July
25 George Bush, The Dark Knight? Be Careful What You Wish For.

Ok Trent, I appreciate that my writing style might not always be to your taste. But to be brutally honest, I don't think that matters at all if it explains my points clearly - and I'm not trying to overwhelm you with my intellect or anything, it's just the way I write. I don't think the phrase "In an abstract sense" is at all confusing in the context, as I was clearly contrasting it with "real life situations"...But anyway.

I don't see how being a Brit makes any difference to a) my knowledge of US foreign policy or b) my interpretation of a Batman movie!

With respect, Tony Blair is a deranged idiot, so there is no chance I would listen to his views on Bush.

And as you point out there's a LOT of underlying agreement here over certain ethical values which are represented by the movie's main themes. Including the idea that these issues can also be complex (I mainly bring up 'complexity' because of your insistence on keeping things 'simple' all of the time...). Ok, you claim to acknowledge this complexity too. But when you say that these themes are 'CONSERVATIVE,' what does this even mean (considering that these values are pretty much universally known)? It seems you're not just saying what they are here, you're making a political judgement, which is exactly what Klavan's piece goes for. Bush is a conservative / Republican, therefore he must represent freedom, tolerance, etc etc. No. Liberals stand up for exactly the same principles.

No, I don't know what's in Bush's brain...but I doubt you do either. And from the way he talks about things, I seriously doubt it's as difficult a decision for him as you make it out to be...it doesn't even affect him directly in any way.

The 'other side' has been explicity put forward many times in various different forms, mainly by others...I'll reiterate some of them. Batman shies away from unethical and unnecessary methods of interrogation, and shows restraint in attacking any but the most lethal of foes...Bush does not. Batman puts himself in real physical danger to save others...Bush does not. Batman is an outcast...Bush has a damaged reputation, but has not sacrificed anything else himself and has no reason to care.

I'm not naive at all, the UK has its problems (albeit less gun-related since we don't go around arming everyone...but then there's always knives eh...). I'm perfectly aware of the evil in this world, and especially of the hellhole that Iraq has become (even considering its totalitarian past). What I mean is that human beings are generally not reducible to Joker-type caricatures. Also the point of the Joker is that he is in a sense a creation of Batman, since Batman has acted outside the law in order to serve good...the Joker thrives on this anarchy. In this sense I guess you COULD draw a Batman-Bush analogy, because the US administration have been arming and training terrorists for decades! So in 'fighting fire with fire,' one could argue that we are in fact creating or fuelling the 'monster' / Joker of terrorism ourselves, the chaos of present-day Iraq being a clear example.

I'm sorry for writing so much, hope it at least clears up why I disagree with Klavan.

Liberalism is not something somebody has to be convinced of. It's not something you have to run around and persuade people about. You don't have to argue with them to change their minds. It's just the natural ease of dealing with ephemeral issues and it is not really solving them, but making you and everybody else think you care deeply about them. Conservatism is not easy. It takes work. It takes thought, conviction against easy answers from the left that do not work but they sound wonderful. Conservatism is constantly swimming against the tide, because it's hard. Conservatism is an intellectual application. One arrives at conservatism after having thought about things, after having been curious. You know, liberalism is simply what you feel. You feel good about things. It's the most gutless choice that you can make. Anybody can be a liberal.

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

By the way, these are not my words. Wish they were. They're from Rush Limbaugh (I can already hear the tasteless fat jokes from people that have never heard his show).

Oh, and about the gun thing, as the famous saying goes, that's why YOU'RE a SUBJECT and I'M a CITIZEN. Here are a couple other good ones:

"A government of laws, and not of men." - John Adams

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Dialogue from the 1989 Batman film;

BATMAN
I made you, you made me first.

JOKER
When I say I made you, you got
to say you made me. How childish
can you get?

