Reel People: Ashton Kutcher is Steve Jobs

The film is Jobs (originally titled jOBS). The film is directed by Joshua Michael Stern, with a script written by Matt Whitely.

Steve Jobs

Steven Paul Jobs was born February 24, 1955 in San Francisco, California. His parents met at the University of Wisconsin where his Syrian-born father, Abdulfattah "John" Jandali, was a young teacher who's girlfriend, a student Joanne Carole Schieble became pregnant. Joanne's parents objected to the relationship and put there  baby up for adoption.

The baby was adopted by Paul Reinhold Jobs and Clara Jobs, both of whom did not have college degrees.

The Jobs family moved to Mountain View, California when Steve was 5. Paul was a mechanic who taught Steve how to fix things and build things, while Clara an account for a high tech firm Varian Associates.

In school Jobs was encouraged to skip two years because of his test scores, but his parents decided to only advance him one year. During his high school years he was interested in electronics.

Upon graduating from high school in 1972, Jobs enrolled at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. Due to the cost of the school and his parents income he dropped out after 6 months, and then began dropping in and auditing classes while sleeping on the floor of friends dorm rooms and getting food by returning soda bottles and dropping in on free meals offered at a Hare Krishna temple.

In 1973 Steve Jobs returned to California to take a job as a technician Atari, Inc. in Los Gatos, California. Where he had a reputation for being smart as well as arrogant. In 1974, Job went to India for a spiritual enlightenment trip. Which upon his return had him practicing Zen Buddhism, shaving his head, wearing Indian clothing, and having experimented with LSD.

Jobs returned to Atari were he began working with Steve Wozniak to reduce the number of chips needed for the Atari game Breakout.

In 1976, Jobs and Wozniak, along with another Atari employee Ronald Wayne, would co-found Apple Computer Company when Wozniak invented the Apple I computer. They were working in Job's parents garage while they tried to sell the product.

In 1978, Jobs and girlfriend Chris Ann Brennan had a baby, Lisa Brennan-Jobs. Chris had the raise the daughter initially on welfare while Steve Jobs denied paternity claiming he was sterile. Steve and Chris would break up and Jobs would remain uninvolved in Lisa's life for some time.

In 1980 Jobs found his birth mother, as well as let him know about his biological sister author Mona Simpson. (They would keep their relationship to one another secret until 1986, when Mona introduced him at a party for her first book).

With some investment the company was able to grow including the development of a mouse-driven interface and a personal computer for business use called Apple Lisa, followed by the Macintosh developed by Jef Raskin. The computer was named after Jobs daughter. In 1984 during the Super Bowl, Apple aired the famous "1984" commercial.

Around this same time, in 1983 Jobs had hired John Sculley from Pepsi-Cola to be the CEO of Apple. Yet by 1985 a power struggle between Job and Sculley ended in the board of Apple siding with Sculley and Jobs ultimately resigning from Apple.

Steve Jobs immediately started a new company, NeXT Computer which early on was subsidized by Ross Perot.

Also around this time he purchased The Graphics Group (later named Pixar) from Lucasfilms.

In 1990 NeXT Computer released a personal computer at the cost of $9,999. The high cost made it a tough sell in the marketplace. But Jobs was dedicated to not just make a personal computer, but an interpersonal computer that featured webmail and ethernet connections. The company made their first profit in 1994.

In 1991 Steve Jobs would get married to Laurene Powell with a Buddhist monk presiding over the wedding. Their son Reed would be born later that year. Two daughters would be born of Laurene and Steve in later years, Erin in 1995 and Eve in 1998.

In 1995 Pixar released it's first film, Toy Story, with Jobs created as executive producer.

NeXT Computer created WebObjects in 1996, and the company was acquired by Apple Inc. in 1996 for $427 million. This brought Jobs back to Apple. Steve Jobs convinced Apple's board to remove CEO Gil Amelio in 1997 (shortly after the stock fell, in part due to Steve Jobs anonymous selling 1.5 million shares), and Jobs became the CEO of Apple again shortly after.

Jobs was involved with innovation and product development at Apple Inc., including the January 2001 Jobs release of Apple's first generation iPod.

In October 2003 Jobs was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, which he announced to his staff in 2004. Jobs view of alternative medicine led him to make decisions that many now view potentially cost him his life.

In January 2006 Jobs negotiated a deal with Bob Iger for Disney to purchase Pixar in an all stock transaction worth $7.4 billion making Jobs the largest single stock holder of The Walt Disney Company's stock.

Under Jobs, In 2007 Apple entered the phone market with the iPhone.

Battling health issues Jobs took a 6 month leave in 2009 at which point he underwent a liver transplant.

In August 2011, Jobs resigned as CEO but remained Chairman of the Board.

Steve Jobs died October 5, 2011 in Palo Alto of respiratory arrest due to complications associated with his pancreatic cancer.

Jobs

The film Jobs tells the story of Steve Jobs life from 1971 to 2011. The independent film features in addition to Aston Kutcher as Jobs also features Josh Gad as Steve Wozniak and Matthew Modine as John Sculley.

The film premiered in 2013 as the closing film at the Sundance Film Festival.

Will Ashton Kutcher's portrayal of the iconic visionary receive awards attention, and maybe even an Oscar nomination for this performance as a Reel (Real) Person?

Saturday Morning Cartoons, PBS, Toddlers & The Victory Garden

When my wife and I just had one kids, my daughter hardly knew the name of a character on a TV show. TV just wasn't part of her life.

Yet, when we had our son when she was about three she probably started watching more TV for a variety of reasons, one of those being it was a good way to keep her occupied if someone was busy feeding or changing a baby.

