%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 As the first blog entry got exhausted. My second book |
| Evolution of Love Part 2 |
| April 17, 2018. Southwest Flight 1380 was climbing toward cruise altitude when passengers heard a sound no one ever wants to hear on an airplane—a massive explosion that shook the entire aircraft. The left engine had catastrophically failed. Metal shrapnel tore through the fuselage like bullets. One piece shattered a window. At 32,000 feet, where the air is too thin to breathe, the cabin instantly decompressed. Oxygen masks dropped. People screamed. A passenger was partially pulled toward the broken window by the violent suction. Chaos doesn't even begin to describe it. In the cockpit, Captain Tammie Jo Shults heard the explosion, felt the plane shudder, and watched her instruments light up with warnings. One engine gone. Fuselage damaged. Cabin pressure lost. 149 souls depending on her next move. She didn't panic. She went to work. "Southwest 1380, we have part of the aircraft missing," she radioed calmly to air traffic control, her voice as steady as if she were ordering coffee. "We're going down." But here's what most people don't know: this wasn't the first time Tammie Jo Shults had faced death in the sky. Before she was a commercial pilot, she was Lt. Commander Shults—one of the first female fighter pilots in the United States Navy. She flew F/A-18 Hornets as an aggressor pilot, training other naval aviators in combat tactics. The military told her she couldn't fly combat missions because of the Combat Exclusion Policy. So she became so skilled that combat pilots trained against her. She'd spent years making split-second decisions at supersonic speeds. Years staying calm when instinct screamed at you to panic. And on that April morning, every hour of that training kicked in. She manually controlled the crippled 737, fighting asymmetric thrust from the single working engine. She communicated with air traffic control. She coordinated with her first officer. She executed a rapid emergency descent—dropping altitude fast enough to reach breathable air, but controlled enough not to tear the damaged plane apart. Twenty-two minutes after the explosion, she landed the aircraft in Philadelphia. Smooth. Controlled. As if she'd practiced it a thousand times. Passengers later said she walked through the cabin afterward, calm and composed, checking on every single person. "Nerves of steel" was the phrase they kept using. One passenger, Jennifer Riordan, had been critically injured by the window failure. She died later at the hospital—the only fatality. It was a tragedy. But 148 other people walked off that plane alive because of Shults' skill, training, and unshakeable composure under pressure. Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenbergger—the pilot who famously landed US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River in 2009—called to praise her handling of the emergency. When Sully calls to say you did good, you really did good. Southwest Airlines commended her. Aviation experts analyzed the flight data and said her decisions were textbook perfect. Passengers wrote letters calling her their hero. But here's the detail that gives you chills: Tammie Jo Shults wasn't even supposed to be flying that day. She'd swapped shifts with her husband, also a Southwest pilot, to accommodate their schedules. A routine trade. The kind pilots do all the time. Which means 149 people boarded a plane that morning with no idea that the woman in the cockpit had been specifically, almost impossibly, prepared for exactly what was about to happen. You can call it luck. You can call it fate. Or you can call it what it actually was: decades of competence, training, and grit meeting the one moment where all of it mattered most. Tammie Jo Shults didn't ask to be a hero that day. She just showed up, did her job with extraordinary skill, and brought almost everyone home. She proved what she'd been proving her entire career—that competence doesn't care about gender, that the best person for the job is simply the best person for the job, and that sometimes the person standing between disaster and survival is someone who refused to accept the word "can't." She broke barriers in the Navy. She saved 148 lives in Philadelphia. And she did both the same way: by being so damn good at what she does that no one could argue with the results. Sometimes heroes don't wear capes. Sometimes they wear pilot wings and speak in calm, measured tones while manually landing a crippled aircraft. And sometimes, they're exactly where they need to be—even when they weren't supposed to be there at all. |