Exactly! You got it now! Liberals DO believe in oppression and absolute government. Case in point: The Fairness Doctrine. Or what about the fact that they're forcing everyone to switch over to incandescent light bulbs in the name of a hoax? You people in England are starting to catch on that this global warming scare is a hoax, right? The environmentalist movement has been going on there longer than it has here. That's why Europe is having a wave of conservatism. The people are speaking up that fighting climate change (in vain) is NOT worth higher taxes. I'm glad you see the light that liberalism IS a vague philosophy. Not even a philosophy really. Just a feeling. They DON'T share our values, my friend. If you lived here you'd know that there are many things in that "mission statement" that liberals disagree with. Limited government is the big one. LIBERALS THINK GOVERNMENT IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING! I know you claim to be a scholar on U.S. international affairs, but this is where actually being in the U.S. and hearing the daily B.S. that comes from the Democrats in the House and Senate could teach you something. They think we should be willing to give up our freedoms at the drop of a hat if it advances some liberal cause that makes us feel good. Your sarcastic response was very clever (no, it wasn't), but it still does nothing to tell me what you think liberalism is. I think you genuinely are confused about it. I don't see how you couldn't be.

And I never called them "monsters." In fact, I called them "friends." They're dangerous, but demonizing them would mean I'd have to hate half the country. And they have some knockout women (easy to get in the pants - just mention you're thinking of getting an electric car).

You're getting very sarcastic on me, now. The gun thing, too? You know I don't have the right to go out and shoot someone - but I have a rigth to protect myself, my family and my home. Frustrated a little? I know it's tough. Tough to leave all those rosy ideals in the wind. Just accept it and come over to our side. Trust me, you'll be happier in the long run because you're doing the right thing.

My sarcasm is simply a reaction to your increasingly condescending tone. But you don't really seem to have understood its purpose - yes, 'liberalism' is open to interpretation (it's an abstract concept), that's why we have debates over these things, and why I won't tell you what it means. Because I don't know. Nobody does!! But that's COMPLETELY missing the point, because it's not about conservatives vs. liberals, it's about Republicans vs. Democrats! Most of the time it's not either Liberalism OR Conservatism, although in your case it seems your views are so unbending and inflexible that you fit the conservative stereotype perfectly. You really need to stop this polarising, 'either/or' attitude...maybe you might learn something. Bush's "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" is a perfect example of where your arguments seem to go. It's simple and clear, yes, but does that make it right?

I personally think it's crazy that you're accusing the Democrats of wanting you to give up your freedoms, when your party of favour is busy implementing the Patriot Act etc. However, after this post I'm not going to argue any more over matters of policy, because it's such a vast area, we're already hugely off-topic, and it's becoming a serious waste of both our time and energy.

Global warming a hoax?? Again I won't go into this, it's irrelevant here, but last time I heard most scientists see it as a genuine problem that's exacerbated hugely by human activity. Maybe you shouldn't be listening to a government that's so heavily invested in - and subsidised by - oil companies.

Finally, and this is a REALISTIC point, not a 'rosy ideal' - guns cause far more unnecessary deaths than they save. Allowing people to freely own guns, and to cultivate an environment where they are acceptable, is just asking for problems. The only reason you actually might need guns now is because everyone else has them too. D'oh!

So, yeah. Batman. Erm...

Um...it may be my own interpretation, but I believe the argument that assumes Batman + Sonar Program in the War on Crime = Bush + the Unitary Executive in the War on Terror is a simplistic analogy. It is true that Batman wanted to work outside and against the law to stop the Joker, but even he understood the need for checks and balances in his crusade--which is why he gave control over the program to Fox and immediately had it disbanded once it was used once.

... for guns, I'd MUCH rather live in a country that gives me the CHOICE to arm myself. When a government tells its people that they cannot, they have complete and total control over the people. Any trace of autonomy is an illusion. That, again, is why you are a subject and I'm a citizen. In America, it's individual liberty first, and that's what makes us the greatest country in the history o the world.

Fixthesky, do you know how many parts per million of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? 387. PER MILLION. Oooohhhh, I'm really scared. The environmentalist whackos say it was at 280 ppm before the industrial revolution. Not until it reaches 5,000 ppm is it considered very unhealthy. The world takes care of itself! There's no need to worry about global warming!

Sorry about all the posts and for getting off point. Just saw the opportunity to school one of our overseas friends. To get back on point, I'd like to repost this BRILLIANT comment by David Cohen (NOT the same David Cohen who wrote the original post). I especially love the last two sentences. Throws (S.) Cohen's aticle right back in his face! It's so easy, too, because we conservatives have the truth on our side!

Oh, and what we were saying yesterday about real-life Jokers... I brang up the murder at the Olympics? I found out today that the victim was not only a fellow Minnesotan, he was from my small hometown. I know his daughter that was with him when he was attacked and died. His floral company paid for my college with a scholarship. Oh, yes, there are real Jokers out there, Fixthesky, and they may be closer to home than you think. If you had a family (by now I'm convinced that you're college-age or younger), you might feel safer with a gun in your closet.

Posted by: David Cohen | July 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM

From one David C. to another:

I could not disagree more with your disagreement. Artists inherently have a point of view, and a work of art inherently expresses that point of view. The "it's only the artist's job to ask questions" idea describes the storytelling of many large-budget films, in part because scripts that go through studio development, rewrites from multiple writers and testing before final cut, almost always dilute whatever point of view they may have started with. But for an artist to take that stand is, I think, rather timid.

The history of art has many more masterpieces that challenge the audience with a point of view than simply ask questions. Picasso's Guernica doesn't ask whether it is right to bomb civilians, it's a scream of protest. Goya's engravings are as well. Moliere's "Tartuffe" doesn't inquire about the morality of hypocrites who use religion for venal ends, it exposes them to ridicule.

Going back to the very earliest roots of drama, "Agamemnon" and "Oedipus Rex" show the dangers of hubris -- they don't just ask whether overweaning pride might be bad and whether some measure of humility might be good; they take a stand. The art is a vehicle for illustrating the artist's point of view.

In that respect, I'd argue that making art -- and perhaps writing most of all -- is a fundamentally aggressive act. It is an attempt to make the viewer/listener/audience see the world through the artist's eyes. It is meant to provoke and persuade, to make someone else feel and think what the artist feels and thinks.

I think the storytellers of this Batman saga have done something admirable. They've taken a well-established modern equivalent of a Greek hero, the Batman, and used him as a vehicle to explore important issues for our time. Over acts I and II, they've raised a lot of great questions. But I look to artists to, as Alfred says, "be the outcast," to say the difficult thing. This is exactly what Klavan thinks the "Dark Knight" filmmakers have done. My point is that their point of view on these issues is far from clear some five hours into the saga.

My wife thinks -- and she may well be right -- that the Batman filmmakers are really exploring the nature of true heroism rather than anything specific to the war on terror. If that is their real interest, then their point of view is actually fairly clear: Heroism demands conquering your fear, putting aside your ego and giving up everything, even your good name if need be, for the greater good. Those are answers, not questions.

"What liberals do is try to cloud this notion so they don't have to condemn or take a stance on anything."
Exactly the OPPOSITE of what they do. But of course I've become aware that you like to deal with massively, grotesquely inaccurate stereotypes...the liberal you have in mind is this "wishy washy" character, lacking in any kind of conviction or strongly grounded opinion. This is utter fantasy! It's the most superficial understanding imaginable, and it does more to 'cloud' or distort reality than any supposed liberal vacillation.

It's about using your critical faculties (like, y'know, reason), and often requires a finely honed sense of knowing when you are being told utter bull by politicians. It's about dialogue, considering what's ACTUALLY best, rather than jumping on some bandwagon or unquestioningly following your leadership under the mesmerising influence of idiotic slogans, and then screwing the consequences. It's about thinking. And THEN doing. That's ALL liberalism actually is...people who think! And then within that you'll find a vast number of interesting people with different perspectives and opinions, Republican OR Democrat, but that doesn't mean no-one has any idea of what they think should be done. Again, smoke screens. The 'conservatism' you cling to so dearly is a bogus form of certainty that's deeply rooted in ignorance...as Goya once said, "the sleep of reason produces monsters." That's exactly it.

"Since when is CO2 a pollutant?"
If you knew anything about the science of global warming, you would know that CO2 is not a 'pollutant' - but massive increases in CO2 will cause climate issues. I'm amazed by that comment.

"The world takes care of itself! There's no need to worry about global warming!"
It does, but only to an extent. Go and read James Lovelock's latest views on the matter. He's a top, world-renowned scientist with no political affiliations.

"Politicians run the show. When they have an agenda, there is a whole process that they go through to find scientists to back them up. Often there is a lot of money involved."
You've just described your own oil-laundering politicians brilliantly, well done! Most independent scientists 'believe' in global warming. What do they possibly have to gain from it?

"Don't blame the oil companies for the high prices, blame the politicians that f with their jobs/supply."
I'm not blaming them, that's simple supply and demand. It's getting harder and harder to keep a supply of oil going, and that's not because of meddling politicians but because a) it's a non-renewable resource, and b) lots of it belongs to other countries! Hence why you'd bomb them, I guess. Makes sense.

"we have been looking into alternative energy sources for decades."
Research into alternative energy is massively underfunded. You know why? Because billions of dollars are spent on war, and because the government is subsidised by oil. There are loads of viable alternatives, but they damage too many vested interests for there to be any change.

"Artists inherently have a point of view, and a work of art inherently expresses that point of view."
I read this comment earlier but ultimately disregarded it, because it's mainly based on this hugely misguided premise. Art is rarely about "answers" or a clearly-defined opinion. Of course you can't entirely separate a film, say, from the inherent views of the filmmakers, but not everything must have a political agenda...often it's about EXPLORING the issues. And then, maybe, coming to some form of resolution. But that doesn't have to mean Bush (it really doesn't). Batman is no conventional 'hero,' as you know. Please stop tailoring the film to your political prejudices, because that's really not what it's about.

I'm very sorry, Trent, about your friend. That's horrible. At the risk of sounding insensitive, I'll just say that I doubt a gun would achieve much in preventing such tragedies. As you know, there are some terrible people out there. But for that very reason, if everyone had a gun in their closet, I'd feel pretty unsafe. Don't you? Not everyone shares your ideals when it comes to guns, many less discerning people just think it's cool or ok to shoot people for whatever reason. 4 times as many people die from homicide in the US than in most developed countries, usually from guns. Why? Because you all have them.

Against the Soviet Union the whole good-evil world view has probably worked, because the Soviet Union WAS an evil empire run by opportunistic criminals, simply put. Reagan was right in addressing them that way.
Bush is not right in addressing the radical Islam in this manner, because just like the neoconservatives nowadays radical muslims (or islamofascists if you must) are holily convinced their take on reality is Just and guided by God. They both think the populace should support them because they fight for the greater good, against evil (hedonists, heretics, psychopaths, vile people, freedom-haters).
You can only defeat wrong self-righteousness by being more moral and closer to God than the closet narcissist egos your up against.

Sincerely.

Janine,

You named a couple great conservative PUNDITS there, but MSNBC?!?!?! They are the MOST liberal of them all! Major mistake on your part. Yes, conservatives still have a presence, but they're tucked away on AM Radio and cable It's the major networks and newspapers that have a monopoly on the news. What about the AP smearing Tony Snow in his obituary last month? Classy. What about the Edwards' love child? Took the media a month to start reporting this after the Enquirer broke it (actually they broke news of the affair last October - you know everyone knew about it). They went BATSHIT (appreciate my effort to keep this on topic?) with the John McCain "affair" when there wasn't even any evidence! Didn't go anywhere, of course, because it wasn't true and McCain was forthwright.