Now my daughter is five, my son is about two-and-a-half, and we have another son who's 10 months old.

The 10 month old doesn't watch TV, but the older two do. And generally we've found that putting in a DVD gives us as parents some distinct advantages over TV.

1. We can control exactly what they're watching
2. We have more control over the start/end/duration
3. The shows are commercial free

Yet, there are times and situations where TV is easier or more convenient that a DVD. Not to mention, might offer a little more variety if the current DVDs on hand (typically form the library) are over-played and tired.

In our house if the kids watch cartoons on TV it's going to be PBS. For our family, PBS offers the most family-friendly and educational programming. Our kids love Cat in the Hat, Thomas the Train, Curious George, and  Super Why! These shows tend to be the shows on if we turn on PBS sometime in the morning.

Yet, the biggest "crisis" comes the morning we might turn to PBS the most. Saturday! Saturday morning seems like the perfect day for morning cartoons and yet we run into the most issues on this day if we try to turn on the tube.

The kids might wake up sometime around 6:30 or 7:00 and I'll escort them downstairs and turn on PBS in hopes of eeking out an extra hour of sleep. And yet, at 7:30 they come up stairs alerting us of a crisis.

In our market, after an episode of Super Why! at 7:00 in the morning, the show transitions at 7:30 to PBS's long running gardening show The Victory Garden, which is only made worst in the following episodes which are sewing and quilting shows.

Logically, it seems that there would be other options.

This past week while on the road in a hotel, we were getting ready and thought we'd put on some cartoons for the kids. Yet, the networks strike out Saturday morning at 7:30. While PBS is airing The Victory Garden,   the Network channels are showing local news (hardly toddler appropriate), and the Tour de France.

We were in a hotel with basic cable, but even the kids and cartoon channels had shows I think are hardly toddler appropriate, namely, Nickelodeon was airing non-stop SpongeBob Squarepants.

I am strongly against SpongeBob namely because it seems really dumb, but also because of the research done a couple years back by the journal Pediatrics which was reported to significantly impact attention in children (specifically four-year-olds in the study).

So, we were without any options, and that's okay...because we can pass on Saturday morning cartoons.

Yet - as a non-expert in the industry, it seems to me anecdotally that there are simply less option regarding Saturday morning cartoons than when I was a child. And generally, it seems that the options available are of a lower quality -- both at an educational and entertainment level.

I want to blame The Victory Garden and PBS for not airing an episode of Curious George at 7:30, but maybe instead this should help me appreciate the programming that PBS does create and that it is entertaining, educational, and engages my toddlers.

Me & Facebook: Part IV - The Never Ending Reunion

I haven't really been interested in an attending a formal high school or college reunion.

There are definitely certain friends and acquaintances who I would like to reconnect with if I had the chance. Some I have seen and spent time with since college, others I haven't.

But generally, anything I would hope to get out of a high school or college reunion I probably have gotten out of Facebook.

In my last post in this series I talked a lot about how Facebook for me (and many in my feed) seems to be about posting and sharing pictures of your children. And the reality is, this is the phase of life those I graduated from high school and college are currently in.

Perhaps you're feed looks different.

There are a lot of good things about reunions, but there are also some negative stigma to these gatherings.

One of the things is that people are concerned about how they are presented, where they are in life, and do what they can to put on a good face. Facebook is no different. Because of the day-in-day-out nature of Facebook some of this is eliminated, but Facebook can also seem disingenuous. I can look at someone's pictures and comments, but I get a much better sense of how they are in person. Facebook can create a false impression - largely in part because the person is posting often through the lens of how they want to be perceived.

On the other hand, this "good face" that is presented is not necessarily awful - I think in general Facebook is a better place when it's positive. If people posted all of their troubles, concerns, struggles, and trials not only would Facebook be a downer, but it also might not be an appropriate place to share these details with the scope of the audience.

I hate to admit it, but sometimes I see someone I'm friends with on Facebook, particularly females who's names have changed in marriage and I wonder "who is this person?" There's only a handful of friends in my Facebook profile who make me scratch my head on occasion, but it's worth considering when you post all types of details of your life whether the audience...a very wide audience in many cases is appropriate.

Another thing I hate to admit, is that there are certain people in my Facebook world who I unintentional watch their life in a fishbowl. My wife and I might be having a conversation and we might say "Did you see what that person said today." And we discuss a "Facebook friend" without the friend being included in the conversation. Not just that, but there might not be a context (natural or unnatural) where I will even talk to this person at all, and yet I know about things in their life that are very real and personal.

I wonder who reads my Facebook post or comments and think things about me in ways I can't imagine. We like to think that when we see those thumbs up liking our post that there is a general consensus that is positive about us, our lives, our families, our hobbies and so forth. But we must acknowledge that there are the comments that are written and those that are thought and spoken offline.

This is a reality, and we pretend it's not true. Some of these offline thoughts might be judgmental ("Whoa, he's getting fat/bald/unhappy"), but there are also thoughts of hurt, loneliness, and disappointment that occur offline. Life brings curve balls with careers, families, and relationships and I can think of many examples where people have shared feeling hurt over something someone else (or people) posted on Facebook.

I hesitate to write real examples for someone to read this and realize that they have hurt feelings or that their hurt is being exposed here. So I avoid the examples intentionally. But I think you can probably think of examples when you've felt down after a time on Facebook. If you haven't, you've certainly heard people who have been down.

For those who are perpetually down of fixated on watching certain people's lives through the fishbowl of Facebook, Facebook becomes a never ending reunion. For all the positive things that come at a reunion, the negative comes as well. And sometimes there's probably a point where we all can deserve a break from the reunion.

