I was e-chatting with Dan's sister-in-law, Cindy, yesterday.  We ended the session by talking about how we humans have a propensity to make easy tasks into difficult, complicated ones. 

The two examples we discussed were walking (for health reasons) and flossing (also healthy).  The book she's reading (title escapes me Cindy--help?) talked about how one might build "rules" around walking.  It has to be for at least an hour.  One has to be out of breath.  It has to have uphill, or it has to be flat, or it has to be every day.  When we breach the rules, we fail.  And then we quit.

I'm the floss-avoidance queen.  My rule about flossing is that I have to do it at night before I go to bed.  (I usually fall into bed with a book and remember to floss the next morning...too late, I say, and don't floss.) 

The author's conclusion is that "easy is good."  Keep the tasks simple and they are more likely to get done.  When you repetitively do these simple tasks, they become habits.  I like that perspective. (Think I'll floss right now.) 

That's better.

But what about tasks that are overwhelming because they're not simple?  I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed these days with trying to figure out how to be authentically green.  There's a lot of "stuff" out there on what one should and shouldn't do.  What car to drive (or not).  What bag to use (or not).  Whom to buy from, what to wear, what and how to eat.  Yikes!

I think the solution to this overwhelmed feeling is similar to what I blogged about the other day with golf.  I need to establish reasonable expectations and "play" to them.  It's unreasonable to expect that overnight I would be able to become some sort of environmental guru.  There are too many things to know and too many conflicting reports to "know it all."

On the other hand, it is extremely reasonable to read one green article each week and decide what, if anything, I can do as a result of the acquired knowledge.  It may be that the topic requires more research.  It may be that I think it's a hunk of hooey.  It may be that I can immediately start a green project.

By making the expectation more reasonable, I simplify the task. 

Gradually, I will accumulate knowledge and be able to become something of a minor resource on various green topics...but that's not the goal.  The goal is to live in a healthier relationship to the planet.  And I can do that one article at a time.

It's also going to be healthy to remember the Shames precept: Success and failure are companions.  That way, when I forget to take my reusable bags into the grocery store, I don't have to do a half hour of mea culpas in my kitchen.  I can say, "oops" and remember next time.

Cindy helped simplify things a bit for me on this front.  She said that she and many of her friends have struggled while trying to figure out what green action might be best.  She reminded me that, at least in this case, "some action is almost always better than no action."  So, if I forget the reusable bags, I can at least recycle the single-use bags.  Some action better than none.

So, the greening of Laura continues...one bitty step at a time.

There was an interesting article in today's LA Times about the scheduled destruction of a "petitioner's village" in Beijing.  There is an ancient tradition in China where those who feel they have a grievance against the government petition to be heard.

In earlier times, the petitioner would bang a drum (literally) outside the government offices.  Apparently if the official grew tired enough of the banging drum, he would hear the petitioner's grievance.

In recent years, the Chinese government located several "Petition Offices," the modern offshoot of banging the drum, to a neighborhood in Beijing.  Petitioners moved nearby and the village sprang up.

It's not a good sign for China's supposedly open government that theya re disbanding the village.  Timing is suspect since the Olympics are fast approaching.  As the article notes, it's likely that because so many petitioners gathered in one place, the government has grown nervous about their ability to band together and form a movement.

The petitioner's village reminded me of our American versions of the petitioner's village--the "free speech zone."  At rallies, speeches, even near Bush's "ranch," zones are set aside for people to freely give their views.  Unfortunately, the zones are often far from the venue of the speech or rally, so the people are mainly free to give their views to those who agree with them.

Things get trickier in cases where a protestor or dissenter actually gets access to a microphone during a question and answer session.  During the last election campaign, Bush was notorious for only letting in friendly (read Registered Republican Donor) folk for his "town hall" discussions.

At a speech given by John Kerry yesterday in Florida, a young man named Andrew Meyer took the mike to ask Kerry a question.  There is some dispute over whether or not he took the mike away from another person (but I've seen no evidence of that).  He proceeded to ask Kerry about the 2004 election, referencing a book, about impeaching Bush and whether or not Kerry was part of the Skull and Bones society that Bush belongs to.

During Meyer's long, rambling question, Kerry is clearly engaged with his topics.  Yet 20 seconds into the question, a security guard touches Meyer on the back in an apparent attempt to get him to quit the mike.