Actually, I'm guessing Olbermann is just on MSNBC to balance out Morning Joe. Bit like using a feather to balance an elephant, but hey.

And are you seriously decrying the media for not jumping all over a story broke by THE ENQUIRER?? Are you going to get upset next because CNN didn't do a follow-up report on the Elvis / Alien love-child?

Forthright on the McCain affair, my arse. He comes back from Vietnam, finds his wife has lost her looks, and decides to start sleeping around. She, due to what seems to be a lack of self-esteem, goes along with it. Far be it from me to speak for her, but I find it difficult to imagine another scenario. I didn't even hear word one about this mess until a couple days ago when someone else pointed it out on a forum.

Oh yeah. Batman. He's got about as much in common with Bush as the Westboro Baptist Church has with sanity and genetic variance.

Wow, so this is the guy I've been debating with. In Janine's defence (not that she needs it), I think those unwarranted ad hominem attacks show far more about your character, Trent, than anyone elses...besides doing nothing to further your argument whatsoever. Way to shoot yourself in the foot there. I hate to continue the personal attacks here, but I have to say that those are, without a doubt, the words of a loser. Cheerio!

For the record: I realise I used the wrong spelling of "hole" a few posts up. Innocent mistake caused by typing too fast and not proofreading. Not to be a snobby perfectionist (or ELITIST - see: Barack Obama), just thought I'd mention it because I forsee somebody throwing it back at me (and I used "were" where I should've said "was" a couple posts up).

"Global warming a hoax?? Again I won't go into this, it's irrelevant here, but last time I heard most scientists see it as a genuine problem that's exacerbated hugely by human activity. Maybe you shouldn't be listening to a government that's so heavily invested in - and subsidised by - oil companies."

Listening to the government? If I listened to the government, including both Presidential nominees, I'd believe in the crap! You don't know how large scale and far-reaching this scam is. Now, even the weak Republcans are getting in on (or falling prey to) it. And let's clear this up right now: I'm a conservative first and a Republican second. You're completely right that liberalism is an abstact concept (again, whatever that means), but you're wrong that this isn't a conservative v. liberal debate. That's EXACTLY what it is! You could even look at it like socialism vs. capitalism (when you get into our slightly off-topic convo, that is). Conservatism is a clear blueprint that doesn't change and had been tested over time. Republicans, on the other hand, can change like the wind, as can Democrats. It's easy to spot the conservative Republicans over those that waver in the face of liberals. It's human nature to want to be liked, after all, isn't it? See: the Senate's new "Gang of Ten," a prime example of BOTH parties giving into the other side in the name of "compromise." The result is akin to David C.'s desciption above of the steps to making a bad movie: "scripts that go through studio development, rewrites from multiple writers and testing before final cut, almost always dilute whatever point of view they may have started with." You want an example of a true blue liberal that never wavered? Ted Kennedy. He was wrong, but he was consistently wrong. And I admire him for it.

Also, I know that whole "government subsidized be oil companies" line you love to use rolls off your tongue with such ease, but I don't think you really know what you're saying. The Democrats want to tax the oil companies more (which undoubtedly means higher prices for us), and even single them out with a higher tax rate than anyone else ("Windfall profits tax"). To what? Bring in more money TO THE GOVERNMENT. This flies in the face of our conservative belief that free markets work. Conservatives have a laissez-faire attitude toward it. Keep your hard earned money, guys. We should be thanking instead of demonizing these companies that explore, drill, refine, and make easily available the product that drives our lives and economy. All for just a few bucks a gallon. Oh, and thanks for the BILLIONS you already pay in taxes.

If you were referring to lobbyists, you got me there. But don't forget they are prevalent on BOTH sides. Unfortunate fact of life. If you can come up with an idea to get rid of them (without imposing on peoples' freedom), I'd be happy to hear it.

I like this one: "Research into alternative energy is massively underfunded." There you go again, just like a liberal, looking to the government for everything. GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION! Truth is the government has been pouring millions of dollars into alternative energy for decades. Still, nothing is more efficient than oil. And it's ORGANIC! It's CLEAN(unless you buy into the hoax)!

And, no, we AREN'T RUNNING OUT OF OIL! http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm That's just a part of the manufatured scare. It's legislation blocking drilling and exploration from liberals that puts us in such a mess.

Let some entrepreneur come up with the new miracle energy. He'd be Bill Gates times ten. If you think people aren't trying right now WITHOUT the government's help, you're sorely mistaken. The less the government interferes the better for us all.

I think it's best NOT to look into it too much, and just sit back and enjoy the movie for what it is, rather than debate over what message it's sending.

Some hints, that "The Dark Knight" is totally against Bush:

-Torture never ever works in the movie.
-The Joker is not Bin Laden. He is basically a metaphor for the fear our society has. An indestructable Power
-Surveillance doesn`t work. In the final fight with Joker there is this little symbolic piece, where Batman looks around with his super sonar device to find the Joker but he can`t spot him, alsthough he is right in front of him
-Two-Face is the Hero who admires Caesar and supports basically less human rights for safety. And he basically becomes a psychopath. All this faults in his characters are coming to an extreme, which is Two-Face
-And finally: The end has to be seen in the context of the ferry scene. The ferry scene is a clear statement against the "Do what is necassary" moral. Because all survive, because they are sacrificing no one. They survive because they stay human. They don`t become monsters themselves. The end is about nothing else. Batman makes this sacrifice, because in public Harvey Dent was the white knight, the good, honest guy who defeated the bad guys with justice! That was the public view of him. He never existed of course, he was always Two-Face in a much smaller scale, but this image keeps the population of Gotham calm. They stay human because of him. They don`t go around and torture people, because of Dent. And Batman knows this. He knows he is much too flawed to be a Hero. He knows that he can transform into the Joker any time. It just needs a little push.
Batman isn`t Jack Bauer. Bauer sacrifices everything including his humanity to save a country. Batman sacrifices everything including his reputation to save humanity itself.
He is no hero, he is too flawed. He is a "Dark Knight", always fighting in silence, fighting himself.
This movie is the strongest Anti-Bush movie you can find.
-Last point: Morgan Freemans almost God-like Lucius Fox who clearly represents a liberal point of view in opposing total surveillance.
-The movies final statement: It is better to die as a full human being that to survive as a crippled torturing monster. That is the essence of the ferry scene. The essence of Lucius Fox, who resigns.
You torture, because you`re afraid. You buy a gun, because you`re afraid.
Batman is not afraid anymore at the end. He accepts, what he is. The heroic tall black guy on the ferry does not give in to his fear. "I do what you should`ve done 10 minutes ago!"
The Joker is like The Emperor in "Star Wars". He wants to make the world as rotten as he is himself. There is one message in history: You can`t form a pact with the devil for the greater good. The Dark Side consumes human beings.
In the end, the movie shows exactly this.

But I think it`s great that the movie is more about asking questions, not giving answers. I think everybody knows that the solution of the ferry situation is rather a fairy tale. In reality they would probably blew each other sky high.
The interesting thing about it is to ask questions. So it can`t be propaganda, because propaganda is about having so called answers.

I don't think the parallels go as deep as people make them. Yes Batman wiretapped Gotham, he had a sinking approval rating. But Batman also told Harvey torture was wrong. I think the movie ultimately tried to raise questions. It didn't really endorse Bush or The Dark Knight 100% at all. Morgan Freeman helped Batman but then he destroyed the machine when he realized the machine 'had too much power for one man.'

In other words I agree with 'mfLuder' who pretty much hit it all on the head.