| Before Richard Feynman decoded the universe, his father—a uniform salesman—taught him one lesson: knowing the name of something means nothing. Understanding it means everything. Melville Feynman was born in Minsk in 1890 and came to America at age five. He dreamed of becoming a doctor, maybe a scientist. But his family couldn't afford medical school. So Melville tried various businesses, never quite succeeding, until he finally settled as a sales manager for a uniform company, selling to police officers, postal workers, and military personnel. He spent his days convincing people that the right uniform would make them look important. But Melville knew better. He knew that underneath every fancy uniform was just a person—no smarter, no better, no more worthy of respect than anyone else. And he taught his son Richard this truth from the very beginning: titles and appearances are meaningless. What matters is what's inside. When Lucille Feynman was pregnant with their first child in 1918, Melville declared: "If it's a boy, he'll be a scientist." It was. And Melville set out to make it happen—not by forcing his son to memorize facts, but by teaching him how to think. When Richard was still small enough to need a high chair, Melville brought home a bag of old rectangular bathroom floor tiles from Long Island City. After dinner, they'd set the tiles on end, one next to another, and Richard would push the first one, watching with delight as they all toppled in sequence. Simple enough. But then Melville upgraded the game. "Now," he'd say, "one white, two blues, one white, two blues." Richard would reach for another blue tile. "No," his father would say gently. "It has to be white." Patterns. Sequences. Mathematical thinking. All disguised as play. Melville never told his son to become a scientist. He never lectured him about formulas or forced him to study. Instead, he read to him from the Encyclopedia Britannica—not the children's encyclopedia, the real one. He took him on walks through the woods. He brought him to the Natural History Museum while other children played in parks. And most importantly, he asked questions. One Sunday, the neighborhood mothers decided that all the fathers should take their sons on nature walks. It was meant to be educational. So the fathers dutifully marched their children into the woods, and the next day at school, one boy approached Richard. "See that bird on the stump?" the boy said. "What's its name?" Richard didn't know. "It's a brown-throated thrush," the boy announced triumphantly. "Your father doesn't teach you much about science, does he?" Richard smiled to himself. Because his father had already taught him something far more important. Melville had once pointed to a bird and said: "See that bird? It's called a brown-throated thrush. But in Germany, they call it a halzenfugel. In Chinese, they call it a chung ling. And even if you know all those names in every language in the world, you still know nothing whatsoever about the bird. You only know something about people—what they call the bird. Now that bird—watch what it does. That's what matters." Names were labels. Understanding was everything. On their walks, Melville would stop and point. "Look," he'd say. "Notice that the bird is always pecking at its feathers. Why do you think it does that?" Richard, maybe ten years old, thought about it. "Maybe the feathers get ruffled when it flies, and it's trying to straighten them out." His father didn't say "good guess" or "wrong." He said: "Okay. So when would the feathers be most ruffled?" "Right after it lands from flying." "Then what should we observe?" "Birds that just landed should peck more than birds that have been walking on the ground for a while." "Let's watch." So they stood there, father and son, observing birds. And after a while, Richard realized his hypothesis was wrong. The birds pecked just as much whether they'd been flying or walking. "I don't know," Richard admitted. That's when Melville explained: "Birds have lice. Little creatures that live in their feathers and eat the flakes that come off. And the lice have mites that live on them and eat the wax from the lice's joints. And the mites produce waste that's full of sugar, and in that waste live even tinier creatures." Richard Feynman would later admit that the specific details his father taught him about parasites-on-parasites weren't scientifically accurate. But that didn't matter. What mattered was the method. His father taught him: observe, hypothesize, test, revise. Melville taught Richard that the natural world was full of mysteries waiting to be solved—not by memorizing what someone else discovered, but by looking closely, asking questions, and thinking for yourself. Years later, when Feynman became one of the most celebrated physicists of the 20th century—Nobel Prize winner, co-creator of quantum electrodynamics, bongo-playing genius—reporters would ask him: "Was your work worthy of the Nobel Prize?" Feynman would bristle. "I don't like honors," he'd say. "Honors are epaulettes. Honors are uniforms. My papa brought me up this way. I can't stand it." He'd seen his father spend decades selling uniforms to people who thought the costume made them important. Melville had taught him that it didn't. A general in full military dress was just a human being. The real honor wasn't in wearing medals—it was in doing work that other people found useful, that inspired them, that advanced human understanding. Melville Feynman died on October 8, 1946. His son Richard fell into a deep depression. For months, he couldn't do physics. The grief was too heavy. But eventually, Richard returned to what his father had taught him: curiosity. Wonder. The joy of figuring things out just because it's fun. He went back to solving physics problems not because they were important or because they'd win him prizes, but because watching a spinning plate in a cafeteria fascinated him, and he wanted to understand the mathematics of its wobble. That playful curiosity—the kind Melville had cultivated with bathroom tiles and bird-watching—led Richard Feynman to some of the most profound discoveries in 20th-century physics. Feynman diagrams. The path integral formulation. Quantum electrodynamics. Contributions to nanotechnology and quantum computing. Work that changed how we understand the fundamental nature of reality. All because a uniform salesman who never got to be a scientist himself decided to teach his son not what to think, but how to think. Melville Feynman never earned a Ph.D. He never published a paper. He never won a Nobel Prize. But he raised a son who did all of those things—and who credited everything to a father who understood that genius isn't born from memorization. It's born from wonder. From a father who asks: "Why do you think the bird does that?" From a parent who doesn't give you answers, but teaches you how to find them yourself. Richard Feynman once said that his father made him a scientist by making him curious about the world, skeptical of authority, and unafraid to question everything—even things that everyone else accepted as true. Great geniuses don't just learn from books. They learn from parents who teach them that every name is just a label, every uniform is just fabric, every title is just words. And underneath it all is the real question: Why? Melville Feynman sold uniforms for a living. But what he really did was teach his son to see past the surface of everything—and to never stop asking what's underneath. And that's how you raise a genius. Not with the right schools or the right books. But with the right questions. |
| In 1997, Ashley Judd refused Harvey Weinstein's advances in a hotel room. He blacklisted her. Twenty years later, she helped destroy his empire. Ashley Judd was 29 in 1997, a rising star with talent, beauty, and a career accelerating toward A-list. She'd done Ruby in Paradise, Heat, and was about to star in Kiss the Girls—a thriller produced by Miramax, Harvey Weinstein's studio. Weinstein requested a "business meeting" at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. Industry meetings in hotel suites weren't unusual—offices were busy, hotels offered privacy. Judd went. Weinstein answered the door in a bathrobe. He asked if he could give her a massage. When she declined, he asked if she'd watch him shower. Judd refused. She made excuses, left as quickly as possible without angering him—the calculation every woman makes when a powerful man crosses lines. She told her family. She told colleagues. But she didn't report it publicly. Because in 1997, reporting Harvey Weinstein meant ending your career. Weinstein controlled Miramax, one of Hollywood's most powerful studios. He decided which films got made, which actors got roles, which careers thrived or died. Rejecting him meant consequences. Ashley Judd's career didn't end immediately. She continued working: Double Jeopardy (1999) was a hit, Where the Heart Is (2000) was successful. But the major roles—the ones that make actors into legends—stopped coming. She'd be considered for parts, then mysteriously dropped. Casting directors would express interest, then go silent. She didn't know why. She was talented, professional, marketable. But opportunities evaporated. Years later, the reason became clear. In December 2017, director Peter Jackson gave an interview revealing that in the late 1990s, when casting The Lord of the Rings, Miramax (the studio initially involved) told him Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino were "nightmares to work with." Jackson believed them. He didn't cast Judd or Sorvino. "I now suspect this was the Miramax smear campaign," Jackson said in 2017, after Weinstein's abuse became public. Ashley Judd had been blacklisted. Weinstein systematically destroyed her reputation behind closed doors—telling producers, directors, studio executives that she was difficult, unprofessional, a nightmare. None of it was true. But Weinstein had power, and his word carried weight. Judd lost roles she never knew she'd been considered for. Her career trajectory shifted. All because she refused to let Harvey Weinstein assault her. This wasn't unique to Ashley Judd. Weinstein used the same pattern on dozens of women: Invite them to "business meeting" in hotel room. Appear in bathrobe or towel. Request massage, sexual favors. If refused, destroy their careers through whisper campaigns. Rose McGowan. Mira Sorvino. Gwyneth Paltrow. Salma Hayek. Lupita Nyong'o. Over 80 women eventually came forward with similar stories. For decades, Weinstein operated with impunity. People knew—actresses warned each other, agents steered clients away from private meetings with him, assistants were told to never leave women alone with him. But no one stopped him. His power protected him. His studio made money. Speaking out meant career suicide. So women stayed silent. Until October 2017. On October 5, 2017, The New York Times published an investigation: "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades." Ashley Judd was named. On the record. Describing the 1997 hotel room incident. Within days, more women came forward. Rose McGowan detailed rape allegations. Gwyneth Paltrow described harassment. The floodgates opened. On October 15, actress Alyssa Milano tweeted: "If you've been sexually harassed or assaulted write 'me too' as a reply to this tweet." Within 24 hours, over 12 million women responded with #MeToo. The movement—originally founded by activist Tarana Burke in 2006 to support sexual abuse survivors in marginalized communities—became global. Ashley Judd's willingness to speak on the record helped make that possible. She was established, credible, had nothing to gain and everything to lose by going public. Her testimony gave other women courage. If Ashley Judd could risk her career speaking out, maybe they could too. Weinstein was fired from his company on October 8, 2017—three days after the Times article. In May 2018, he was arrested in New York. In February 2020, he was convicted of rape and sexual assault. Sentenced to 23 years in prison. In March 2023, he was convicted in Los Angeles on additional charges. Harvey Weinstein, one of Hollywood's most powerful men, is currently in prison. He'll likely die there. The empire he built through intimidation, assault, and blacklisting collapsed. Ashley Judd sued Weinstein in 2018 for defamation and interference with her career—specifically for the blacklisting that cost her roles like The Lord of the Rings. The case was partially dismissed (some claims fell outside statute of limitations), but the defamation claim proceeded. It settled confidentially. But the legal action itself was significant: holding abusers accountable not just for assault, but for the career damage they inflict on women who refuse them. Since 2017, Judd has become a prominent activist. She speaks on sexual harassment, women's rights, global humanitarian issues. She uses her platform to advocate for survivors and push for systemic change. But she also lost opportunities because of #MeToo. Some directors and producers view her as "controversial" or "difficult" (ironic, since Weinstein falsely spread those exact accusations). Speaking out didn't magically fix her career. It cost her, even as it helped others. That's the reality of being first: you take the hit so others don't have to. In 1997, Ashley Judd refused Harvey Weinstein's advances in a hotel room. She was 29, talented, at the beginning of what should have been a legendary career. Weinstein blacklisted her. For twenty years, she lost roles because a powerful man retaliated against her for saying no. In 2017, she went on the record. Her testimony helped spark #MeToo—a global reckoning with sexual harassment and assault. Weinstein was convicted, imprisoned, his empire destroyed. But Judd lost twenty years of opportunities. Lost roles she'll never get back. Fought legal battles that drained her time and energy. Speaking out wasn't free. It cost her career momentum, privacy, peace. She did it anyway. That's bravery: not running into danger, but walking away from predators even when the cost is everything you've worked for. And then, twenty years later, standing up and naming them—knowing it'll cost you again. Ashley Judd said no in 1997. She said enough in 2017. And Harvey Weinstein, who thought his power made him untouchable, is in prison. One voice can start a revolution. But it costs the person who speaks first. Remember that when you celebrate #MeToo. Ashley Judd paid the price. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
