. How many people are fortunate enough to have their full mental capacity when they’re so close to death, that they can pen something like this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2018/06/08/fox-news-charles-krauthammer-says-goodbye-to-colleagues-friends-and-viewers.html

Last night, it was reported that Krauthammer passed away last night, peacefully, with his beloved wife and son by his side, and it got me thinking about how different these 2 media icons dealt with an end-of-life decision.

I’m not trying to disparage Mr. Bourdain, as I have a great deal of empathy for anyone with mental disorders that lead them to suicidal thoughts. But my heart really goes out to the pre-teen daughter he leaves behind. Having picked up the pieces after the suicide of my own daughter’s father when she was 6 years old, I know the anguish that suicide leaves in its wake. The person who makes that choice impacts people far beyond their own children; they impact everyone who connects with their children, her spouse, his own parents, friends, coworkers; everyone connected to them.

Even your local grocer or mailman feels the impact of this loss, not to mention the unfortunate individual who unwittingly walks into the crime-scene that is left behind.

Now, think about the way that Dr. Krauthammer handled his cancer diagnosis. He fought the disease for many months, stepping away from television and live appearances, while radiation ravaged his already weakened body. After all options were exhausted, he accepted his mortality with grace & dignity, but he didn’t get on a plane to Oregon where he could commit doctor-assisted suicide. Rather, he retired to the comfort of hearth and home, doing what he loved most, saying goodbye to everyone who will miss him dearly.

I think contrasting these two stories shows a distinct difference between courage and cowardice. Again, I’m not trying to hurt the feelings of people who loved Anthony Bourdain. My daughter wept when she heard of his passing, possibly evoking images of her own father’s suicide.

We’re not all promised a tomorrow, are we? Anyone can be taken from this Earth at any time, by any means, and our job is to make sure that we are prepared for when it happens to us. But by the same token, we owe it to our loved ones to follow the example left by Dr. Krauthammer: live life to the fullest, fight through the pain, work to your utmost talents and meet your maker with grace and courage.

To quote from William Shakespeare, “A great light has gone out.”

If you're ready for a Summer Netflix binge, you may be interested in Arrested Development, Season 5.

Like the original FOX network series, it's still filmed in the same format, but the tempo of the dialog is so polluted with double entendres, puns, sexual innuendoes of all varieties, political jabs at conservatives, it's a challenge to follow, even for a sophistocated.

Sadly, Ron Howard's iconic narration-voice wasn't enough to compensate for no cohesive storyline.

You may enjoy the on-screen cameos by Ron Howard himself, his entire real-life family (including the late-great Patriarch, Rance Howard who passed away last November), and more inside-Hollywood jokes, grudges and call-backs to old films & folklore than should be allowed in a 30-minute episode.

I take comfort in the fact that I heard a veiled reference that Season 6 won't happen; yes, that was wrenched into the script!

Don't worry about your kids stumbling upon A.D. in your Netflix profile, because they'd need a translator for the vacancy in the convoluted plotline.

So, unless you're interested in an anachronistical game of mental Twister, you may want to say Bon Voyage to the series that started with a family throwing a party for itself on a yacht in Orange County.

Whew, that was a mouthful! 😓

George Carlin is known as being one of the funniest comedians in American history. I would dare say that most people agree that the late-great comic appealed to a vast audience because of his willingness to push the limits of comedy in a time when the "sexual revolution" was in full-swing (pardon the pun) and there was clearly a marketplace for his style of comedy (think Richard Pryor, early Eddie Murphy, etc.).  This video pretty much captures Carlin's satire on the 7 words that NEVER can be uttered on television.

Well, it seems that for comics in 2018, they're no longer satisfied with the "sensibilities" of one of the most profane comics of our time, George Carlin.

I think back in Carlin's heyday, most adults shared common ground that if a viewer was interested in the level of profanity enumerated so eloquently laid out in Carlin's famous bit, he/she could subscribe to a paid television medium called "cable" or "satellite." Yes, HBO, Cinemax (or as I liked to call it, "Skin-e-max) existed for people who wanted something more racy than broadcast television. To some degree, this is still true, but the lines are starting to get fuzzy, because broadcast television no longer competes in an oligopoly. UHF & VHF aren't a 'thing" anymore, and most households have access to every program on under the sun for either a low price or completely free.

Now, this puts us in a precarious position, because, obviously, where does the line of censorship get drawn nowadays?

Honestly, I don't think there IS a line anymore.

Case in point: Samantha Bee, her writers, directors, producers & network all decided it was a good idea to call Ivanka Trump the “C-Word,” one of Carlin’s list of forbidden words this week. Not only did TBS not fire her, they didn’t even say they were going to sanction her, scold her, write her up, warn her or anything similar. They have actually endorsed her show and refuse to take any action against her.

Full disclosure: I've NEVER watched “Full Frontal w/Samantha Bee” before, and I certainly never will, but the FCC used to regulate the airwaves enough to the point where Carlin's 7 forbidden words would never be heard on ANY network; certainly not a mainstream one like TBS.

TBS (for people who don't know) stands for Turner Broadcasting System, as in, Ted Turner, raging Liberal. Anyone from Greater Atlanta knows this as the go-to station to watch the Braves' baseball games. Not to get too "inside baseball" with ya'll, but millions of people adopted the Braves as their team, because they didn't have a local team (think rural Idaho, for example). From way way back, TBS was included in basic cable packages, therefore, by default; it found a seat at the table with CBS, ABC & NBC early on. It is now owned by Time Warner, but back to the story.

Here’s the thing: the FCC does not regulate stations like TBS. Its mandate is to regulate over-the-air broadcasters (i.e., ABC, NBC, FOX, etc.). But is it time to reconsider what is defined as “over-the-air?” Libertarians like me have a problem with government regulation, though, and we typically err on the side of liberty and letting the free market rule. If the public wants to reject that kind of profanity, they simply NEVER tune into any network connected to Time Warner. In fact, that’s exactly what I plan to do, but it’s getting harder and harder these days, because the entertainment industry has become an oligopoly of its own.

If I want to boycott ABC, for instance, because they cancelled Roseanne’s show because of her disgusting, bigoted Twitter rant about Valerie Jarrett, I have to relinquish any consumption of anything connected to the Walt Disney empire. That includes Star Wars. I’m not sure I’m prepared to do that! I’m a die-hard Star Wars Nerd.

Entertainment is so incestuous that boycotts pretty much can’t work anymore if consumers are truly consistent. That’s where I think everything falls apart. Consumers are fickle creatures. We are inconsistent and, most of all, too busy to keep up with mergers & acquisitions in the entertainment industry. Who the heck knows which company owns which, let alone all of the connected sponsors?

So what can we fall back on? One would hope that we could fall back on common decency, but even THAT is becoming a gray area. In my humble opinion, the only thing we have left is to use the power of self-agency. For instance, if I don’t ever tune into TBS, I’m never going to see the kind of rubbish they choose to broadcast, nor will I ever see their advertisers’ wares. If I choose to be an activist consumer, I’ll research who advertises on her show and boycott the purchase of those products for myself and my family. But if I’m not passionate enough about the subject, I won’t, and filthy comedy will continue to air with impunity.

Hopefully, our better angels will rule the day, and we’ll reject rank programming and embrace comedy that respects common decency.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/04/25/interesting-political-discussions-no-longer-taking-place-public-shame

I love this article because it shows how Liberals are tipping their hands more and more these days.

Here's one columnist's assessment of who Dr. Jordan B Peterson is and why a soft-spoken Canadian intellectual from U of Toronto is on a sold-out multi-national tour.

Of course, like most columnists for major newspapers, this guy's assessment is pedestrian, uninformed, and, well, stupid. He bungles it from the beginning by conflating JBP with a humanist, socialist lunatic like Paul Krugman. Though Krugman is a hero to the left, it's only because of how radical he is, plus they always honor the guy with the biggest mouth.

But, back to Dr. Peterson who is quietly changing the world, brick-by-brick; one couch-surfing twentysomething at a time.

Let's jump in the "way back" machine with me and consider the show, "Friends." What made that show one of the most popular programs in Television history? Hint: it wasn't because the characters lay around in their parents' basement, eating out of their fridge & using their healthcare plan. The cache of that program was their independence FROM their parents. Granted, they lived in a NYC rent-controlled apartment that was bequeathed to Monica (Courtney Cox) by her Grandmother when she died, but you may recall that ALL of them had jobs. Actor, Archeological Museum Researcher, Waitress, Chef, and Barista. Ok, so those aren’t your average 21st Century jobs, but the point is that they all had found vocations (mostly blue-collar) and came home (or to the coffee shop) with stories from work or about relationships.

Now, let’s advance to 2018….

Dr. Peterson is trying to help people come to terms with reality and teach common sense again; a sense of purpose and ambition. He wrote a magnificent book this year called “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” which should be on everyone’s bookshelf or Kindle, particularly if you’re either in your 20’s, or you’re the parent/Grandparent/Guardian of someone in his teens/twenties.

