Remember when comparing a presidential candidate
to a Batman villain was irredeemably racist?

Rush is catching some heat because he doesn't know his Batman Comics history.

Never get into an argument with Geeks about Geek Stuff. That's the lesson.

Anyway, yesterday, he questioned whether naming the villain "Bane" was "purposeful" and whether it would "influence people." However, he laughed at this theory as he was explaining it. He always asserted it was only "brain dead" people who could conceivably be influenced by the homphonic name of a Batman villain.

Apart from just mentioning the "question" of whether or not this was planned (and "purposeful," given the film has always had a 2012 release date), he really didn't endorse this theory.

Personally, I think it's a silly theory to begin with, but then, he's got three hours to fill, and I guess he brought it up for the same reason I am now bringing it up -- sometimes you have to Fill the Hours with Dumb.

It's conversation fodder. It's distraction. Whatever. Sometimes people want to talk about Batman.

Now Limbaugh is being attacked for having endorsed a conspiracy theory, which he actually didn't (though he did float the idea as a question).

Now, what Limbaugh is definitely right about is that Democrats seek to make this ludicrous connection. I already mentioned Chris Lehane all girlishly giddy at the homophonic connection between Bain and Bane.

"it has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood. Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society.”

Where Limbaugh went wrong was in suggesting -- even as an open question -- that this might have been "purposeful" on the filmmaker's part.

First of all, the Bane character is big in Batman mythology, because he famously broke Bruce Wayne's back, rendering him permanently paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair, and sent him into retirement for a year or so. (As they say on TVTropes: He got better.) The character was created in 1993, and always shows up in these movie series at some point. (He even showed up in the ludicrous Batman & Robin, which, Bane-like, destroyed the franchise and sent it into permanent retirement. But, as TVTropes says: It got better.)

Second of all, I can't prove this, but I think Christopher Nolan is at least semi-conservative, based upon the liberal-unfriendly messaging in The Dark Knight. Nolan did not expressly endorse an All Necessary Measures response to terrorism, but neither did he repudiate it, which is a big no-no for liberals, who claim to be interested in culture just for the art itself but who not-so-secretly insist that every dollop of culture created relentlessly reinforce their simple-minded political dogmas.

By writing The Dark Knight as a series of questions to be explored, rather than Known Truths to be reiterated, he sort of (to me) indicated he was conservative.

In addition, his psychographics indicate a conservative mindset. If we can take, say, Tim Burton, as a director you'd suspect, based on psychographic reasons, of being liberal -- his plots make no sense and he doesn't care; he cares about Scenes, not Cohesive Wholes; he cares not at all about logic; he's obsessed with design and visuals; all of his movies have a campy, distancing irony to them -- Nolan is pretty much the exact opposite. Nolan's cares about logic to a fault (watch Inception again-- instead of handwaving questions away, he tries to give us (themselves nonsensical) "logical" answers to plot questions), has not the faintest dollop of campiness but in fact skew a little too puritanically dour to me, etc.

Burton's movies are dreamed; Nolan's are engineered. Burton's French at heart, Nolan's a German.

By the way, ergie: You're the idiot, because I actually didn't like this movie much, even though, politically, it was unobjectionable to a conservative. You're the simpleton who seeks nothing but an endless series of TV Commercial Jingles for progressivism in the "art" you prefer.

Third, it now turns out that Bane's creator isn't a liberal, and I believe him, because he doesn't just say "I'm not a liberal," which is what 90% of liberals claim when you call them a liberal, but rather "I'm a staunch conservative," which is one thing they definitely don't do.

In an exlusive interview he pointed out that he and collaborator Graham Nolan created the “Bane” character in 1992, Dixon told Schnitt, “Graham and I are both staunch conservatives, so from our angle, there’s no liberal agenda. I’m a life-long right-wing extremist.”

He elaborated further, to make my fourth point: If I understand the plot of this movie... "Occupy Wall Street" revolutionaries are the bad guys.

As for the mainstream media’s attempt to usurp the character, Dixon said, “It’s ridiculous. Obviously Bane was not created as an attack on Mitt Romney. We never heard of Romney twenty years ago.” Also, within the context of the movie, Dixon said the comparison between Bane and Romney does not make sense. “My understanding is that Bane is more of an Occupy Wall Street type. Romney is more like Bruce Wayne.”

