Sean Byrne - My Son; Not a Choice

As I saw pictures of teens and college students cheering at the conclusion of yesterday's Texas Senate session, I felt compelled to write this:

When Mia was pregnant with Sean, one of the tests came back that indicated he was at risk for Down’s Syndrome. Obviously, this was a jarring report from the doctor. I grew up with a severely mentally retarded sister. She will never be more functional than a two year old: in many areas, she isn’t even that developed. So, I understood better than most prospective parents what having a Down’s Syndrome child could entail.

Some of the advice we received was supportive of Mia having an abortion. I can tell you, not for one millisecond did we consider that option! It wasn’t even an option. God had blessed us with a child to be raised. If it turned out that he needed extra love and care than a “normal” boy, then He had picked the right parents for the job.

Sean was born on December 22, 2007. Within two days, he was so jaundiced that he was rushed to the emergency room at Children’s Hospital. He went into the Nic-U and doctors told us that if his condition did not improve within 24 hours, they were going to have to remove all of his blood and recycle it back into his system. He wasn’t even a week old!

Sean recovered and is a healthy and happy five and a half year old boy. He is the greatest blessing in our lives.

Sean, you were NOT a "choice": you were and are my son and I love you.

Chain Lightning - Bogie in the Air

I believe I have mentioned that I LOVE these old posters

I finished watching Chain Lightning, a Humphrey Bogart film from 1950. I actually enjoyed this one more the second time around.
After years of complaining about being forced to make bad pictures, Bogie had formed Santana Productions, so he could call the shots. Chain Lightning, a Warner Brothers film, was sandwiched between two Santana flicks, Tokyo Joe and In a Lonely Place. Bogart plays Matt Brennan, a bomber pilot who signs on to test jet planes after the end of World War II. Chuck Yeager had broken the sound barrier in 1947 and super speed jets were a hot topic around the world. In fact, the film was dubbed and released in eleven countries.

Raymond Massey (seen a few years before in Bogie’s Action in the North Atlantic) played the industrialist looking to make some money, with Eleanor Parker as the love interest. Parker was a popular female lead at the time and would be nominated for an Academy Award in her next film, Caged. Richard Whorf is the idealistic engineer (and romantic rival). Whorf, about to move from acting to a successful career as a tv director, had starred in Midnight, back in 1934. Bogart was a gangster in the last film of his second attempt to make it in pictures. He gave up and went back to Broadway. If Leslie Howard hadn’t insisted Bogie play Duke Mantee in the movie adaptation of the hit play The Petrified Forest, Midnight might have been Bogart’s last film: and there would be no “Bogie.” While almost an important footnote, it's not much of a film.

It’s Whorf who holds this film together. Bogie is rather unlikeable and you wonder why Parker leans towards him and away from the much better man that Whorf is (girls always go for the bad guy!). It’s Whorf that gives the viewer someone to pull for while Bogart and Massey move the plot along.
Chain Lightning is full of experimental innovations (Bogie wears what looks like a B-movie space suit) and daring flight maneuvers. Along with the flashback footage of bombing missions over Germany, the flying scenes are neat, though the JA-3 jet plane looks like something out of a Buck Rogers serial.

There’s a big finish that sets everything right and softens Bogart (who sings in this movie!). With The African Queen coming the next year and only three years removed from Key Largo, Chain Lightning seems rather lightweight Bogart. And it is. But it’s not a bad movie. It slows a bit during the big test flight, but otherwise is well paced. This is in that category of Bogart movies that don’t make any of his “Best” lists, but offer a solid view. It’s not The Enforcer, but I’d put it ahead of Sahara.

The Stand in the Statehouse Door - George Wallace

He kinda looks like Edward G. Robinson

On this date fifty years ago, George Wallace stood on the steps of the University of Alabama to deny entrance to black students. Wallace's motto was "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." He was the poster boy of racism in America.

It's less well known that Wallace became a born again Christian and renounced his belief in segregation, admitting that he was wrong. He apologized to civil rights leaders and appointed several black persons to his administration during his second stint as governor in the eighties.

I am in no way endorsing what Wallace did and said in the sixties. But to any who doubt the phrase, "With God all things are possible," George Wallace, the most unlikely segregationist in American history, is evidence of it. In 1963, there was not a person on this planet that believed George Wallace
could, or would, change.

