NET METERING

I find it fascinating how historically corporations have utilized whatever new technology was available to transfer the work they normally did themselves, to the consumer, thereby lowering the cost to produce the service and increasing the profit made by those corporations. A few examples: Only a few short years ago we called travel agents to make our flight arrangements or when we called companies for service we spoke to a live representative who asked us questions and offered answers and solutions and then there were people, numbering in the millions, working on factory floors, all now replaced by robots.  This is the process and point of all business and industry. It correctly looks for the least expensive method to produce a product its customers are willing to pay for. Technology has generally been the most effective go-to answer to lower costs and increase profits so it has been used extensively.

Then why is there now such a resounding opposition to renewable energy? Think about it: what is more available than the power of the sun, the power of the wind and the power of water in motion? We are talking about nature, the very core of our existence. If it is available why not use it?

History suggests we have not been able to fully harness the power of nature although we watched it every time a hurricane, tornado, flood or drought affected our lives. We could see it, feel it and even fear it but we could not use all of it. Now we can, through wind and solar.  And, who is complaining the loudest, of course, the corporate world.

The solar industry has utilized “net metering” as an incentive to consumers to sign up for solar panels. The point is if you use solar energy and produce more power than you need, then sell the excess to others to reduce your own expenses. Sounds like a good business model to me.

But this turn of events is threatening to the utility companies and private energy companies, most of which are monopolies that depend on customers buying their energy for whatever rates the companies charge.

Renewable energy is a new competitor and, with all the self-righteous bloviating we hear from the industry “job creators” about letting the market work, one thing they hate is competition. Their answer is to charge a solar customer, who has accessed more power than they need, a fee to be paid to the Power Company or utility BEFORE the excess power is sold to other consumers.

Wouldn’t that be like charging an airline company a fee for the time and effort consumers put into making their own flight reservations so as to make the transaction cost more equal to the cost the airline would have had, before they got rid of all the flight reservation people who used to make those reservations for us?

How does utilizing a new technology such as nature differ from a company that uses technology to lower its costs, increase its profits and utilize the increased profit, to pursue other businesses?

But now we have money, huge sums of money, employed by industry, utility companies and private individuals, in almost every state, campaigning and lobbying at state legislature levels to fight a competitor that has figured out how to access a new and natural technology and make it more affordable to customers. If industry succeeds the fees will effectively eliminate the competitive solar advantage, the energy costs will remain high for the consumer and the suppliers will be the same companies that need to destroy large portions of the earth in order to pursue their own profit agendas.

If we are expected to make our own reservations, fix our own cable systems and pump our own gas, then why should we not be encouraged to access our own energy and when sated sell the “profit” to others not interested in accessing it themselves?

It is hypocrisy for the corporate world to complain about disruption from technology when competitors come along and do what they do, but do it better and cheaper.

GLOBAL WARMING

I can understand the reluctance to accept climate change if you live in a state that depends on coal or burning fossil fuels or even if you think that God  determines weather and all its aftermaths. What I don't get is what if you are wrong? If it is 25 -50 years down the line and people, many of which are alive today, suffer consequences of us being wrong, then who do they complain to? All they can do is be angry at those of us who in this part of the century ignored warnings, resisted information and fought against all scientific evidence that we would face environmental problems. The people who made these decisions to fight global warming will be long gone from this world and will have not a care in the world for the irrational decisions they made so many years ago. For those living in the 2050's and beyond the problem will only be exacerbated by the frustration of not being able to hold the "deciders" accountable.

For my money all of us should at least agree that it MIGHT happen. If it turns out not to be true,  global warming is not an issue, something I don't think will be the case, then everyone will be happy. But if it does happen and we made no plans for it then everyone living at the time will be paying a massive price and through no fault of their own.

So what has to happen? Those who disagree extensively and fight it to the core need to accept the fact that it MIGHT. They need to participate in all the conversations about what to do about it. They can still offer their resistance at every step, but, they must realistically look at solutions, at ideas on plans in the event that the problem should it come to pass. Taxes, alternate energy sources, conservation, education are all on the table as solutions. There is no panacea. Multiple ideas will have to be offered, some accepted, some rejected, others modified. Remember too, when we all get involved in something potentially this big there may be equally enormous opportunities, so just saving your political butt might sound like a good approach today but offering jobs, resources and new industries might have some positive appeal as well.

My only point is everyone has to accept they, the scientists, MIGHT be right. We will make a mockery of our multiple generations if the future is held hostage to the head in the sand approach to serious issues that face us all because elected officials want to get re elected.

Everyone of us will be leaving children and grandchildren to take care of the decisions we either did or did not make on their behalf.

ENTITLED? TO WHAT?

I read, like most people, of the senseless tragedy in the almost empty movie theater in Florida where an off duty police officer shot and killed a fellow patron for texting during the beginning of the film, even after being asked to stop

While it is claimed guns don’t kill people, people do, the fact is it is far easier to maim or kill someone with a gun than without one.

There is no excuse for this behavior and, no doubt justice will be served and severe.

That said there is something else going on that too needs to be discussed, not anything that justifies shooting someone but it is the nature of personal interactions that currently take place in society.

We often hear the term “entitled” when applied to many people. People who behave as though they are entitled to do something that others are not because they rationalize their reason is more important, at the moment, than that of others.

Cell phones, texting, email and all electronic devices are likely culprits, but certainly not the only ones.  When a person uses a device to the annoyance of others or acts in an inappropriate manor, then there are bound to be repercussions. Talking too loud, using a device in public places when asked not to are good examples.  They point to another sometimes-overlooked realization.

We all have two personas. One is private and the other is public. We are all both. When in the confines of our own personal place we do have the right to do as we see fit, so long as it too does not impinge on the rights or comforts of others. We decide what, and when, we do whatever it is we want.

However, when in public there is a built in behavior expectation for all of us. We must operate with our public persona. We don’t have the right to use devices when asked in public not to, we don’t have the right to toss our trash out on to the streets because it is more convenient, we don’t have the right to break rules of the road because there are no police around.  The examples

Of how we should, and should not, behave in public are many, but we own the responsibility for monitoring how each of us as individuals behave.  

The perception of someone operating as though entitled, undoubtedly could easily cause annoyance, resentment and, in too many cases, anger. If we behave in public the way we behave in private and don’t expect it could have negative consequences we are fooling ourselves.

When we are in public we share the public space, the road, the theater, the streets, the benches etc. etc. The public environment is for the benefit and enjoyment of all of us and has its own implied rules. We all need to know, respect and follow those rules without needing to be reminded and we have the right to expect others will do the same, while they are in public.

GlOBES SHOULD BE BETTER

 With Oscar Nominations out this morning the focus quickly turns to the myriad of activities surrounding the nominees, the films and the show. But before they write the show let’s go back for a moment to review the Golden Globe show and share a thought or two on what I felt went wrong with that one. Hopefully I won’t have to see a repeat on Oscar night.

I know most media I read loved the performances of Amy Poehler and Tina Fey. While they are both brilliant talents when performing in scripted entertainment, neither of them are brilliant stand up comedians, which is a completely different form of comedy.

They spent about 9 minutes simply reading the lamest jokes off a monitor.  Neither of them is particularly good at telling jokes so they just read them off one after another.  If someone calls what they were reading, writing then they should be ashamed of themselves. The jokes were sophomoric, crude, insulting and amateurish.    I envision a room full of adolescent writers going through the list of films and performers and having to come up with something suitably crude and insulting about each one.

The show goes on at 5PM so there are probably kids in the TV audience: Tom Hanks wore a prosthetic genital in Captain Phillips, George Clooney only dates younger women, Matt Damon is garbage and Jona Hill masturbates at his own pool parties are just some of the nonsense they shared with the audience. You want your child to listen to that?

I will never understand why all these shows find it necessary to criticize, through their own warped sense of humor, the work of so many other talented people in the business. Making a film or a television product is one of the most challenging, expensive and risky endeavors for anyone to undertake. Finding good material, the money and dealing with the myriad of things that could, and mostly do, go wrong is a challenge in and of itself. Then to find an actor willing to lose 45 pounds for a role, or spend the entire productions schedule in character, or to put themselves in positions of enormous vulnerability, while acting in the film, and then make a successful role out of the effort is next to impossible.

But year after year all of the hosts feel it necessary to make fun of the craft through the products and the performers, but the material they “read” to share their criticism only gets dumber and dumber as a result. I sometime wonder what some of the so-called comedy writers would do if it were not for body parts.

Crude humor is everywhere today because it is easier to write. Writing something funny that is not crude is difficult and most writers today seem content diving down to the lowest level possible because they don’t have the talent to write well.

Maybe one of these years an award show would take what they do seriously and make jokes at something else, if they still feel the need to ridicule.

CHANGE CAN BE RISKY

Put a snow globe on a shelf and look at it. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of little individual pieces of fake snow. If you never move that globe nothing inside it will ever be different.

But imagine for a moment that all the places inside the globe are not equal. The ones on the bottom might be starved for air and feeling the weight of those above them. Maybe a few are facing the sun, happy and prefer not to move but there are others who face the dark and are getting tired of it.

Well as I said if you leave the globe alone everything remains the same. But if lots of those little pieces wanted to change their positions you would have to pick up the globe and shake it, vigorously. Now lay it down again and all the pieces will be in different positions. Some will be happy with the new positions, others not so. But a change has occurred.

There in lies the key to understanding change and why so many people shy away from it. To effect change there will be a period of chaos, risk, uncertainty and in the case of the globe, if you are inside it, violence.

After the enormity of a hurricane, a tornado an unnatural storm there is always a calm.  The next day invariably the sun is out, bright and the day appears as if is nothing just took place last night.

That is the key to understanding change. It will be hard to deal with, will involve risk, will cause apprehension, confusion and uncertainly.  But, and this is the single most important part of it, is that nothing will change without the turmoil. If the globe stays on the shelf, if you stay at the desk of your unhappy job or stay with the mate you know you should give up on, then you will remain forever unhappy about the situation you are in.

But if you are willing to take the chance, accept that change requires risk and maybe something far worse then you will have the chance to make a better something else for your self.

In the end it will be better to go for it. There is always a good chance it will work out for you. Plan for it correctly and embrace what is about to happen.

IS LA STILL TOP GUN?

It was just announced that Jerry Bruckheimer would return to Paramount Pictures, his original home studio,  to produce films for the next several years. It was also announced that he would resuscitate the 48 Hours and Top Gun franchises.

What got me excited, but seemed missing from the report, was the financial impact that announcement will have on Los Angeles. Or, maybe somewhere else.

Bruckheimer makes BIG films: Pirates of the Caribbean, Flashdance, The Bad Boys franchise, Days of Thunder to name only a few. BIG films mean BIG MONEY. It would not be surprising to learn after the films are produced and released they cost in excess of $200 million each. My sense is that number is probably small compared to what it will be when all production and marketing costs are tallied, but whatever they are, there was in that announcement the implied statement  that they are about to spend in excess of $400 to $500 million dollars on these franchises.

Do you have any idea how many people will be hired to work on those films? hundreds, if not thousands. And, there are the service companies , suppliers and facilities that will get work. They too hire lots of people and will need many more to fulfill the BIG film requirements. Then there are locations to be selected and special effects and CGI requirements. Add travel, food, transportation  and the list of needs just goes on and on and on. And all of them can be satisfied in Encino, Van Nuys, Santa Monica, San Bernardino, Culver City and dozens of other Los Angeles area cities and towns. There is an explosion of jobs on the horizon.

When I published The Hollywood Reporter I liked to refer to the entertainment business as a job creation factory. No other industry consistently creates jobs each and every time a film is released.  Look at the end credits of any big budget film,  the names are still rolling when the last of the popcorn is removed from the theater floors. Every name on that list was someone who got paid to do a job. Sadly they all have to go out and find another job but they know this is the town and the business where most of those jobs are created.

This announcement has to be huge news for Los Angeles. BUT. You don't think every other facility in the world can do the math? Locations around the world will travel here with every incentive they can muster to attract those film expenditures to their state or their country. Why not do CGI remotely from New Mexico, or go to England for sound stages, or edit off shore,  score the music with the Seattle Orchestra, or use overseas talent and get additional funds? Tax incentives will be guaranteed, financial support will be offered. For every dollar spent on these Bruckheimer films there will be dozens of competitors  willing to offer whatever it takes to move those dollars to their borders or shores.

The dollars are all currently unallocated but  all of them will eventually be spent, but only once. Every job filled will be one time only, every service acquired can't and won't be acquired again, once the money is allocated that's it. It is gone for good.  But every dollar, all hundreds of millions of them, will become available and will be spent, that is the bottom line of the announcement. The money is coming and will flow like a river but for only a short, somewhat predictable, period of time.

The question is will Los Angles be ready to go to the mat to guarantee every dollar spent is spent here in Los Angeles?  Will they step up and fight to keep the jobs here? Will they resist politics to do what is right for this region? Time will tell but if any of these dollars go anywhere else it won't be because the city was caught off guard.

THANK YOU IS COMMUNICATION FOR PEOPLE

Thank you acknowledges an act someone does for someone else with no
expectation in return.

When we open a door, give up a seat, let someone pass or do an
especially good job we are giving a gift. Not a birthday or holiday
gift, but a gift none the less.

We are acknowledging someone else is in the doorway, on the road, in
the office or on the bus. We are saying, for the moment, allow me to be
deferential to you, to your needs. It is a gift of kindness.

The reality is when we perform these gestures of recognition they are
done willingly and the benefits received are all in the doing.

The completion of the dialog is the expression: thank you.  That
expression says, I know what you did for me. I know in its own small
way it is a gift and, while I appreciate it, more importantly I
recognize in that one split moment in time you are a part of my life
and I welcome you into it.

Don't ever overlook a thank you. It is a human expression that no
other species enjoys.

Let's not lose it.