Bond ReBourne
I ususally don't like Cold War spy stories, because they did much to exacerbate ill will during the actual, horrible, Cold War. But, the Cold War is over, Russia is doing relatively well, as are most of Capitalism's new converts, at least the non war-torn ones. I like Capitalism the way Locke envisioned it, the invisible hand having the power. The invisible hand is the collective will of many individuals acting, basically, in their own self interest, doing what they are interested in, if not what they love. If I ever saw Capitalism working the way it should, I would be very happy. And, there are sectors that function well. But, our USA snapback, we won the cold war so we can now screw the poor over the top approach is also crumbling.
What tends to defeat optimal operation is restricted distribution channels and sleepy, bought, governments. We get all our crap at Wal-mart, eat Big Food (see Super-Size post 12/13/04), take Big Drugs and listen to Big Music all because they are advertized on Big TV, which is what Americans watch. Truly local radio & televsion, like mom & pop, or even mid-sized stores and restauraunts just can't compete with the economies of scale afforded to those able to achieve critical mass in terms of size. They can never operate as cheaply as big companies, which are powerful enough to buy and sell in massive quantity & have the rules swing their way. We let these companies amass power and then they argue, quite convincingly, that we can't afford to have them fail. What's Big Music's plea? "Oh, save our jobs". Big Timber, Steel, Tobacco... they all use it. Then, we subsidize them. Trump fumbled his way into bankruptcy, but the banks bailed him out because he was too big to let fail. We bail out Chrysler, the S&L's & many more in less visible ways.
This bigness is exactly what made Communism fall and it's ailing our own economy. Even though we still have enough base to support the top now, we are becoming increasingly top-heavy. We'll soon start seeing major chinks as it sorts out who's going to take care of the health of this sick nation. You can only screw people so far, then they become dependant.
The movie itself, other than the Capitalism angle, is nothing I would have written blog about, until I saw, yes, the commentary track. The director, Paul Greengrass, expressed such depth and understanding of, not only the film technically, which you always get. or of the acting, which you sometimes get, but, the social and politcal context, which you hardly ever get (giving me lots of turf to trod). This guy went through a whole analysis of how James Bond represents this traditional view of man, who was tough and sure and didn't need to question or feel and how Bourne represents the new man, willing to feel and question, somewhat lost but honest and brave, willing to face fear in a way Bond never would.
So then I went into the whole name thing, Bond suggests something sturdy, steadfast & true. Jason Bourne certainly seems like a modern twist on the name, same initials, but the name suggests birth, modernity. Hence my cute title above. In the end, I had to agree, you could certainly analyze the two classic Cold War spies in terms not only of economic and political change over the past 50 years, but the changes in what men expect from themselves and each other, particularly relative to women.
I do agree that men seem more willing today to question, but most of them still have a much harder time accessing emotion than women. And this comes from a man, by the way, who put it in those terms, but, I think that is it. It's not that they don't feel or care, they just don't have as many connectors. Women sponge it all up, with men, it has to go through channels. I think that, and a variety of other factors, may always make it somewhat hard for men and women to relate to each other, but it's still the best. Get too many women together and it's like the emotional Apocalypse, but too many guys don't do much better. I love men, but I think a lot of people don't relate well to the opposite sex. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and distrust and lack of common interest. I mean why do so few women really love sex & music the way men do? I can understand why the guys don't go in for make-up or whatever, but sex & music are universally good, aren't they??
The executives around here are supposedly new male, went to college, grad school, early work with women Now, they know a few women who've risen into their ranks, but their wives & women in their community - all from Stepford, er Stanford, whatever. It's not the new deal. Meet the old boss same as the new boss. Did we get fooled again? Is this new male, old male, lost male, stale male... what? Cause these women, if anything, seem the worse for the early uppage. It just makes it more frustrating for them now. Bottom line, we still view the care of one's own children as essentially a self gratification and not a contribution to society. Even when it is considered work, it's the absolute lowest grade. Cultures are typically evaluated in large part on the status of women and though the status of women has steadily risen in this country, we are definitely very far from any meaningful equality.
Women now earn $.75 to the male dollar, up from $.50, twenty years ago, but still not equality and it also doesn't factor in the millions of women not in the workforce. If you accounted for every full-time mom, ascribing to them what is a typical salary for childcare, I guarantee you the pay rate for women would be right back at $.50. If you look at the very upscale, "progressive" Palo Alto, which charges the highest price per 3BD/2BA home in the country, you'd see more like $.25 women... IF you gave them the 25k mom-salary bone. The average guy around here makes well into the six figures and most of the women earn nothing. Jobs alone, made 74M last year... you do the math....$.25 is very generous. So, if this is the scene in one of the most educated, technically advanced towns in the country... has Bond been reborn?
