I started off addressing each of the comments on my previous posts concerning Tropic Thunder. It started to feel a little tit for tat, so I chucked the idea.
Tropic Thunder was number one at the box office this weekend, and that's a shame. Not because of the controversy, but because it just wasn't that good of a movie. I also went to see Woody Allen's latest film, Vicky Christina Barcelona, a much better - if flawed - film. I left the theater thinking about how much work it takes to keep a marriage vibrant and full of life, about art, about travel, about the difference between love and being in love, about how easy it is to make a mess of our lives. It also inspired me to take Silvi swimming in the evening, then out for fish tacos and ice cream as the sun set. If a film can move me emotionally and also cause me to take a step - do something - once the lights come up, then I count that movie worth the price of admission.
Tropic Thunder has had that effect on a lot of people. Moving many to action. It caused me to work hard to frame my thoughts, read differing opinions, research philosophical articles that might give words to my emotions and then write about it. My view is definitely in the minority. And I'll be the first to admit that I might be wrong. Despite all the anger and differing opinions surrounding this film, I'm still glad the film was made. It was a discussion that needed to happen in the public arena.
Will this debate help make life better for people like my son? I don't know. Maybe. But I think there will be - have been - a lot of "casualties" along the way. Friendships have been strained, battle lines drawn and people have chosen one "camp" over another. "You're either with us or against us," seems to capture much of the prevailing thought.
But I have hope that good will come out of all of this. A friend emailed me and asked, "Why does our society give disabled people so much support, yet actively aborts 90% of our children (with Down syndrome)?" The world is much kinder to children like my son than at any other time in history. If they are allowed to be born. So how do I actively make it known to the world that my son has every right to exist, that without him there would be a loud silence more deafening than any protest?
I named my blog "Narrow Ridge" after a quote by one of my favorite philosophers, Martin Buber, who talks about walking the narrow ridge between certainty and uncertainty, between knowing and not knowing, between you and between me. At the heart of his philosophy is the desire for dialogue.
How do we stand up for what is right without completely tearing down others in the process? (And satire walks this fine line.) How do we "win" the argument without losing the person? How do we advocate for our kids without letting anger rule the day?
I'm just starting out on this journey with Ian. I hope you'll keep following this adventure as he and I stumble along that narrow ridge.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Why I went to see Tropic Thunder - Part III
First, a word about the Perry brothers. Their in-your-face style of humor isn't for everyone. I like much of it, but they can definitely be offensive, sometimes downright jerks (if you keep reading, you'll see why I think it is justifiable for me to call them "jerks"). Which brings me to my final point: "Is it OK to laugh?"
Andrew Terjesen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rhodes College, tackles the subject of offensive humor by asking, "Why is it not OK to laugh at mean-spirited humor (like racist jokes), but it is OK to laugh at parodies of it?" He says that it's because "parodies of mean-spirited humor are at the expense of mean-spirited people."
So is it OK to make fun of mean-spirited people? I think so. If it's for their own good and the good of those around them. Making fun of people is only acceptable if the people at the butt of joke have the potential to change. That's why it isn't ethical to make fun of people with intellectual disabilities or because of the color of a person's skin. They have no way of changing who they are. But a person who makes fun of a disabled person can change, and humor is a powerful tool in helping bring about that change.
Terjesen also says, "Since parodies of mean-spirited humor target mean-spirited people we ought to laugh at the parodies. By laughing at them we are reinforcing the idea that no one should be like them."
Ben Stiller has repeated over and over that Tropic Thunder is not mean-spirited. How can we differentiate between parodies of mean-spirited behavior and those that pretend to be? To do this, we have to look at Stiller's intent as well as his past treatment of humor.
Stiller says that the Hollywood system and narcissistic actors are the butt of the joke. And if we accept that it is OK to make fun of those who can change their behaviors, and we also agree that it is good for them to change their behavior, then we should be able to agree that Stiller is justified in making prima donna actors the butt of the joke. For their own good, and the good of society.
What about Simple Jack? Is Stiller making fun of people with intellectual disabilities, or is he making fun of actors who go too far in their portrayal of those with disabilities? If he is indeed making fun of the disabled, then he is wrong. I assert that he is doing what he says he is doing and to back this up, we have to look at his past.
Stiller has been making parodies since the 1980's when he did The Ben Stiller Show. His parody of 90210 is a classic and rightly mocks those who are self-absorbed. There's Something about Mary, Meet the Parents, Reality Bites, The Heartbreak Kid, Zoolander, Night at the Museum. While much of the humor in his films is crass, I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument that they are mean-spirited. So after nearly 20 years of parody, is it fair to make the claim that Stiller has crossed the line? I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I've read many posts that say, "So what if it's a parody? Lots of people won't get it and will think it's OK to make fun of people with Down syndrome or intellectual disabilities." But Terjesen asks, "Does it mean that because some people will laugh at something for the wrong reasons that you shouldn't do it?" In other words, if something could possibly be misunderstood, does that mean it shouldn't be done? There is always going to be potential for abuse. There are going to be a lot of people reading this post who will misunderstand me. Does that mean I shouldn't write it? Of course not.
A last thought from Terjesen, "Without parody, we lose an effective way of not only making fun of the mean-spirited (and therefore of publicly disapproving of them) but also of getting them to realize their own folly (as they begin to realize what they are really laughing at)."
What about the word "retard?"
Now that we understand (if you agree with what I've said thus far) the world that Stiller has created on the screen, we have the proper context with which to correctly interpret how the word "retard" is used. "Never go full retard" is uttered by a delusional actor (Downey's character) who is referencing other "serious" actors (like Tom Hanks and Sean Penn). Who is the butt of the joke? The "retarded?" Or the actors (Hanks and Penn)? I assert that it is the latter, thus the term, in this context, is justified.
That said, I do take the film to task for one damning scene that is mean-spirited and crosses the line (based on the butt of the joke being someone who cannot change who they are.) The scene(s) both involve Matthew McConaughey. I'm sure you've read about them. McConaughey, who plays Stiller's agent, shows disappointment with having a child with apparent Down syndrome. I especially take Stiller to task for the final scene in the film, which received a huge laugh by the audience when I saw it. McConaughey is sitting on his private jet and gives an obvious look of disappointment in the direction of his son, who is sitting looking out the window quietly.
Why is this mean-spirited? Who's the butt of the joke? True, McConaughey is portrayed as a shallow, money hungry, insecure agent so the argument could be made that we are laughing at his lack of character. But it doesn't play that way and needs to be challenged.
Why have I devoted so much time and thought to this movie? I felt I had to since I am in the minority. I understand the motivations behind the boycott; please believe me that I do. How many times have I seen that frozen smile creep onto a stranger's face when they suddenly sense something is "different" about Ian. I want the world to see what a neat little guy he is, want them to know how he's changed my life for the better. I don't want him to be called "retard," but I also don't want him to be called "jerk" or any other disparaging word (unless he's being a jerk). And I can't help but feel that this boycott will alienate Ian even more. Now people may fidget even more around him or avoid him altogether for fear of offending him. People on the other side of the protests may avoid me even more because they aren't sure how not to offend me.
We need laughter. We need satire. And we need Ben Stiller.
Andrew Terjesen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rhodes College, tackles the subject of offensive humor by asking, "Why is it not OK to laugh at mean-spirited humor (like racist jokes), but it is OK to laugh at parodies of it?" He says that it's because "parodies of mean-spirited humor are at the expense of mean-spirited people."
So is it OK to make fun of mean-spirited people? I think so. If it's for their own good and the good of those around them. Making fun of people is only acceptable if the people at the butt of joke have the potential to change. That's why it isn't ethical to make fun of people with intellectual disabilities or because of the color of a person's skin. They have no way of changing who they are. But a person who makes fun of a disabled person can change, and humor is a powerful tool in helping bring about that change.
Terjesen also says, "Since parodies of mean-spirited humor target mean-spirited people we ought to laugh at the parodies. By laughing at them we are reinforcing the idea that no one should be like them."
Ben Stiller has repeated over and over that Tropic Thunder is not mean-spirited. How can we differentiate between parodies of mean-spirited behavior and those that pretend to be? To do this, we have to look at Stiller's intent as well as his past treatment of humor.
Stiller says that the Hollywood system and narcissistic actors are the butt of the joke. And if we accept that it is OK to make fun of those who can change their behaviors, and we also agree that it is good for them to change their behavior, then we should be able to agree that Stiller is justified in making prima donna actors the butt of the joke. For their own good, and the good of society.
