Spotted at the local Meijer store.

ballerinabatman

Sometimes Superman can be a real dick.


Click to embiggen!

WSJ op-ed claims “The Dark Night” is actually a homage to George W. Bush.

The Wall Street Journal has always been a conservative rag and I expected to get even more so once it was bought out by Rupert Murdoch, but I didn’t expect him to start hiring editorial writers that are smoking crack:

There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society—in which people sometimes make the wrong choices—and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

“The Dark Knight,” then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,” “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Give me a fucking break. Not being content with ruining every geek’s image of Batman by putting President Bush behind the mask, our esteemed author even manages to work in a Jesus reference:

Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

Because, you see, sometimes you gotta do wrong to protect what’s right. At least that what he appears to be saying:

The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them—when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take on those difficult duties themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away—because we have to chase him.”

That’s real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised—then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

So it’s not that we want to lock all you furriners up indefinitely and torture you—we honestly hate having to do that—but we’re at that place where such actions are necessary in order to preserve your freedom and not torture you in the future. Or something. It’s hard to tell because I don’t smoke crack myself.