This book is sectioned in a logical manner, so it’s digestible for everyone; unlike his earlier tome, “Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief.” That took me almost 6 months to read, and I was constantly looking up his references and had Dictionary.com pulled up at all times, along with my Bible open.

Now, back to the monstrosity op-ed by Tyler Cowen. His assessment is that Conservative thinkers are now hiding out in small groups, strategizing and exchanging ideas. Considering Dr. Peterson’s shows are selling out faster than Elvis concert tickets, I hardly consider that a small, living-room book club meeting.

He then compares Peterson to a slate.com writer (a known Pro-Pedophilia publication) who doesn’t even use his real name because he’s afraid his ideas getting him lambasted by the opposition. In contrast, Dr. Peterson not only uses his name, but he also uses his platform as a professor at one of the most Liberal Universities in the World, U of Toronto! I call that a courageous warrior, not a wall-flower intellectual using a pseudonym.

If you are lucky enough to see Peterson speak in public, the best part is Q&A when hapless protesters find themselves spinning in circles in his web of superior language skills, concepts and ideas.

If you can’t see him live, just find his podcasts on Soundcloud (they’re free!), or go to selfauthoring.com and check out his programs to help people find meaning & purpose in their professional & personal lives.

We might be seeing one of the great thinkers of our day; a modern-day cross between Freud & Mark Twain. Frankly, it’s hard to equate him to pretty much anyone I’ve read before.

And don’t miss out on his newest book. It’s a perfect Father’s Day gift for young Dads, newly minted Grandparents (like my sister, or me-in November), or teens/20-somethings who are drifting w/o purpose or ambition. I hardly sit in the judgement seat where they’re concerned, because they are a product of their environment. However, I know that there are messages out there like that of Dr. Peterson, who must be heard and applied!

Everyone who watches football knows the term “armchair quarterback,” referring to people who talk about how they would have strategized a lost game after the fact.  How many of us would agree that it’s far easier to work out a game-winning plan after they already know the outcome of the game?  But it seems that the American public seems anxious to do this on a daily basis about issues both inconsequential and enormous.  For example, how many “gamers” have looked up the “cheats” to get through hundreds of levels through the games Mario Cart or Angry Birds?  Essentially, these are short-cuts to the end of the game while circumventing all of the work to get there.  

On a larger scale, how many people have been bloviating about how, had they been present at the most recent school shooting, they wouldn’t have stood outside the school; that they would have rushed into the building and confronted the shooter.  

Dictionary.com defines courage as strength in the face of pain or grief or the ability to do something that frightens oneself.  In Gavin de Becker’s book The Gift of Fear, he purports that if you take away the possibility of pain or fear, or grief, we live in a world of gnilistic pomposity, thinking we can conquer the world without adversity.  

I recently saw a double-feature at the local moviehouse, showing The 15:17 to Paris and Samson. Both are profiles in courage, featuring heroic characters who perform feats far beyond the imagination of that of the ordinary citizen.  

Between these two films, of course, there were a lot of common themes. First, both Samson and Spencer Stone & his friends, knew they were created for a higher purpose than their ordinary lives; a divine calling, one might say.    

In Judges 13: 5 (NIV), the Bible says that even before Samson’s mother was pregnant with him, an Angel appeared to her, telling her that “He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”  Talk about predestination!  Samson was raised, knowing he was being groomed to lead his people out of slavery from a despot regime.  

Over time, Samson made mistakes like any person would, yet his destiny remained the same.  He was a on a one-way collision course with the Philistines, yet it took decades of right and wrong decisions, love lost, family lost, ambitions rewarded and punished before he finally achieved his ultimate destiny in life; when he toppled the King’s evil son, Rallah and his soldiers, leading his tribe to freedom from slavery.

Samson had decades of time to decide whether or not he was going to ultimately achieve his goal, and he nearly failed numerous times, often because of his own folly.  His steadfast fidelity to God, family and his calling in life allowed him to power through some of the most difficult circumstances that anyone could imagine.  

 The plot of The 15:17 to Paris showcases a very different kind of courage:  facing immediate or sudden danger and rising to the occasion.  In this story, three young American soldiers are on a leave before going back into active service overseas, so they decide to celebrate by traveling Europe for a couple of weeks.  Unbeknownst to them, they end up on a commuter train to Paris with a Jihadi terrorist who runs into the train compartment with a gun, spraying bullets, nearly fatally injuring a passenger.  

The protagonist in this story, Spencer Stone, is an Air Force Staff Sergeant who really wants to be a Paratrooper, but found that a deficiency in his eyesight would disqualify him from that kind of service.  He ended up in the medical corps and trained for emergency intervention on the field of battle, but nothing could prepare him for what happened on October 8, 2015.

Spencer and his friends were faced with an emergency situation where they had to deploy their training to both subdue an armed terrorist in a confined space on a train while rendering medical aid to one of his shooting victims who was near death.  The movie depicted what happened in fewer than 2 hours, and, by all accounts, that’s pretty much a real-time representation of how long this situation lasted.  

In the blink of an eye, these young men were called to a higher purpose and they answered the call with unmatched heroism, which is why they won accolades for bravery, including a Purple Heart.

There is an immeasurable dimension to all soldiers’ training; the variable risk of uncertainty; when and where will it arise?  There are no guarantees about whether or not they’ll face immediate danger like the boys who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II or the long-term threat of radical Islamists that our present-day soldiers are facing in an ongoing war against terror.  

In comparing these two stories, I noticed a thread of thought:  although we all know that our lives will eventually end because we are mortal.  The difference between Samson and Spencer is that Samson had a lifetime of ups and downs, challenges, defeats before his eventual victory over the Philistines, while Spencer’s call to action was literally a millisecond in time.

As mortals, we wake every day, knowing we are one day closer to our own demise.  Though that sounds ominous, it’s true of everyone.  There is only one thing that every person on the planet has in common without variation:  24 hours per day.  We are all given different amounts of money, privilege and other resources, but the one thing every human being has is 24 hours a day in which to live his/her own destiny.  Given that constant, the variable is how we want to live our lives; courageously or cowardly?

For some, it may be an act of courage to awaken and go to work each day for fear of disease or violence.  For example, my friend Kristen battled breast cancer in her 30’s but managed to maintain her career all the way down to her last week on the planet.  That’s a profile in courage similar to that of Samson.  He had battle after battle, but his course was set from before he was even born.

For others of us, however, we face the uncertainty of what tomorrow might bring.  I think this has more in common with Spencer Stone’s story.  We need an exceeding amount of courage to face risks that have no forewarning.  Philippians 4:6 (AMP) says, “Do not be anxious or worried about anything, but in everything [every circumstance and situation] by prayer and petition with thanksgiving, continue to make your [specific] requests known to God.”

I think this is an important exhortation to everyone who has faith in God; talk to him.  Ask him to give you the courage to face each day in the face of whatever comes at you, because the level of courage through uncertainty is exceeding.  Just ask the Broward, Florida Sheriff’s deputy who was recently caught on camera, hiding outside of the high school where a former student was inside, committing mass murder.  Do you think he was trained to stand down?  No!  He was called to a task and he lacked courage in the face of imminent danger, and sadly, children died as a result.

Can you really say that, if faced with the same danger, you would have reacted differently?  There are chemicals in your body that are flowing like never before when this type of thing happens, and they will either cause you to face danger or run away from it.

When I was 30, I was working late on a Tuesday night when a young woman ran into my office and screamed, “Does anyone know CPR?” I remembered my training from high school at Plano Senior High, but it had been about 14 years since then, but what could have changed?  I jumped up and said, “I do!”

I ran outside and found a crowd of people looking at a woman, laying on the concrete with blood flowing from her head, struggling to breathe, arms outstretched on the ground.  No one was attending to her, so I immediately fell to my knees, cleared her airway with my pinky, tilted her neck back and administered CPR to her, including chest compressions and breaths until the ambulance arrived.  If felt like a lifetime, although I was later told that it was 7 minutes.  Fortunately, this stranger to whom I attended, regained consciousness at the hospital long enough to see her husband and daughter, although she eventually passed away from her injuries.

I am comforted to know that my efforts on that day allowed her a few more days to say goodbye to her family, but I wonder if another person attending to her sooner may have given her a better shot at long-term survival?

It still astonishes me that in a crowd of twenty people, I was the only person who knew how to administer CPR or render any aid. The one thing I’m grateful for, however, is that. When put to the test, I know which kind of courage I have:  the kind that can act in the face of danger. It’s an experience like that which allows me to face a lifetime of crises because we don’t know what tomorrow could bring.

Last night, I had some time to kill, so I took in a double-feature at the Cinemark theater. The first movie I saw was Clint Eastwood’s new film 15:17 to Paris.  Since this is a true story about events that took place in recent memory, the viewers may go into the theater with some preconceived notions about what they’re about to see. But, unlike other Directors, Eastwood took a leap of faith and, rather than casting big stars in the lead roles, like Chris Hemsworth or Tatum Channing, he cast the actual heroes of the incident in their respective roles.  

 When was the last time you saw ANYONE else take that risk on the big screen?  Pretty much never.  

One thing to note: the cast of this film isn’t 100% amateur.  You’ll see performances by Judy Greer (too many films to list) and Jenna Fisher (The Office) playing....hold onto your seat....Mothers!  Yes!  They cast women in their late 40′s as mothers of young men in their early 20′s.  That’s refreshing, considering most women in our age group are type-cast, cast aside and/or retired from the industry.  It’s nice to see actresses portraying a character that is age-appropriate.  Don’t get me started...that’s a blog for another day. 

As expected, the Liberal, Anti-American Hollywood critic society judged the film harshly, as if those amateur actors were supposed to somehow be transformed into seasoned action heroes. I honestly believe they’re panning the film because it pulls the, pardon the pun, veil and exposed the treacherous, terrorist actions of the lunatic who tried to take out a high-speed train carrying hundreds of people.  

 You may recall, the Jihadist burst out of the train lavatory scattering gunfire throughout the cabin and these 3 young, American servicemen were able to not only subdue the terrorist but save the life of another passenger whose carotid artery was burst due to gunfire. It was a truly extraordinary event that begged to be recreated on film, but you must spend the first 45 minutes suspending reality a bit, because the amateur actors’ self-portrayals were, shall we say, pedestrian in nature.  On a side note, why shouldn’t a movie be given this latitude?  Look, if Big Hollywood expects me to believe that a 105 lb girl, like Charlize Theron can roundhouse kick about 50 dudes and knock them out cold in Atomic Blonde, I think I can give an iconic actor & director like Clint Eastwood the same latitude when it comes to letting the actual people portray the events of that day.  I think it was an honorable choice, so good for him!  But, as is always the case, Hollywood & New York critics will not be kind to this film.

 So, don’t expect to see best actor awards for those 3 heroes, but that really wasn’t the point, was it? Eastwood is at the point in his career that he can take risks and simply do films that he believes in.  It’s a shame that critics don’t get it.  I’m afraid that this movie hasn’t gotten a fair shake.

 The second film I saw, Samson, has similar themes as 15:17 to Paris-a hero follows the urging of his Heavenly Father to put himself in harm’s way to save innocent people.  Much like the medium of “Christian Rock,” the quality of faith-based entertainment on the big screen has come a very long way in my lifetime.  There was a time when I wouldn’t have spent a dime to see a movie with a 3rd rate cast & low-budget sets and special effects on the premise that it has a Christian theme.  I’m not proud of that, but it’s true.  

 Recently, however, I’ve noticed that with the advent of PureFilms and other similar studios, I’m seeing more and more projects like Samson, attracting mainstream, well-known actors and actresses.  In Samson, for example, the antagonist is played by Jackson Rathbone of Twilight fame. He was the swarthiest, nastiest bad guy EVER!  Wow, he blew me away.  Taylor James’ portrayal of Samson was stirring, yet, a bit jejune.  I looked at his filmography, and, although he’s in his 30’s, he hasn’t broken out in any particular roles.  One thing that caught my attention, though, was that Kenneth Branagh tapped him to play Capino in Shakespeare’s Masterpiece:  The Winter’s Tale.  If he had HIS seal of approval, I’m on board with him too.  Suffice to say, are you going to see a cameo performance from Tom Hanks?  No.  But you’ll see some familiar faces like Billy Zane (Titanic), Rutger Hauer (Bladerunner) and, surprisingly, Lindsay Wagner, Yes!  The Bionic Woman

 Unlike most stories from the Bible, Samson’s story had many twists and turns, therefore commanding several chapters from the Bible [Judges 13-16], and this screenplay was effective in carrying themes and arcs from the Biblical text while keeping the viewers’ attention.  Some spectacular feats of strength were captured by above average special effects.  To be honest, I learned more about the story of Samson than I remembered from my childhood.  

 Overall, if you go to see Samson, expect that you’ll see a story that spans many years, following Samson’s calling to lead and protect the chosen people of his tribe.  He is beguiled by Delilah and she cuts his hair, but none of that happens until the very end, so don’t expect the well-known aspects of the Bible story to jump out at you from the very beginning.  The story develops exactly like it does in the Bible.

 I saw the movie alone, but I would certainly recommend it for children of all ages, because, even with the violence, bloodshed wasn’t egregious.