Which species are we?

Saturday evening, I took my daughter, a recent graduate of the Sustainable Occupations program at Quail Springs, to the benefit for that program at the Marjorie Luke Theater, featuring Van Jones.

He opened with this simple question, suggesting that in this century, humans will decide or demonstrate whether we are locusts, or honey bees. Will we ravage the earth leaving it barren or will we organize and socialize into a contribution to the systems that have provided the platform upon which we have succeeded to this point?

Jones articulates an optimistic compassionate and pragmatic course that focuses on what he calls the “fourth quadrant”. On the continuum of problems/solutions he adds a vertical rich/poor axis, and there on the lower right are the solutions to both our biochemical issues and our economic ones. Only through addressing the employment and nutritional (among others) aspects of this quadrant can we actually expect to succeed in the broader problems of the other three quadrants. So in bringing fresh produce to the urban poor, whether by shifting farmer’s markets there or urban farming, can we have any probability of addressing the issues that challenge the polar bear or the asthmatic. It’s right there on the quadrant chart, believe me.

Other interesting Jones observations- we have a generation of veterans, traumatized by their experience, who are coming home to no jobs, no homes, and no hope. Each month, according to the Army Times last year. 18 veterans commit suicide. There are 950 attempts each month.

Jones presentation was titled, “The Next American Economy”. As he articulates it, it generates independence and freedom at the personal, community and national levels, leveraging markets. Jones says that despite what might be said about him, or more accurately his past, he loves markets.”I would like to see a free market”, in particular in energy. He points out that the petroleum industry receives three multibillion dollar subsidies ( direct, military and tax credits) while the sustainable alternative energy producers fight to get even millions.

So are you a locust, extracting value, excreting toxins, or a honey bee, building, nourishing and enabling the reproduction of the beauty and sweetness all around you?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bad boy made good- I already missed Al before he left.

It was a tough weekend in the Bay Area. After the passing of Steve Jobs brought forth grief and praise sufficient to fatigue even those practiced in sorrow, Saturday began with the notice of the passing of Al Davis. Just as Jobs remade the tech world, creating value and wealth for many others, Al Davis did the same in football, not just on the field, but more significantly in the business.

The accounts out so far are glowing, but none that I have seen yet note the actual deeds that made Davis the genius and adversary of so many who had to deal with him. It is easy enough to call him unique because he is the only person in the NFL Hall of Fame to perform all the various duties and jobs that he did. It is another to note the actual actions, ideas and tactical approach that produced the results.

For instance as scout and assistant coach, he was among the first, in those early days of the AFL, to court a college senior and sign them in the first minutes they were eligible to do so. Most notably, Davis had a contract and pen ready for Lance Alworth on the field of the Sugar Bowl when game ended. While still in his Arkansas uniform, Alworth was a professional football player. Davis, known for his loyalty, also inspired it in others. When Alworth, who only played for Davis a year when Davis was the receivers coach in San Diego, was inducted into the Hall of Fame after a stellar career in San Diego and Dallas, it was Davis he asked to introduce him in Canton. Davis introduced more inductees than anyone else so far.

As a coach, Davis was adaptable to his situation, taking the marginally talented Raiders to a 10-4 season his first year, mainly through strategic use of stretching the field, ball control and risk taking defense. His player selection on both sides of the ball in response to his opponent’s strengths and weaknesses continually drove his peers in coaching crazy. His attention to detail, and cultivation of an elaborate information gathering network convinced his foes that he had spies everywhere. In one famous account a Charger head coach was seen screaming in a drain pipe, as if Davis had microphones there.

As a manager, his deft handling of talent, troubled and often outcast, extended if not saved many players careers, often creating triumphs such as Jim Plunkett’s two Super Bowl rings. His coaching and management hires made trends and established notable firsts in race and gender progress in the league. His personal intervention in multiple situations to aid in the health care of others revealed a charitable nature never visible on the field or in a contact negotiation.