Meyer refuses and continues with his half-lecture, half-question.  40 seconds later, she's back again.  Meyer brushes her off and finally finishes his question at 1 minute, 19 seconds.  He is then accosted by another security guard and they both try to take him out of the auditorium. 

Kerry interjects, saying, "No, let me answer his question."  But the guards ignore Kerry and the situation rapidly deteriorates.  Meyer objects to being escorted out, avoids the guards, flaps his arms and generally makes a ruckus.

The guards succeed in getting Meyer to the door of the auditorium just about 2 minutes after he started asking his question. He's put on the ground, continues to protest and then is tasered.

When I first saw the video of this event, I felt that both "sides" were off base--Meyer for his resistance and the guards for tasering him.  Having looked a 3rd time now, I really feel pretty sympathetic toward Meyer.  The female guard rapidly decided that his questions were inappropriate and tried to get him to away from the mike when very little time had elapsed.  He was harassed during questioning even though Kerry was clearly engaged.

And the guards ignored a gracious opportunity provided by Kerry to de-escalate the situation.

Should Meyer have resisted? Not if he wanted to avoid a confrontation.

Did the guards go too far in tasering him? At that point, they probably wouldn't have been able to subdue him without force and the situation needed to be resolved quickly.  So they probably made a "correct" decision there.

The real issue (easy for me to say since I wasn't tasered) is that the situation should never have gotten to that point.  Meyer was exercising his right to free speech and there was no credible reason for taking that away from him.

Eventually the officers tell Meyer that they're arresting him for trying to "incite a riot."  Hah!  That won't stick.  The disturbance was created by the show of force, in my opinion, not by the questions.

The good news out of this brouhaha is that we're in a country where news of the altercation is not suppressed.  Where Meyer will be able to defend himself and petition for justice without having to bang a drum or beg for an official to hear him.

The bad news is that such over-reaction by the guards might encourage more people to stay safely in the "free speech zone" where they are seen but not heard.

Just read a great quote on www.myfooddiary.com (a great website for tracking calorie intake and expenditure).  The quote fits perfectly with today's activities.

"Success and failure.  We think of them as opposites, but they're really not.  They're companions--the hero and the sidekick."  --Laurence Shames

Shames is a novelist and erstwhile ghostwriter, so I imagine he knows a little bit about success and failure.  I have to say, running across this quote today was a nice synchornicity.  I was journaling this morning about expectations versus realities...for two reasons.  1. I am playing in a golf tournament today (best ball format so it's not too stressful).  2. I am re-renewing my commitment to eating healthily and working out regularly.

As a recovering perfectionist, it's hard for me not to see failure as both enemy and excuse.  Perfectionists start endeavors with the highest of goals.  They often achieve a great deal because they drive themselves to meet those goals at some pretty ridiculous costs.  But when they (inevitably) prove to be mere humans instead of demi-gods, the crash is hard and the "failure" can become an excuse not to try again.  And/or a nice bludgeon for hitting oneself repeatedly over the head.

So in my journaling today, I wrote a few realistic expectations down for today's golf outing.  I will contribute to the team by enjoying the day and the company.  I will also contribute 3-5 good shots to the overall effort.  Anything more is gravy.

As to the renewed commitment to a healthy lifestyle, well...that's going to be full of Shames's companions--success and failure.  I am sure I will have great days of working out and eating only things that are good for me.  I will also have days where I don't make it to the gym and still manage to eat a serving of chocolate souffle after a steak dinner.  In this case, it's more about the trend than it is about the incident. 

I've also discovered, thanks to my friend Erik, that a weekly day off from being a dedicated intake monitor, is a wonderful way to stave off the "failure" syndrome that so often accompanies eating plans.  Instead of saying, "Oh well, I had the souffle, I might as well eat my way through the rest of the week until Monday," I can plan for the souffle and avoid the guilt.

So, today, I'll have two companions with me on the golf course and at table.  Success and her sidekick, failure.  If I can get the 3rd companion of grace to join us, it should be an awesome day.

Dan and I are just getting ready to sit down and watch the final round of the Tour Championship, so I thought I'd sneak in a blog.  It's been a great day so far. 

A bit of a lie-in for me, getting up around 8:30 and then we were off to breakfast at a local bakery followed by a stroll through the farmer's market.  Today's purchases included some delicious figs, cheese, a zucchini mix, cherry tomatos, pears, some gorgeous lettuce and two loaves of bread (vegan...yummy!).  We took our reusable bags with us and also re-used one of the plastic bags from last trip.

