jeremyrsolomon

Is Die Hard a Christmas Movie?

by

Long ago, I listened to men on the radio argue over an odd question: Is Die Hard is a Christmas movie? It struck me as absurd. Of course it isn’t. It’s guns and explosions; it’s not Hallmark tales. Is this really a question? But here was the media taking an affirmative and negative, locked in fierce debate. They didn’t need to talk about politics or world leaders to raise our blood pressure. Die Hard would do just fine for their daily controversy. So I rolled my eyes on a twenty-minute commute as I couldn’t believe anyone in the world thought the action film was a holiday one. 

I forgot about the argument until years later when a new friend not only claimed Die Hard a Christmas movie, but aggressively teased me over it. We would argue about it for years, sending memes, articles, and quotes to counter the other’s foolishness. He’d send a screen shot of Amazon Prime showing that Die Hard was under Christmas movies. Meanwhile, I’d send clips like Bruce Willis setting the record straight while noting things like the fact that Die Hard‘s release was in July. No one in Hollywood thought it was a Christmas film, and the argument raged on from there.

Inspired by our debates, my friend, who would be a clever troll if he spent more time online, started an annual Die Hard Christmas party. While the gatherings were fun with good humor, the purpose was clear: To mock my opinion. In the first years of hosting, he would point out everything in the film that allegedly proved him right:

– “Look, there’s a Santa hat on the dead body.”

– “See? McClane’s using wrapping tape to hide his gun.”

– “They’re playing Let It Snow for crying out loud!”

On some level, I had already surrendered the argument by enjoying his parties. My holiday traditions came to include Hans Gruber falling off Nakatomi Tower, and Die Hard was now in the same realm as Miracle on 34th Street.

Still, I held my ground through the years with the argument that the theme of Die Hard doesn’t involve Christmas. The fact that a story takes place on the day can’t in itself warrant the label of a holiday film. The plot might happen during that time, but a movie needs to be about Christmas to count. For examples, let’s look at the themes of less controversial Christmas films:

A Christmas Story – A child celebrates the Christmas season with his middle-class family while hoping for a Red Ryder bee bee gun.

Ernest Saves Christmas – Ernest helps Santa Claus preserve his magic powers by transitioning the role to a successor.

Jingle All the Way – An inconsiderate father races across town to find the most popular Christmas gift for his son. 

By contrast, let’s look at Die Hard:

Die Hard – Foreign criminals hold a building hostage to steal bonds while an off- duty cop interferes with their plans.

Or, if you’d rather not take my word it, let’s review Amazon’s description instead: “A New York policeman outwits a group of foreign terrorists holding his wife and others hostage in a Los Angeles high-rise.”* Amazon threw Die Hard under the category of Christmas, but it failed to actually connect Christmas to the story. Because you can’t, I would argue. You may want to attach “on Christmas” at the end of the sentence, but Earth’s orbital location to the plot was irrelevant to me. If you have to shove a prepositional phrase at the end of the description to make the movie Christmas, then it didn’t qualify. Game, set, match—or so was my thinking.

Along with this, I stood my ground because it struck me that people like my friend weren’t acting in good faith. It always seemed like the people who proclaim Die Hard a Christmas film just want to stick it to anyone who might like Hallmark films—those awful holiday rom coms that grandparents make kids sit through.** Die Hard is antithetical—rebellious—to those viewers. There are explosions. Murder. Cocaine at office parties, and a rogue cop killing henchmen. So if Die Hard can be in the same genre as something like A Christmas Prince, then it’s a fun way to taunt those preferring the ladder. Declaring Die Hard as Christmas felt more like a trolling expedition than a genuine argument.

For these reasons, I pressed on in opposition, but I always knew there was a downside to my view. Other movies could be called into question with my thoughts about themes. Is Home Alone still a Christmas movie? Kevin McCallister fended for himself against burglars and the chores of domestic life, and Christmas was irrelevant to his journey. And what about It’s a Wonderful Life? After all, Christmas only happens in the last third of the film, and the holiday was inconsequential to George Bailey’s problems. If everyone held my opinion, then endless analysis might come of such classics. I was being a stick-in-the-mud about Die Hard, and this problem was always in the back of my mind.