Also somewhat neglected was the signature accomplishment of his career, and the foundation of what is now the most dominant and successful sporting enterprise of the last sixty years, the National Football League. The NFL official history starts decades before, but the 800 lb gorilla that is today’s NFL was Davis’s vision and the result of his personal dedication, convictions, and actions over many years. Starting with his time as AFL commissioner, Davis waged a widespread and often personal battle with Pete Rozelle and the owners of the then NFL. Stealing their stars, snatching college stars from under goal posts, and creating or invading the markets before the NFL had thought of them, Davis forced the discussions that led to the merger, even though he originally opposed it. He was sure he could beat those guys.

The result made all of them much richer than they had any possibility of without him. And his work on the various committees, much secretly and behind the scenes continued to make the league more attractive to television and sponsors, continued to add value to their franchises and the league they compose.

I know all this because as the son of a San Diego sports writer, I met Al Davis when I was 7 years old, along with the rest of the then staff of the Chargers, many of which went on to great things themselves. Later, when I was a student at Berkeley, Davis helped me get a job in the business of one of the minority owners of the team, and I had occasional jobs in the press box on game days while I was there. I never spoke with him, nor did I have any inside knowledge or personal contact. I knew to follow his career because after that first meeting, my father had said “that’s one of the sharpest people you could ever meet”. And my father had met a lot a successful people in a variety of fields beyond sports.

In today’s obits you will see it mentioned that his teams won three Super Bowls, and that he fought the NFL over his moving the Raiders to Los Angeles. The story is far richer and deeper. For the last of those championships occurred after the Raiders had moved. The NFL had sued Davis, and over the course of two years the fight was public and bitter, as well as expensive. Davis prevailed in the end, and when his team won the 83 title, in the ceremony after the Super Bowl, there was Pete Rozelle, a man of polish, education, and fine suits, who had fought with all the resources available to him to prevent the merger, and then stop the Raider’s move, presenting the trophy to Al Davis, the man in sweats who had bedeviled him for nearly twenty years.

I have no idea what Al Davis felt was the most satisfying moment of his life. But my favorite memory of him will always be the smile he had on his face that day, and how both men looked each other in the eye. It was the most dramatic trophy presentation I have ever witnessed.

Davis and his team have not faired so well since, although they have been in the Super Bowl in this century. His travails with contracts and coaches (five in six years at one point) as well as the tendency of young pundits to make fun of him as a doddering old fool owner, have obscured the critical contributions he made to the towering institution the NFL has become and is likely to remain well into the future. Everything that Robert Kraft is credited with in the recent negotiation to avoid labor strife, substantial as it was, is but a stripe on the flag that Al Davis stitched together.

It is much easier to imagine a young Steve Jobs out in the world today, dreaming up the next cool tech gadgets, than to see any of today’s sports figures emerging as the next great visionary of their game and its enterprise. There isn’t going to be a ‘next’ Al Davis. The man made his time, and the times he was in, far more than it could have been without him. Whatever is next for the NFL and the Raiders, it can’t be anything as outrageous and extraordinary as those explosive years when a bold young man from New York changed the game and its business. An era is truly over.

Posted in celebrity, Human Nature, Sports | Leave a comment

I might be depressed, but I’m not quitting

Just read this Monkeysphere article. The short explanation here is that society doesn’t work, because we can’t really care for more than 150 people at a time. This comes right on top of reading The Benshi essay on “The Nerd Loop” which is about how really smart people are failing to communicate that the biosphere is slowly burning down. Kind of like when the firemen can’t tell you to leave the building because it is burning. Here’s the most depressing science talk I’ve seen . 19 minutes of buzz kill. Combine this with what is on the news, on any Google news summary page, and what my ‘friends’ are posting on Facebook, and it sure seems like it is time to check the emergency supply, clean the guns and set up a perimeter. That requires deciding that you accept the limits of a 150 person tribe, that you reject the possibility that humans can succeed and you and yours aren’t part of anything beyond that perimeter.

So where are people exceeding those limits? Where is society working? Where and what is the work that works? That builds community, stability and prosperity in a way that includes more than 150 people at a time?