What about Simple Jack? Is Stiller making fun of people with intellectual disabilities, or is he making fun of actors who go too far in their portrayal of those with disabilities? If he is indeed making fun of the disabled, then he is wrong. I assert that he is doing what he says he is doing and to back this up, we have to look at his past.
Stiller has been making parodies since the 1980's when he did The Ben Stiller Show. His parody of 90210 is a classic and rightly mocks those who are self-absorbed. There's Something about Mary, Meet the Parents, Reality Bites, The Heartbreak Kid, Zoolander, Night at the Museum. While much of the humor in his films is crass, I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument that they are mean-spirited. So after nearly 20 years of parody, is it fair to make the claim that Stiller has crossed the line? I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I've read many posts that say, "So what if it's a parody? Lots of people won't get it and will think it's OK to make fun of people with Down syndrome or intellectual disabilities." But Terjesen asks, "Does it mean that because some people will laugh at something for the wrong reasons that you shouldn't do it?" In other words, if something could possibly be misunderstood, does that mean it shouldn't be done? There is always going to be potential for abuse. There are going to be a lot of people reading this post who will misunderstand me. Does that mean I shouldn't write it? Of course not.
A last thought from Terjesen, "Without parody, we lose an effective way of not only making fun of the mean-spirited (and therefore of publicly disapproving of them) but also of getting them to realize their own folly (as they begin to realize what they are really laughing at)."
What about the word "retard?"
Now that we understand (if you agree with what I've said thus far) the world that Stiller has created on the screen, we have the proper context with which to correctly interpret how the word "retard" is used. "Never go full retard" is uttered by a delusional actor (Downey's character) who is referencing other "serious" actors (like Tom Hanks and Sean Penn). Who is the butt of the joke? The "retarded?" Or the actors (Hanks and Penn)? I assert that it is the latter, thus the term, in this context, is justified.
That said, I do take the film to task for one damning scene that is mean-spirited and crosses the line (based on the butt of the joke being someone who cannot change who they are.) The scene(s) both involve Matthew McConaughey. I'm sure you've read about them. McConaughey, who plays Stiller's agent, shows disappointment with having a child with apparent Down syndrome. I especially take Stiller to task for the final scene in the film, which received a huge laugh by the audience when I saw it. McConaughey is sitting on his private jet and gives an obvious look of disappointment in the direction of his son, who is sitting looking out the window quietly.
Why is this mean-spirited? Who's the butt of the joke? True, McConaughey is portrayed as a shallow, money hungry, insecure agent so the argument could be made that we are laughing at his lack of character. But it doesn't play that way and needs to be challenged.
Why have I devoted so much time and thought to this movie? I felt I had to since I am in the minority. I understand the motivations behind the boycott; please believe me that I do. How many times have I seen that frozen smile creep onto a stranger's face when they suddenly sense something is "different" about Ian. I want the world to see what a neat little guy he is, want them to know how he's changed my life for the better. I don't want him to be called "retard," but I also don't want him to be called "jerk" or any other disparaging word (unless he's being a jerk). And I can't help but feel that this boycott will alienate Ian even more. Now people may fidget even more around him or avoid him altogether for fear of offending him. People on the other side of the protests may avoid me even more because they aren't sure how not to offend me.
We need laughter. We need satire. And we need Ben Stiller.
Tropic Thunder thoughts
Why I went to see Tropic Thunder - Part II
I was all set to write a long post about not giving power to certain words, about letting people with Down syndrome speak for themselves, about how I believe the boycott is further alienating people with intellectual disabilities from others, about how the use of over-the-top parodies can reveal hidden truths. But then the Perry brothers stole my, err, thunder.
While I don't agree with their mostly playful call to "boycott the boycotters," I do agree with their assertions thatwords only have the power we give them what Ben Stiller intended has been misrepresented. (I edited this because I think that words possess a power beyond what we give them, which I hope to expand on another day.)
I wanted to make up a shirt for Ian to wear on the Buddy Walk that said, "Does this shirt make me look retarded?" but Annie threatened to boycott me. Besides, I'll wait until Ian is old enough to make his own statements.
Next, "Is it OK to laugh at that?"