So as the argument got old between me and my friend, I decided to turn around on the question. Fine. Die Hard is a Christmas movie. So be it. Separating a movie’s theme from its setting might technically be the right thing to do, but was I really going to tell people that certain movies weren’t Christmas? Was I going to stop playing Home Alone in the background while decorating the Christmas tree, as became a tradition? I was tired of being stringent and potentially raining on anyone’s parade. To each their own, I would conclude. So I became fine with calling Die Hard a Christmas movie, looking forward each year to watching bloody shootouts and degenerate behaviors with the holiday season.

Sadly, not long after making this turnaround, the holiday tradition of watching Die Hard would come to an end. My friend just moved out of state, making the final party last week as he sold his house. Sure, someone else could host, but it won’t be the same. Just as people start new families and float away from the traditions of youth, the joy and cheer from watching Die Hard with my friend will fade into memory. Still, I’ll want to do my best to continue on with Die Hard. Truly, as the meme says, “It’s not Christmas until I see Hans Gruber fall from Nakatomi Tower.”

*I’m actually not thrilled with this summary. As Hans Gruber quipped, “Who said we were terrorists?” And he was right. They weren’t looking for political change; they only wanted money. Still, the point here is that Amazon didn’t think to include Christmas as part of the theme of Die Hard. Point to me!

**Take a look through Netflix and it appears the streaming giant eclipsed Hallmark in bad holiday films. Some of the movie titles are hard to read let alone spending hours watching them.

So Who Receives SNAP?

by

 

When the federal government closed for forty-three days, America talked a lot about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Who receives the money? What are they like? Do they deserve our pity or scorn? Descriptions and stereotypes of their character inspired our arguments on the program. The media presented images of millions as being one kind of person or another. Black or white. Downtrodden or deplorable. As saints or squatters with no room for complexity. Our assumptions of the poor dictated whether we celebrated SNAP or condemned it as a societal failure.

One depiction of SNAP recipients were of innocents in need of help. Journalists and pundits told us of the plight of the homeless. The helpless. The powerless who demand our protections. The New York Times reported of some now searching garbage bins for food while the disabled lost their only source of income. Other media followed food banks and single-parent homes that scraped by in the best of times, only now to fear losing SNAP. The poor in America appeared on a precipice of descent into famine and anarchy. We might then ask, how could we allow the shut down of SNAP? Its halt would be to our shame as a nation.

Meanwhile, others offered a far different narrative. Instead of being helpless, people who take SNAP funds are lazy and selfish; leeches who have babies for higher checks or commit fraud for taxpayer money. Cynicism raged. SNAP was a crutch that leads people to a mindset of lethargy, clinging to free funds while having free reign to do nothing for themselves. One podcaster suggested the poor in America could now go on a prolonged diet. Others evidenced anecdotal Tik Tok posts of angry women screaming of entitlement to SNAP money. We might now ask, how can we reward bad behavior with taxpayer funds?* These are different conclusions with different opinions on such programs.

All of these characterizations reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend once about health care. As a nurse, he gave examples of patients receiving benefits at hospitals via the requirements of Obamacare. This increased health care costs, or so he claimed, as facilities are forced to comply with new regulations. But I noticed a pattern in his opinions:

Me: “You know, very example you’ve given, the patient is either stupid or greedy.”

Friend: “…I’m a conservative; that’s what I think of people.”

The comment hung in the air as a funny joke, but the insight was worth remembering. How we think of others can be the starting point of understanding our politics; to stand one way or another on SNAP and other issues. With our assumptions of our neighbors, our morals and politics will follow. 

One might hope for the Bible to give clarity on SNAP, but it seems that our biases might lead us to verses instead of the other way around. For those liberally minded, Matthew 25 stands out as the damning defense for welfare. “…whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters, you did for me.” Meanwhile, conservatives point to passages suggesting not only a need for people to work but an expectation of meaningful work to be by design in Heaven.** Therefore, a government program providing streams of free money creates a lack of incentive for work, or so the thinking goes. In any case, this isn’t to disparage the Bible as irrelevant, but only to note our preconceptions. Holy scriptures can vindicate whatever views we’ve already brought to the table.

So what should we take from all of this? Are the poor selfish and greedy, or in dire need without recourse? To try to answer it, I visualize all SNAP recipients in one place. Forty-two million—a population five times the size of New York City. Imagine a group filling hundreds of football stadiums. It’s a breathtaking image showing me that the depths and complexities of our stories are endless. Childhood backgrounds. Genetics. Age. The health of their marriages. The malevolence of their bosses. Etc, etc. The factors bringing them to the present are immeasurable. We are complex creatures hard to label in the strive to vote for the right thing.

On one hand, cynicism for the poor isn’t without a basis of facts. Fraud does occur. Some do have babies for higher checks, and others do possess a selfish entitlement, stubbornly refusing to find productive paths in life. There is waste. There is greed. And all of this should give us pause if we want to have sound public policy. It’s not crazy for conservatives to point out the selfish things that people do. It’s observing human behavior. It’s an attempt to use wisdom to guide a prescription for how governments should handle such problems.

Yet for all of this, we shouldn’t portray the desires of a public safety net as foolish. An array of circumstances will crash on us in life; powerful forces reigning out of our control. Layoffs. Disability. Inflation. Housing. Health care. Natural disasters. The list goes on for the heartaches we face. It is therefore in the interest of the public to offer relief, not only from a sense of charity but for the aim of government policies to bring greater order. These ideas aren’t insane. The need for stability is real. Programs like SNAP can offer a societal solution without demonizations.

But as much as we like simplicity, there is no one way for the world to classify everyone. Are SNAP recipients lazy, or are they innocent? The shades of grey are abundant, and I don’t have a grand answer on public policy. So as we enter the holiday season, let’s recognize our personal ability to help others. The media stopped talking about the forty-two million, as they tend to do with societal problems when an event resolves. SNAP recipients again have their lifelines—or their welfare, however you look at it. But their stories are far from over. So let’s move forward as a nation on the lookout for each of us to serve the least of these. Perhaps this would be the best opinions of all.

 

*As a fiscal hawk, I’m compelled to point out that America is $37 trillion in debt and climbing. So programs like SNAP aren’t funded by taxpayer money. They’re funded by China and other nations buying our debt. So it’s personally hard for me to accept America as being charitable when the funds are coming from other countries. Just a thought.

**See Genesis 1, Isaiah 65, and 2 Thessalonians 3. As much as conservatives like to beat us over the head with the last of these, it’s there for our reckoning.

***I would highly recommend the book Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, by Matthew Desmond. It’s a deep dive into the constant struggles and heartaches of the poor.

Ted Lasso Overcoming Evil with Good

by

Ted Lasso has been all the rage in the 2020s. It’s won awards, public affection, and it serves as a model story of leadership and character. I streamed Apple TV for the sole purpose of watching it, and it didn’t disappoint. The plot was appealing to me as a sports fan, but the characters were also enjoyable, and I was happy to read Lead It Like Lasso afterward. Later, I watched the show again with my wife, who despite no interest in sports, cheered for the A.F.C. Richmond football club as any of us. The show paid dividends to me again as we could share in the story together.

Watching the show gave me humor and good cheer, but a certain episode gave me something I didn’t anticipate: A conviction of guilt. It came from my reaction to a storyline, with shame and sadness that I hadn’t seen a certain predicament as Coach Lasso did. My response didn’t match his benevolent approach to the situation, and I had an odd moment of reflecting on my beliefs. The best approach to life was now being exemplified from a fictional football coach from Kansas, and it was a unique moment while binge watching a TV show.

*Spoiler alerts from here, though I only talk about one subplot of the entire show. So take that as you will.*

Ted Lasso has an assistant coach named Nate. At first a custodian, bullied by players and shy as can be, Ted treated him from the start as any peer. He recognized Nate’s talents in soccer strategy, encouraging him to speak up for the betterment of the team. He became an asset to their success, but in time, the bullied became the bully. Nate came to swell with pride, disparaging staff for mistakes while obsessing over social media posts about himself. He quit A.F.C. Richmond with rage, claiming Ted had stopped paying attention to him, but revealing his jealousy of Ted’s popularity. Nate was the real hero of the team, and the world should know it.

Nate’s treatment of Ted was staggering, bringing viewers like me to disgust. He became a head coach elsewhere, mocking Ted and his former team in a press conference. This brought Ted under pressure from his boss and other staff to fight back. To attack Nate in the media, regaining respect for himself and the team. No one deserved Nate’s insults, let alone Ted, who only wanted to improve the lives and character of his players. But Nate now lived a life of prestige while Ted stood on the edge of a professional knife, ready to fall if he didn’t match Nate blow for blow. 

