Well, Obambi. Very nicely done. You picked exactly who I thought you'd pick wayyy back by Super Tuesday. Joe Biden is Obama's number two, for those of you who don't know. So, of course, that means I was right. That's the good news.
The bad news is that he picked exactly who I thought he'd pick. A fairly known senator with loads and loads of foreign experience and experience in Washington, as well. Biden was a strong choice, the only Democratic candidate who'd actually done his homework and drawn up plans to surrender in Iraq. Biden was outspoken, another trait Obamafans love. So, in essence, he picked the right guy. I'm impressed, Obambi.
Yet, every cloud has a silver lining.
Joe Biden has literally archives of things that he said that he shouldn't have said. In other words, chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome. Republicans can obviously use those to their advantage. Also, anyone notice a familiarity about Obama's ticket?
Well, that's because it's the same ticket that Bush and Cheney ran on, twice. The (somewhat) charismatic, younger, funnier, more inexperienced guy with a smooth, shady, uber-experienced foreign affairs guy who many think runs the show. And looking at Obama's extreme lack of foreign policy experience, it's almost a given that Biden would be running that show.
And the kicker: Biden's been in Washington for as long as McCain, so when he tries to blame McCain as being "part of the problem" of Washington for the past 8 years or however much time he allots, he also has to blame his VP. But that serves him right for making such vague, blanket statements about Washington in the first place, no?
I think the Johnny-come-lately Chet Edwards should have been due for more vetting. At least Chet was a moderate. Biden, on the other hand, is a full-on NE liberal, like, oh, John Kerry (who won 3 Purple Hearts, by the way). 2 Cultural liberals, all the way to the left. Independents aren't going to like this one.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Captain Obama's Number One
Vague Next Generation reference right there. OK.
So, we all know Barack Soetoro is going to be picking his second-in-command either tomorrow or the next day, Friday. So, who should it be? Well, as a seasoned pundit, I'm offering some advice to the junior Senator on his entire short list of crappy candidates.
It should not be Tim Kaine, or else the experience argument against Obama is indeed magnified by Kaine's own lack of experience. Who says he'll help that much in VA, anyway?
It should not be Kathleen Sebilius (Sebelius?). She is a ghastly woman who is but completely unknown outside of Kansas. Hillary voters might gravitate to her, but it's unlikely considering they don't want to vote Obama anyway. She won't bring Kansas, either, much less any state, and you can bet your life savings on that.
It shouldn't be Chuck Hagel, because Hagel doesn't believe in anything else Obama does besides opposition to the war in Iraq. Plus, it would do the opposite of bringing Dems and Reps together, Reps are already wary of Hagel and Dems don't want anyone socially or fiscally conservative.
It shouldn't be Evan Bayh. Nobody can pronounce his name without hearing it, first. You'd be surprised how much that matters.
It shouldn't be Joe Biden. Biden has made so many remarks that could destroy Obama's case for the Presidency ("it's not for learning on the job", "needs to know the territory from day one"). Also, he's kind of like the Democratic Dick Cheney. Just read Clarence Thomas's autobiography, he exposes Biden as a smooth liar. Not new politics.
It shouldn't be Hilldog. That would gather apathetic conservatives together like nothing else, and Hill's part of the "politics of the past" that Obama's trying to avoid. It might bring in some Hillary voters, but it would bring legions of conservatives and possibly turn off some Obama voters as well.
It shouldn't be Al Gore. He's busy looking for ManBearPig. Half-man, half-bear, and half-pig, I'm super cereal.
It shouldn't be Ron Paul, simply because despite the fact that some independent voters want him on, Paul has called Obama a fraud, plain and simple. Champion the Constitution!
That's it. We're finished. I...ooh, I guess there's nobody left for Obambi! Oh, well. You get what you pay for. All of Obama's real strong suits, like Webb or Warner have turned away the job. Dang.
But if I had to take a guess, it's either Bayh or Biden. Probably Biden. But I could be completely wrong. Maybe the messiah candidate will pick someone who's not on his imperfect short list.
So, we all know Barack Soetoro is going to be picking his second-in-command either tomorrow or the next day, Friday. So, who should it be? Well, as a seasoned pundit, I'm offering some advice to the junior Senator on his entire short list of crappy candidates.
It should not be Tim Kaine, or else the experience argument against Obama is indeed magnified by Kaine's own lack of experience. Who says he'll help that much in VA, anyway?
It should not be Kathleen Sebilius (Sebelius?). She is a ghastly woman who is but completely unknown outside of Kansas. Hillary voters might gravitate to her, but it's unlikely considering they don't want to vote Obama anyway. She won't bring Kansas, either, much less any state, and you can bet your life savings on that.
It shouldn't be Chuck Hagel, because Hagel doesn't believe in anything else Obama does besides opposition to the war in Iraq. Plus, it would do the opposite of bringing Dems and Reps together, Reps are already wary of Hagel and Dems don't want anyone socially or fiscally conservative.
It shouldn't be Evan Bayh. Nobody can pronounce his name without hearing it, first. You'd be surprised how much that matters.
It shouldn't be Joe Biden. Biden has made so many remarks that could destroy Obama's case for the Presidency ("it's not for learning on the job", "needs to know the territory from day one"). Also, he's kind of like the Democratic Dick Cheney. Just read Clarence Thomas's autobiography, he exposes Biden as a smooth liar. Not new politics.
It shouldn't be Hilldog. That would gather apathetic conservatives together like nothing else, and Hill's part of the "politics of the past" that Obama's trying to avoid. It might bring in some Hillary voters, but it would bring legions of conservatives and possibly turn off some Obama voters as well.
It shouldn't be Al Gore. He's busy looking for ManBearPig. Half-man, half-bear, and half-pig, I'm super cereal.
It shouldn't be Ron Paul, simply because despite the fact that some independent voters want him on, Paul has called Obama a fraud, plain and simple. Champion the Constitution!
That's it. We're finished. I...ooh, I guess there's nobody left for Obambi! Oh, well. You get what you pay for. All of Obama's real strong suits, like Webb or Warner have turned away the job. Dang.
But if I had to take a guess, it's either Bayh or Biden. Probably Biden. But I could be completely wrong. Maybe the messiah candidate will pick someone who's not on his imperfect short list.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
What Can Make Al Gore Cry?
Remember all the global warming alarmists and their respective publications screaming "There'll be no ice at the North Pole this summerrrrrr!!!111"? Well, it didn't happen. :(
In fact, it increased.
Ha ha ha ha, hahaha, ha, ha, ha, oh, a-hee-hee, ha ha, oh, hee hee, hee ha, ahaha. I knew it. It's a conspiracy!
Bush is Batman: The Dark Knight- Part 1
I saw The Dark Knight for the third time, yesterday. Undoubtedly, it's a tribute to the War on Terror, yes, the same war that George W. Bush has been commander-in-chief of for the past 5 years.
Tribute? Bush? In the same sentence?
Well, yeah. After Andrew Klavan of the Wall Street Journal provided insight as to the true meaning of the film, journalists and pundits alike went berserk trying to debunk the claim, deny it, and then acknowledge it (but still try to prove it was left-wing). Now the main journalistic instinct is to belittle the film. Even though it was so critically acclaimed that it is now the #2 most-grossing film ever, we see writers bashing its vision as misguided and wrong.
But the secrets lie in the screenplay.
Granted, not every scene in the movie represents some significant event, not every character is an allegory of a real-life person. However, there are some very significant themes and text that need to be addressed. And yes, director Christopher Nolan has stated that he's let the "current political climate" seep into the film. If I knew Nolan's own beliefs, it would make this a heck of a lot easier. But I don't, so we'll just make do with my own analysis.
The Significance of Lau
President Bush was meant to be a "domestic president". He specialized on issues like tax reform, farming and agriculture issues, education and the economy (yes, the economy, don't forget the stability we had before 1st quarter 2008). He didn't have much foreign policy experience, and he'd served in our domestic National Guard. 9/11 was an issue entirely new. Therefore, he had to change and adapt to manage his lack of foreign policy experience. Seeing as the last 7 years have revolved heavily on foreign policy, it's obviously turned out to be very important.
Now, in Batman Begins, we have Lao. He's the first enemy that Batman's got to go after, and he's a criminal: your basic crime boss. He's the type of guy that Batman's been dealing with for a while. He and Lucius go through the typical process. Lau is akin to the basic issues we'd been dealing with for a while. When the Joker reveals himself, it's a threat entirely new for Batman, and one that he ultimately wasn't prepared for.
A Vigilante
Batman has taken an oath to fight crime. Perhaps not an oath in the technical sense, but certainly a small monologue somewhere. He is bound by rules. Bush has also taken an oath to protect the country and serve it within bounds of the Constitution. He is also bound by rules. Batman is percieved by the public as a vigilante, Bush is thought of as a figure of immense power, able to change things at his whim. Both of these assertions are incorrect, as they are indeed, bound by rules.
"Tonight, you're gonna break your one rule."
Batman broke the law in several ways, by developing the intrusive spying technology and fighting SWAT team members> However, he did indeed intend for these measures to be temporary. Lucius acknowledges that he will only go to this extreme "just once," and Batman then tells him, after he's done, to "type in your name." This destroys the spying device that had been a breach of ethics.
On the flipside, we have Bush, who some argue has breached ethical obligations by wiretapping and suppressing so-called "rights" for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. This has been done in the name of national security (and so far, it's worked; we haven't had a terrorist attack on our homeland since 9/11). Perhaps it is this quote from Harvey Dent that surmises the movie's position: "One day he'll answer for the laws he's broken. But it will be to us, not to them."