I guess I'll have to ask my friends in the little male movie group the PA execs go to, where they snicker over T&A in the Bond blowouts and then go home to not have sex with their wives. In my extensive, though not yet exhaustive "research" on single men, I think most are pretty clueless, but, so are most women, many of whom cannot be surpassed in terms of vapidity. However, I have found some very cool men. I guess I would put it this way. Today, and increasingly (though it ebbs and flows), there are opportunities to do more than fit into sexual stereotypes and social strictures. One can make their own way toward being a full human being and thus attract others similarly inclined.
What tends to defeat optimal operation is restricted distribution channels and sleepy, bought, governments. We get all our crap at Wal-mart, eat Big Food (see Super-Size post 12/13/04), take Big Drugs and listen to Big Music all because they are advertized on Big TV, which is what Americans watch. Truly local radio & televsion, like mom & pop, or even mid-sized stores and restauraunts just can't compete with the economies of scale afforded to those able to achieve critical mass in terms of size. They can never operate as cheaply as big companies, which are powerful enough to buy and sell in massive quantity & have the rules swing their way. We let these companies amass power and then they argue, quite convincingly, that we can't afford to have them fail. What's Big Music's plea? "Oh, save our jobs". Big Timber, Steel, Tobacco... they all use it. Then, we subsidize them. Trump fumbled his way into bankruptcy, but the banks bailed him out because he was too big to let fail. We bail out Chrysler, the S&L's & many more in less visible ways.
This bigness is exactly what made Communism fall and it's ailing our own economy. Even though we still have enough base to support the top now, we are becoming increasingly top-heavy. We'll soon start seeing major chinks as it sorts out who's going to take care of the health of this sick nation. You can only screw people so far, then they become dependant.
The movie itself, other than the Capitalism angle, is nothing I would have written blog about, until I saw, yes, the commentary track. The director, Paul Greengrass, expressed such depth and understanding of, not only the film technically, which you always get. or of the acting, which you sometimes get, but, the social and politcal context, which you hardly ever get (giving me lots of turf to trod). This guy went through a whole analysis of how James Bond represents this traditional view of man, who was tough and sure and didn't need to question or feel and how Bourne represents the new man, willing to feel and question, somewhat lost but honest and brave, willing to face fear in a way Bond never would.
So then I went into the whole name thing, Bond suggests something sturdy, steadfast & true. Jason Bourne certainly seems like a modern twist on the name, same initials, but the name suggests birth, modernity. Hence my cute title above. In the end, I had to agree, you could certainly analyze the two classic Cold War spies in terms not only of economic and political change over the past 50 years, but the changes in what men expect from themselves and each other, particularly relative to women.
I do agree that men seem more willing today to question, but most of them still have a much harder time accessing emotion than women. And this comes from a man, by the way, who put it in those terms, but, I think that is it. It's not that they don't feel or care, they just don't have as many connectors. Women sponge it all up, with men, it has to go through channels. I think that, and a variety of other factors, may always make it somewhat hard for men and women to relate to each other, but it's still the best. Get too many women together and it's like the emotional Apocalypse, but too many guys don't do much better. I love men, but I think a lot of people don't relate well to the opposite sex. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and distrust and lack of common interest. I mean why do so few women really love sex & music the way men do? I can understand why the guys don't go in for make-up or whatever, but sex & music are universally good, aren't they??
The executives around here are supposedly new male, went to college, grad school, early work with women Now, they know a few women who've risen into their ranks, but their wives & women in their community - all from Stepford, er Stanford, whatever. It's not the new deal. Meet the old boss same as the new boss. Did we get fooled again? Is this new male, old male, lost male, stale male... what? Cause these women, if anything, seem the worse for the early uppage. It just makes it more frustrating for them now. Bottom line, we still view the care of one's own children as essentially a self gratification and not a contribution to society. Even when it is considered work, it's the absolute lowest grade. Cultures are typically evaluated in large part on the status of women and though the status of women has steadily risen in this country, we are definitely very far from any meaningful equality.
Women now earn $.75 to the male dollar, up from $.50, twenty years ago, but still not equality and it also doesn't factor in the millions of women not in the workforce. If you accounted for every full-time mom, ascribing to them what is a typical salary for childcare, I guarantee you the pay rate for women would be right back at $.50. If you look at the very upscale, "progressive" Palo Alto, which charges the highest price per 3BD/2BA home in the country, you'd see more like $.25 women... IF you gave them the 25k mom-salary bone. The average guy around here makes well into the six figures and most of the women earn nothing. Jobs alone, made 74M last year... you do the math....$.25 is very generous. So, if this is the scene in one of the most educated, technically advanced towns in the country... has Bond been reborn?
I guess I'll have to ask my friends in the little male movie group the PA execs go to, where they snicker over T&A in the Bond blowouts and then go home to not have sex with their wives. In my extensive, though not yet exhaustive "research" on single men, I think most are pretty clueless, but, so are most women, many of whom cannot be surpassed in terms of vapidity. However, I have found some very cool men. I guess I would put it this way. Today, and increasingly (though it ebbs and flows), there are opportunities to do more than fit into sexual stereotypes and social strictures. One can make their own way toward being a full human being and thus attract others similarly inclined.
posted by Intervision at 6:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home