It's a bit ironic to me that the farmers' market, wherein all sorts of greenies hang out, uses a ton of plastic sacks each week.  People give me strange looks when I say, "Oh, I don't need a bag," but I have gotten some positive comments as well.  More importantly, I save about 10 bags each time I go, since every vendor puts each group of like items into a separate plastic bag.

I went to the website for reusable bags (1 Bag at a Time) that has some interesting facts and comparisons in it for those who are interested.  They make their bags out of petroleum products, similar to the single use bags we get at the market.  But their bags are designed to be reused for up to two years.  They're washable, roomier than regular one-use bags, and recyclable at the end of their life.  I may pick up a few next time I'm at the store.  Right now I have 3 different bags from three different stores.  One's canvas, one's a sort of fiberous material (free at a store's grand opening and in need of mending after a year of use), one's of the same material as the 1 Bag at a Time brand.

I did remember one other green thing I'm doing (left off of yesterday's list).  Dan and I both are switching from drinking bottled water to drinking the filtered water we have in the house.  That should save at least 24 bottles per week from this household.

But I digress.  After the farmers' market, we went out for a long walk in the neighborhood.  Lots of hills around here!  The rest of today will be laundry (using up the last of the "less bad" soap before switching to green soap), watching the game and cross-stitching, barbequing with our friends Tom and Renee' and watching the Chargers win (I hope!) tonight.  I'm wearing my team shirt all day today...if that doesn't generate mojo, I don't know what will!

I have a confession to make.  I've been a dilettante environmentalist for years now...a dabbler if you will.  On the "plus" side of my efforts are the following:

1.  I mostly recycle recyclables.  By mostly, I'd say I put 95% of everything I use that's eligible for the recycle bin INTO the recycle bin.

2.  I reuse my computer paper so that both sides are inked before I put them in the recycle bin.

3.  I put batteries, computer parts, etc., in a "hazardous waste" box and then take it to the hazardous waste collection site.

More recently:

4. I use a personal tumbler for my morning Starbucks, thereby eliminating the daily waste of 1 paper cup and 1 paper insulator.

5. I use durable shopping bags that I take into the grocery store (or to the farmers' market) instead of making a "paper or plastic" choice at the store.  (If you need convincing to emulate me on this point and the last, read Steve Lopez's excellent essay here.)

On the minus side?  Well, there's the 5% that doesn't make it into the recycle bin.  I drive an SUV (albeit a little one and one with fairly good gas mileage).  I live in a huge house with my husband and no one else (but I do keep the windows open more often than I run the air conditioner...it helps to live in Laguna Niguel instead of Santa Clarita or Palm Springs).

More importantly though is my lack of knowledge.  Dan likes to gently mock me when I take up a new crusade, so he asked me today how my plastic, reusable Starbucks tumbler--which needs at least a daily rinse and is, after all, plastic--compares to a daily throw-away paper cup.  I know it's better, but I don't know how much better and I don't know why.  I don't know if there's an even better solution (a ceramic cup that's genuinely reusable?) out there.

To that end, I've started to educate myself through a variety of means, on what I can do to be a "good citizen" of planet Earth.  I am fortunate in that I have a number of friends who are ahead of me on this learning curve (Cindy Morefield, Erik Kieser).  Cindy turned me on to a daily web tip on living green called Ideal Bite.  She also told me (which no one else had ever mentioned) that bottle lids are not recyclable and, if you recap the bottle when you throw it in the recycle bin, often the entire bottle will get tossed.  Good to know.

You'll also see a link below to the book I'm currently reading on the topic of environmentalism.  I got the reference from the movie The 11th Hour  and Cindy recommended it highly.  It's a fascinating way of rethinking the paradigm.  Instead of "reduce, reuse, recycle," the authors propose looking at production in an entirely new manner.  Rather than being at odds with nature, they advocate mimicing nature's way of composting everything that is no longer usable into energy for new life.  I'm starting the 3rd chapter, and I give the book a thumbs up.

My favorite concept in the book so far (other than the fact it's not made out of paper!) is the title of Chapter Two: "Why Being Less Bad is Not Good."  When I look at the list I started this blog with, I realize that phrase sums up my efforts so far.  I am trying to be "less bad."

(Story of my life, really...but that's a topic for another blog.)

