$600M Deal with Exxon

Craig Venter from last year's TED, and now this phenomenal deal with Exxon. Read it here at Reuters. (Nice work Steve.)

I think my favorite bit from Venter's talk was afterward, when Chris went up and sat with him...
Chris: "Do you get accused of playing God?"
Craig: "Oh... we're not playing."

1976 ILM "Home Movie" *RARE*

I don't know where Michael Heilemann finds this stuff... but here is an EXTREMELY RARE Super8mm home video shot put together by David Berry in 1976-1978 from inside the original Industrial Light & Magic facility in Van Nuys during the making of Star Wars. It shows the work and fun (and the 50th Academy Awards, where they went on to win a bunch of Oscars), and is obviously a Who's Who in the special effects field. Cameos (if that's the right word) of Ben Burtt, John Dykstra, Richard Edlund, Joe Johnston, Dennis Murren (with hair!) and the rest of the original crew. (And yes, read my friggin' book, or any of a number of good Star Wars histories, if you want to get some more context!)

I think the most interesting parts are just seeing them working, and probably the sense that no one had a clue of the historical magnitude of what they were all contributing to. It's simultaneously silly and of historical value. Certainly worth a look for any true Star Wars fan.

Cannot be embedded. Here's the link. 5757, a peek inside ILM.

Really Cool Video

Nothing in any of my books could ever explain how to do this...

Droidmaker FAQ

Strange when you end up with new attention for projects that were on your plate a few years ago. Actors have that when they are out pimping their movies. It's not always obvious, but they are promoting work they did months or sometimes years earlier. And they are often working on some other movie while they're talking excitedly about last years production.

But i've recently received a few emails about DROIDMAKER things and I thought i'd just post a couple quick general answers. I'll paraphrase the questions, and try to be on point.

1. Why did you write DROIDMAKER?
Actually, I had a reasonable answer in this interview at Unidentifed Sound Object. The shortest answer is - I thought someone else would, but they never did. And it seemed like time.

2. What does "George" think of this book?
It is my understanding that Lucasfilm feels like I did a good job, and while there are decisions i made and things included that they would have preferred i not, in all, I think they're okay with it.

If this sounds like I'm dodging the question, i'm not -- but it does demand a bit of background. In researching this book, almost no one currently employed by Pixar (and no former executives of Lucasfilm) were willing to go on record and cooperate, as much as they wanted to, if I didn't have the blessing of Lucasfilm at some level. Lucasfilm, for their part, almost never cooperates with outside projects like this, and as of 2004 had been denying journalists access to Lucas for eons. I had a challenging pitch: I wanted Lucasfilm's cooperation, and I wanted to interview George, but I wasn't willing to give them access to my work. Needlesstosay they were all exceptionally uncomfortable with this deal. In the end, and not without some degree of discussion, George agreed with me: for the book to have any journalistic integrity, Lucasfilm not only couldn't publish it (they asked) but they couldn't have any say-so about the content. The company cooperated in unprecedented ways, and the people I interviewed came out from every corner to share. Lucasfilm was the picture of transparency and without that this detail and accuracy would not have been possible.

But there was a down side to this openness: Lucasfilm would do nothing to promote or endorse the book. Even acknowledging its existence would be a kind of tacit endorsement. I wasn't allowed to present at the Star Wars fan events, and none of the company-owned websites (e.g. starwars.com) or external sites that depended on LFL's good graces
(e.g. theforce.net), would ever review or comment or alert the millions of fans. And ultimately, George himself would never comment - because whether he liked it or not, that too would be seen as endorsing something, and attract attention. Thus: they have privately confided that I did a fine job, but neither George nor the company will go on record. One has to understand they have numerous complicated rights agreements, where even a single image sometimes has enormous financial strings, targeted market segments, and so on. Promoting my book might expose them with regard to others who have paid for certain content rights.

Anyway, most of this is in the past and I think the academic and historical merit of the book have become evident, and the b&w low rez images in the text don't pose a real threat at this point.