While I don't agree with their mostly playful call to "boycott the boycotters," I do agree with their assertions that
I wanted to make up a shirt for Ian to wear on the Buddy Walk that said, "Does this shirt make me look retarded?" but Annie threatened to boycott me. Besides, I'll wait until Ian is old enough to make his own statements.
Next, "Is it OK to laugh at that?"
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Why I went to see Tropic Thunder - Part I
(It didn't start out this way, but this is turning into a three-part post. So if you find yourself getting upset with something I've said, I hope you will indulge me until the end. If you're still upset, well, we'll take it from there I suppose.)
I went to see Tropic Thunder last night. The theater was packed, the majority of the audience young guys, probably in their twenties, many with dates. There were also groups of girls sprinkled here and there. I saw a few "older" people, like, in their forties (we're so old), but not many. It was approaching 9pm, after all.
I've been following the call for a national boycott on most of the blogs that I frequent, as well as many of the excellent links provided by Patricia Bauer's website. I watched the interviews with Ben Stiller on Good Morning America and on Nightline, as well as watched the various reports on CNN concerning the protests. The editor of the online magazine that I just started contributing to also called for a boycott, as did all the other contributors. I read how the Special Olympics, ARC and many Down syndrome organizations support the boycott, and have even launched a new campaign to help bring an end to the use of the "R" word, as it's often called.
I've also read literally dozens of well-written, thoughtful, provocative and heartfelt posts on blogs that I subscribe to via Google Reader, many of them angry, others hurt, most just wanting to support their children, as I do.
But after seeing Tropic Thunder, I still cannot support the boycott. Nor can I sign a petition calling for a ban of the "R" word.
First, my thoughts on the film. I did laugh. It is funny. Robert Downey Jr. is amazing to watch, Ben Stiller's "straight man" comedic timing is spot on and Tom Cruise, well, his performance will haunt me for quite some time as he conjures up one of the funniest characters I've seen on the screen in a long time. Aside from his performance on Oprah, of course. But the film wasn't that funny. Not side-splitting funny like I've read in some reviews. Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind, or was wondering how I was going to pay for Ian's hearing aids or maybe it was just after 9pm and past my bedtime.
And the satire? I'm sorta-kinda in the biz; I've worked with many local prima donna actors and producers. Shot some behind the scene footage on some low budget films. So I got all the film industry references, and they were mostly funny, but more "Yeah, I know someone like that" kind of funny. I got the references to big budget films, to sequels, to high-maintenance actors, etc. But the use of irony and parody were, well, a bit weak. The Family Guy is much better satire; it's tighter, smarter, more self-aware and sheds more light on hidden truths, which is what comedy and satire aspires to do. At least good comedy. The film's saving grace were the performances, the high budget feel and just enough laughs to keep you wanting more.
I give the film three out of five Rambo knives.
(Next: Simple Jack and "retards")
I went to see Tropic Thunder last night. The theater was packed, the majority of the audience young guys, probably in their twenties, many with dates. There were also groups of girls sprinkled here and there. I saw a few "older" people, like, in their forties (we're so old), but not many. It was approaching 9pm, after all.
I've been following the call for a national boycott on most of the blogs that I frequent, as well as many of the excellent links provided by Patricia Bauer's website. I watched the interviews with Ben Stiller on Good Morning America and on Nightline, as well as watched the various reports on CNN concerning the protests. The editor of the online magazine that I just started contributing to also called for a boycott, as did all the other contributors. I read how the Special Olympics, ARC and many Down syndrome organizations support the boycott, and have even launched a new campaign to help bring an end to the use of the "R" word, as it's often called.
I've also read literally dozens of well-written, thoughtful, provocative and heartfelt posts on blogs that I subscribe to via Google Reader, many of them angry, others hurt, most just wanting to support their children, as I do.
But after seeing Tropic Thunder, I still cannot support the boycott. Nor can I sign a petition calling for a ban of the "R" word.
First, my thoughts on the film. I did laugh. It is funny. Robert Downey Jr. is amazing to watch, Ben Stiller's "straight man" comedic timing is spot on and Tom Cruise, well, his performance will haunt me for quite some time as he conjures up one of the funniest characters I've seen on the screen in a long time. Aside from his performance on Oprah, of course. But the film wasn't that funny. Not side-splitting funny like I've read in some reviews. Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind, or was wondering how I was going to pay for Ian's hearing aids or maybe it was just after 9pm and past my bedtime.