As I was watching, I passionately agreed with everyone telling Ted to fight back. That little pissant, I thought of Nate. Ted gave him so much. No respect or gratefulness. Ted has to do something. But while the show brought the audience to feel this way, Ted went the opposite way. In a public response, he complimented Nate on his quick wit for the jokes, and he wished Nate the best on his new team. The press room went silent as Ted then doubled down, agreeing with Nate’s insults, taunting himself facetiously. The press didn’t know how to react, but they came to praise Ted as a class act. By the end, everyone loathed Nate, who doesn’t take it well. Scrolling through Facebook posts** that condemned him as an awful person, Ted stood above him again in the eyes of the world.

At the end of the episode, I felt guilty for how I reacted to the story. I wanted Ted to insult Nate as everyone did, and the show was remarkable in hooking us with the injustice. But I’d forgotten that the better response to any such person is charity with humility. The Bible says as much: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”*** For Ted, to do what everyone wanted was counter to what was right. Even if it meant scorn from his boss and the public, his was an admirable response of grace.

Adding to my bit of shame was the fact that it was a fictional show that was teaching me how far I fell short of good character. Hadn’t I read the Bible enough to understand that Ted’s response was the best? Shouldn’t it have occurred to me that the right way to approach Nate was Ted’s? A Hollywood comedy was reminding me of the best way to live life – a way I had understood, but wasn’t taking to heart. I felt like I had been lured into a moral trap, and it should have been obvious to see how Ted ought to handle the situation. But my anger for Nate had overtaken everything else and for a moment, the show was no longer entertainment, but an experience. An opportunity to see how my thoughts were short of what was good.

Reflecting later on the episode, I saw a Catch 22 in the story.**** Everyone wanted Ted to have revenge by insulting Nate, hurting him as he had done to Ted. Instead, Ted replies with absolute grace and respect. The result? Nate is humiliated, revealing himself as a boorish ass while Ted gains in stature. It’s the story of Cain and Able, with Nate now suffering more than any insult could have done. His anger shot through the roof, and it was Ted’s grace that led him to feel that way. As it turns out, grace became the ultimate form of vengeance.

Ted’s response was a model example of an instruction from the Apostle Paul, also showing a bit of the Catch 22:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” – Romans 12:20-21

Whether or not the creators of Ted Lasso had Biblical teachings in mind, this is what I’ll take away from their show. Many will see Ted’s response to Nate as weakness, but it’s easy now to see it as coming from a source of strength. Ted stood resolute with grace and forgiveness. It was a calling of faith, and ironically, the path may have served as the biggest blow to his offender. Ted dumped metaphorical coals on Nate’s head, and his ego couldn’t take the bad press. May that be said of all our situations, where the bullies of our lives come to either repentance or derangement. Let us hope to overcome evil with good, as Coach Lasso did.

*It turns out, season three will not be the last one as number four is in progress. It seems like the creators should have quit while they were ahead, but all we can do is hope in their skills for another good season. And besides, if four stinks, we’ll just forget it existed, and remember the beauty and resolution of one through three.

**I have to say, it was so strange to see all computers in the world of Ted Lasso as Apple. Everyone’s phones, the office desks, hotel lobbies, etc., all were iPhones and iMacs. I understand Apple wouldn’t want to promote any other computer company, but this made the show feel like an alternate reality. In the real world, only a small percentage of hardware is Apple, only for it now to appear as as 100%. It was hard to get use to this world.

***Matthew 5:38-40.

****Maybe I shouldn’t claim something is a Catch 22 if I can’t quite explain what one is. Just look it up, and hopefully you see what I mean here.

The Struggle of Having Empathy for Men

by

Struggles of Having Empathy for Men

Men are having problems these days. 

Now let’s stop right there. Do you disagree? Does the idea make you roll your eyes? Does it seem trivial to focus on problems men might have? After all, women have always had it worse in life, from biology to societal submission. So to think of men as victims may seem absurd. At best, a waste of time to think about, and at worst, a sexist way of taking attention away women’s issues. Men will be fine. And even if not, let them take a back seat for a while. They’ve driven the car through all of history. The future is female.

If any of these are your thoughts, please keep reading. Even better, read the book that sparked a national discourse on the topic. If not, then maybe catch this video for a short summary from the author. If you’re inclined to go further, listen to this podcast as part of the ongoing dialogue. If you do any or all these things, I’m grateful you gave the opening sentence a chance to resonate.

