Where the Wild Things Are

Where the Wild Things Are is a children's movie. If I had three tickets and 4 children aged 3, 5, 8 and 12, I would probably take the bookend kids.

TTWTA is a feature length dramatization of a 10 sentence long children's picture book in which a child by the name of Max gets sent to his room after "making mischief" in his wolf costume, only to find his room transformed into a wonderful world where he becomes king of some scary looking Wild Things. In the end of the book he gets lonely and returns home. Most of you have probably read the book, and if you haven't, you missed out.

Little from the book was missing in the movie. It captured with startling candor the feelings of an imaginative child who feels ignored by the world, and the frustrations of trying to constructively interact with that world. At the same time, the film reveled in the joys of romping through the woods, sailing the high seas and making friends with Wild Things.

Most of the story, though, is a morality tale; the cast are the Wild Things and Max himself, Each one is an archetype of some behavior dysfunction, and each one exists so that our hero can observe the consequences of various social behavior. However, most of these dysfunctions aren't fully resolved. Rather, they are merely grappled with, played out long enough that somebody gets hurt but not long enough for the story to lead to real repentance or redemption. This underscores one of the frustrations of childhood - relationships are often just as complex as they are for adults, but you have far fewer tools with which to understand them. Why does that friend want to be alone? Does he not like me? What can I do about it? Starting a dirt clod fight sometimes helps... will it work here?

One of the wonderful things about this story is that each character longs deeply for community, for real and total co-acceptance. They yearn to be one of the gang, to be loved, to fall asleep in a giant pile of fur and feathers. Recognizing their own dysfunction, they wait for a true king, one who will save the world and fix the brokenness. Carol, the Wild Thing whose personality most closely mirrors Max's own, has a real child-like mix of raw hope and a raw fear, a hope that lets him embrace Max as a king, and a fear that throws him into rage as that dream crumbles. If this were a story that had supported that hope and quenched that fear, it would be a great children's story. But its not.

In fact, Carol's hope is the only one that can be described as child-like. For most, the yearning for community is buried in layers of despair or, worse yet, cynicism. And this, unfortunately, is the viewpoint that is supported in the end. While there are flickers of forgiveness and love between individuals, there is no grand redemption, no salvation. WTWTA is, at its core, an atheistic movie. Max does not represent merely an unworthy, phony, or incapable king. He represents a fairy tale, a false hope. "There is no such thing as a king," Carol is told. No king and no salvation, no family head or higher good. Any hope of community and family is left a leaderless mess.

Did I enjoy the movie? Absolutely. If you want to explore the mind of children dealing with loneliness, social frustration and anger, you should see this movie too. But unless you want to introduce your kids to a morality that is, at best, functionalist ethics set in a dysfunctional world, hire a sitter. (Or better yet, take your kids and talk with them afterwards!)

3.5/5

Obama and Agriculture

Something doesn't seem right about Obama's choice for Secretary of Agriculture.

The presidential cabinet consists of the secretaries of departments of the Executive branch, people knowledgeable enough in their respective fields that they can offer their opinion and advice to the presidents "upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices." (US Constitution) Obviously, the authority of any president far exceeds his expertise; to be a responsible leader, he must rely on trusted advisers who better understand the important workings of each system of government.

Obama, as you all know, has recently been picking his cabinet. Here are some of his selections, and their qualifications for the post:

Secretary of Energy: Steven Chu. Nobel Prize winning physicist, specializing in lazer cooling, atom trapping, and molecules in biological systems. Has organized research on energy related molecular work involving big names such as British Petrolium, and is actively involved in global climate councils.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Eric Shinseki. Vietnam war veteran with a maimed foot, four star general. Made some early unpopular predictions on Iraq war troop needs, and was proven right.

Secretary of the Treasury: Timothy Geithner. President of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY. Vice chairman of the Federal Open Market Commitee.

Now I'm not saying that I can guarantee the ability of these people to act as good advisors to the President of the United States, but each of them has a combination of leadership abilities and experience in their field that at least makes them look qualified. These people probably know something about where their field has come from, what the challenges facing it now are, and where it might go in the future.

These are the kinds of qualifications I expected Obama to look for in a Secretary of Agriculture nominee as well. I have to say I was even a little hopeful, thinking that perhaps Obama's call for "Change" would show itself in his choosing someone who would turn over a new leaf in the field of Agriculture, as it were. Here are a few major shifts in American agriculture that I've been hoping for:

• Elimination of farm subsidies. In trying to "support American farmers," the government has subsidised agriculture, essentially paying growers to produce food. Some of these subsidies are outright, others come in the form of tax reductions and extensive public infrastructure not found in many parts of the world. As a result, growers here can produce food for much less, meaning that food prices do not reflect food costs. Originally, these subsidies were put in place to protect the livelihoods of small farmers, who at the time of the first farm bill made up a large percentage of the beneficiaries. Now, the vast majority of the $8 billion spent each year goes to large scale growers (companies, not families). Worst of all, surplus production is then dumped overseas for prices that undercut foreign markets, destroying the ability of small farmers everywhere to survive.
  
• Encourage local on-farm recycling of animal waste. We have huge feed lots with mountains of rotting cow dung, while just miles away farmers spread chemical fertilizers onto their soil.
• Encourage consumption of locally grown food. (A complicated issue, I know, but important nonetheless)
  
• Give property tax benefits to farmers on prime agricultural land, savings that must be repayed in full if the land is converted to housing or commercial development. Good soil is a precious commodity, covering it over with concrete because local housing prices are high is a crime.
• Create a sustainable agriculture standard similar to the existent one for organic agriculture.
  

...and I could go on. In short, American agriculture has gone from a community sustaining way of life to an industry that is only concerned with production and profit. System health has been cashed in for system profit, and that is scary when we're talking about who is taking care of our land and producing our food.

Anyway, I've been looking forward to a regime change, not because I expected a new Secretary of Agriculture would necessarily bring about all of these changes, but because I hoped he might. Now, I'm pretty sure nothing will change, at least for the good.

Here's our guy:

Name: Tom Vilsack

• Current position: Governor of Iowa
• Qualifications: None, at least as far as experience in, uh, agriculture goes. He once was involved in a passing a bill in Iowa that kept communities from banning GM foods. (that's a bad thing, imho). Oh, and he flies around in Monsanto owned jets a lot. I guess both of those are kind of related to agriculture.
  
• Obama's justification for appointing him: "Obviously, if you don't know agriculture, you're not going to become governor of Iowa"

Really, Obama, really? Is being a politician in a corn state really the same as having experience in agriculture? That sounds kind of like Palin's "I'm experienced in foreign policy! I can see the Russian shoreline!" line.

Seriously, why is nobody questioning this guy's qualifications? Granted, he doesn't get the office unless the Senate approves him, but going on their previous record (our current Secretary has similarly little agricultural background), I'm not holding my breath.

Okay, the little conspiracy theorist inside of me has something to say:

"Vilsack isn't the only unqualified ex-presidential candidate to get assigned a post on Obama's cabinet. What about Clinton? She's unqualified for her position too! I bet they both had some dirt on Obama, or got bribed out of the race, or something. Obama obviously was obligated to appoint them. Something's fishy here."

Now, the theorist is probably just paranoid, but ya gotta wonder...