Oh, Nolan is a nuanced film-maker, and he's not making political tracts here, so you can bet your life savings he's got some kind of "balancing" stuff in there, like Bruce Wayne realizing the plight of the Gotham's poorest really is dire, and beating the shit out of criminals is maybe a feel-good cop-out that doesn't address the real source of criminality, and so on. Like The Joker, Bane will be given some good dialogue where he justifies his worldview. Ra's al-Ghul similarly had some decent justifications.

Still, at the end of the day: The billionaire vigilante law-enforcer is the good guy, and the revolutionary rabble are allied with the lunatics and Bane. It's hard to use dialogue to push the message far off that central plotline.

Anyway, I hereby exonerate Rush 90% of the hate directed at him today of Not Being A Big Batman Comic Book Reader. He did "raise a question," which was kind of dumb, but then, 90% of made-up chatter (slow news days are full of it) is just that kind of out-of-your-ass question-raising.

Two clips below, first, raising the question, then, following the push-back from Chuck Dixon, walking away from it, and noting he'd never endorsed a conspiracy theory (which he didn't).

So, here's the big dumb post on Batman and Rush.

It's dumb, but as I say: Slow news day.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:56 AM | Comments (206)
Post contains 1139 words, total size 8 kb.

Disagreeing with Obama's "You didn't build that" rhetoric.

Adam Carolla is particularly sensitive to that, given he has literally built his own studio and his own podcast network. And has written several books about working hard if you really intend to be wealthy (as opposed to just wishing you were wealthy).

“I believe Barack Obama is a smart guy and I believe he is a skillful politician and I think he wants to get re-elected,” Carolla said. “And it’s pretty simple where you do these kinds of things where you go, ‘Look, are there more rich people in this world or in this union or more poor people?”

Carolla explained there was a difference between being the hardest worker versus being smart and working hard and that Obama was wrong for not making that distinction.

...

Later, the comedian called the philosophy Obama espoused “anti-American” for not recognizing that distinction.

“It is an anti-American — and again I don’t mean that in a terrorist sort kind of way, but this country is sort of built on pull yourself up, start your shit, stake your claim, do your thing, innovation,” he said. “The folks that made it, so-called made, and again I don’t know why we’re obsessed with success, but the folks that have made it had help along the way — not necessarily true in many instances. Yes, you can count being delivered at a hospital that running water, electricity and you can count roads that worked.”

He said this in the July 18th podcast (guest Dave Dameshek, if you're looking for it in the list). You can also download the podcast here. The discussion of "You didn't build it" starts around twelve minutes in, after he gets done talking about how hot Kate Beckinsale is. Correction: It starts virtually ten minutes in, and runs about twenty minutes.

Posted by: Ace at 11:01 AM | Comments (161)
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

You know that Romney feller? He blames everyone else for his mistakes, too.

“You don’t hear me complaining a lot about what’s been said about me,” Obama said. “And Lord knows a lot’s been said about me over the past three and a half years. I understand the nature of our democracy has always been a little bit messy like this.”

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (209)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Of course.

“It is alleged that Diab was acting under the direction of a contact person in Lebanon who is associated with Hezbollah,” the RCMP said in a press release. Quebec provincial police and Montreal police were also involved in the investigation.

Firearms parts were found in her luggage at Montreal airport on May 19, 2011. “Based on gathered evidence it is also alleged that she was shipping firearms parts through people in her community traveling to Lebanon. The victims were unaware of the contents of the packages they were carrying for the accused,” the RCMP said.

Thanks to Jammie Wearing Fool, I think.

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

New ad, pretty good.

The media never stops chattering about Obama's ads. I think that's due to rooting-interest bias -- they want Obama to win, so they focus on those things that make an Obama win more likely.

But this ad seems pretty effective. And "offshoring" is included here, too.

But they never mention Romney's ads.

Semi-related, Kathryn Jean Lopez thinks Romney is becoming more natural, and less programmed by risk-adverse advisers, when stumping.