Current issues facing men are striking. Higher suicide rates. Drug abuse. Fatherlessness while having a general aimlessness in achieving goals. Unrealistic dating standards from women, with neglect from a society that tailored education to be ill-fit for men. There are a lot of consequences, and it has been an uphill battle for people to take men’s problems seriously. But the issues can’t be denied. From lower fertility rates, to the psychological development of mass killers, to the young men who now follow Andrew Tate – someone who truly does have issues with women. We’re living with the results of men’s issues now, and it’s an ugly place for the world to know.

Still, the instinct is strong to scoff at men’s problems. With this, let’s go back to the reasons for objecting to the first sentence. As noted, you might see women having the short end of the stick through time. You see patriarchy today, still dismissive of the contributions women bring. You see families with abusive fathers – whether overbearing, or just dead-beat dads – who make their wives and children suffer. You see the natural disadvantages women have always faced, and you wonder why we should start worrying about men. They’ve only had problems for 40 years, versus 4,000. With all of this, it might be hard to have a heart for the XY half of the human race.

We should acknowledge the extent to which women have had the disadvantage. Consider alone the physical features of men and women. Men are stronger, and it’s easy to understand why girls would be prone to natural distress. Societies always have half of their population more physically dominant than the other. Isn’t it natural that this would create an atmosphere of intimidation for the other half?* Add to this the acts of violent men. When dating, my wife explained that when leaving a building, she feels compelled to check the back seat of her car, knowing a woman who was assaulted in this way. I thought it an odd practice, but being male, I had the ability to never have such a concern. It’s a privilege to not have this thought for myself, and my wife doesn’t have that. Neither do women.

Along with disparities in physical strength, think about periods and pregnancy. Women have them, and men don’t. The former have been debilitating to women through all of history, only for the most recent decades to offer products to assist.** As for pregnancies, the sky is the limit on the physical consequences, both spoken and unspoken in our lives. From postpartum depression, to benign tumors on your gums, it’s a rough road on the body, through nine months and beyond. Men should have a sincere gratitude for not having to live with these things, and sympathy for all who do.

All of this said, the sufferings of a gender do not stop the other’s from happening. Does the pain of women in pregnancy cancel the pain of men lacking fathers to direct them in life? Not every problem is equal, but a problem doesn’t mean that others aren’t occurring. To women who begrudge men’s problems, I’d ask to not think of us as men. Think of us as human. “Tickle us, do we not have. Prick us, do we not bleed,” etc.  If we have to have the battle of comparative pains, then men folk might have things better. But it doesn’t take away from what is there. The sorrows of a woman, strong as they are, will not erase those of the man down the street. Life doesn’t work that way.

So I would appeal to us all to take more time to think of the needs of men. The men who can’t find a home for their talents and instincts in the education system. The men who need around 1,000 scrolls online just to find a woman who won’t ghost them on a first date (Seriously, listen to the podcast!). The men who won’t leave mom’s basement because they lack hope for a future worth fighting for. The men who will turn to the enraged views of online personalities who have no problems demeaning women. For the sake of all people, we should hope for men’s turnaround.***

 

*I have read that there are studies showing girls by default have a psychological distress with these conditions. And I almost wrote “Studies show…” here, but I can’t reference anything now. Still, it makes a certain sense that this would be the mental situation for girls as they grow up with the other gender having a natural dominance.

**Even today, much of the world faces the struggles of lacking this technology.

***A quick political after thought: A popular subject from the 2024 election is the loss of Democratic male voters. Personally, I think the problem for them is overblown. Trump won men 53 percent to 45 percent, with Harris having the same favorability from women. This isn’t a chasm of difference. If the ratios were more like 2:1, then the issue would be more striking to me. That said, if you’re compelled to break down the reasons why the 53/45 split happened, it’s still an interesting conversation.

A Four-Minute Masterclass on Empathy

by

A Four-Minute Masterclass on Empathy

Long ago, I found a clip of The Dr. Phil Show from online scrolling, and it has been a gem to me ever since. Like a favorite verse from a song, or a resounding quote, the scene is packed with meaning we should all consider. A masterclass of empathy, demonstrating its beauty and power when speaking to others. No matter what you might think of Dr. Phil – the show itself, or his recent dive into politics* – I will always appreciate the lessons from this conversation.

Addressing the strained relationships in a family, Dr. Phil plays the role of mediator between a violent son and beleaguered parents. The latter receive a blunt summary of the medical issues their son has suffered through life, disarming the son by showing a genuine understanding of the things he has gone through. We’ll also come to find that the father has made his own bad decisions, but with an understanding his trials as well. All of this was wrapped in a four-minute clip – an exchange worth watching with reflection on considering another’s point of view.