If you have a clue send it to me. It’s reinvention time and all suggestions are welcome.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Are we asking the right questions?

One of the benefits of living in an area that draws accomplished people is that they create foundations that do things in their name. So it was yesterday that I found myself with an opportunity to sit in a room with a bunch of smart folks from the motion picture industry, as well as a number of academics as they discussed “ Net Worth: Media Distribution in the Digital Era “. This event was a production of the Media Industries Project at the Carsey-Wolf Center .  Just in case those names aren’t familiar, reflect on the little blurb that happens at the end of every television show- in this case The Cosby Show or Roseanne, or nearly a quarter of all NBC’s line-up at one time that had “Law & Order” in the title.

Held in a very fresh state of the art Pollack Theater, there were three panels. As pointed out by Jay Roth, National Executive Director of the DGA, the real topic isn’t the ‘digital era’ as even broadcast tv today is digital, but rather ‘new media’. New Media is something of the cultural cousin to WiMax or hydrogen powered cars in that it has been the next big thing that is just about to happen for nearly 20 years, yet it still hasn’t “happened” – at least not in the sense that we have any idea how people will make a living off it in terms of the content creation side. While hardware companies, game companies and giants like Google and Facebook have emerged to make New Media a financial powerhouse for some, content creation and distribution is being marginalized amidst changes in technology, confusing over concepts like ownership, and author, and shifting consumer behaviors.

Ariana Huffington and her backers may have pulled a significant sum recently but there are a number of mitigating circumstances in that transaction to doubt its significance as being a real structural sign of anything. Evidence of this was the presence of Jonathan Handel on one panel, who made his name blogging about the 2007 WGA strike as a way to bring clients to his law firm, and ended up on Huffington Post as one of the free content creators there. In his introduction on the “Compensation & Creative Labor” panel, he noted that he hadn’t “received a check from Arianna” yet and wasn’t expecting to. Holding up his recently published book he said “Here’s my new business model” and made a modest pitch to attendees to buy one in the lobby.

Rather than report on the content, I will say that I heard a lot of new information, but nothing to suggest that the question of how to monetize content in this rapidly changing and uncertain environment is evne moving toward resolution. The conference will be posted in the near future on UCTV a great resource for all kinds of intelligence.
Here are my highlights-
Eli Noam of Columbia Business School pointed out that “conglomerate strategies” is an oxymoron like “military intelligence” and gave several examples of how specialization, either at the corporate or personal level has advantages in the current economy over generalization or large scale. The ‘synergy’ concept that drove so much of the last twenty years of mergers and acquisitions has not sustained, if in fact it ever did generate new prosperity, as opposed to just efficiencies. Using Sony repeatedly as an example, although it wasn’t clear if this was because a Sony employee was sitting next to him or because it is an especially egregious example, Noam applied this basic concept to a number of issues and questions that his panel covered.
Jay Roth pointed out that while the attention on new media has never been higher, it still only represents about 3% of the revenue, and only if we include all of Netflix revenue as new media, while the great majority of Netflix is still DVD delivery by snail mail.
Aaron Dignan of of digital strategy firm Undercurrent who himself has a book coming in March suggested that the ‘strategy for any established company” is to delay the adoption of the new until its dominance of the old is completely useless.  Given Ro’ths revenue observation, and human nature, this seems obvious but Dignan did a real service by voicing it.
Roth also pointed out that while there is a great deal of attention given the new markets ( particularly during the WGA strike) , they are not proved and negotiating for something that isn’t proven isn’t a good basis for progress. He also pointed out that the DGA received more residuals in 2010 than ever, and that the existing residual income carries the benefits package of all industry workers.
Roth and Miraada Banks were the only two of 18 panelists, who acknowledged that there are tens of thousands of people employed below the line both in and out of organized labor who’s work and lives have been impacted negatively by the transition to digital technologies, both in their workplace and the business, and that little attention is being paid to the challenges of living and working in an environment where creative work is essentially endless , high pressured and with many opportunities for abuse.
While the subject of piracy was often mentioned, little was discussed about how to deal with it. Roth and writer’s used the term ‘theft’ instead, including the theft of ideas harvested from free content on sites like YouTube that then become property of some unrelated producer.
My own question to a panel about what experiments in monetizing of content are they excited about and what ones would they like to see, went essentially unanswered, suggesting that while we have a new and unknown set of conditions, established experts and observers are not seeing any real exploration of alternative models of how to convert content to dollars. Horst Stipp, formerly with NBC and now with The Advertising Research Foundation, suggested that there is ‘lots of research being done that is proprietary” but obviously if it isn’t in the marketplace publicly, it isn’t a true trial.
Possibly the best illumination of the event, and really the entire field, for me was when I sought out a woman who had asked a very insightful question about why we are putting these issues in the context of workers of the established industry against the interests of the content consumer. I asked her how she had arrived at this question. She told me “I read about the industry a lot. It just seems to me that we aren’t asking the right questions.”

