The Tree of Wha?

Last night, I watched “The Tree of Life” (2011), Terence Malick’s Oscar-nominated, beautifully filmed, phantasmagorical meditation on life, death, and the relationship of man to the Almighty. I sat mesmerized as the history of the universe unwound before me, stately, majestic, the finely-tuned vision of a master craftsman. And so it is with near-breathless awe that I say, simply. . .

What the hell did I just watch?!?

OK, confession: I only made it through about 45 minutes of this thing. I kind of gave up right after the raptor-type thing stepped on the face of the dying other-dinosaur-type thing and then stepped off it and went on its way. (And I couldn’t help but notice that this CGI raptor--unlike those in less “prestigious” films--didn’t seem to disturb the pebbles over which it “trod.”) I suppose this was meant to represent mercy or salvation or merely the ineffable workings of the deity the point is WHO CARES?!?

I could be wrong, but it seemed the main message of the movie is that the entire history of evolution culminates in Sean Penn--which is more than enough to put me off my feed for awhile. Speaking of Sean Penn, what’s the point of getting A-list actors like him and Brad Pitt if all they’re going to do is whisper in voice-over and look tortured? I could do that! Not that I would: I have my principles.

Look, call me a philistine, but if I’m going to sit through a lengthy meditation on God and death, I’ll just re-watch the last season of “Dexter”: All the philosophy plus a little something that Terence Malick would do well to include in future cinematic endeavors: A plot.

Here endeth the rant.

Youthful Indiscretions

As President Obama strides two steps forward in the history of civil rights with his endorsement of gay marriage, Mitt Romney takes us one step back.  It has recently come to light that, as a senior at Muffington Central Prep School (or something), Romney may have engaged in a bit of playful gay-bashing.  He and some of his good buds ganged up on a schoolmate, John Lauber, who had the temerity to return from Spring Break with his hair dyed blond.

Now, I know what you're thinking: Little freak had it coming.  I know!  But, you know how the lamestream media is: Give them a story about a future presidential candidate bullying a gay teenager, and they're all over it!

In Romney's defense, he claims he was not bullying Lauber because Lauber was gay; indeed, Romney says--and personally I believe--that he wasn't even aware that Lauber was gay.  So, there, it's cool: Romney's not a homophobe; he's just a jerk.

Honestly, I don't think anyone should worry too much about things that presidential candidates might have done in high school, which in Romney's case was almost fifty years ago. Hell, when I was in tenth grade, I killed and ate a local electrician.  Nobody's going to hold that against me now, right?

What?

Oh.

Well, just forget I said anything.

Two Cheers and a Yawn for President Obama

Call me jaded, call me an emotionless robot, but I just can't get overly excited about President Obama coming out (so to speak) in favor of gay marriage.  Don't get me wrong: I think anyone who wants to get married should have the right to do so, and I think the Prez did the right thing by declaring his support for this basic human right.  I'm just not convinced it's that big a deal.

First, I've always more or less assumed--and I suspect I'm not alone in this--that, deep down, President Obama always did believe that gay people should have the right to marry.  Indeed, back when he was just a local Illinois politician, he indicated as much on a questionnaire.  Only when he went national did he promote a more mainstream endorsement of civil unions.  Most people probably believed that Obama was cynically trying to make himself more palatable to middle America, but they overlooked this maneuvering, believing he would ultimately do the right thing with regard to gay civil rights.

Which of course he has.  President Obama has overseen a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," for example, as well as ordering the Justice Department to stop defending the "Defense of Marriage Act."  These substantive policy decisions have done more for the gay community than the purely symbolic statement that the President believes that gays and lesbians should be able to marry legally.

People say the President took a political risk.  I'm not sure why: People who oppose gay marriage were likely never going to vote for Obama anyway.  True, his statement may anger some members of the black community--particularly black clergy and their devout followers, but are these folks likely to flock to Romney?  And however many people are turned off by this non-change change of heart, I imagine at least as many found it refreshing to hear a politician take a firm, unequivocal position on a controversial social issue.

Indeed, this whole thing may redound to Obama's political advantage.  Mitt Romney, of course, has toed the party line and reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage.  Personally, I suspect Romney's true feelings, like Obama's, differ somewhat from his public pronouncements.  I don't doubt Mittington's relatively traditional view of marriage--despite his ancestral co-religionists' somewhat more multiple idea of the husband-wives relationship.  I suspect, however, that deep down he really just doesn't care all that much about the issue.  Now, however, his Republican base will demand a full-throated denunciation of Obama's godless liberalism, which will only complicate Romney's attempt to present a more moderate image to the national electorate.

Maybe Romney should just come out in favor of gay marriage, too.  Now THAT would be newsworthy.

It's Not Like They Spotted Nessie

Check.  This.  Out.  The world's rarest gorillas--the cross river gorillas of Cameroon--have been caught on videotape:

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/05/08/Worlds-rarest-gorillas-caught-on-camera/UPI-57271336510037/

Just how rare are cross river gorillas?  Well, I for one had never heard of them.  As a native New Yorker, I would have assumed a "cross river gorilla" was a thug from Fort Lee.  Shows you how much I know.

