So, SPECTRE is a remake of East of Eden or the Cain and Abel myth. The film-makers went the gutsy route and took Bond to Campbellian heights this time around. Not bad as drama, but it does detract (as Grimm notes) from the established, if not expected, Bond mythos/formula: Bond sets out to save the world, in the interludes between jet-set travelogues and death-defying stunt action, he finds two girls. One girl dies helping Bond/betraying the villain, the other, "purer" girl helps Bond. Bond saves world. The End.
Not to put a spoiler, but the self-evident--and very powerful--sequel gets set up with this archetypal "relationship." In SPECTRE 2, or whatever, Bond will have to do Cain in. Assuming Bond is "Abel"--which is _not really_ clear. And therein lies the true, and intelligent depth of this entire "family" intrigue...
In the end, is Bond really his (big, as in Orwell) brother's keeper, his slayer (there's an atavistic reason Bond is a loner, a permanent outcast--the eternal bachelor) or his true victim? Does Bond unintentionally front for sinister forces of evil? Has he been on the "wrong" side of history (for Empire?) all along? This is not a storyline to be trifled with. SPECTRE merely whets our appetite. Do we really have to wait three years and for Idris Elba's performance to see the conclusion? (Not to mention Hinx, whose disappearance was a mere plot convenience)
That is the real reason to be upset at this Bond.
I suspect anyone with half a critical mind understands the true narrative.
Big Pharma and Big Alcohol (and Big Fiber, but that's another letter) won't tolerate competition from an inexpensive, organic, zero-side effects, home-grown herb. These multi-billion dollar industries that subsidize campaign costs for their nominees (In the words Boss Tweed, "I don't care who does the electing, as long as I do the nominating.") get a multiple return on their investment: laws to lock up at taxpayer expense, for non-violent "crimes," the likes of Kyle Catlin.
You get what you subsidize. In this case, over-priced, if not gouging pharmaceuticals with grotesque side-effects, in many instances not worth the cure. And as for the neuron-destroying ethyl molecule, the less said the better.
By legislative policy (and we know who tells legislators what laws to enact) Catlin's otherwise innocent, benevolent actions are criminalized.
As we all know, the law can easily be turned into a _political weapon_. Well Catlin just got in its crosshairs. And the vast law enforcement bureaucracy, as intended, juggernauts merrily away. The well meaning, but sadly misguided, "low-hanging-fruit-arresters," law Nazis (oops! "Godwin slip") that seem to exist in just about every police department and the "should-know-better-after-seven-years-of-college" careerists in the office of the District Attorney just "follow orders"... Where have we heard that phrase before?
What a waste of taxpayer resources.
Those of us who spent our impressionable, formative years in the dry Southwest know the score: if you're going to hike for more than a mile, take at least a cup of water for every mile you intend to hike. Hydrate an hour before you take off. Double up on water based on temps over 85 and/or the humidity makes it _feel_ like 85. Altitude also dehydrates. Make allowances for that, too. Wear a cap or, better yet, a light hat. And sunscreen. If the weather climbs over 105, don't bother. Go bowling...
If that amount of water doesn't suit you, don't hike. Or take very short hikes.
If you insist on hiking in the desert, wear long pants. Or risk serious brush scratches and cuts. It's par for the course. Always wear the most comfortable walking shoes you can afford and good socks. Take a compass or a cell phone. Let at least three people know where you're going and when you expect to come back. Call them up when you return.
I've got a friend who runs in the Boston Marathon every year; while training, he ended up in the ER on an IV a few years back on a particularly humid day. That same day, I merely cramped all over...
The desert has killed some good, but careless, people. As has unacknowledged and/or denied climate change
Be safe, be well.
I continue to insist that higher tuition remains a Wall Street scam. Look up Professor Wolff's analysis on http://youtube.com/.
That said, in California (and I suspect the rest of the nation) Wall Street bond-rating extortionists told the chancellors if they wanted attractive construction bonds ratings for potential investors they would have to put up as *collateral* something else besides ever-tighter state revenues. Student tuitions would do just fine, thank you very much.
If students wished to attend college, well, heck, they could always get a student loan...
That sent tuitions into the stratosphere. States no longer felt the need to fully fund colleges, as tuition fees--paid with student loans--would pick up the slack. College construction bond ratings soared on the backs of impoverished students.
In addition, and to add injury to injury, college loan-industry IOU's have become a trillion dollar, bankruptcy-proof cash cow, for the investment class--that pays little or no income on this revenue source.
Overall, that's what happens when the investment class gets major tax breaks. They get to keep more of their money to *lend with interest* to folks who desire an education. Whereas, previously, (pre-Reagan, pre-Clinton) those same investment class folks actually paid their fair share of taxes in proportion to the benefits they received under our economic system and colleges were fully funded...
By the way, the scarcity of MD's across the land is America's gift to the AMA. Decades ago doctors lobbied for "birth control" on the profession by limiting the number of med schools and med school graduates in the U.S. Tinkering with the law of supply and demand thus gave us a constantly growing demand for doctors as the population grows--with a supply number frozen in place... Doctors can now charge what the market will bear.
Each state needs at a minimum 4 to 5 more med schools. And public policies that make parasites of the investment class should cease. They, too, should pay taxes toward our civilization. Where's FDR when you really need him?
Just read the MIT chart. In the real world, people wear clothing and get an education/training. Yet the category, "Other," only lists $71. for a single adult. One is spartan, not ignorant and naked. Please, if we must use data, let's be intellectually honest about how we use it, what we include and what we omit.
What, she left out Ernesto Portillo, Jr.? He like his dad, Ernesto Portillo, Sr., have had their finger on the pulse on all things Mexican-American since the dawn of the 70's...
(Disclosure: In my undergrad years, I worked for Ernesto Portillo, Sr. back in the early 1970's).
Am I missing something?
Thanks for your cogent answers as always, Mr. Arellano.
That said, just as US socio-economic stratification as designed policy ends up generating class-stratified behaviors, so does Mexico's.
So, the individual who asked what meta-question as to "what to ask a Mexican" should be enterado of this anthropological/sociological phenomenon as well.
In addition, Mexican culture adds an additional ingredient into the mix: pigmentocracy. Those who allegedly trace their lineage to white conquistadores and criollos and who never "mixed" with the local lovelies still discriminate and use pejoratives for mestizos and indios. And they tend to favor each other in finance, education and other employment opportunities. Hence, the primarily "brown flight" to the U.S. of the crumb-eating class.
Have the querent watch 10 weeks worth of 1940's and 1950's movies on "Cine Nostalgia" to get a feel for this upstairs/downstairs-like process.
Y siguele con tu cancion que me gusta la tonada, hermano.
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation