The Dark Knight - how much better is it?

I have now seen DK three times. Twice in theatres, and once on my couch thanks to the relaxed view of IP that some people have. There are some things that it is, some things it is not. It is, without a doubt, the SMARTEST superhero movie ever written. Let's start there

The contradiction of Two face

A man who would not let anything go to chance- but would appear to let it by flipping a two-headed coin transforms into a man who lets nothing happen to chance by asking the question over and over and over again.

Not to be confused by the fact that they would say "heads you live, tails you die" - if his preferred option lost, he change the question/facts and ask it again. Sure, Marconi didn't lose his life, but by flipping to kill the driver- the same result ensued.

Then, he is eulogized by a man who he terrorized at the very end- becoming the hero he foreshadowed early on, only after he became the villain he also foreshadowed. The same man who he made tell lies to his children (it will be alright) now uses his legacy to tell the city it will be allright. Of course, it wasn't Dent who saved the city- but the selfless hero who is now seen as the villain. Gold Jerry.

In death, he became stronger as a symbol. Like Batman was.

The best part about Harvey Dent in this movie is that he is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of the original Harvey Dent from the Detective Comics ethos. That Harvey Dent was arrogant, obsessed with his looks (he looked good, but in the Reggie way, not the Archie way), sought out the limelight for his own gain, didn't care about anything other than himself - he was constructed to be the opposite of Bruce Wayne. He did good things, not because the city needed it, but because he thought he was the best thing for the city. A different type of hero? or a more complicated villain.

What does Dent turn into? A murderous, infatuated, callous villain who doesn't care about the consequences of his actions.

Ironically, the Wayne playboy image created in the movies is seen as an act to the outsider - but Bruce Wayne was mostly reclusive - a fact not lost on the ordinary viewer for sure who understands that the image is a shield to protect his privacy - on the front page. In the Detective Comics universe - closely mirrored by the 1990s cartoon - Wayne is seen in the public eye, but doesn't even pretend to like being around society. In the movie, he fakes loving the attention to draw attention away from his true self.

Back to Dent - in DK, he is seen as a passionate crusader who wants to save the city. They made fun of his DC origin (where he was splashed by acid by a mobster because the acid could get into the courtroom). This origin made WAY more sense - and his killing spree was directly tied to his losses.

Of course, Dent is oblivious to the inverse "Spiderman" irony that he is the true reason for the undoing he experienced. If he wasn't so tough on crime, crime wouldn't be tough on him. Sure, Spiderman didn't know who that robber was- but when the villains found out his identity, they went after the loved ones. And Dent went after Gordon's - despite the fact that Gordon actually was the hero for much of the story. Dent was the opposite- he was the public face - and his loved ones got it. The kicker is how just seconds after he got what he wanted - the marriage acceptance - it was ripped away from him.

Of course, Wayne wanted that too - but Rachel wouldn't give it to him because he was Batman. Dent THOUGHT that Rachel's death was his fault- but really, it was Batman's. So, she died because of Batman, despite pushing him away for years. Really - the most misunderstood part of the film from what I have heard and read is the "choice" that Batman made. People think that the Joker knew who Batman was. Not at all. He did think that Batman had a crush on the ADA - and that is why he flipped the locations. The joker will do that which you do not expect - or, ensure that you do the opposite of what you want to do, or expect to do.

Which leads nicely into - a guy who doesn't plan who has things planned down to the second weeks in advance. Not nearly as interwoven as the Dent twists, but an irony lost on most people. He is SO crazy that he plans every little detail and is underestimated at every turn.

Modern satire is fascinating- I remarked to a friend that the court Jester was always there to entertain the King, but was often the one who would offer the most sage advice. This Joker was no different. He spoke in simple truths, could see the whole board, and knew how to get people to do the things he expected them too. All the way down to Batman going after Rachel. Why terrorize people when you can REALLY terrorize people by blowing up hospitals - where the people inside are already injured or dying. Brilliant.

"A phone call." All he wanted was a phone call. What harm could come from that? The pencil? The cowards line? God- how evil! He told a different origin story each time - but really we knew nothing about him. Unlike the first movie Joker, he didn't know what drove him at all.

While I understand why people say that it is easy to "play" the Joker, it is hard to play it that well. Hiding behind a mask isn't as easy as you think, because it was partly the voice and partly the mannerisms. The walk-away from the Hospital was the most lasting image from the movie. The "idiot" jester playing.

Heath was great. He deserves a nomination to say the least. Do I think this will be best picture- probably not. Do I think that this performance was better than Nicholson's? It was just different. It wasn't as campy, and it was dark. If you think about Nicholson, you chuckle a bit. When you think about Ledger, it was downright creepy and evil. It was as different from Nicholson as he was from Romero. If he wins, I think Nicholson should accept.

Finally, and after years of rolling my eyes listening to my friends talking about "Gotham" being New York, we finally have a statement from DC/WB about how the inspiration for Gotham was actually Chicago. Think about it - the docks, the countryside, the fact you had to FLY TO METROPOLIS. Idiots.

If Obama ever was in the Military

He wouldn't have been so careless as to get captured or destroy a multi-million dollar aircraft.

Duh!

I am staring to think Obama might win 350 Electoral votes.

Except, how many of the 400,000 Germans could even vote?

The Open Championship

It is obviously, a completely different game. Hence why so many Americans were in the top ten. They really need to change the ranking system.

I watched video footage of Greg Norman from 1986 - and his swing was exactly the same then- when he was in his prime - as it was this week at the Open. Exactly the same. Age 54. Wow. And it isn't like he waves at the ball- he hits it as hard anyone. ANYONE. He probably still has a 32 inch waist, and frankly, he is in better shape than 99.9 of them out there. Age 54.