I am looking forward, at least in the green sense, to learning how to bring value added to the earth rather than just minimizing the damage I leave behind.

I didn't want to write this blog today.  It started out with another title, "Becoming Green" and with a defensive first paragraph about how I knew I should be blogging about Bush's speech but I couldn't face it yet.

Then, the blog morphed into a commentary (albiet brief) on Bush's speech.  So here we go.

Most people seem to be focused on Bush's new language of "success" versus "victory," and what it means that the oil revenue sharing legislation Bush has touted as one success seems to be falling apart.  I have to confess, I couldn't even watch the man last night.  (I did read the speech this morning.)  After reading the speech and a few op-eds, I have two brief comments about the speech, the surge, the post-surge withdrawal plans. 


1.  The word that struck me the most in the speech was not "success," which it seems pundits coast to coast have latched onto as indicative of a mindset change.  Their reasoning goes that since Bush isn't talking about "victory" anymore, he must be acknowledging that the war will not be won.

Harrumph.  I don't buy that.

I did note with interest, however, that when Bush talked about Iraq as an oasis of security in the Mideast, he referred to it as a free Iraq not, as he has in the past, a democratic Iraq.  I think this was a much more meaningful language shift and it signals, to me, that Bush is beginning to see that the democracy he conjured for Iraq will not be the stable government he envisioned.  He may have to settle for something a bit more military like Afghanistan.  We'll see.

2.  When Bush said, "Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home, have been at odds. Now...[it's possible] for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together, " I quite frankly got pissed.

Sure, we can come together over an orderly withdrawal that leaves the region relatively stable.  We will rejoice when our men and women serving in Iraq are able to return home just as we grieve together over those who won't be returning home. 

I am not one of those who advocate pulling out of Iraq now and leaving a bloody (bloodier) mess behind us.  We have an obligation to help Iraq transition back to some semblance of stability before we leave. 

But I am pissed as hell that we're there at all...and "coming together" over the withdrawal process does NOT fix everything.  I hope he gets that.  And I know he doesn't.

So as you see, I went and did a full blog on Bush and Iraq and now am too irritated to write about going green...a much more pleasant topic (and one where I can have more impact!).  Tune in tomorrow for me telling Kermit, "It is easy being green!"

While there's been a rapid build-up of support for yesterday's "Laura Morefield Proposal," I feel I have no choice but to withdraw my idea. 

It occurred to me that there are some small issues with October Redux.  The first seemed frivolous: what would we do about horoscopes?  After that, they got more serious.  While kids might appreciate a second Halloween, would it make up for four more weeks of staring at Mr. Loomis's back as he solves white-board algebra equations and waxes poetic over his love of pi? 

No.

And what about my good friend in prison (and his countless co-inmates)?  I am sure they would rather have a shorter 2007 than a longer one.

So, I cannot allow this idea to grow beyond its current advocacy group.  It appears I will just have to make do with the twelve months we have for 2007.  I suppose that's a good thing.  What would I do with the extra month anyway?  Probably fritter it away thinking, "Hey, this time is gravy...I'm supposed to watch all 88 episodes of Farscape.  I deserve to watch all 88 episodes of Farscape."  So there I would be on November 1st, lamenting all over again about how there's not enough time left in 2007.

It was an interesting thought to contemplate, extra time.  The concept has made me appreciate, on this day of all days, the time I've had.  The time I have yet to have.  To pause a moment and reflect seriously upon those whose lives were taken 6 years ago in an abrupt, chaotic, harsh series of terrorist attacks.

I know their families wish with their very bones for extra time.  I imagine most of the victims uttered fervent prayers for more time.  The families of all of those who've died in the aftermath--war in Afghanistan, war and insurgency in Iraq--they all wish for more time too.

I trust their prayers will be answered in a world beyond this one.  Where time is elastic, the bonds of friendship and family are warm embraces.  A place where there are no more tears.

Selah.

 

It came to me this morning.  There is not enough time between now (September 10th already!) and the end of the year.  A mere 112 days until sparkly ball descends in Times Square.  So...

I have a proposal.

How about we add another month to 2007?  We could call it Catch-Up month.  Or Gravy month.  Or, better yet, call it Redux.  What we call it doesn't matter so much as the glorious extre 30 days we would get.  (You'll note, I'm not greedily pushing for a 31 day extra month...I think that's very restrained and reasonable of me, don't you?)