I’m looking forward to hearing her and your suggestions as to what the right ones might be.

Posted in Media | Leave a comment

An illustrative moment

The Auburn Tigers and somebody or thing named War Eagle won the NCAA BCS football Championship tonight. A well deserved victory, as the Auburn side dominated. While second year coach Gene Chizik said “God was on our side” and certainly Cam Newton and defensive standout Nick Fairley just appeared as gods, each performing above the level of their peers and the balance of the game, it was human error that was a consistent theme.
There was an entertaining game to be sure. But mistakes on both sides limited overall scoring. And that is harsh judgment on two teams that produced drama and lots of great plays. There are plenty of pundits that will go on about the individual stories, programs, what went right for who, significant plays and just what the War Eagle stuff is about. What stood out to me, beyond the social political and spiritual clash opportunities provided by the Christians from the south winning out on the pot smoking heathens from Oregonia, was what I hope leads to either a rules change or teaching players to stop the rolling pulling tackle.

The final decisive drive of the game, fittingly pulled off by Auburn, which deserved the last chance based upon their performance overall, had two similar plays reviewed. One review went Auburn’s way that meant there would be no overtime. The other denied them a touchdown that wasn’t really necessary.
On each play, #11 of the Ducks tackled the Auburn ball carrier by grabbing his elbows from behind and rolling his opponent on top of himself. This move seems to be either taught or learned by defensive players who are looking to cause a fumble and want to keep the ball carrier’s knees from the ground, so as to have longer, and thus more opportunity to separate ball and carriers. On the first most important instance, the ball carrier made an athletic move, came to his feet and stopped. At the urging of those on his sideline, he started to run once again. Players on both teams had come to a halt. An Oregon defensive player was close enough to have fallen on the two other players, but didn’t, because if the play were dead, then he would be guilty of a foul. But no whistle had blown. By the time Oregon recovered, the ball had been advanced sufficiently to know that Auburn would run the clock down, taking whatever yards closer they might get, as it was well inside their kicker’s field goal range. Yet despite the near meaningless grind that such sequences sometimes become, Auburn’s control of the line unleashed a run that appeared to score a touchdown. Same players, same sort of action. This time the knee was shown down in replay. Auburn was denied a seven point victory, and fans got championship clock management. TV got some more commercials.
While Auburn had to make the kick, the edge of the seat quality of the game was as distant as Eugene. If there had been overtime, and Oregon had pulled it out, there would be a lot of ugly ducking talk, and deservedly so. While the Ducks are god’s creatures too, it was not their night, or game.
Cam Newton, in his post game interview, witnessed for his God, making his mother and lots of Christians proud. The look in his eye made it clear that the young man, who faced the slings and arrows this season to flourish in his biggest game on the biggest stage, who took a lot of vicious hits, overthrew several sure thing TDs yet still delivered stupendous stats, was transcendent. I found his professing of faith and God so much more compelling and admirable than that of his coach, or the exciting QB he played behind at Florida, Tim Tebow. Hearing him, it made sense to me- a USC fan- that Cam Newton will not be sanctioned for his family working his name as Reggie Bush, Mike Garret, Pete Carroll and the Trojan nations were.
With Vince Young out to pasture, and Michael Vick ever to be on a redemption tour, Cam Newton has the best opportunity to truly redefine NFL quarterbacking.

Posted in Sports | Tagged | Leave a comment

Why can’t we bomb North Korea with fattening foods, and reality TV?

Somewhere between the last ‘biggest recession’, and the current one, we all got to ride a huge wave of prosperity, with more people getting to eat, be warm, and live lives with options and amenities that would have made a medieval king jealous.
Today, there are a bunch of people for whom these are the worst times ever, since they haven’t ever seen any recession..
That would not be the giant banks that drank their own KoolAid, put the developed world on the brink of having to grow our own food, as they have all recovered to produce excellent profits (“fourth best year ever”) in just two years. It wouldn’t be many corporations who just had their “best quarter ever”.
That much of this was accomplished on the backs of the average US taxpayer, and worker, who have not seen wages increase with productivity, much less more hiring, goes without much notice. Life unemployed in the western world surely beats being anybody in say North Korea. Particularly the life of a few artillery soldiers who were the triggermen in the recent bombardment of a South Korean island, which might be lacking certain elements we over here consider basic- Like enough calories for our loved ones; Or cable TV; A good fitting pair of jeans.
So it perplexes me that we, the most prosperous and open society, don’t respond to such aggression with our most powerful and hard to counter assets- stuff and information.
This first occurred to me during the cold war. Why did we build weapons when we could have overwhelmed the communists with Coca Cola and Levis? Why would we shake our rockets at dictators who were just elevated tribal leaders like Khadafy, when we could have conquered him with a moderate flow of refrigerators?
If we have so much- too much, many say- why don’t we use it instead of acting like threatened animals? While Khrushchev once bragged that the USSR would bury us, and that it could be argued that many of us, if you watch the “Hoarders” television shows, are burying ourselves, the opportunity to put our stuff to best use is in using it to undermine leadership that isn’t feeding their own people. Let’s use those B-52s to deliver cheese, tortillas and soft core porn. How about satellite saturation of their airwaves with the shopping channel soundtrack? Enough with killing them with bullets when we can do the same with bad calories and lame entertainment.

Posted in alternate foreign policy, celebrity, politics | Leave a comment

On turning 56

Once upon a time, I couldn’t conceive of being this age. Now it just seems like on the way to third base. And I don’t think many people around me know who I am, or why.
Or maybe I’m just at one of those points where I am wondering who I amor want to be.
But there is so much work to be done, that I want to do, that there isn’t really time to dwell on that. Need to keep moving, making room for what’s next.

Wikipedia points out some interesting things about 56.

* 56 is the sum of the first six triangular numbers (making it a tetrahedral number)
* It’s the sum of six consecutive primes (3 + 5 + 7 + 11 + 13 + 17).
* 56 is the number of times the word “Yeah” is used by Michael Stipe (R.E.M.) in the song Man on the Moon
* 56 is the number of men who signed the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776
* 56 is the code for international direct dial phone calls to Chile
* There is a town in Arkansas named Fifty-Six
* It’s the number of consecutive games in which Joe DiMaggio got a hit
* It’s the number of curls Shirley Temple wore in here hair when she was a child
* 56, in hex, is 38.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Holiday dreaming

Starting back in mid December I was bummed to discover that I am in a tribe with college educated and relatively competent folk for whom their consumption is more compelling than their compassion. I am referring to Laura Ingraham‘s elaboration on a comment by former Governor George Allen that the entire climate change conversation is a global conspiracy to lower the living standard, or ‘lifestyle’ of the United States.

Beyond the stunningly false dichotomy that underlies her statement, is the ignorance. While there are plenty of good arguments about what to do about climate, none of them actually demand that the United States lower its standard of living. Thanks to initiatives taken in some jurisdictions 35 years ago, we have multiple examples that show how to have a modern western excessive lifestyle without increasing energy use per capita. In fact in California, where the per capita energy use hasn’t gone up in 30 years, the economy was grown faster than in the rest of the United States, where per capita usage went up 50%. In Sweden, hardly a third world standard of living, energy usage has been lowered over that same period. Forty percent of the carbon emission reduction can be achieved, according to a McKinsey study published in 2007, would be net positive to the economy. The resistance is more than just Ms. Ingraham or the rest of us being attached to long showers and thick steaks. As for the concern that energy will be more expensive, nothing except an extended global recession will keep energy prices down.

The notion of changing our behaviors to use less, or live and drive more efficiently creates new challenges to living with one another. As reported in the NY Times today, therapists report that conflicts about differing priorities and responses among couples and families. Gender distinctions exist as well, as in women are more oriented to the home and personal behaviors, with men more focused on larger policy impacts. A Santa Barbara based family and marriage therapist said “Food is such an emotional issue,”

Today’s holiday is celebration of the person who most embodied social change in the last century. For all those who wish to see our society different than it is today, the principal lesson to be taken from Martin Luther King is to have a dream- especially a dream that resonates across human ideals for a better life for individuals as well as collectively. Certainly the dream that our skin color would be no more important than our eye color was not original or unique to King, but his personal journey of leadership was.

The dream not being articulated today within the issue of climate is that through living well we can enable millions of others to live better too. While there is a threat that catastrophic suffering may result if the harsher possibilities of climate change take place, the opportunity to transform our society from alienating consumption to conscious commerce.

If we can figure out how to support the millions in the Southwestern US desert with the limited supply there, we can probably deliver water to the billion who currently do not have access to clean water. We have been capable of feeding all of the humans on earth since the late middle 20th century, although we have lacked the will to do it. Not only are these admirable goals for moralizing environmentalists, it promises increased national security, as well as opportunities for prosperity. None of which has been articulated for the likes of George Allen or Laura Ingraham, much less the millions of American voters who profess the environment as a priority but are clearly more concerned with their personal circumstances.

So good night friends. Dream tonight of living well, and having it mean others- millions of others- will live better thanks to your conscious intelligent and self serving consumption.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The future is so bright—wearing shades indoors on Pandora

Friday night I went to the Arlington Theater to see Avatar. Nearly three years ago in the same room, I saw James Cameron pass on the SB Film Festival’s Attenborough Award for nature films to Al Gore. Cameron had won the inaugural award for his 3D underwater films, which were as close as most of us will ever get to the deep-sea environments portrayed in those films. He invited Gore that night to carry on the tradition of the previous winner presenting to the next, which maybe why it hasn’t been awarded since. Too bad, as evidenced by Avatar, Cameron is a man of really big concepts realized in equally large efforts. Who knows what Gore could accomplish if he followed Cameron more closely.

While it is difficult to imagine with all the hype around the film, the fact is that the film is much richer, layered and remarkable than I had been led to believe by the many reviews I read and heard. Ken Turan of the LA Times called it “The Jazz Singer” of the 21st century, and that is a very fair and appropriate description. The rightfully detailed focus on the methods of production have overshadowed the story, itself is a remarkable product from uber geek and technologist Cameron. Like the Jolson vehicle, Avatar shows audiences and an industry the potential of the latest set of filmmaking tools.

The man who brought us new breakthroughs in aliens, time travel, robotics, undersea adventuring, and finally using CGI to let audiences experience the most famous episode of human comeuppance in recorded history (the Titanic disaster) is hardly who one would expect to spend twelve years (by his account) and over $300 million to send a message to humanity regarding our arrogant and ignorant ways here on earth. Complete with swaggering military types spoiling for a fight, corporate authority focused on the quarterly return, and “limp dick science types” Cameron delivers the message with full on battle scenes pitting the machines of war against the full spectrum of the natural world. The real mystery of Avatar is whether or not Cameron, like his hero, Jake Scully, will betray his species or the world of his own creation.