At the start, Dr. Phil connects the son’s lifetime of medical conditions to his crimes and distress. Multiple surgeries with chronic pain since the age of nine, with ailments being a continual influence on his emotions. By the end of the timeline, it feels silly to need a psychology degree to connect the dots of his life. Still, it may have been profound for the parents to see their son’s life in one image on screen. An outsider was guiding them through two decades of painful memories, perhaps forgotten or dismissed in time. But in any case, Dr. Phil has given the best case for us to have sympathy for their son.

By the end of the timeline, we see how the family and society were unable to give the son peace in life. “It can get a little frustrating,” Dr. Phil quips with sarcasm that puts an exclamation mark on the point. It’s likely that no one ever studied the litany of pain the son had experienced. It’s not the job of law enforcement to do this, but it should be a moral conviction for the family. The son, now teary-eyed with a runny nose, has an expression of mournful gratitude. Dr. Phil has offered a full recognition of his pain, giving it a name with respect and compassion. An outsider – albeit a famous one – has shown him an understanding of his trials with respect and compassion. A beautiful act for his viewers to watch.

Perhaps even more profound than the empathy is the brief but powerful point that Dr. Phil makes after. Leaning in with a hand on the son, the host says, “Your behavior’s still bull——.” The joke comes out of nowhere, and in any other context, the son may have rejected it. Just one more authority figure getting in his face about what he’s done. But the son was now disarmed, chuckling as the crowd laughed and applauded. The laugh seems indicative of a man saying, “Yeah, you’re right.”. So while it was a joke, it wasn’t really a joke. By sharing an understanding of his life, Dr. Phil has brought the son to a place where he may come to listen, embracing wisdom that will turn around his life. This is the powerful accomplishment of empathy. To soften the hardest of hearts.

With the joke, we can also take a lesson in the need to have balance between compassion and accountability. Dr. Phil just spent two minutes showing all the reasons to be sympathetic to the son, but in two seconds, the joke brought back to center the need for the son to address his wrongs. The school troubles. The domestic violence. The gross irresponsibility of acts like drinking and driving. Empathy was the aim, but it shouldn’t bring us to overlook his harms. With this, it occurs to me that liberals should have the same balance in mind when dismissing people’s bad behaviors as uncontrollable diseases. Or perhaps conservatives should think about this when condemning criminals. Both schools of thought have value, but both will fall short of an ideal approach to justice.

Now having a degree of trust with the son, Dr. Phil takes a side trip by pointing out the empathy we should feel for mom and dad. “…parents don’t sign up for this.” The “this” refers to everything about the son’s life, with our attention now shifting to the heartaches and suffering of the parents. Feelings of inadequacy, helplessness, and descent to behaviors of anger and self-medication to cope with the situation. We’re now understanding the reasons a father may become part of the problem in a dysfunctional family. “It hurts to see that happen to your boy.” An understatement for any parent.

Again, we can recognize from this the need to balance the thoughts of liberals and conservatives. We shouldn’t live in a world without empathy, but neither should we excuse people’s crimes. Does empathy take away from the need to call out the father for rage from alcohol abuse? Should our condemnations of him never consider the years of worry and guilt he endured? These are big questions for anyone who would judge the family, whether you’re a professional psychologist or a member of a TV audience. I don’t claim to have any grand answers for their situation. I’m only noting the need to ask all such questions as each person faces their situations.

I’ve never watched the full episode of this show, and at this point, I prefer it that way. The Youtube video is over ten years old, and who knows how many twists and turns have developed between the son and parents. If I knew more about their journey since, it’s possible my feelings about the clip would diminish. So I’ve saved the video as I might a work of art, coming back to it from time to time to reflect on empathy. We see from it a power to penetrate the strongest walls of someone’s psyche. We also see a father’s remorse for his actions, and perhaps the beginnings of a reunion. This is good enough for me to take as a lesson in life, and I hope you can take something from it as well.

 

 

*To me, it’s unfortunate that Dr. Phil has focused so much on politics in recent months. Not so much because I disagree with his views, but because I think the world would be better off with him as a sage figure of psychology, and not a political pundit. If I want political analysis, there are plenty of other people who lead those battles. Dr. Phil, on the other hand, has always sought awareness for mental and cultural issues, and it seems he’s more helpful to the world by sticking to that.