Still, I find the whole thing a bit underwhelming.  I mean, these may be the gorilla equivalent of Sasquatch, but when I see the video, I think, "Well. .  .OK, then.  Gorillas."

'Cause let's face it, superficially at least, these guys don't look particularly different from your basic, everyday, run-of-the-mill gorilla you might run into at Safeway.  It's not like they're purple, or talk, or can make me an omelet.

Can they make me an omelet?

Actually, now that I've thought about it, I guess Sasquatch is the gorilla equivalent of Sasquatch.

You could point a camera at any gorilla and tell me it's rare and, y'know, I'll just have to take your word for it.

Reminds me of the fuss over the ivory-billed woodpecker, long-considered extinct, then recently spotted, but subsequently--upon the occasion of its never being definitively spotted again--declared extinct once more.

Lost in all the hoopla is perhaps the most salient point about the elusive woodpecker: namely, that--extinct or extant, rare or routine--the bottom line is, it's a freaking woodpecker!

So by all means, enjoy the march of the cross river gorillas, but don't affect awe and admiration when gazing upon these "mysterious" creatures.  You wouldn't know a cross river from another kind of gorilla if it were gnawing your face off.

Which I'm sure such a rare and noble creature would never do.

We Could Always Call It "Math Death March"

This summer, the college will offer a one-week intensive math "Boot Camp" for students enrolling in the fall semester.  The people offering the class are having some trouble attracting students.  I suspect the name is putting people off: "Boot Camp?  That's what my cousin went to in the Marines!"

I think the "Camp" part is good--conjures memories of idyllic summer afternoons drinking "bug juice" and playing kickball.  Maybe "Math Camp"?  Nah. . . . Sounds a little too nerdy.  Let's see. . . .

Well, the kids'll be doing math problems. . . Studying. . . Concentrating. . . Hey, that's it!

Too soon?

What about the Vision and Scarlet Witch?

I guess I have to see "The Avengers."  I've had some concerns, but it seems to be getting good reviews.  I guess if you average out the awesomeness of the "Iron Man" movies, the general okayness of "Captain America," the mediocrity of "The Hulk" and what I understand to be the dreariness of "Thor" (didn't see it), you're probably in for at least an OK movie.  Since Hawkeye and Black Widow haven't shown up in movies yet, they would be the wild cards.

And y'know that image they keep showing from the movie, where all the heroes are circled up:

Don't you think Hawkeye must feel tremendously inadequate?  All those real superheroes must find his little arrows (no Freudian symbolism there, huh?) just adorable.  Yeah, I know Black Widow doesn't really have super powers, either, but she's packing heat--and she's Scarlett Johanneson  (Johanssen?  Johannesburg?) in a black rubber suit, so, y'know. . . .who cares?

There Are Some Things Money Can't Buy. . . Not Many, But Some

HOMER: Hey what's Lucky hooked up to?

NURSE: A respirator.  It breathes for him.

HOMER: And here I am, using my own lungs like a sucker!

People dissatisfied with life have long sought the counsel of psychologists and counselors, motivational speakers and life coaches.  Now, another arrow in the self-help quiver takes the form of "wantologists": professional therapists who specialize in helping people figure out what they want--"they" being the clients; the wantologists have presumably gotten everything they want simply by virtue of convincing people they exist.  I guess a wantologist's successful clients then seek the services of a "getologist" to help them attain their desires.

Of course, if I want someone to tell me what I want, it hardly seems I need the want-identifying services of a wantologist.  The rabbit hole beckons.

Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild sees wantology as a symptom of a larger societal ill: the trend to "outsource" tasks previously considered essential parts of the self:

We've put a self-perpetuating cycle in motion. The more anxious, isolated and time-deprived we are, the more likely we are to turn to paid personal services. . . .If we can afford the services involved, many if not most of us are prone to say, sure, why not?

She has a point. Why spend time cooking a meal when I can simply pay for Chinese take-out?  People will object that this is more expensive and/or less healthy than preparing a home-cooked meal.  It's true that it costs more money: I could probably purchase the ingredients to make a healthy meal for a family of three for less than I would spend on the same meal from a restaurant; however, this fails to take into account the value of my time.  If I earn the equivalent of about $50 an hour, and if it would take about an hour to prepare the meal, then, financially, I sort of come out ahead in the deal by ordering in.  Some say that preparing food for one's family is an act of love and should not be equated with work.  To those people I say, if you love cooking so much, why don't you come over to my place so I can not pay you to make me dinner.  Win-win situation!

As for the relative health benefits of a home-cooked meal. . . .Let's just say, you've never eaten my cooking.

The question is, where does the "marketization" of society end?  If we can pay someone to cook our meals, watch our children--hell, give birth to our children--and figure out what it is we want, what can't we pay someone for?  Prostitution is generally illegal, but given the social trend toward paying for any and everything--and toward seeing this as perfectly acceptable--one must wonder, Why?  Because prostitution exploits the poor? No doubt, this is true.   But the wantologists featured in Hochschild's article hardly seem exploited--or poor.  Why not monetize organ donation?  If something can be outsourced, why shouldn't it be?

Now, I just need to hire someone to write this blog.  I can pay in cats.