The Role of Harvey Dent
Although the movie revolves around Dent (some have argued that he was the main character of the story), it's hard to figure out what role he plays in the grand allegory of The Dark Knight. I believe I've found what he's supposed to represent. Harvey Dent is the promise of righteous, people-serving government. It is one of our strengths in this country that seperates us from the rest of the world, what we look at and remember the legacy of the Founders who designed it to be just and true. For most presidencies, it has worked toward goals and achieved progress. When Bush ran, this is what he promised. When he arrived in office, people thought they'd recieve it.
However, just like Harvey was changed by the Joker into a monster, the government has changed as well. The recent Justice Department allegations, the Alberto Gonzales trial, the refusal of the bureaucracy to release information. The do-nothing Congress. The conflict between the courts and the prsidency. Terrorism and the threat of it was not the sole cause of the fallout, but it exacerbated it extremely. Likewise, the Joker's murder of Rachel and his ascent over Gotham contributed majorly to Harvey's transformation.
An Agent of Chaos
The Joker represents terrorism and its threat to our country. Gotham doesn't represent the U.S., but it represents the battlegrounds of both the United States and Iraq. Anyhow, the Joker is a terrorist, releasing his intention to scare Batman into revealing himself by killing innocents (including cops) until he does.
"Batman must take off his mask and turn himself in. Oh, and every day he doesn't, people will die…starting tonight. I'm a man of my word." He doesn't represent Islam at all, much less fascism (since he's an established anarchist). However, the Islamofascists we face in Iraq are terrorists, killing innocent civilians to try to get to us, to get us to give up.
The Obvious: Iraq War Parallels
There's a scene in The Dark Knight that has a meeting of public officials. Harvey Dent, who comes to the defense of Batman about as often as the White House and other parts of the government come to the defense of Bush, tries to comfort the public while the Joker killings are going on. A man in the back yells "No more dead cops!" as if it's a slogan, much like "No more blood for oil!" or "No more dead soldiers!". The audience cheers, so it's obvious the opinion the public has toward Batman at this moment.
Bruce Wayne returns to his headquarters, comforted by Alfred:
Bruce: What would you have me do?
Alfred: Endure. You can be the outcast. You can be the one to make the hard choice. The right choice.
The President can take the bad press, the opposition, simply, like Batman, he has the power to do so. He can keep moving when nobody else can keep up. This is what Bush has been doing all along, for our sake, for the whole world's sake. Disposing of the tyrant Saddam, who had been mass-murdering Kurdish villiagers, probably would have occurred whether or not 9/11 happened, because of the 1998 plan that had begun under Clinton. The larger-scale war is the stablilization of Iraq, which Al-Qaeda has declared "the central battlefield" for Islamic extremism. Likewise, the Joker killings needed to be endured while Batman pursued the Joker himself.
Arguably, the case can be made that Commissioner Gordon is the commander (a Gen. Petraeus-like figure) of the military fighting in Iraq (Gotham's cops and service personnel).
Obviously, not every scene can be put into the context of today's political climate. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I really want to stress that. There are themes from the movie, though, and clues in the screenplay that are undeniably referring to the situation we have today. That's all I'm saying. And that's all that really needs to be said.
EDIT: I left "Part 1" in the title just in case I have anything to add later, after my mind is cleared a bit. I'm sure there's other things I haven't thought of yet; I just need some time to know what they are.
Tribute? Bush? In the same sentence?
Well, yeah. After Andrew Klavan of the Wall Street Journal provided insight as to the true meaning of the film, journalists and pundits alike went berserk trying to debunk the claim, deny it, and then acknowledge it (but still try to prove it was left-wing). Now the main journalistic instinct is to belittle the film. Even though it was so critically acclaimed that it is now the #2 most-grossing film ever, we see writers bashing its vision as misguided and wrong.
But the secrets lie in the screenplay.
Granted, not every scene in the movie represents some significant event, not every character is an allegory of a real-life person. However, there are some very significant themes and text that need to be addressed. And yes, director Christopher Nolan has stated that he's let the "current political climate" seep into the film. If I knew Nolan's own beliefs, it would make this a heck of a lot easier. But I don't, so we'll just make do with my own analysis.
The Significance of Lau
President Bush was meant to be a "domestic president". He specialized on issues like tax reform, farming and agriculture issues, education and the economy (yes, the economy, don't forget the stability we had before 1st quarter 2008). He didn't have much foreign policy experience, and he'd served in our domestic National Guard. 9/11 was an issue entirely new. Therefore, he had to change and adapt to manage his lack of foreign policy experience. Seeing as the last 7 years have revolved heavily on foreign policy, it's obviously turned out to be very important.