I proposed this idea to Cindy this morning as we drove to obtain our morning infusion of Starbucks lattes.  She was somewhat dubious of the idea.  So I thought I'd launch to proposal on a broader scale, to people perhaps more flexible in their thinking.  Just imagine the benefits.

The economy would benefit because there would be an extra month of consumption and production.  More taxes would be generated (and more future taxpayers).  If more babies are born in 2007 than in 2008, then more people will pay into social security for the 2008 clan...that's good for them, right?

It's good for workers, too.  An extra opportunity to work and earn money.  That will help cover the extra expenses of the added month, but I've thought ahead a little bit about this one.  We wouldn't want to have two Decembers or two Novembers, because there are huge spending holidays in those months.  So the added expenses of, say, two Christmases or two Channukahs would be overwhelming.  And who wants to cook two massive turkey dinners?  Not to mention the thousands of people who dread the holidays every year and who would want to hide for the Redux month.

So I have the solution.  What holiday do the participants look forward to every year with glee?  Right!  Halloween!  Kids love that candy and the costumes.  I know we always have leftover candy, so we can prevent both an expansion of our waistlines and an extra expense by saving the candy until Halloween Redux.  Parents can avoid the extra costume expenses by trading with friends and family while the character represented is still hot (instead of facing the whining of pirates being so last year.)

So I propose a 30-day, October Redux, with Halloween Redux on October 30th.  (Hey, I told you I wasn't greedy...30 days is plenty.)

Of course, it just so happens that my sister-in-law, Jeanne's birthday* is in October (as is my niece's and one of my great nephews), so it's a little bonus for them but in the grand scheme of things, that's not too much added expense.  And just think of all the extra time you'll have.  Novels will be written.  Houses built.  Friendships made.  Toenails painted.  I see a whole world happily engaged in bonus time.  Join with me now!  Write your congressman and demand an extra October in 2007.  Tell him or her how much you need the time.  Feel free to outline the benefits I've mentioned above.  Heck, just sign the post and forward it.  We can do it.  We can start a movement.

 

 

*I should also mention that I have a birthday in October, too.  But I wouldn't want to celebrate twice because I know certain individuals in my family would try to accelerate my age by a year.  I am in my mid-forties and intend to stay there for the next 10 years.  So Jeanne can have my extra birthday.  Not the gifts, mind you...just the day.

Greetings from the other side of Artist/Gallery boot camp!  In case you're wondering where I've been for the last 3 days, I have been:

-Dismantling my house (which includes moving furniture, putting tables and chairs in the garage and generally turning the house into an art gallery);

-Removing the (mass-produced) art from our walls;

-Patching and painting;

-Placing (singly-produced) beautiful works of art by Dan's sister-in-law, Cindy on the walls of our newly gallery-ized home;

-Shopping for food, drink, poster putty (more about poster putty later), nylon thread, unidentified decorative vegetation (more about that later too) a laser level and Ook picture hangers;

-Hosting an Art Salon (and our first party since the completion of the Great Landscaping Project of 2007);

-Collapsing in a heap.

It's been busy around here, that's for sure.  I no longer need to marvel at how Cindy stays so trim...she's worked my butt off (well, gotten a good start on it anyway) the past week.  The results were wonderful.  We had a successful salon--Cindy sold some of her work, made good connections for potential future sales, had a nice party and learned enough to probably try it again in a year or so.

And Dan and I acquired a new, gorgeous piece of art for our living room called Three There. 

Right now, we're enjoying the BMW Championship while recuperating from our efforts.  I was dead on my feet after the event yesterday and enjoyed a morning of drinking coffee and reading today.

So, poster putty.  Who knew?  On Thursday, Cindy and I went shopping for the various items we'd need to hang her work.  She introduced me to poster putty...we went to 3 different stores before finding the right kind at the hardware store. 

The putty is like a sticky clay and functions to keep art work in place on the wall (as an assistant to the nail, not as a substitute).  We used it to hang all of Cindy's art and to secure a pesky print that keeps creeping off kilter on our living room wall. 

It's great because you can easily remove it,  it doesn't stain the walls and it's extremely useful in hanging things.  I can see myself using it in place of push pins or tiny nails in my office.

The unidentified vegetable matter was purchased as a decorative leaf (some sort of cabbage with purple, ruffled leaves...Dean should know the name...he used to be a produce manager) to put underneath the cheeses and yummy fruits we offered as light refreshment.  It merits mention only because no one at Henry's could figure out what it was so I think I just paid for a head of lettuce.  Quite a pretty head of lettuce, to be sure.

The turnout for the gathering was great.  We had friends from banking days (Cathy Simms and Garrett Bell), local chums Tom and Renee Dobyns, some friends from S&S (Fred and Karen), some acquaintances of Cindy's (Ginny, Sharen, and Betsy), our neighbors, Nicole and Sherman, Dan's friend, Bob, and my mom, Charlene, and her friend, Liliane.  It was a quite convivial gathering and even included an invigorating political discussion with Mom, Nicole, Liliane, and yours truly...turns out that Nicole and Sherman are self-described extreme conservatives who have been bemused by my bumper-stickers.    We discussed presidential candidates (she's for Romney) and I was glad of the research I've done to date on the dems.  I stated that I'm leaning toward Edwards (even tho I still have to check out Obama and Clinton).

All in all, a memorable art salon after a ton of effort over 3 days.  I'm going to upload some photos for all to enjoy.  Oh, and one final note, at one point the guys were all outside...what were they doing?  Using the putting green, of course.  Although, once they figured out that all the women were inside, they quickly headed back in.  No fools, them.

Happy birthday, Dick/Papasan.  That's it from Chez Morefield for now.

Three There

Elaborate Collaboration  What several folks said was the signature piece of the show.

Yesterday Cindy and I saw the Leonardo DiCaprio documentary The 11th Hour at a local theater.  I've been pondering my response to the film since seeing it.  In a nutshell, I'm disappointed and yet I'm convinced you should see it.

By way of context, I should state up front that I do believe we human beings are having a significant, mostly negative effect on the biosphere.  Outside of conservative talk radio, there's really not much debate on this point and virtually none that is based on science.  Instead we hear from Rush and his wannabees how really there isn't any impact...or if there is, then it's good.  (After all, isn't everything we do good?)

So one would think that I'd be solidly recommending Leo's documentary.  Indeed, I do believe it's worth watching.  My disappointment in the film has to do with the quality of the direction and its effectiveness as a call to action. 

So let's start with what the film does well.  First off, it poses the issue in broad terms.  This is not a film about global warming.  It's not a film about pollution, overpopulation, conservation or even environmentalism.  It's a film that integrates all these topics and more to look at man's impact on his home, contextualizing it within the broad frame of the planet's history.  It's a film that rightly positions our tenure on this planet as (relatively) recent, brief and impactful.

It's also a film that presents man's ingenuity as the solution to these manmade problems.  The film's experts discuss the necessity of shifting the paradigms in a compelling and ultimately inspiring way.

Several facts are highlighted that bear mentioning.  First, the burgeoning human population.  Since 1960, we've gone from 3 billion people on the planet to 6 billion.  We've doubled the population in just under 50 years.  Prior to the 1800's, we were relatively stable at 500 million.  With the advent of industrialization and the fossil fuels that propel "advancement," our population has indeed "exploded."

Next, illustrations of global deforestation.  The changes we've wrought just by cutting down trees and planting fields or cities or both are clarified when one sees the change on a global scale.

Last, the impact of the global population on what has arguably been our richest source of protein.  We are straining the oceans both by what we take out of them in terms of food...and by what we put in them in terms of pollutants.

What the film does wrong, in my opinion, is two-fold.  One, it never creates a framework for the many facts presented by a multitude of talking-head presenters.  Instead, one is left to pick up a fairly obscure trail by weaving among the facts and creating one's own through-line.  It can be done, but it's tedious work at best and work that not everyone can or wants to do.

Two, the movie appears to be a call to action.  I say appears to be because the call is not clear, the actions are not defined and thus one is left without a vigorous sense of purpose.

As I exited the theater, I found myself wondering who the audience for the movie would be.  It works as "preaching to the choir" but isn't detailed or compelling enough to convince those still on the fence.  All in all, a well-intentioned attempt that falls short of the mark. 

Still, I recommend viewing the film for the following reasons. 

1.  It's informative and it's information we need to know.

2.  It provides reasoned optimism about ways to address the issues.

3.  It provides enough information for folks to determine further areas of research.  I will be picking up a book called Cradle to Cradle and another called The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" as a result of the movie.

4.  It is the 11th Hour.

Go see the movie.  Take caffeine with you.