So -- I have no idea what George thinks of the book. But i can't imagine he doesn't like it. I'm pretty sure all the Pixar guys feel good about this (I was met warmly when I presented it at a big event at Pixar in 2006).

3. Am I still touring and giving presentations?
Yes and no. I did a hectic 20 city tour back in 2005-06, but since then I only give a few presentations each year, usually to larger groups: at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, at Yahoo!, at the Commonwealth Club of Silicon Valley, at the VIEW Conference on computer graphics in Turin Italy... and yes, if you have a cool group and you'd like me to come present, I'm told it's an entertaining talk -- send me an email or leave a note and we'll see if we can work something out.

4. Did I work on Star Wars?
No. I am not sure why this comes up so much. No, I was 13 years old when the original Star Wars movie released, and I was neither a technical advisor nor an expert on anything at that point. And I didn't work on the prequels either. I have friends who did, but not me. But it's true that Lucasfilm launched my career in film, and was responsible for my subsequent status as an "expert" on digital video and editing.

DROIDMAKER book now downloadable, FREE!

(UPDATE 7/14: I added a little donation button in the left column ... if you love the book, but don't want to buy from amazon, a contribution of your own chosing would be great!)

I'm not really sure how this will go over, but i've decided to make my book DROIDMAKER downloadable in its entirety, effective today. It's a long book (518 pages), and I still recommend going to Amazon and getting yourself a copy (it's how you can pay for this "shareware"), but below are links to get PDFs of the book: I've divided it into the three "acts" that makes up the saga.

Act 1: Intro plus Chapters 1-6 [1.8MB]
Act 2: Chapters 7-17 [3.7MB]
Act 3: Chapters 18-26, Index [4.3MB]

I don't know how long I can keep these links available, so get it while you can. I hope you'll enjoy it - Droidmaker is really the only work of its kind - and I hope you'll feel free to share it with like-minded Star Wars/George Lucas fans, computer graphics folks, videogamers, movie geeks, and technophiles. The reviews on Amazon have been quite wonderful (both Alvy Ray Smith AND Ben Burtt rave there) but your feedback is always welcomed.

Thank you, and enjoy!

JULY 2 POST SCRIPT --

Amazing! In just a couple days the book has been downloaded thousands of times, and i've decided i'll leave this accessible at least through the holiday weekend. Other than a short note from the publisher asking what the hell I was doing, the only emails i get are from you readers submitting typos and errata you've found. THANK YOU. Months of professional proof-reading and fact-checking, and years of book readers, and in a single day you've found more little errors than all of them. I have now made corrections to PDF 1, but will let you know if i adjust the other sections...

BTW: Here are just a sampling of the most popular online links to here (the non-English ones, the tweets, the Facebook links, and the message boards are cool, but i've left them out of here; thank you all for spreading the news):

http://binarybonsai.com
http://commandn.tv/
http://www.examiner.com
http://clubjade.net
http://www.sfportal.hu
http://waxy.org/

New Petroglyph Website -

After a couple months of efforts, we're launching the new Petroglyph website today (not without considerable help from the talents at the LMN Group). We've had a website continuously since 1996, but this is the first "professionally" executed one, and i must say, it should have happened years ago. I'll still be updating, tweaking and adding over coming weeks, but it was time to dump the old one. Enjoy.

Video Information for Consumers

Hmmm... the MSNBC article is sending folks researching digital video over to this blog - so i thought i'd add a couple resources here for those interested.

First, of course, is get yourself a copy of the latest edition of The Little Digital Video Book (2009). If I had one word to describe this book, it would be "useful." It's also cute and small and exceptionally non-intimidating. It will get you going, inspired, and on track with minimal technobabble. Here it is on Amazon. I also maintain a blog about digital video - projects and examples and it is also a good resource. The Little Digital Video Blog.