Now, in Batman Begins, we have Lao. He's the first enemy that Batman's got to go after, and he's a criminal: your basic crime boss. He's the type of guy that Batman's been dealing with for a while. He and Lucius go through the typical process. Lau is akin to the basic issues we'd been dealing with for a while. When the Joker reveals himself, it's a threat entirely new for Batman, and one that he ultimately wasn't prepared for.
A Vigilante
Batman has taken an oath to fight crime. Perhaps not an oath in the technical sense, but certainly a small monologue somewhere. He is bound by rules. Bush has also taken an oath to protect the country and serve it within bounds of the Constitution. He is also bound by rules. Batman is percieved by the public as a vigilante, Bush is thought of as a figure of immense power, able to change things at his whim. Both of these assertions are incorrect, as they are indeed, bound by rules.
"Tonight, you're gonna break your one rule."
Batman broke the law in several ways, by developing the intrusive spying technology and fighting SWAT team members> However, he did indeed intend for these measures to be temporary. Lucius acknowledges that he will only go to this extreme "just once," and Batman then tells him, after he's done, to "type in your name." This destroys the spying device that had been a breach of ethics.
On the flipside, we have Bush, who some argue has breached ethical obligations by wiretapping and suppressing so-called "rights" for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. This has been done in the name of national security (and so far, it's worked; we haven't had a terrorist attack on our homeland since 9/11). Perhaps it is this quote from Harvey Dent that surmises the movie's position: "One day he'll answer for the laws he's broken. But it will be to us, not to them."
The Role of Harvey Dent
Although the movie revolves around Dent (some have argued that he was the main character of the story), it's hard to figure out what role he plays in the grand allegory of The Dark Knight. I believe I've found what he's supposed to represent. Harvey Dent is the promise of righteous, people-serving government. It is one of our strengths in this country that seperates us from the rest of the world, what we look at and remember the legacy of the Founders who designed it to be just and true. For most presidencies, it has worked toward goals and achieved progress. When Bush ran, this is what he promised. When he arrived in office, people thought they'd recieve it.
However, just like Harvey was changed by the Joker into a monster, the government has changed as well. The recent Justice Department allegations, the Alberto Gonzales trial, the refusal of the bureaucracy to release information. The do-nothing Congress. The conflict between the courts and the prsidency. Terrorism and the threat of it was not the sole cause of the fallout, but it exacerbated it extremely. Likewise, the Joker's murder of Rachel and his ascent over Gotham contributed majorly to Harvey's transformation.
An Agent of Chaos
The Joker represents terrorism and its threat to our country. Gotham doesn't represent the U.S., but it represents the battlegrounds of both the United States and Iraq. Anyhow, the Joker is a terrorist, releasing his intention to scare Batman into revealing himself by killing innocents (including cops) until he does.
"Batman must take off his mask and turn himself in. Oh, and every day he doesn't, people will die…starting tonight. I'm a man of my word." He doesn't represent Islam at all, much less fascism (since he's an established anarchist). However, the Islamofascists we face in Iraq are terrorists, killing innocent civilians to try to get to us, to get us to give up.
The Obvious: Iraq War Parallels
There's a scene in The Dark Knight that has a meeting of public officials. Harvey Dent, who comes to the defense of Batman about as often as the White House and other parts of the government come to the defense of Bush, tries to comfort the public while the Joker killings are going on. A man in the back yells "No more dead cops!" as if it's a slogan, much like "No more blood for oil!" or "No more dead soldiers!". The audience cheers, so it's obvious the opinion the public has toward Batman at this moment.
Bruce Wayne returns to his headquarters, comforted by Alfred:
Bruce: What would you have me do?
Alfred: Endure. You can be the outcast. You can be the one to make the hard choice. The right choice.
The President can take the bad press, the opposition, simply, like Batman, he has the power to do so. He can keep moving when nobody else can keep up. This is what Bush has been doing all along, for our sake, for the whole world's sake. Disposing of the tyrant Saddam, who had been mass-murdering Kurdish villiagers, probably would have occurred whether or not 9/11 happened, because of the 1998 plan that had begun under Clinton. The larger-scale war is the stablilization of Iraq, which Al-Qaeda has declared "the central battlefield" for Islamic extremism. Likewise, the Joker killings needed to be endured while Batman pursued the Joker himself.
Arguably, the case can be made that Commissioner Gordon is the commander (a Gen. Petraeus-like figure) of the military fighting in Iraq (Gotham's cops and service personnel).
Obviously, not every scene can be put into the context of today's political climate. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I really want to stress that. There are themes from the movie, though, and clues in the screenplay that are undeniably referring to the situation we have today. That's all I'm saying. And that's all that really needs to be said.
EDIT: I left "Part 1" in the title just in case I have anything to add later, after my mind is cleared a bit. I'm sure there's other things I haven't thought of yet; I just need some time to know what they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