And the satire? I'm sorta-kinda in the biz; I've worked with many local prima donna actors and producers. Shot some behind the scene footage on some low budget films. So I got all the film industry references, and they were mostly funny, but more "Yeah, I know someone like that" kind of funny. I got the references to big budget films, to sequels, to high-maintenance actors, etc. But the use of irony and parody were, well, a bit weak. The Family Guy is much better satire; it's tighter, smarter, more self-aware and sheds more light on hidden truths, which is what comedy and satire aspires to do. At least good comedy. The film's saving grace were the performances, the high budget feel and just enough laughs to keep you wanting more.
I give the film three out of five Rambo knives.
(Next: Simple Jack and "retards")
More challenges
I did go to a nearly sold out screening of Tropic Thunder last night, feeling very much like a scab crossing the picket line. Since the issues surrounding the film are so important - and wrapped in emotion - I want to think over what I really thought about it a little more. I'll probably get to posting about it tomorrow.
The sleep test conclusions show that Ian does in fact have hearing loss in the 25 - 50 decibel range, which unfortunately is where most conversation lies. (The doctors classify this as "mild to moderate" hearing loss, but I don't think those terms are very helpful.) In other words, 50 to 100% of average spoken conversation will be missed without hearing aids. (On this chart, if you look at the left-hand column you'll see the dB ranges and what Ian will misses in that range.)
Next steps? Get molds made of Ian's ears, have hearing aids fitted, run tests to make sure the amplification is only amplifying the sounds he is missing and not other decibel ranges, starting speech therapy and then trying to help Ian keep the little $5000 buggers in.
I'm so glad we caught this sooner than later. I know it's going to be a major hassle for Ian - and for Annie - who spends enough time in waiting rooms as it is, but I can't wait for the day when I get to hear Ian compose his first sentence.
Even if it is, "Dad, I flushed my hearing aids down the potty."
The sleep test conclusions show that Ian does in fact have hearing loss in the 25 - 50 decibel range, which unfortunately is where most conversation lies. (The doctors classify this as "mild to moderate" hearing loss, but I don't think those terms are very helpful.) In other words, 50 to 100% of average spoken conversation will be missed without hearing aids. (On this chart, if you look at the left-hand column you'll see the dB ranges and what Ian will misses in that range.)
Next steps? Get molds made of Ian's ears, have hearing aids fitted, run tests to make sure the amplification is only amplifying the sounds he is missing and not other decibel ranges, starting speech therapy and then trying to help Ian keep the little $5000 buggers in.
I'm so glad we caught this sooner than later. I know it's going to be a major hassle for Ian - and for Annie - who spends enough time in waiting rooms as it is, but I can't wait for the day when I get to hear Ian compose his first sentence.
Even if it is, "Dad, I flushed my hearing aids down the potty."
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
ENT, ABR and NUTS
Updated
Ian meets with the ENT at 11:00 then has his ABR test an hour after that. Because the test requires the use of anesthesia, he hasn't been able to eat all morning. And because it's a sleep test, he hasn't been able to take his morning nap either.
Silvi stayed the night with my parents and Annie's trying to keep Ian's mind off food and sleep with a walk in the park. I'm at work and haven't heard from her so I'm hoping he's not too uncomfortable.
An ABR at noon? Nuts.
Update 3pm: Ian is still in an anesthesia-induced sleep and everything is going well. One little boy is going to be famished when he wakes up, which should be in an hour or so.
Ian meets with the ENT at 11:00 then has his ABR test an hour after that. Because the test requires the use of anesthesia, he hasn't been able to eat all morning. And because it's a sleep test, he hasn't been able to take his morning nap either.
Silvi stayed the night with my parents and Annie's trying to keep Ian's mind off food and sleep with a walk in the park. I'm at work and haven't heard from her so I'm hoping he's not too uncomfortable.
An ABR at noon? Nuts.
Update 3pm: Ian is still in an anesthesia-induced sleep and everything is going well. One little boy is going to be famished when he wakes up, which should be in an hour or so.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Thursday, August 07, 2008
A year with Ian
You can read my monthly post over at 5minutesforspecialneeds today:
Ian will be a year old in a couple of weeks.
I’ve been asked to write once a month about raising a son with Down syndrome. To be perfectly honest, this is going to be difficult for me. If I had been asked to write about my thoughts and experiences just a few months ago, I would have had a lot of things to say. If you visit my blog and scroll back through the first few months of Ian’s life, you can read about many of my struggles and feelings.
Ian’s Down syndrome was a surprise, completely unanticipated. More shocking than jumping into a cold river in springtime. I wrote and blogged and talked about Down syndrome, so much so that I just ran out of things to say on the subject.
But I can tell you lots about Ian. He’s started giggling every day when I get home. He laughs easily and heartily. He won’t stop squealing with delight when we go for walks in the evening, so loudly and continuously that it’s kind of embarrassing. He loves the pool and goes into a trance as he floats in his little blue tube, when he’s not splashing and laughing. He can’t crawl yet, but is somehow able to quickly roll across the living room floor in order to pull our cat’s tail. And he loves his big sister, even though she swipes his pacifier.
I could talk about how this past year has been a huge adjustment for our family, but if you’re visiting this website, you already know that. I could tell you about Ian’s health, his heart surgery, his hearing challenges, numerous visits to the countless doctors, but again, you know all that too.
So what can I say about raising a son with Down syndrome?
Ian, I’m glad you’re here. I count it my greatest privilege to be your dad.
Ian will be a year old in a couple of weeks.
I’ve been asked to write once a month about raising a son with Down syndrome. To be perfectly honest, this is going to be difficult for me. If I had been asked to write about my thoughts and experiences just a few months ago, I would have had a lot of things to say. If you visit my blog and scroll back through the first few months of Ian’s life, you can read about many of my struggles and feelings.
Ian’s Down syndrome was a surprise, completely unanticipated. More shocking than jumping into a cold river in springtime. I wrote and blogged and talked about Down syndrome, so much so that I just ran out of things to say on the subject.
But I can tell you lots about Ian. He’s started giggling every day when I get home. He laughs easily and heartily. He won’t stop squealing with delight when we go for walks in the evening, so loudly and continuously that it’s kind of embarrassing. He loves the pool and goes into a trance as he floats in his little blue tube, when he’s not splashing and laughing. He can’t crawl yet, but is somehow able to quickly roll across the living room floor in order to pull our cat’s tail. And he loves his big sister, even though she swipes his pacifier.
I could talk about how this past year has been a huge adjustment for our family, but if you’re visiting this website, you already know that. I could tell you about Ian’s health, his heart surgery, his hearing challenges, numerous visits to the countless doctors, but again, you know all that too.
So what can I say about raising a son with Down syndrome?
Ian, I’m glad you’re here. I count it my greatest privilege to be your dad.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Long Way Down
Went to see a special screening of Long Way Down in the theater last night before it's released on DVD. Follows Ewan McGregor and his friend Charley Boorman as they ride motorcycles from Scotland to South Africa. Favorite part was when Ewan visited the site of the original Star Wars film in Tunisia and stood next to his poster without being recognized by any of the many passing tourists.Six degrees of separation: My documentary filmmaker friend John who I sometimes blog about was shooting for another program in Africa. He is a fan of the first film Long Way Round which followed the two as they circumnavigated the globe. Anyway, John was in an airport in Africa and saw Ewan and Charley at the end of the terminal, dressed for the ride. He shouted their names but couldn't get their attention.
Don't know if that really qualify as "six degrees..." but it's a fun story nonetheless. I recommend both series of films for some good vicarious travel.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Good Search
I recently found a very cool, and easy, way to raise money for your favorite charity. Instead of using Google (which I use religiously) or Yahoo as your primary search engine, use goodsearch.com and they will donate to the charity of your choice (I'm supporting our local DS organization) based on the number of searches you do. I'll bet I can raise at least 5 - 7 cents a day based on how much work I do online. (That's over $200 a year). You can raise even more if you shop through their goodshop.com, which has links to most online stores like Amazon and Target.Check it out.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Depth of field
I have a little cheap camcorder (on the left) that takes the worst footage but is so convenient. Tonight I was determined to create a camcorder that was both easy to take with us (unlike my professional camera) and also captures good footage. I went to the hardware and camera store and for about $25 of PVC and fittings, made a rough depth-of-field adaptor. I got the wrong kind of focusing screen so I have a "dot" right in the middle of every shot, but when I exchange it tomorrow, I think I'll be pleased with the final results.I shot all this footage a couple of hours ago in front of my office.
Five Minutes for Special Needs
I've been asked to contribute a monthy post to the brand new website, Five Minutes for Special Needs. I think it's a super valuable site for parents to find others who are going through similar experiences and to stay connected. Hope you drop in.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Documentary group at sea
My buddy John with Nat. Geo. is on a Navy ship filming for three weeks. He and I started a Doc Group a few years ago, and he's showing the films on the ship. First documentary group on a Navy ship at sea...Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
Tubes
Ian went in for his fifth hearing test today. Big fat F. Guess who's getting tubes in two weeks? I said, "GUESS WHO'S GETTING TUBES IN TWO WEEKS?"
Sunday, July 06, 2008
New Office
I'm super excited about finally moving into my own office. I still have my day job, but am working on making my own business viable. I completely redesigned the website over the weekend; check it out here at www.narrowridge.com. I eventually also would like to offer some videos that address certain Down syndrome issues. My office is about a hundred yards away from our apartment, convenient to say the least. Silvi and I went and grabbed a few shots of it a minute ago.
Famous Dave's restaurant is right around the corner, as is our little coffee shop.
From my office window, I look down on the main steet of Linden Hills.
My office is on the second floor, looking toward our little downtown area.
Famous Dave's restaurant is right around the corner, as is our little coffee shop.
From my office window, I look down on the main steet of Linden Hills.Friday, July 04, 2008
My parents and Star Wars
My Mom has always been a huge fan of Star Wars, so last night for their forty-second wedding anniversary we treated them to the exhibition here in town with all the original props and costumes from the films. Here's a few pictures:
Monday, June 30, 2008
Twitter II
I'm really glad I signed up for Twitter; I use my blog as a journal of my days and haven't been too faithful writing lately. So being able to preserve at least a little of what I'm doing day-to-day is a great help. Hope to break out of this writing funk sooner than later.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Toddler theology
Silvi stumped me last night.
She was stomping on ants.
"Silvi, remember how we talked about how it's better for things to live than to kill them?"
"Uh huh." Stomp stomp.
"Come on, Sivli. Stop killing the ants."
"But you said dead things go to be with God. I want them to be with God."
"Umm..."
"And you said God helps us. God can help these ants, right?"
"Umm..."
She leans down and talks to a crushed ant. "Come on, little guy. It's OK. You can get better."
"Uh, Silvi, just stop stepping on ants, OK?"
She was stomping on ants.
"Silvi, remember how we talked about how it's better for things to live than to kill them?"
"Uh huh." Stomp stomp.
"Come on, Sivli. Stop killing the ants."
"But you said dead things go to be with God. I want them to be with God."
"Umm..."
"And you said God helps us. God can help these ants, right?"
"Umm..."
She leans down and talks to a crushed ant. "Come on, little guy. It's OK. You can get better."
"Uh, Silvi, just stop stepping on ants, OK?"
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Summer of fairs
It's turning into the summer of art fairs and street festivals. Three weeks ago was the Grand Old Day in St. Paul, two weeks ago was the Excelsior Art on the Lake, last week we went to the Stone Arch Festival in the Minneapolis Riverfront District and this weekend (this afternoon, actually) we head to Hayward, Wisconsin for the Musky Fest.We'll stay in a cabin on the lake with my parents, who are finishing up a two-week writing sabbatical. They're both trying to finish up books and are hoping two weeks in the boonies will do it. Personally, I need the sounds of clinking coffee cups to write, but that's just me. They talked about hearing bears scrounging around in the night (saw a few of them, big ones); don't know how much writing I would get done wondering if a bear was going to wander onto the porch, looking for an afternoon snack.
And the rest of the summer? A Twins baseball game on July 5th, my company's employee picnic the following weekend, the Uptown Art Fair in the beginning of August, then a week in Chicago and Detroit with family. A trip to Los Angeles in September and that about does it for the summer of 2008.
So, are you supposed to run or stay still if you meet a bear in the woods?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