If you're an ubergeek, of course NONLINEAR (4th edition) is a fine handbook. It was designed for professionals and students, and it launched many a filmmaker's career with this technology. Here is Nonlinear/4 on Amazon.

(Another) MSNBC Article...

These guys work fast. I got a call last night for information for this article. Here it is today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31528254/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

George Lucas: Maker of Films

I found this interview in the Lucasfilm archives and it was a resource for some of the early chapters in Droidmaker. It's a PBS interview Lucas did with film theorist Gene Youngblood (best known as the author of the seminal "Expanded Cinema"). Honestly, I never thought i'd see it posted online, but here it is:


*Note. It was posted on Vimeo, but removed after this blog went live, so here it is from Binary Bonsai.

Achieving Media Balance

My life is a constant battle between enjoying shooting videos, spending time editing videos, and being the creepy guy who is always lurking behind a camera... quietly watching....

I know how invasive shooting video can be for many people, and I try not to make my presence synonymous with everyone being documented. Camcorders are mostly invasive because of the sound recording. While a still camera can make you feel a bit like paparazzi with your friends, it's not like you're spying, as you are with the camcorder. A camcorder, you have to admit, crosses a line into surveillance. So while I cherish our family videos, I put the paraphernalia away frequently. I edit with sensitivity and respect requests for "radio silence" graciously. And I don't videotape everything.












I love still photography as well. It isn't the same as video and this is good. Video can tell a story one way, but well-chosen fractions of a second, frozen, are magical. Sometimes one image can capture an afternoon, or a vacation, far more elegantly and poetically than 30 minutes (or 3 hours!) of videotape. And sometimes one short edited video can be a memento from a trip or event better than hours of raw footage.

And sometimes, I leave the cameras all behind. Go commando, as it were. And participate fully in my life, without that third-person detachment that often accompanies the documenting process. Sometimes I have an even more special, more magical recollection of a place or time precisely because I don't have any physical evidence documenting its occurrence.

So learn video, enjoy video, but be mindful: with new hobbies one can tend to be zealous about overuse. I know. I've been there. Don't think you need to shoot everything, and don't forget that still photography is not only a great artform on its own, but good practice for the seeing, framing and composition that is required for good videography. And finally, put the cameras away from time to time and chill out. Media Balance. Good luck.

(reprinted from The Little Digital Video Blog)

MSNBC article

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31209359/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

Ode to Santa Cruz

Her dog dodges neoprene legs
To get a better sniff of the kelp,
pungent and abandoned;
Tribal backbeat, distant,
Perhaps from the market downtown,
Perhaps from the woods
Or just in the crisp air, mixed with
Incense and
Salt.

She comes here each day
To watch the sun slip under the bay,
To let Bodhi run illegally in the field.
She watches for rangers like a spy.
The eyes of visitors take her in,
Snap her photograph,
As she deftly climbs the cold statue
To place a living wreath on the crown
Of the bronze surfer. Which makes her smile.
“Two crimes,” she says to Bodhi.
“Two crimes in one afternoon.”

She gave up her car when she was younger;
She gave up meat after college;
She gave up on men around the same time.

And she came to the edge of the land, the rocky point,
Where the shrouds of cold sit lightly on the houses
And the plaintive barks of sea mammals
Are a counterpoint to gulls and light traffic.

She can’t say that she likes it here.
But it suits her well.
Sticking tight to her body like
Their semiporous neoprene--
Letting in the cold
but mysteriously leaving her
Feeling warm
Outside, and
Inside.



(The Sentinel had a poetry contest last week: an "ode" to Santa Cruz. The winner was read onstage by Garrison Keilor. Needlesstosay, it wasn't this one.)

Magic, Teller, and the EG

Before this year, I always felt Penn and Teller were over-rated. Yea, it was an unfair badge to place on them: I had seem bits of their routine over the years, and have never gone to their Vegas show. But all that changed at the last EG Conference. Teller, the short silent elfish dude in the suit, was a "speaker" at the conference. Now this is unusual, because Teller NEVER speaks. I believe it's important to their act that he never drops character in much the same way that Mickey Mouse (and friends) at the Disney theme parks NEVER remove their costumes in public. We know this is a guy in a mouse suit, but by never speaking and never shedding the costume in public, something magical about the illusion is maintained. Anyway, Teller doesn't speak, so i was pretty curious what he was going to SAY at the conference.

He came on stage, and asked if all cameras and recording devices be turned off. What he was going to do was so so off record, it could only be experienced live. Once. Normally, at TED and EG there are lots of speakers who have proprietary presentations that are revealed with surprising candor, but they are all recorded. Sharing these talks is part of the ethos of these special conferences. But Teller needed radio silence.

And over the next 40 minutes he proceeded to tell a wonderful story of how a certain trick was done. He showed the trick. (Remarkable magic.) Then he told a tale of how the trick was invented, how he refined it over years, showed video of the process, and how he worked with Penn's feedback (who didn't like the trick at first) until it was really something far more amazing than it had been at the start. And after a half hour of taking you behind the trick in every way, he did the trick again. It didn't lose any of it's wonderment and my admiration for him (and Penn) grew exponentially.

(This is NOT that talk, obviously. But it's a cool explanation of "the seven principles of magic...")

As an aside, there is so much of "magic" in editing. I mean, the expression is tossed around frequently (the "magic of editing") but quite literally, editing is much about hiding the edits, hiding the CAMERA -- the mechanism of movie creation -- such that the audience (knowing full well this is a trick) can suspend their disbelief (as the saying goes), and enjoy the movie as a contiguous whole. Misdirection, controlling the focus and attention of the audience as they look at a screen, moving the story along in what could be a set of disjointed images, but ends up being a smooth faux reality - this is the magic in editing, and thinking about Teller and some of these recent articles on "magic" and "psychology" bring it all up for me.

This is an interesting article on magic from this month's WIRED. The guest editor of the issue, by the way, is J.J. Abrams - who gave his own remarkable presentation at TED a few years ago on these topics. It was one of my favorite TED talks of that year. Enjoy that as well.

Tom Lehrer Videos

In the summers when my family would drive from Florida to Maine, we had a small plaid bag full of cassette tapes that we'd listen to in the car; my parents' favorites, they became our vacation soundtrack -- Peter, Paul and Mary, Simon & Garfunkel, the musical HAIR, and my personal favorite "That Was the Year That Was" - the classic album by Harvard math professor and musical satirist Tom Lehrer. At age 9 I often sang these songs around the school yard, much to the consternation of my teachers. They were edgy for the time, funny (in ways I sometimes didn't get) and occasionally profane ("Vatican Rag"?) Then, as now, I knew them all by heart. Then Tom Lehrer dropped off the radar, left Harvard, and never performed again. In the '80s he was re-popularized in a Broadway review called Tomfoolery, but he still never surfaced. It didn't dawn on me until today that I had never actually seen him perform. I didn't even know what he looked like. Here he is in some rare (Ampex!) video performing live in the late 60s.



I did find out, however, where he went when he disappeared from the public stage: he moved to Santa Cruz, California. For more than a decade, I've lived only a few miles from him, apparently. He has taught math here in town, not performing, but going about his way quietly, it seems. Anyway, he's fantastic. Here are a few more songs from this British television show performance. Watch them all at YouTube Enjoy the videos.

Wind Energy, and the Swine Flu

Next week is the AWEA Conference in Chicago, the American Wind Energy Association, and man I want to be there. I've been working with a company I like very much, Rope Partner, and they offer something really cool to the Wind Energy Industry. Eco-Wind Farm Maintenance. They (we, since this is what I've been working on this year) have a new website and a booth at the AWEA Conference. But this is day three of what the news is mumbling is a pandemic, something I'd really rather not have to contend with in my lifetime. Granted, the images of spreading biological disaster are only etched in my mind from movies, but even knowing that, i'm convinced it's not good.

Do I want to leave my small coastal town and spend a few days moving from here to airport to O'hare International, the crossroads of the friggin' world -- to McCormick Place, a convention center that I am familiar with?? I'm thinking about entering a room full of handshakes and thousands of strangers bumping into each other in public spaces. I am at least convinced that whatever the odds are of getting this thing, astronomically small at this point, they are multiplied to some large degree by going mobile.

Frankly, as badly as I want to be in Chicago, I just can't think of a better time to stay close with my family, close to my home. I can do plenty of work in this way. It is absolutely inferior to meeting in person. But the cost / benefit is creeping me out.

On the other hand, I'm convinced that every day will bring enormous new information about this thing. In five days it's either going to be terrifying, or totally not as bad as it could have. At best this will be a wake up call about globalization, and with luck, a bullet missed.

I'm certain that in the next few days, either large things will be canceled, or safety will be established to a credible degree. I hate being so last minute in important plans, but of all things to bet your life on, is this? And then I think of the guys at Rope Partner. Not the executives but the kids who climb those windmills and fix the blades. Unlike me in Chicago, at a convention, they sit high in the air, almost totally alone, listening to the wind blow by for hours, as they are suspended, working quietly. I haven't spent any time up there, but I can imagine it is the absolute antithesis of McCormick Place, Chicago. It's often cold for them out there. But I think, out there, they're at least safe from the flu.

(Keep an eye on Swine Flu News here)

(Photos Courtesy of, and © 2009 Rope Partner. It's unbelievable what they do.)

The Susan Boyle Talent Video

My dad sends me stuff he finds online, stuff his friends email him. He's 75 and does not have a Facebook account nor does he peruse YouTube. Still, he sent me this the other day. It had already been circulating by email through his friends:
WATCH THE VIDEO HERE, AT YOUTUBE (one of dozens of sites online showing it.




If you're reading this than you are probably one of the 47 million views of this during the week. There is a fascinating discussion of the popularity of the Boyle video here, at visiblemeasures.com. If viral effects online are of interest to you, it's worth a click. I think the thing that struck me most was that this isn't only a popular viral video today, but this is the MOST viral video ever. The next three most viewed videos certainly spiked at some point, but none were views in one week, as this was.


I find it sort of interesting that the other three videos on the list were political in nature (one satire, and one self-satire, but still); and not only political, but surfing the waves of pro-Obama spirit in the last year. It took that kind of force to push videos to these levels of virality. By contrast, Boyle's video is infectious and by being non-political, totally socially benign with a very wide appeal. It's not edgy, it's safe, but still fun to send along. It's sort of a perfect storm of attributes that makes it appealing... Anyway, read the article (here's a graph that highlights the relative degree of popularity of these big viral stars):

The death of the keyboard...

I was messing around on my iPhone the other day, and i had this notion wash over me in queasy moment of clarity: hardware keyboards are not only heading towards extinction, but that moment is probably closer than i had realized.

Let me back up here. I used to design editing systems, and the best ones had customized interface devices that you placed your hands on. They had an array of buttons, but also great tactile nobs for shuttling video forward and backward. The EditDroid had a console that mimicked a KEM editing table; the Lightworks had one that emulated a Steenbeck. These devices made editing far more nuanced (and fun!) but that elegance came with a price: they were custom designed, expensive to own, and hard to manufacture. Ultimately, a keyboard won out. Keyboards were ubiquitous, and they had so many buttons you could map virtually all functions to one of them. Editing could be like typing at some level. Film editors rejected this style when it was associated with videotape editing, but when nonlinear film editing eventually arrived on a keyboard, it wasn't quite as bad, and in time beat out all the custom devices invented for editors. I was a snob. I hated editing on a keyboard when I had tasted what an elegant interface device could do. But I couldn't argue with the economics, or the efficiency. I had seen the problem from both the manufacturer's side, and the editors'. I loved those consoles, and I watched them rapidly disappear.

But I'm not only an editor, i'm a writer, and I love a good keyboard. I like them when you have just the right kind of feedback when you press down. Pianists might describe the nuances of pressing a key and the sound produced... the attack, the decay... pianists for years have debated the pros and cons of electric keyboards and how they miss so much of what real pianos offer in terms of "user interface". Typing is about the same. I don't really think literature will suffer as keyboards evolve, but there is no doubt in my mind that they will be missing something.

Keyboards, for all there ubiquity, are manufactured objects with many pieces, complex connectivities and wasteful materials. As computer screens get more tactile, it is simply too advantageous to put a keyboard on a pane of glass. You may type on your laptop, but the future is the iPhone, and its ilk. And not today, but soon, one manufacturer after another is going to stop building these hardware keyboards and start replacing them with hardwareless customizable softkeys on touchscreens. I don't really like this. I like the click of typing. I like feeling the edges of the key, of the letter, with the tips of my fingers and it allows me to type quickly and confidently. Will a virtual keyboard ever produce the wonderful feedback of a real one? I doubt it. But that isn't really the point, is it? Old timers will always tell you about what is being lost with the newfangled devices -- of the yummy pops and clicks of their old albums, of the joys of shifting gears in a sportscar, of the warmth of light projecting through celluloid onto a screen, of the taste real farm fresh eggs or, perhaps, of classic Coke...

And in all cases the argument is rarely that those archaic attributes aren't great, but rather than the benefits of the new technology (speed, access, freedom, safety, cost...) outweigh the nostalgia of the old. Kids don't miss record albums, and I don't suppose they're going to miss keyboards either. I'd say inside the next half decade, keyboards as we know them today will be gone, and i'll adjust. But i don't have to like it.

For Sale: One Old Kid's Desk...

It’s just an old desk and it’s cute and worn. I bought it for $25 and that’s what I’m going to sell it for. I was just going to put it out on the street, for anyone who wanted a cute little desk, but I wanted whoever took it to know its story. The little desk has been with me since I was just out of college, and I always really liked that little desk. So...

I purchased the desk the summer I arrived to Marin from the East, at a sort of yard sale at George Lucas’ Skywalker Ranch. It was 1985 and I just started working at Lucasfilm at the time, and the Ranch was still being built. I had never been there before, and I was interested in going to the sale mostly just to see what I could of the newly forming Ranch. I believe they were unloading a bunch of old furniture that had been in use prior to the “getting fancy” years, or perhaps it had been in one of the ranch houses of the BullTail Ranch property, which Lucas had purchased in 1979 to build Skywalker Ranch. I don’t know. I’m reasonably sure that George Lucas himself never used this desk. He probably never even saw it. Anyway, It’s too tiny for him. Nothing famous was written on this desk, unless you count "Nonlinear", and I don’t think you would. It’s just a simple desk, nice for kids, messy and stained. I’m selling it for $25. But if you get it, you have to keep its story.

I hope it finds a good home.

Future of Advertising

Take a look at this. My 9-year old cannot get of enough of this. Now I enjoy Numa Numa as much as the next guy, but I actually like it MORE with the addition of the Geiko gecko in the background. No phone number. No web address. It's the most gentle I've seen this form of product insertion.

Numa Numa Guy with Gecko, Somebody's Watching Me:


Brandweek talks a bit about the advertising strategy and the agency that put this together.

So Dark The Con of Man: The Economy

Is it too simplistic to say that the central element of our economic system is a con game, a “confidence game,” where it only works if people believe in it, and it simply doesn’t work if they don’t. All of banking is about projecting a veneer of solidity, of being established and immobile – think of those heavy columns and marblesque floors, of vaults and 18th century or greek revival architecture. Hell, half of what I learned about banking I learned from Mary Poppins:

A British bank is run with precision
A British home requires nothing less!
Tradition, discipline, and rules must be the tools
Without them - disorder! Chaos!
Moral disintegration!
In short, we have a ghastly mess!

Money by definition is a con – a piece of paper that we all have to simply agree has value. Sure, there was a time when bills were exchangeable for gold. But Nixon nixed that. Now if you’re nervous about this paper’s value, you’re stuck with “In God We Trust.” Bills are made formal and engraved and cool looking to inspire confidence and trust. Americans for years were rather snarky about colorful currency and stamps. If they looked too fun, whimsical, fashionable they’d be disregarded as transient and cheap. It took a unique combination of technology and public outcry, and I believe an act of Congress, to get stamps interesting and get our money just a hair less blah. “Blah,” I’m sure they’d have told me, was the asset.

So if people don’t think the system works, that money has no value, that risks to loan money are too great, and to borrow money enormous, and so on, we (the people) create a massive negative cycle that ends in the dissolution of our economic system. The answer, it would seem, is simply (and simplistically) to believe. Trust that money has value, that things will get better, that investments will grow…and it begins the wheel’s spin in the other direction. When naysayers say the economy is in the toilet, they are not so much predicating it as fomenting it. Similarly, Obama and the administration isn’t being Pollyanna to say that this will end, this will be our best hour, that it’s a simple - but dramatic – readjustment. It too is laying the groundwork for it all to come back online. They’re both right. And the more you believe the negative tales the longer this will go on.

I don’t know what it’s called, but it is some kind of flocking principle that I most often see illustrated when people arrive at a Southwest gate to take a flight. I get to the gate 45 minutes early and no one has started to line up. So I take a seat and look at my magazine. As time creeps by, finally someone stands up and gets in the front of the line. He stands there alone, and the rest of the waiting room eyes him. There’s still 20 minutes, and everyone would rather stay seated comfortably in a chair then start standing in line. Heck, the first 30 people are all going to get good seats in group A. But everyone is watching, ready to move. A few people get fed up with the game and get in line. Now people are getting nervous. Why wait in the chair and NOT be in line, when they can wait in line, 10 feet away, and hold their own spot. Seems a shame to be early for the plane and still end up last in line to get a seat. So a few more stand, and now everyone is edgy, calculating… and something happens. When there are maybe 4 or 8 people in line, the group sort of explodes into action, moving quickly to take their places. In just a minute the line goes from a half dozen to 30. That’s the moment. If no one had gotten up in the first place, they all could have remained comfortably in seats for another half hour. But now they’re standing (or sitting) in line. Trust, justice, panic, effort. Some combination of effects makes this happen.

This is where we are. The slipping trust, the eroding economy is temporary, but no one wants to get in line too quickly. We sit back, watching the markets fall, the prices drop, knowing the longer we sit back the worse things get for everyone, but unwilling to trust again these institutions we had trusted for so long. We trusted banks and Wall Street and mortgages as safe the way we trust elevators in sky rises: initially some people knew how they worked, gears were exposed both to insure trust and to keep costs low… but as time progressed the elevator box made the workings invisible to the user: we didn’t want to see ourselves hanging in a heavy box suspended hundreds of feet in the air by a cable. Very creepy. The mechanics were hidden and we just trusted that it was well made and safe. But I tell you, when those boxes start to drop the public will want to see how they’re made, know who is inspecting them, and maybe have a few friends learn enough about what’s going on to be a trusted voice and these matters.

The system fell apart because our trust was abused. We are a beaten spouse, probably never to trust our partner again, or now always a little on guard, a tiny bit defensive. We’d leave, but there’s no where to go. So we’re still in this damaged relationship, all options seem untenable. What Obama is doing is simple: he’s trying as fast and hard as possible to get the public to trust – him, the administration, the institutions. He’s trying to be transparent. He’s trying to get trustworthy leaders. He’s speaking from his heart and he is a charismatic and passionate individual. I don’t know a lot about politics, but I have a feeling that this is precisely the thing we need.

The con is on. “So dark the con of man”? Naww… it’s the underlying principle of economics.