I have long thought he has been ill-served by certain advisers... trying to protect the candidate from himself rather than let him be himself, completely. (He is actually a competent guy, who represents some fundamental values we used to protect and promote and even try to live, who has demonstrated forward-looking leadership more than a time or two.) And so you have had some random snapshots, without a complete vision. I think it is safe to say Romney has had enough of that. Witness... his pushback after he was booed at the NAACP last week (and the vision thing presented in most of the speech) and yesterday in Pennsylvania. Jim Geraghty provides a good synopsis of the latter in his Morning Jolt this morning. This portion, where he talks about the current administration, hits, I think, at an authentic tone going into the general election that may just be a winning one:

This is very different by the way than the Democratic party of Bill Clinton, that said that the era of big government was over. That reformed welfare — you heard that story by the way — he is trying to take work out of welfare requirement. It is changing the nature of America, changing the nature of what Democrats have fought for and Republicans have fought for.

He folds everything neatly into one of his several big themes-- this one, the "He's transforming America into something unrecognizable" theme. Which is as sound as it is racist.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:45 AM | Comments (132)
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama is literally perfect, no really.

Given that he's perfect, and there is actually nothing to criticize about him at all, it must be the case then that the attacks on his perfectionhood are animated by racism.

Incidentally, Jon Lovitz has become viciously racist.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:04 AM | Comments (278)
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Along with Baby Assad's brother in law, a deputy defense minister, killed by one of his bodyguards.

BEIRUT/AMMAN (Reuters) - Syria's defense minister and President Bashar al-Assad's brother-in-law were killed in a Damascus suicide bomb attack carried out by a bodyguard on Wednesday, the most serious blow to Assad's high command in the country's 16-month-old rebellion.

The bomber, said by a security source to be a bodyguard assigned to Assad's inner circle, struck a meeting attended by ministers and senior security officials as battles raged within sight of the presidential palace.

Inner circles are for suckers.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:41 AM | Comments (80)
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

It's pretty bad.

Meanwhile, Romney says that after Bain, the gloves are off.

Indeed, facing what the candidate and his aides believe to be a series of surprisingly ruthless, unfounded, and unfair attacks from the Obama campaign on Romney’s finances and business record, the Republican’s campaign is now prepared to go eye for an eye in an intense, no-holds-barred act of political reprisal, said two Romney advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the next chapter of Boston’s pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a “liar” — very little will be off-limits, from the president’s youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.

“I mean, this is a guy who admitted to cocaine use, had a sweetheart deal with his house in Chicago, and was associated and worked with Rod Blagojevich to get Valerie Jarrett appointed to the Senate,” the adviser said. “The bottom line is there’ll be counterattacks.”

Posted by: Ace at 07:32 AM | Comments (260)
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.

The Sicily Campaign. Half a million Allied soldiers, sailors and airmen took on Hitler's Fortress Europe, and carved away the first piece from the Axis powers, almost a year before the D-Day invasion of Normandy.

The airborne attacks of July 9-10 were catastrophic, 23 of 144 Allied planes shot down by nervous friendly fire. Pathfinders were unable to find their marking zones. Most British gliders crashed into the sea, only 12 managed to make it to their landing zones. Allied forces were scattered along southern Sicily from Gela in the west to Syracuse. Despite these setbacks, airborne forces were able to gather up, and disrupt the enemy behind the lines, planting fear and panic.

The campaign was the first assault against entrenched and powerful German forces since North Africa, made famous not only for its military struggles but also the famous military/political struggle between Patton's 7th Army and Montgomery's 8th to gain supremacy within Allied command. A small footnote, the loss of Sicily also resulted in the first crack within the Italian government as Mussolini was thrown from power.

A fairly thorough description of the entire campaign is here.

Sixty nine years ago today, halfway through the first major campaign against the Nazis in Europe. The Allies suffered heavier casualties in this battle, but began the first of many lethal blows against the enemy in Europe.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:00 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Gotta spread that wealth around.

The U.S. would lose 710,000 jobs and economic output would decline by 1.3 percent [projected GDP is already crashing], or $200 billion, if tax cuts for high earners are allowed to lapse, said a report prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other supporters of the tax breaks.

The study by Ernst & Young LLP supports Republican efforts to extend all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. President Barack Obama called on Congress last week to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for married couples making less than $250,000 a year while letting rates rise for higher earners.

“The higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending,” wrote the report’s authors, Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante.

Democrats are objecting to this study because A-The Chamber of Commerce is evil and B-Obama and congressional Democrats swear that the increased revenue they bring in through tax hikes (that likely will not materialize) won't go to more spending but to to reducing the deficit.

Why would anyone think Democrats are lying when they say the won't increase spending? Other than history and Obama's promise to increase spending because the private sector is "doing fine" of course.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:12 AM | Comments (110)
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.