Or look at it this way: if you took God out of the equation, is there any rational way to explain Wallace's change? Movies are about character transformation: the protagonist's journey. Would Walalce's transformation have happened without God?

'House of Cards' Kicked the Cat

The late Blake Snyder named his massively successful screenwriting empire (3 of the top 16 selling screenwriting books on Amzon.com, including #1) after the principle of ‘saving the cat’. This is the idea that the writer includes something when we meet the hero that makes us root for them or like them (I’m paraphrasing). Think of her holding the door open for a little old lady with an armful of groceries; Or him saving a cat from a tree. The writer wants the viewer to identify with the protagonist and pull for them: Makes sense.

Kevin Spacey is the centerpiece of Netflix’s House of Cards; a remake of a British series starring the under-appreciated Ian Richardson. He is Francis Underhill, a powerful Congressman with bigger aspirations.  In the opening scene, a dog is hit by a car in Underhill’s neighborhood. He is the first on the scene and bends down over the whimpering animal (who remains off screen).

Spacey’s character sometimes speaks directly to the camera in this show. It’s a difficult narrative technique to do well: fortunately, it works. He comforts the dog, and then explains to the viewer that there are two kinds of pain: one that makes you strong, and one that is useless pain; pain that is only suffering. And he has no patience for useless things. A situation of useless pain calls for someone willing to act to do the difficult and necessary thing. So, he strangles the dog. Then he comforts the dog’s owners, who have been summoned by Underhill’s bodyguard.

This is not exactly your typical save the cat scene. Underhill does a mercy killing and assures the owners that he will track down the driver. But the narrative gives a decidedly darker tone to the actions. Underhill is ruthless, not sympathetic. His motives (“I have no patience for useless things.”) transforms what should be a “hey, what a nice guy” moment. He doesn’t really save the cat, he kicks it.

I believe that the theme of this show is Power. Perhaps more accurately, the appearance of power. The tone of the series is set with this opening scene. Our protagonist isn’t exactly a hero. And in fact, much like with Tim Robbins’ ‘The Player’, there’s not really anybody to root for. Christina (played by Kristin Connelly) is nice but she’s really just an aide who slept with the boss: who cares? And while Gillian Cole (Sandrine Holt) is certainly someone to like, she’s barely a second tier character and not that important. Everybody else is some shade of bad.

So, while the characters are interesting, the acting is solid and the storyline is compelling, we don’t really like anyone. Taking the ‘Save the Cat’ concept and twisting is appropriate for the show. It lets us know up front that we are going to have our work cut out for us rooting for the central character. And, as it turns out, for just about every other character as well.  But credit is due here. Just as I am very impressed with The Player, I’m on board for a second season of House of Cards. Even though I don’t like anybody…  

Vineyard Columbus and Servant Leadership

Vineyard Columbus' vision statement is to "be a relevant church that does not exist for itself, but for Christ and for the world."

To celebrate its 25th anniversary, approximately 4,000 members worked all over Columbus in a massive community service project.

Today's society doesn't just ignore servant leadership, it denigrates it. This past Saturday, Vineyard practiced servant leadership. In addition to the "work projects", boxes of supplies for local schools and care packages for overseas military personnel were packed and distributed, as well as mats (made out of plastic grocery bags: you would never have known!) woven and provided to the homeless.
...

But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first - Matthew 19:30

Forever Blue, by Michael D’Antonio, tells the story of why (or perhaps, how) the Dodgers packed up and left Brooklyn for Los Angeles. The Brooklyn Dodgers were as integral part of their community as any baseball team has ever been. The Dodgers provided the borough with a central identity that remains unique among other baseball crazy cities.

After several decades of ineptness, Larry MacPhail came over from the Cincinnati Reds and led the Dodgers to their first World Series in twenty-one years and only the third ever. Branch Rickey succeeded the old redhead and the Dodgers played in six World Series over ten seasons; finally winning their only title in 1955. Then, after the 1957 season, Walter O’Malley ripped the heart out of Brooklyn and moved the team to Los Angeles. It was a radical move that opened up the west coast to major league baseball. Kansas City had been the westernmost team before the Dodgers and Giants arrived in southern California in 1958.

No one denies that Walter O’Malley, who had pushed Rickey out of the ownership picture, was making money from the team. O’Malley was a shrewd operator whose father had been a Tammany Hall official. But Ebbets Field, opened in 1913, was an aging grand dame. Cars had replaced Trolleys (the team’s nickname was shortened from ‘Trolley Dodgers’, referring to the fans who had to avoid being run down at the confluence of trolley tracks outside the stadium) and there was limited parking at the stadium. O’Malley didn’t believe Ebbets Field would be a viable option for his team in the future. He had built a winner: now he wanted a new stadium to play in.

Therein lies the rub: there are two sides to this story. O’Malley wanted the government to acquire land in Brooklyn (at much less cost than he would have to pay privately), whereupon he would fund and build a new stadium. Robert Moses, the most powerful politician in New York City, wanted to use the site for a different purpose. He preferred a site in Flushing Meadows, where Shea Stadium would be built a few years later. O’Malley wasn’t interested.

In their fields, both men largely always got what they wanted. O’Malley had complete control of the Dodger organization and was an influential voice among the owners. Robert Moses was an appointed, not elected official, but he made the decision on highways, bridges and public housing projects. That meant big projects went through him.

Some put the blame on O’Malley, painting him as a greedy millionaire who betrayed a community and stole the Dodgers. Others point the finger at Moses, whose out of control ego wouldn’t let him compromise and forced O’Malley to accept Los Angeles’ offer. The truth probably lies somewhere in between, though the moderate viewpoint seems scarce. This book is very much pro-O’Malley. Which is not surprising, since the author had access to materials in the O’Malley family archives. That’s not to say it’s all wrong. But the reader does come away seeing O’Malley as a businessman, faced with an untenable situation, offering a reasonable solution but being rebuffed by a power mad politico. Essentially, Moses forced him to reluctantly move his asset to California.

Keep in mind this was happening in the mid-fifties and city-team stadium battles hadn’t yet become the norm. This was relatively new territory. Both men used the press and the political process to their advantage. O’Malley threw down the gauntlet when he sold Ebbets Field to a private developer in 1956. The team could stay for a few more years, but there was no doubt a new stadium had to happen. The question became, “Where?” The book indicates that Los Angeles lobbied hard for O’Malley, who consistently put them off, saying he wanted to stay in Brooklyn. But he kept his options open and when he finally accepted that Robert Moses wasn’t going to give in to him, the owner packed up his toys and went to his new home.

All was not easy-peazy for O’Malley once he arrived in LA. The team initially played in cavernous Memorial Coliseum (current home of USC football) and he faced legal challenges that could have left him without a new stadium. Video footage of poor Hispanics being evicted from Chavez Ravine so that O’Malley could have his stadium survives to this day. BTW, this is favorably explained in the book and a good example of the pro-O’Malley view it takes.

One thing I really liked about his book is the look at gives at the pre-O’Malley Dodgers and how he went from a complete outsider to owner. O’Malley and Moses both had it within their power to keep the Dodgers in Brooklyn. But neither chose a path that led there. In 1957, The Kansas City Athletics (once based in Philadelphia, soon to be playing in Oakland) were the farthest west a team had to go. In 2012, there are ten teams further west than KC (home of the Royals). Baseball was changed when the Dodgers and Giants moved west.

The Giants, owned by Horace Stoneham, are an important part of the story. Baseball wanted a second team to move so that the Dodgers would have a geographical rival, as well as giving visiting teams more games when they flew all the way to Los Angeles. However, the book doesn’t give much attention to the Giants: this is the Dodgers’ story.

Forever Blue is a good book. I’d guess that the picture it paints is rather incomplete, really just giving Walter O’Malley’s side of events. But I believe it does tell a significant part of the story and it does convey what an emotional issue it was. I am looking for another book on the subject with a different slant to get a more balanced overall picture of things, but I liked this one.

The Gang of 8 - Heard of the Gospels?

Wow. I understand the needs the need for an immigration system. My wife came over from Indonesia after high school and is now, proudly, a US citizen. She jumped through the (expensive) hoops.

The Gang of 8 has quite a plan there. It's sad that both parties have no concept of a Biblical perspective on immigration.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

We can look to Matthew 25 for Jesus' thoughts on social responsibility. Stunningly enough, he does not say we should take away health insurance from immigrants, get the homeless off of our downtown sidewalks and lock up and forget about our criminals. Boy, talk about out of touch with modern society...

³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”