Maybe it's just me who feels like I need a break from the reunion. It's not a single reason - but I think there's something that's fitting for me to spend time with the people I want to spend time with. Pick up the phone if I want to share something, and be focused about what and who I'm sharing with. If I have a cute picture of the kids I want to share, maybe I text it to a friend or two instead of the hundreds of people in my Facebook world. I don't expect I'm skipping the reunion - just considering not going to the reunion every day or so.

Posts in the Me & Facebook Series:
• Part I - My Reluctant Beginning

• Part II - Life Events Post-College
• Part III - Likes, iPhones, and Babies Become Kids
• Part IV - The Never Ending Reunion
• Part V - Controlling Transparency

Me & Facebook - Part III: Likes, iPhones & Babies Become Kids

If you've been reading the series (see Part I and Part II), or even if you haven't, you can imagine what this post might say. But even still, you're going to read it because there's a part of you that knows when it comes to Facebook these things have made Facebook a crazy beast of a monster.

One of the premises for this series is that from the time I first joined Facebook eight years ago not only has Facebook changed a lot, but so have I. These unrelated changes have a pretty significant interplay.

There was a pretty significant period of time when I didn't really log into Facebook. It didn't really have much to offer me. Those first years of rapid change post college had passed and I generally knew where people were, who they were dating or married to, and wasn't interested in seeing if they had made updates to there "about me" page on Facebook (you remember the page that showed your favorite TV shows, movies, and music).

My wife's interest hadn't waned in those years. She was interested in seeing people's vacation pictures and other thing things they uploaded (kid pictures, cat pictures, whatever...well...maybe not the cat pictures).

Yet, things started getting hot on facebook - suddenly more and more people were joining and they were posting more than ever. They were posting there day to day events, their thoughts, their feelings, and pictures of their food.

The Like Button

On February 9, 2009 Facebook unveiled the "like" button and I definitely feel like this changed the Facebook experience. Admittedly, I didn't really get it at first. I'm sure I criticized it. I know I teased my wife about logging on to "like" things.

To me the term seemed week and suddenly now when you were flipping through your friends trip to see Aunt Tilda you "liked" the one they posted of the sunset, and your friend playing with their nieces.

iPhones

It wasn't just iPhones, obviously it was a lot of different types of brands, but the Smart Phone Explosion played a huge roll in the Facebook experience. Now you had a high quality camera that could quickly add pictures and thoughts in a moment. It wasn't downloading pictures into a Facebook album when you had the chance, it was instant. Now you saw the friends sunset with Aunt Tilda the moment it was taken. 

You might not have a lot to say about the sunset, but you could "like it." And you did.

Babies Become Kids

Probably more pictures get taken of children than any other subject. My parents have a slide projector and while there is a variety of subjects, it's me and my sister as kids that fill most the cubes in the closet.

So it's reasonable that nothing changed with a more readily available camera in your purse or pocket that allowed you to take pictures of any thing you saw. I of course loved taking pictures of my babies, why would anything change when months turned to years.

Babies Become Kids + iPhones

And if you could take a picture in an instant of your favorite subject, why not take it one step further and post it on Facebook

Babies Become Kids + iPhones + Likes

And if I upload a picture (my food, my sunset, my kid) and can instantly get feedback (like a dozen or so likes) it can be a decent interactive and ego stoking activity. I have to think there must be some endorphins shooting through your system when other people affirm something about your kid. Whether it's there looks, there messes, their accomplishments, or your parenting.

Don't get me wrong, I like seeing pictures of people's lives, but as many kids grew into the toddler stage there was more to post than ever. Every day is an adventure with young kids. Some days are good, some days are bad, and some days are simply wonderful. And you have an instant place to post these things and receive feedback.

And it's more than likes you also get encouragement. If you're having a rough experience the comments come in ("Don't worry, you're doing great."). If you do something creative say bake a cake, sew pajamas, or redecorate their room, you get more encouragement (something like "You're such a great mom," or "How do you do it."). And if it's just a picture of the kid, or go on a trip, or take a picture of a kid with a grandparent and you get encouraging feedback.

People post more than just there kids, but admittedly, with three of my own I realize that my most common Facebook subject (and the one that by virtue of comments and likes) get the most interest are one's involving my kids.

And to what end? I do want to share my life with many people who I connect with on Facebook. And I'm not slumming for likes and comments. But I like the encouragement, or even the feeling that other people care about my life and kids.

There's no general criticism here. This is what it is. I am also guilty. Yet, I've wondered where it stops? Do you stop posting your kids every move when they some day get their own Facebook accounts. I am friends with some teenagers and their parents on Facebook and I don't see these parents regularly posting pictures of their grades on their high school homework, results of their doctors appointments, or pictures of them on their first day of school. And sure, some do, but I don't anticipate I will document my teens every move online.

So when does it stop. When do I stop posting pictures of my kids. Sharing funny things they say and do? In the same way my life will change in the years to come (anticipated and unanticipated), the Facebook experience undoubtably will as well (as shown by it's track record).

It's incredible to me how much these three forces (likes, iPhones, and Babies Becoming Kids) have dramatically changed the Facebook experience. And years back when I would go weeks without checking Facebook, I find it hard to go many days without logging in. If I'm not logging in to see what you and your kids are up to, I'm posting a tidbit of me and my kids.

Thinking about this, I've been compelled recently to cut this back a bit - wondering to what ends or purposes I am posting these things.

Posts in the Me & Facebook Series:
• Part I - My Reluctant Beginning

• Part II - Life Events Post-College
• Part III - Likes, iPhones, and Babies Become Kids
• Part IV - The Never Ending Reunion
• Part V - Controlling Transparency

Me & Facebook - Part II: Life Events Post-College

In 2005, a couple years out of college I had just gotten married. I still lived in the town I had attended college but many of my relationships were changing. People were moving, getting married, taking prestige jobs in big cities, interning, doing mission work, and moving in different directions (literally and figuratively).

I often think that people who attended college during or in close proximity to the turn of the millennium like e-mail more than a lot of other generations. We figured out in college without a predominant cell phone presence, Facebook, or text messaging how to communicate with one of the original social networks, e-mail.

Yet, even though many of us were trying to stay in touch via e-mail and the growing ability to call one another via cell phones, there were just certain people who you didn't keep in touch with via e-mail or making a call.

You still cared about where they were going, what they were going. Even if you didn't attend the wedding (or get invited) you were interested in seeing a photo (including who else was at the wedding). And when people moved, or came back in town you wanted to know at least where they were.

Facebook updates in the early stage seemed generally light for most people. People didn't daily post an update of what they were doing, but they were quick to update relationship statuses, where they lived, or where they were attending graduate school.

Yet, looking back at my own photo album, something crazy happened. I had a baby. A couple of moves that were partially documented on Facebook. A very visits with friends and vacations, but nothing was so transforming to my Facebook experience as having a baby.

For starters, we had to consider how we would break the news on Facebook. After breaking the news my wife would post updated pictures of her baby bump but the real action happened when our daughter was born.

It was 2008 and now we had moved a few times since college, many of our Facebook friends lived all over the country and we were at home and what better thing to do than post pictures of our baby, people visiting our baby, our baby laying there, playing with toys, being held, and so forth.

We were stuck at home in a way we hadn't been previously, and we were using our digital camera and uploading pictures more than ever.

At this time, I had a phone that could take pictures, but certainly not one that could upload them directly to Facebook. Plus, I think my phone could only take around 30-60 photos, and the quality was decent, but not something you would probably post.

For us, anything that went on Facebook up to this point came from a digital camera, which is why Facebook pictures typically had been big events previously (weddings, vacations, etc) that we took with a digital camera. Most everything we took pictures of we put on Kodak Gallery (a company/site which doesn't even exist anymore), but there was something fun and rewarding about posting them on Facebook and getting a comment or two. Remember, in 2008 there was no "liking" yet, so if we got a response, it was a comment. (More on "liking" in a later post).

And so really for the first years of Facebook until 2008 Facebook was focused on big events, staying connected with the who, what, where of friends (mostly college, but by now some high school friends as well).

Yet Facebook was evolving. More people had joined Facebook by this time, at a personal level, my mom had joined and was one of the people commenting on the pictures of my newborn.

Also as a random memory of Facebook...Facebook was trying out some new things, it was around this time that Facebook let you give "gifts" on Facebook - which was little pictures you could give to people. You got a free gift to give, but after that they cost a dollar. These gifts were a way some people spiced up birthday greetings. These gifts were also a way to put something funny on someone's wall, like toilet paper or a thong. Gifts could be anonymous, and each picture had a limited number that could be given.

 But for me, I logged into Facebook infrequently. My wife was probably far more apt to read Facebook, post on Facebook, and keep up with what was going on in people's lives via Facebook. While I was tagged in pictures holding my baby.

Posts in the Me & Facebook Series:
• Part I - My Reluctant Beginning

• Part II - Life Events Post-College
• Part III - Likes, iPhones, and Babies Become Kids
• Part IV - The Never Ending Reunion
• Part V - Controlling Transparency

Photo Credit: Photo above is from TheFamilyofBoyds.blogspot.com, I don't know these people but flipping through my own Facebook pictures found at least one that was very similar. Not wanting to post unsolicited pictures of my friends I opted for one that was already online.

Me & Facebook - Part I: My Reluctant Beginning

The picture above is real. The names and picture have been changed to protect the innocent. Namely, me.

When I joined Facebook in 2005 many of my friends had long been on Facebook. In fact, one of my first wall posts I received was the one above. Pointing out this sense that I was "late to the party."

I felt this way - and I didn't really understand what Facebook was. I teased my then fiancee and her roommates (who were still in college) about their Facebook stalking and there excitement at finding people they new to be their friend.

I wasn't that intrigued, but decided to join the party sometime during the fall of 2005. I was out of college, and at that time you could only create a Facebook account if your college was one that was recognized and you had an e-mail address ending with a college extension. Even though I was out of college our school provided alumni e-mail addresses and I used this to create a Facebook page.

I wondered if I was irrelevant having a Facebook but account but not being in college, I even started a Facebook group called something-like "I'm So Uncool I Didn't Join Facebook Until I Was Out of College."

At that time, Facebook was a little different so creating a "group" was like "tagging" something to your profile, and others joined my group (mostly at my invitation) but it really didn't mean anything or add an value to the Facebook experience.

So this was my beginning. At the time of starting up the account it seemed like a race to see how many people you could be friends with, see who might be connected to who, and beyond that the experience for me was kind of flat.

It was 2005 and to me Facebook was very much a college thing, and in some ways I had the feeling that it wasn't for me. Facebook had started by Mark Zuckerberg in in February 2004 and by fall 2005 it seemed like a thing of the past to me, and perhaps to others as well (by evidence of the initial comment I received).

Eight years after I joined, Facebook has changed dramatically. Facebook didn't reach it's first 100 million users until August of 2008, 500 million in 2010, and it topped a billion in fall 2012. So in many ways I was in the early group of Facebook users.

I joked about joining after college, but now Facebook is open up to 13 year-olds and up (although there are estimated to be a millions under the age of 13 with accounts), and there are many many people who are well past college age on Facebook.

Facebook has become a part of our culture. Not only have they made an Oscar nominated film about Facebook (The Social Network), it also is a publicly traded stock, it makes the news regularly, and companies frequently attempt to advertise and contact to people through the site.

I was reluctant to start using Facebook, I had avoided some other social networking sites at the time I joined Facebook, namely sites like Xanga weblogs and Myspace. Although I did use AOL instant messenger regularly in years previously, and it seemed like the connection I had with others via AOL was be supplanted  with Facebook. So perhaps, post-college wanting to connect I bit the bullet.

Yet, now eight years since I became a member, not only has Facebook changed, but I have as well. Recently, I've been wondering what place Facebook has in my life, and so I am beginning this series called me and Facebook, sharing and working through some of the thoughts I've had recently about the Facebook social networking experience.

Enjoy and feel free to share your own thoughts as well.

Posts in the Me & Facebook Series:
• Part I - My Reluctant Beginning

• Part II - Life Events Post-College
• Part III - Likes, iPhones, and Babies Become Kids
• Part IV - The Never Ending Reunion
• Part V - Controlling Transparency

The Man Who Walked Between the Towers: "Now the towers are gone."

We got into a little bit of bed time story rut recently and I've updated our library books with some new books (some winners and some others that will be making a trip back to the library).

Today I was reading a book to my just-turned-five-year-old daughter called The Man Who Walked Between The Towers by Mordicai Gerstein. This 2003 award winning children's book is a beautifully illustrated story of Philippe Petit's high wire act he performed between the Twin Towers of The World Trade Center on August 7, 1974.

I became familiar with Phillipe Petit's journey is the suspenseful Oscar winning documentary Man on Wire which came out in 2008. The story is remarkable not just for the daring and dangerous tight rope act itself, but for the efforts to break into the tours, and string the wire in the middle of the night. The true story is gold for drama and intrigue.

Now the choice to tell the story of Petit in a children's story is a little more unique, particularly since it seems like atypical story material.

Yet it's also seems clear that Gerstein was telling to story of Petit as a homage to the World Trade Center and the 9/11 tragedy.  And the output is this children's story of man who breaks onto the roof, gets charged for committing criminal acts after performing death-defying acts.

Yet when I was reading this to my daughter after all the excitement comes a page that reads a simple line "Now the tours are gone." With a picture next to it of the New York today.

My daughter stopped me, "Why are the tours gone?" She asked.

I suddenly thought to myself What was I thinking choosing this book, what is the right answer?

I don't have a long term plan of minimizing the truth about things, such as 9/11, war, terrorism, and death. But in the same way a question like "Where do babies come from?" doesn't warrant a full explanation on the heels of one's fifth birthday - I felt compelled to figure out any easy answer.

"They're gone now," I said.

This was not, enough. "Why?" she pressed.

"They were destroyed," I said.

"Why?" she asked.

"There was a day not too long ago and they were destroyed, both of them at the same time." I figured giving more information that was also vague would be enough. And in this case it was. We turned the page, finished the book and the conversation was done.

That said, it left me with a feeling that there was some recent history that probably warranted some explaining at some point, and I wasn't sure when that would happen.

There are certain parts of history that are complex, in fact a lot. Parts that aren't for explaining to young children - whether they be things like genocide, slavery, or even war for that matter.

I think I can make it a little while before I have to explain something like the two million lives lost in the genocides during the Khmer Rogue in Cambodia. Yet, I'm not sure at what age discussions about the 9/11 attacks will be a conversation at our dinner table. Will this be something that comes up in school? Will we as parents address it with her at another time? It's hard to know when it's appropriate. It's hard to talk about evil, pain, and death.

We could have discussed it today when we read The Man Who Walked Between The Towers but the timing didn't seem right. She was wanting to understand the plot point. She knew it was a real story, but to her the towers being gone seemed out of the blue in the context of the story. And I suppose, that in itself that to is part of the story. But today was not the day.

Nothing Else Like Movie Credits

Recently I was watching some movie credits and thought, what if everything around us was as self-congratulating as movie credits.

So many people get credits. Sure actors, directors, writers, and the people who provided the money to make it all happen. The camera men get credit, so do their assistants, and those who handle the lights, and buy props.

In the name of art, I can understand a lot of this.

But they also credit accountants, caterers, and the list goes on and on and on.

...And on and on and on some more.

In fact, film credits begin to look like a corporate organization chart.

And I wonder with every company's organization chart, titles included was included on every product. Obviously the font would have to be incredibly small on some products.

With if every accountant received credit on the products they made...and what if security company's got the credit for providing security on every product.

It's ridiculous, but it's an amusing thought. I don't think there's any hope in film credits getting any shorter, and really I have no reason to petition or argue that they should be. But man...some films have a lot of credits...long enough to play a handful of songs and I can't really think of a single other industry that puts so much effort into patting itself on the back this way.

Reel People: Leonardo DiCaprio is Jordan Belfort

The film is The Wolf of Wall Street. The film is directed by Martin Scorsese with a debut feature film screenplay written by Terence Winter (Sopranos producer/writer, Boardwalk Empire producer/writer/creator). The film is based on the memoir The Wolf of Wall Street by Jordan Belfort.

Jordan Belfort

Jordan Belfort was born July 9, 1962 in Queen, New York. He was the son of Jewish parents, Leah and Max Belfort, who were both accounts.

Belfort founded Stratton Oakmont, an over the counter brokerage fund in the late 1980s. As an over the counter brokerage, the firm sold outside of the market. The firm was responsible for 35 initial public offerings, including Steven Madden Ltd.

Jordan Stratton became very wealthy and developed a large and aggressive firm with over a thousand stockbrokers. During this time, he is also characterized as living a party lifestyle that included an addition to Methaqualone (brand name: Quaalude), a central nervous system depressant.

Jordan Belfort made the news in 1997 when his luxury yacht crashed off the coast of Sardinia near Italy, having gone out against the advise of his captain and requiring being rescued by the Italian Special Forces.

In 1998, Jordan Belfort would be indited for money laundering firm came under suspicion for some of it's practices and would be charged with a pump and dump scheme in which stocks were bought at one price and then false information was spread to falsely inflate the price prior and the firm would sell the stock prior to it falling back down to it's previous levels. Belfort was put in prison for a scheme that reportedly lost investor $200 million. Belfort was ordered to return $100 million of the stolen funds to stock brokers.

This scheme inspired the 2000 film Boiler Room.

Upon release from jail Jordan has published two memoirs The Wolf of Wall Street and Catching the Wolf of Wall Street.

The Wolf of Wall Street

The film tells the story of Jordan Belfort with a strong cast and crew. In addition to DiCaprio playing the lead role, the film also features Jonah Hill, Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler, Jon Favreau and Jean Dujardin.

Will Leonardo DiCaprio's portrayal of a Wall Street Master Heister receive awards attention, and maybe even an Oscar nomination (or win) for this Reel (Real) Person?

The Search for Gordon: A Family, Giving & Shopping Adventure

Before our third child came, I am embarrassed to admit it, but my wife and I spent some decent time watching a couple seasons of the TV show 7th Heaven. The Camden family stories resolve in the style of Leave It To Beaver and the fuzzy simplicity of a seven kid family is sometimes a little saccharine. But one of the family principles relates to the giving of gifts.

It's one of the Christmas episodes, I believe, and the family draws names for giving gifts and each person's gift they give for Christmas is not something that they buy at the store. Instead, the rule is that the gift has to be something that you already own, make or do.

For the past couple years our daughter, Linden (at the age of three and then four), has wanted to give a gift to her younger brother,Shepherd. In Camden family-fashion we encouraged her to give him something she already owned, make something or do something. She has opted the past two years to give him something she already has - always thoughtful to consider what he might truly like.

This past Christmas, our daughter wanted to give a gift for her brother his favorite train from her Thomas the Train set. She gave him Gordon.

Not only was he so excited to receive Gordon, she fully embraced the transfer of ownership. She would ask him if she could play with it, and she regularly checked in with him to see if he was enjoying the train.

In the snowy spring Gordon took a trip outside. Gordon stopped working in a way that a change of batteries could not repair. Gordon was kaput.

Shepherd still played with Gordon all the time, he just couldn't chug along the track.

Linden was sad that the train she gave no longer worked. It was her gift to him and it was sad to her to see him not being able to enjoy it for all of it's potential ability.

Months after it's end, she came up with a plan. It was soon going to be her birthday and she thought it would be nice for him to get a present. She knew she would be getting many gifts from her family and birthday party, that she wanted to give him a gift as well.

It's not our practice to buy gifts for our other kids when it is not their birthday. We think it's good for our children to let it be someone else's special time. Yet, it was refreshing to see this attitude of love and giving, and didn't want to stifle her generosity.

Having collected a modest amount of money in her piggy bank over the years (whether getting coins from her grandparents, taking coins from our end tables, or getting a dollar here or there from who knows where), she  wanted to buy her brother a new Gordon train to replace the one he had broke earlier in the year.

When she had shared this desire with her grandfather weeks previously he had decided to supplement her operation and passed some one dollar bills to her. He did this on a few occasions.

The day between her real birthday and birthday party we went on the hunt. Shepherd joined Linden and I loaded up, Linden had stocked up a snap wallet with bills and coins. So the adventure began.

The Thomas The Train market is flooded with way too many trains. It's not like there is a dozen different trains, there are dozens upon dozen. In addition to there being so many different trains, there are also different types of track with their own train types. We have the Trackmaster series, the trains have batteries and move along a plastic track. There is also a wooden series, a mini "take and carry" series, and probably a few more.

We started our adventure at Toys R' Us. At Toys R' Us, Thomas The Train had quite the shelf space allocated but the shelves stock was thin, picked over, and consisted primarily of trains that neither of the kids had heard of or had much interest in. The probably had 20 Dart trains (a character who neither of the kids were sure they had seen before), and a lot of Diesel 10 trains. Diesel 10 is a mean train on the island who takes scrap metal and old trains to the smelter works. This was not what Linden or Shepherd were interested in.

I had anticipated our trip to be a one stop shop adventure, but with only a choice of Dart and Diesel 10 we took our journey to Target.

Target had a smaller shelf space allotted for trains, but far more options. Unfortunately, most of the trains they had were ones already a part of our collection. In addition, they also had many trains from the feature-length movie Thomas & Friends: King of the Railway. There were many Stephen, Caitlyn, and Connor trains. All three of these trains looked very fun, but since King of the Railway (we found out later in the evening when did a little research) was not going to be out until September this wasn't really a substitute for the broken Gordon. Although, Linden seriously considered purchasing Connor. There's a teenage boy at our church named Connor she really likes and Connor the train had passenger cars, and nice pale teal color she liked.

We didn't buy at train at Target, but Shepherd had a surprise blow-out diaper and since the adventure was continuing and I didn't have a diaper bag I did buy a box of diapers and a new pair of shorts for Shepherd. Hooray surprise trip to the family bathroom.

We were Walmart bound and I told the kids it was the last stop.

I hate going to Walmart. I knew I could find Gordon the train online, and had I been buying it myself would have been prone to start and end my shopping online. But online shopping didn't give Linden the shopping experience she was looking for. Additionally, I had no problem with her giving her money to a person at a checkout register, but the experience would be lost if I put on my credit card and she gave me the money.

At Walmart, after we played with some large Superman toys in a center display aisle, we found the mismatched and unorganized Thomas The Train section. Far less appealing in it's presentation than Target and Toys R Us. Yet, in the midst of all it's mismatched stacking the options were wide.

There were no Darts, Diesel 10s, or Connors. Instead they just had a wide variety of the trains the kids liked. This wasn't the leftovers and it wasn't the next big thing. If Walmart was ever redemptive it was now.

Not only did they have Gordon they had two options. They had the standard Trackmaster Gordon (at a price that was lower than Target or Toys R Us would have sold it for), and a Talking Trackmaster Gordon that was a little over four dollars more.

Linden and I discussed the different prices, and she was interested in taking the opportunity to not just get a working Gordon, but to upgrade her previous gift with putting extra money into getting a Talking Gordon.

She gave her money to the person at the checkout register without complaint. Her worry was not giving up the money, but worry that she might not have enough. She did have enough.

It is clear from the experience she has a concept of giving, but her money concept is weak. She was very excited to get 8 cents change back. She replied back "Does that mean I get to spend this money, again."

She also observed that her coin purse was much lighter.

There were times over her birthday week that you could tell the attention and gifts had made her spoiled and in need of a temporary "birthday detox." But in this moment, she was absolutely precious. There are few times when we are more beautiful than when we truly give from our hearts.

I was proud of Linden. Shepherd's just barely two and didn't fully realize the thoughtfulness and generosity of his sister. But it was a true joy to drive them back home while the pushed the "Talking Gordon button" and repeated lines like "Oh, the indignity."

Reel People: Matt Damon is James Rorimer

 

The film is The Monument's Men. George Clooney directs with a screenplay he and Grant Heslov (Argo; The Ides of March; Good Night, and Good Luck) have adapted from the non-fiction book Robert M. Edsel's The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History.

James Rorimer

James Rorimer was born in 1905 in Cleveland, Ohio. Upon graduating from Harvard in Paul Sach's museum course in 1927 he was a rising museum superstar, quickly getting a job at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) where he became the Assistant Curator by 1929, and Associate Curator in 1932.

He became an expert in Medieval Art, he planned and developed the popular Medieval museum the Cloisters which opened in 1938. He was also a pioneer in using radiography to examine artwork.

Rorimer joined the Army infantry in 1943, and when American and British forces identified the strategy and importance behind preserving cultural artifacts during the world, the MFAA (Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archive) unit was formed. Rorimer was one of the first, recommended by his previous professor Paul Sachs.

Rorimer began his role as part of the MFAA inspecting monuments in Normandy, he was then moved within France being assigned to the Sienne section of Paris. During this time he identified a Nazi art looting operation. In the last months of the war Rorimer found himself in Germany as part of the Seventh Army where he discovered vast amounts of looted art including the castle Neuschwanstein and Heilbronn mines.

In 1950, he published a book about his experience as a Monuments Men called Survival: The Salvage and Protection of Art in War. He also returned to working at the Met after WWII, He was the director of the Cloisters. By 1955 Rorimer was appointed Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art where he successfully served as director until he died of a heart attack in his sleep in 1966.

The Monuments Men

The film The Monuments Men tell the story of Rorimer and the other monument men in the final years of WWII. In addition to Matt Damon playing the role of James Rorimer, the film also co-stars George Clooney as George Stout, another one of the Monuments Men.

Other stars include John Goodman, Cate Blanchett, Hugh Bonneville, Jean Dujardin and Bob Balaban.

It's a strong cast and crew, a unique story, and a war that both Hollywood and film-goers love to see explored in film.

Matt Damon frequently takes on biographical roles. Will Matt Damon's portrayal of a unique World War II hero receive awards attention, and maybe even an Oscar nomination (or win) for this Reel (Real) Person?

Update: The Character's name in the film was changed to James Granger after this post was initially written. 

Reel People: George Clooney is George Stout

The film is The Monument's Men. George Clooney directs with a screenplay he and Grant Heslov (Argo; The Ides of March; Good Night, and Good Luck) have adapted from the non-fiction book Robert M. Edsel's The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History.

George Stout

George Stout was born in Winterest, Iowa in 1897. Part of blue collar family he enlisted in the army and served in WWI. Following the war he studied art at the University of Iowa. Finding little success in a career post college he eventually found himself in 1926 with his pregnant wife Margie attending graduate school at Harvard with a minimal stipend.

In 1928 Stout joined the art conservation department at the Fogg Art Museum as a graduate assistant. During this time he made the notable contribution of using an old card cataglogue to begin scientifically examining the impact of paint and various chemicals over time. Stout and the department chemist John Gettens pioneered three types of important art conservation branches common today: rudiments, degradation, and reparation.

When WWII broke out Stout became an active voice for conservation of great art during the very destructive war in Europe. Ignored, he eventually enlisted himself in the Navy in 1943 where he had the job of testing paint to be used as camouflage on military aircraft.

Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts established the Roberts Commission under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's backing. The Roberts Commission took on Stout's charge that overseas art and cultural artifacts should be preserved during the war efforts, largely in part as a matter of military strategy.

Stout became one of the first members appointed to the MFAA (Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archive) unit, of which he would earn the rank of Lieutenant Commander, a group of 15 men (8 Americans, 7 British...of the 15, 8 would be in the field).

The monument men, including Stout were involved in many dangerous and operationally challenging task, including discovering stored art in booby-trapped caves and mines, particularly Merker's Mine which was discovered in the spring of 1945.

Stout departed Europe in July of 1945, and months later would be sent to Japan for similar work, where he remained until mid-1946.

After the war, Stout returned to Harvard's Fogg Art Museum until soon after in 1947 he became the director of the Worchester Art Museum in Worchester, Massachusetts. In 1955 Stout became the director of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, Massachusetts where he worked until 1970. Stout died in 1978.

The Monuments Men

The film The Monuments Men tell the story of Stout and the other monument men in the final years of WWII. In addition to George Clooney playing the role of George Stout, the film also co-stars Matt Damon as James Rorimer, another one of the Monument Men, the young curator of the Metropolitan Museum.

Other stars include John Goodman, Cate Blanchett, Hugh Bonneville, Jean Dujardin and Bob Balaban.

It's a strong cast and crew, a unique story, and a war that both Hollywood and film-goers love to see explored in film.

Will George Clooney's portrayal of a unique World War II hero receive awards attention, and maybe even an Oscar nomination (or win) for this Reel (Real) Person?

Update: The character's name was updated to Frank Stokes after this post was initially written. 

Little Lessons: Why We Don't "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe"

Me and my daughter were heading out on an errand and I told her it was time to get her shoes. Linden is almost five and like most kids her age not only has a lot of personality but is beginning to pick up all sorts of things from her peer interaction. Poor girl has me for a dad so some things lead to overly analytic conversations.

In getting her shoes she couldn't decide which pair to wear and instantly started the little rhyme "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe."

I stopped her in her tracks, having heard her do this a few times over the past week.

"We don't Eeny Meeny Miny Moe in this house," I told her.

"It's a way to make a decision," my daughter Linden says.

"It's a bad way to make a decision," I begin explaining. "What shoes do you want to wear?" I ask and she grabs her pink Crocs.

"These are what I wanted," she says putting them on.

We proceed on our car trip to talk about how there's nothing wrong about the rhyme and there's no need to correct other people when they do it, but we also discuss how the rhyme is a poor way to make a decision.

I think the lesson I shared with her is a lesson I see a lot of adults struggle with as well. Often times we are faced with choices, and at times it seems some people would prefer their decision be made by chance rather than by choice. 

Sure sometimes we can't get what we want...that's a different lesson. But when faced with a choice it's good to make a decision, a firm one, and stick with it. 

Sometimes we try to let chance guide us because we are not confident in our decisions. Maybe we don't formally chose because we don't want to hurt people's feelings (think about playing this game on the playground as a method of selecting who you will ride the tire swing with or who you do a project with). Sometimes I think we are afraid to embrace what we want for fear of what other's think or having to take responsibility for negative outcomes of our decisions. 

My daughter seemed to get it, and after much discussion, including the defining of many words and phrases (such as "random" and "chance"), she concluded that she would rather make her own decisions than leave things up to random chance. She also said she would not say the rhyme.

Correction, she identified one scenario where she thought it would be appropriate.

"I know one time when it's okay to do Eeny Meeny Miny Moe," She began. "What if I'm playing dolls, and one of the dolls does Eeny Meeny Miny Moe. Maybe my dolls doesn't know better. Would that be okay? I would never do it, but my doll can."

I have no choice to agree, as I don't want her correcting others, just making a good decision for herself. So if you see by daughter saying "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, catch a tiger by it's toe..." it's probably not for a decision she is making, but rather one her doll is making.

The Unachiveable Myth of The Super-Mom

One of the things my wife does a good job doing is telling other mom's that they're doing a good job.

We live in the land of toddlers, and so a lot of our mom exposure comes from toddler-mom-land as well.

It seems that we encounter a lot of stressed moms...whether they're stay at home moms, working moms, young moms or old moms, most moms seem to carry a burden that they're not doing enough, failing, or not rising to the occasion.

Yet, when it comes to a day like Mother's Day there is an overwhelming sense that most moms are doing something right...a sentiment that it's always shared with Father's Day.

The bar for mom's is set quite high - it's set there by a number of people, but primarily my mom's themselves.

I can come home from work and ask my wife about the day with the kids and she will often share a sentiment that the day lacked something. She might express that she felt like she lost in the world of discipline, or that there wasn't enough high quality encounters with each of our three children, or that something else wasn't quite right.

I usually listen and reassure her. Yet, when my wife is gone and I'm with the kids, I generally feel like the time was a great success. It's not that the day is actually better (it's probably far less productive, coordinated, and organized) but my attitude is different as a father. I reward myself for being there, and don't put the day through two dozen different subjective quality metrics to evaluate the day.

Comparatively, I can look at other dad's and pat myself on the back and reward myself simply for my presence. "I was there, and the kids were lucky for that," I tell myself.

Yet the bar for a woman does not seem to be set so low. Not on account of where other's have placed it, but where the mom has placed it.

The greatest mom's seem to give themselves a "C" score...barely passing, could do better.

Yet, the reality is, they're performing (generally) at an amazingly high level. Mom's make it happen, and do the very best they can, all the time, so unselfishly. My mom certainly did/does that, and my wife does as well. Yet, they are their own worst critic.

There is a myth of a super-mom that seems to pull the best of all moms into a bionic woman who does not exist, yet every (most) mom's are attempting to be.

This might be part of what make's mom's so great...but I hope mom's take time to hear the words "You're doing a great job" and believe it.