So what if he didn't win- at age 54 he was at the very top of the leader board. 54! There is no way that Gretzky could do what he did at 54. The last time he played competitive golf? God only knows - he just came here for his honeymoon. HONEYMOON? and finished tied for fourth? 54?

And it wasn't exactly a turkey shoot out there- I can't remember harder conditions at the Open- and he was EVEN after two days. Age 54.

Before the Tiger, there was the Shark.

and before him, the Bear- but at age 54, he couldn't even make cuts.

I haven't ranted about the sharks for a while...

But it would appear they are making their way inward.

Weather "Accident," indeed.

Five Years Later

And I haven't been disbarred.

Woo-hoo!

The Order of Candians is generally a large double double

So, some catholic dude handed back the Order of Canada because he didn't want to win an award that could be awarded to Henry Morgentaler.

Oy. You would think he would want to win an award that was imparted to Stompin' Tom Connors though.

Frankly, I can't think of a person who is MORE deserving of the award that the good doctor.

There are really three ideas that have to be conveyed here: Why do we have an OC? Who deserves to have an OC? And what are social conservatives doing wrong?

Why do we have an OC - to reward outstanding achievement in the field of excellence?

Maybe it is a little more involved than that.

I think it is to ensure that we have a place in our society to elevate particularly important people for whatever fantastic thing they did. It can be anything- charity, art, dance, hockey, being Prime Minister, being Premier, being alive a long time and nice to other people - it is a position of status in the community.

If I had my way, we would hand them out to LESS people, and Morgentaler would still get one. There are currently 5,479 people with an Order of Canada.

Who deserves an OC - You can think that Bryan Adams sucks and still believe he deserves the award.

Sure- we should have a public debate on who deserves the award each time someone moderately controversial gets it. And we do. Any person or group can nominate another person. I just nominated Buzz Hargrove because he hates Korea so much.

What did Mr. Morgantaler do? He risked his own freedom and his own life to provide women the opportunity to make a choice about their body. He has been in front of Canada's highest court TWICE in an attempt to protect that right.

If that doesn't qualify you, I don't know what does. The man is a hero.

What is the Social Conservative Right (SCR) doing wrong? Everything.

As a qualified libertarian, I don't give a shit what a person does to their own body. I believe that you have the sovereign right to do whatever you want inside it. Don't affect other people.

And that has always been the rub, right?

My thought, however, is that rather than making a choice which some people have no option but to take illegal, why not just convince them to chose your way?

It is the intellectual equivalent of combating communism by outlawing it. Or banning the NDP from elections so they can't win.

The SCR has to stop trying to change the rules to win the debate. a) It won't happen and b) even it if it does happen in country a, people can go to state b or back-alley c and get the same result.

The SCR has to do this one baby at a time- convince the mothers to keep the children. That it is morally/ethically wrong for them to terminate the pregnancy.

Arguing against the law just makes it harder for people to make the choice that is best for them. Open the process entirely and make them obsolete is the only sustainable method that will work.

Canada/US - what's the difference? Loads.

In my lifetime, we will see Roe v. Wade overturned. It is, despite the result, a remarkably poor decision. It is based in privacy - and let me assure you- the view of privacy in the 1970s is markedly different than it is now.

When Roe falls, however - it isn't like we are going to see abortions stop. Of the states that still have the anti-abortion laws on the books, I would daresay that less than five of them will vigorously defend those laws. Most of those states have only one vowel in them.

Others will be struck down by progressive legislatures/governors.

Others still will be ignored completely.

And it isn't far to drive from Alabama to another state.

Timing is Everything. And Nothing

Right and Wrong. There is a matrix for what is a good/bad idea compared to when to/not introduce it. Let me lay it out for you.

Right Idea, Right Time - Cutting a massive deficit at the beginning of a majority government. Cutting programs that, while excessive, were often helpful to citizens. It is still the lasting legacy of Chretien and Martin.

Wrong Idea, Wrong Time - Cutting the GST during a downswing in the economy.

Wrong Idea, Right Time - Promising to cut the GST during an election campaign.

Right Idea, Wrong Time - The Liberal Party Carbon Shift.

Caveats alluded to earlier notwithstanding - this is the correct way to approach the reduction of anthropogenic gases. If you think this is the issue that must be addressed first, this is the best way to do it.

All regulations that affect the output of carbon gases or equivalents/multipliers are defacto carbon taxes. The difference is that they are actually directed at people rather than at companies. It is why the ill-informed Tory lines on this plan resonate.

Of course, when you force sequestration technology on someone, it isn't as if the infrastructure is free. You (as in you, reading this article) bear the costs at a later date. Usually at the pumps.

The problem is, of course, timing. This summer, the price of gas is not going to go down. When Jack gets asked a question about it, he won't answer it, but he will say "Mr. Dion's Carbon Tax will make it far worse."

Which of course, isn't necessarily true. But it resonates.

Similarly, it isn't as if anyone wants to watch politics in the summer. I suspect the media coverage of this over the summer will be nestled somewhere between "none" and "the style pages." Most people are either tuned out or on vacation or both.

But, they do pay for gas.

And that is assuming they didn't just get laid off because the trucks they make aren't being sold in the US because of the cost of energy, the short term housing crisis, the lending crisis, the drive to smaller....etc.

It is really easy for someone who doesn't take the time to understand policy implications will cast aspersions about a policy that can be defined in two words by the opposition. It makes the Liberals look like poor financial managers, which will erode the one lasting legacy of Chretien/Martin.

400 Years of Quebec

Is there anyone else that finds it rich that the "oldest" Canadian city is the one that wants to lead the charge out of Canada?

I found it particularly yummy that the more anglo Prime Minister we have had in a while is the one reading the speech.

At least the GG used to be a separatist.