There has been no mention of this, but the coincidence of the film’s opening with the Copenhagen Conference on Climate is well, not so coincidental. Cameron, while not stinting on tons of geeky technology futurism, has invested far more in inventing a spectacular alternate world in which the interrelationship of beings on the planet Pandora are not just concepts of indigenous people’s spiritual beliefs or witchcraft, but a highly sophisticated symbiosis that is scientifically observable, if not understood. The film echoes multiple native peoples cultural traditions in evoking an idealized balanced society of all life forms, providing a observable if thin factual basis..

While criticism of the plot as predictable, and the dialogue stiff, you aren’t likely to notice. The exploitation of the 3D effect is nearly flawless, which given the paucity of expertise with such a toolset is really remarkable. The first sequence of flying is worth the premium price of the 3D admission alone. Whether or not Cameron’s expertise will be propagated to lower cost production remains to be seen, but the aesthetic bar for technical execution has been set very high.

Even more important to the industry is whether or not Avatar will prove the promise Cameron made to exhibitors and peers three years ago when he went to multiple trade shows exhorting theater owners and production professionals to join him in “saving the theatrical experience”. While 3D has shown an ability to bring out niche audiences who are willing to pay higher ticket prices, Avatar is the first 3D ‘tent pole’. Regardless of its ultimate gross return, the measure of its effectiveness in fulfilling Cameron’s promise is probably years away.

Thousands of people worked on Avatar, and all probably had to stretch their skills and selves to satisfy Cameron’s notoriously demanding direction. Yet all now possess a precious experience and skill set in what audiences will hope the Hollywood production marketplace will be demanding. To point out any of their achievements is to slight the rest, but it is impossible to ignore the accomplishments of actors who worked in the oddest of realities to create the key emotional elements that ground the story, and hold our sympathies.

While there are scenes in which actors actually performed in traditional sets, the compelling scenes are all in the CG world of Pandora. The innovations in what Cameron calls “performance capture” bring us further into an impossible environment than anything ever offered. Unlike Titanic, which used CG to represent an actual environment that audiences craved to see, but wouldn’t actually want to be in, Avatar takes us to a world that offers a realization of many common human dreams- flying for one, social integration for another. As I left the theater, I had the distinct feeling that I had just experienced a separate reality and wonderful dream.

If, as is suggested in the Wired magazine profile of Cameron, he was motivated to make Avatar out of jealousy born of seeing Star Wars, filmgoers have yet another reason to thank George Lucas, as well as Sony who first agreed to adapt their products to enable Cameron’s 3D experiments in the deep sea years ago. Cameron, one might guess, has already received his reward in being able to accomplish his dream. Validation by the market awaits, and I can’t suggest strongly enough that you make a point of seeing the film in 3D.
While I doubt that modern western civilization will suddenly attune itself and its ways to the natural world, as demonstrated by the denizens of Pandora, I am positive film fans will be eager to see the next filmmaker’s attempt to match its ambitions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Way out west in SB County

Last Saturday was the official day of celebration of the Virgin of Guadalupe, a key figure in the acceptance of the Catholic religion by the indigenous people’s of Mexico. Her apparition on Dec 13 1531, just twelve years after the arrival of Cortes is marked by celebrations of rich and poor, all over Mexico. The basilica in Tepayac in her honor is the second most important sanctuary of Catholicism based upon number of visitors ( after the Vatica).

In one of the corners of California, a small town is named Guadalupe. When Route 1 was the only road on the coast, the town was (and remains) ‘the gateway to the dunes’ that are today more associated with the town of Pismo Beach.

The main street is Guadalupe St. ( not Main St.) and it was there in the midst of sporadic downpours and blustery winds that a small band of folk gathered Saturday afternoon at a small shrine to the Virgen constructed by Andy Johnson the same artist who created the Semiramus memorial on the corner of our property.

A nine piece mariachi band serenaded at the shrine until rain forced the crowd into a sheltered porch where hot chocolate and tamales warmed hands and palates for a couple of hours until cold winds brought heavier rains.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment