Dubliners and On Bullshit

Over the past month I have read two books that I have only had time to review now.

The first book I read was James Joyce's Dubliners. I first "read" this last year during my senior year of high school. The reason read is in quotations is because during high school - at least the high school I went to - there was no enough time to actually do all the work. Actually, there was enough time, but because the school day was so exhausting - the combination of waking up early and sitting in rows like fattening cattle all day while a figure drawls on and scribbles on a board can be tiresome - there was no way for me to muster the energy to do all the work. I would also end up staying up late trying to complete my work because I would not start it immediately the moment I returned home. Going to bed at 2 in the morning and waking up 5 hours later is a real blow to energy. Therefore, I would just be more tired the next day after a boring day of school, meaning I could do less work. Basically, I read the first two chapters of Dubliners. However, I thought those two chapters were fantastic. I was amazed with the writing style; a simplicity they still caused vivid images in my minds eye. Thus, a year later, I decided to read the whole book at my leisure without concern for assignments.

What is fantastic about Dubliners is that the author, James Joyce, himself was a Dubliner, meaning a resident of Dublin. However, Joyce hated Dublin. In fact, as I understand it he hated all of Ireland. Obviously, there were certain aspects he probably liked, but he did have an overwhelming problem with the Irish remaining in Ireland. Unlike Joyce, the Irish had this strange innate sense of pride in Ireland. At least it is depicted as innate pride in Dubliners. The novel offers no explanation as to how the Irish became so pride of Ireland. The novel also does not classify it as simply pride. In the novel, pride is broken down into different loyalties like for family, government, culture, homeland, etc. The particular loyalty being examined only becomes evident when the character is placed in a particular circumstance. For example, the twelfth short story in Dubliners, Ivy Day in the Committee Room, is about the characters' loyalty to government and their homeland. The problems with this loyalty then exposes that Ireland is doomed to suffer the same unproductive politics. Basically, every story shows how a particular loyalty is irrational, meaning limiting on the individual. The eighth short story - at least I think it is the eighth - A Little Cloud perfectly captures the damaging effects of irrational loyalties. One Irishman meets an old friend, who I believe was actually English not Irish. The Irishman has ended up with what would be comparable to the average suburban life of today. The Englishman, however, travels the world, visits exotic places. The latter is living the life he always desired to live, while the former is not. The Irishman questions the Englishman why he never returns and doesn't he miss being home. The Englishman, of course, does not, and honestly says he only returns to Ireland and England for a few distinct and favorable characteristics the rest of the world cannot offer.

Essentially, Dubliners concerns escaping from the prisons of family, culture, homeland pride, etc. Obviously, family can be a positive element in someone's life, but in most instances it is not. Consequently, like culture and patriotism it becomes a weight against one's own desires, success, and thus happiness. Therefore, the theme of the story is be selfish, do not be selfless towards any variation of the collective that cloaks itself in the illusion of virtue, for it will only make one miserable. All of the short stories show this later effect, which is my only disappointment. I would like to see one hero escape the loyalties towards Ireland, one hero realizing his own happiness not grinding himself into fodder for a collective. However, I believe Dubliners makes a very strong case by not depicting the heroes but the sufferers - I would not necessarily call them villains, may be misguided. Sometimes a depressing tale is more effective than an uplifting one. Furthermore, I believe many of the short stories can be applied to the reader's own life. The short stories involve situations that are actually quite generic. Everyone experiences one of these stories, or know an immediate relative or friend who has. Therefore, the stories could not be related to if they were heroes tales. Consequently, the reader might miss the theme, for he would not see the mistakes the characters are avoiding. In this situation, the characters make the mistakes, and the reader will more likely think, "I have made this mistake," or "I am doing this right now."

The second book, On Bullshit, is non-fiction. It was originally a short essay by Harry G. Frankfurt that analyzed the concept of bullshit. I believe he wrote the essay in like the seventies or eighties, but only recently has it been printed by a book.

When the term book is used, and one combines it with analysis the image of a fat text is probably evoked. However, remember this was originally an essay, and when it was printed as a book nothing was added. What is produced is something about the height and width of a pocket Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution one can purchase from Cato. Furthermore, there is probably less text in this 67 page book than the pocket Constitution.

Frankfurt begins by stating that the concept of bullshit has never really been analyzed. Throughout the book he does reference an earlier essay by Max Black called The Prevalence of Humbug. Though Frankfurt does recognize there is a similarity between humbug and bullshit he refuses to accept them as synonymous, for they are different words; therefore, they must have different meanings no matter how slight. For example, angry and furious are similar but not synonymous. Furious has a far more negative connotation than angry. One who is furious is definitely more mad than one who is angry. Since Frankfurt states that humbug and bullshit are different and the concept of bullshit has never been thoroughly explored before he makes it clear that this essay On Bullshit will not produce definite answers. It is only a first step in understanding the concept. If anything, it produces hypotheses ready to be tested.

Early on in the book Frankfurt also separates bullshit from lying. Once again like humbug and bullshit there is a similarity between lying and bullshit, but seeing as how they are different words they must have different meanings, even if only slightly. The rest of the book primarily explores this difference. What Frankfurt concludes is that a lie is the direct opposite of a truth. Therefore, a liar must actually be aware of the truth because the liar's motive is to convey something that is false. For example, if one person wants to defraud another through a sale, like that of a car, the defrauder must know how much the car actually costs. The defrauder must know the car costs $15,000 if he wants to defraud the customer, for he wants to make more than what the care is actually worth. He must then know the true worth of the car, so he is sure to construct a falsehood, a lie, that opposes the truth. $80,000 would definitely oppose $15,000. Of course, this is not a perfect example because he could also pick $2 which would oppose $15,000, it would still be a lie, but he would not be defrauding someone. For another example, if the one wants another person to commit a vicious act he must first know what virtuous acts are. If he was just guessing he might accidentally select a virtuous act.

Ultimately, Frankfurt decides that bullshit is that last example I provided, meaning guessing, which I think is fascinating. The greatest part in the book is when Frankfurt explains that bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lying. Basically, one who is bullshitting wants to sound a certain way without actually knowing much about how that way is supposed to sound.
For example, if an Average Joe is asked about his view on the environment he wants to sound like he knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, Mr. Joe, since he is an Average Joe, does not know anything about the environment. He does not know what an environmental expert would say. Therefore, Mr. Joe makes up stuff. He guesses what is supposed to sound right. The difference between this and lying is that Mr. Joe does not know the truth, he just guesses. That is why bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lying, for lies acknowledge that truth exists. A liar must know the truth, for he motive is to counter act it. The bullshitter's motive is to sound like he knows the truth without actually knowing the truth. Consequently, he just guesses, enters a game of crap shoot. This is, of course, very fitting for the word bullshit. Frankfurt does not explain the bull part all that much, but he does spend significant time explaining that bullshitting is like shit neither as any real form or any concern for form.

The last line of On Bullshit is the best line, aside from the one explaining that bullshit not lies is the greatest enemy of the truth. In the last line Frankfurt states that sincerity is itself is bullshit. I interpreted this as meaning how people use sincerity now. Originally, sincerity meant to be honest and genuine. However, people today often feign sincerity. One most often hears the word sincere in a context like, "Please try to be sincere." This is usually stated after one person has conveyed that he really does not care at all. Therefore, he must bullshit. He tries to sound sincere without actually knowing how one is supposed to sound sincere, for he previously implied he does not care at all. However, another interpretation, the correct one obviously, relates to the lines previously before it. Frankfurt argues that humans are unstable being in a constant state of change; thus, sincerity is bullshit. I would have to agree, if only humans were in a constant state of change. I believe individuals decide who they are going to be very early on. Throughout life they change very little. Frankfurt seems to believe humans are like leaves in the wind, they change on arbitrary whims. If this were true sincerity would always be bullshit. Under my argument, where people decide who they are early on, sincerity is easy, they have known who they are very early on. However, multiple collectives order individuals to be different than who they are. Furthermore, one individual may be part of multiple collectives that contradict each other; thus, causing the individual to experience more pressure from the collectives. In the end the individual may become confused. If he were to accept him self, he would probably know exactly what he wanted. However, with collective pressures contradicting one another and contradicting him self, he cannot be sincere. If he were he would be shunned face a type of exile, which he probably could not bare, evident by his participation in several collectives. Therefore, when he tries to be sincere he is only saying what he thinks he should say, what he thinks he should sound like, to appease a specific collective. Sincerity then becomes bullshit again.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Drug-tests

New article and link.

Student Drug-tests Teach Wrong Lessons

Across America, boards of education are implementing student drug-tests like they are handing out free candies. They are not good candies either. They are more like those hard candies from the Wilson administration a grandmother would offer. What makes these candies so unsatisfying is not that they violate natural rights, but that they teach the wrong lessons.

In actuality, under the correct circumstances, student drug-tests do not violate natural rights. If all schools were privatized, and children were not required by law to attend school, drug-tests would not initiate force. In this circumstance an individual chooses to attend school; he is not forced to. Furthermore, the schools are private; they may accept any individual for whatever reason. Therefore, attending school would be a privilege not a requirement. One would not have any sort of citizen’s right to be provided with education. One would have to follow the requirements of the institution if he wanted to be accepted. Passing a drug-test could be one such requirement.

As it stands now, drug-tests may violate natural rights. An individual may keep aspects of his life private; he does not have to share them with others if he so chooses. This is protected by and individual’s natural right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. However, it is debatable as to whether or not a child is entitled to full natural rights, for his reason is not fully developed. Also, most schools only require drug-tests for extracurricular activities. Since individuals are not mandated by law to play a sport or drive on school property, extracurricular activities are privileges like privatized non-mandated education would be.

However, other schools merely randomize student drug-tests, which more likely violates natural rights. Randomizing drug-tests is just like drug-testing everyone, except less students are tested, and the students do not know if who will be tested and when. Regardless of whether or not the tests are randomized, those tested are still forced by law to attend school. Subsequently, school is not a privilege. Of course, this is only true for public schools.

Obviously, the goal of drug-tests is not to exile children from education. The goal is to help students with addictions. Of course, this is contradicted by the fact that schools do not test students for cigarette or alcohol use. However, even if the tests encompassed all addictions they would still do more harm than good, for drug-tests do not teach children to say no to drugs. Drug-tests teach children that it is virtuous to force blood and urine samples from individuals to determine if they are living healthy lives. School drug searches teach similar lessons. When police officers and dogs enter the school sniffing and searching for drugs children do not learn to say no to drugs. Instead, children learn that it is virtuous to riffle through individuals’ property to determine if they are living healthy lives. Drug-tests and drug searches teach children that using violence, initiating force, violating individuals’ natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property is virtuous, if it is used to determine if people are healthy.

In a democracy this is where the tyrannical nanny state begins. The nanny state does not develop from the government. The nanny state develops from the people who vote for tyrannical politicians. People choose to vote for nanny politicians because they are taught that nanny policies, drug-tests, drug searches, smoking bans, trans fat bans, etc. are virtuous. They learn this as children when their parents and government carry out lesser nanny policies. Therefore, when they can vote, they choose to make the next step towards a nanny tyranny. In a democracy the government is not corrected by first electing better politicians. That is second. The first step in correcting a democratic government is teaching children better lessons; teaching the Truth. Drug-tests do not guarantee less drug use in the future, but more tyranny.

Films From Past Week

Memento - four and a half stars

This is a hands down amazing film. Some people might be more familiar with this director's other films, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. In this film Christopher Nolan tackles what others might consider impossible. As it was told to me, Nolan came up with this idea while on a family road trip. His brother Johnathan Nolan, which assisted in writing Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was discussing a short story he wanted to write. The story was about a man with a brain condition that made it impossible for him to develop new memories. He developed this condition when his wife was allegedly murdered. Apparently the man walked in while his wife was being rapped, and he was hit over the head. Thus, the physical and mental trauma developed this brain condition. Subsequently, the man tries to find his wife's killer and murder him. Furthermore, the story is told in reverse order. Consequently, the reader would experience something similar to the main character. They would know where he was going, where he was going to end up, but they would have no idea what led him to that place. Again, this was designed to be a short story, and it sounds impossible for the screen. The whole time Johnathan was explaining the story, Christopher kept saying, "I want this to be a movie." So, he made it a movie even before his brother finished the story.

There is one quote in the film the captures it's entire purpose, and I somewhat used it already. In the beginning of the film Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), the man with the condition, explains to Burt (Mark Boone Junior), the man at the motel front desk, that he has a condition where he can not generate new memories. Burt explains that he has already told him about it. Then Burt says, "It's like you know where you're going, but you don't know where you've been." The movie is then filmed to model this. It starts with the last image of the story. Then it shows the immediately previous memory. In the beginning the memories are maybe ten to fifteen minutes long, but as the film progresses the memories become shorter.

By the end of the film, which is the beginning of the story, it is revealed a local cop named John "Teddy" Gammell (Joe Pantoliano) who has been helping Lenny has actually been lying to him for years. In the beginning of the film, the end of the story, Lenny is shown shooting Teddy in the face. Thus, leaving the audience to wonder, "Why would he shoot the cop who is helping him?" The obvious assumption is that Lenny's condition has made him incredibly confused. Teddy actually states this before he is about to be shot. However, Teddy has been lying to Lenny. Apparently, Teddy helped Lenny kill his wife's murderer - a certain John G. - years ago. However, Lenny did not remember it; therefore, he started searching for another John G. Teddy then started selecting John G.'s that were criminals in order to satisfy Lenny, while getting bad guys off the streets. However, what is even more disturbing is that Lenny's wife may not have been murdered. Because of Lenny's condition he may have given his wife too much medication. Teddy reveals all of this to Lenny, but says it does not matter because Lenny will not remember. However, Lenny keeps notes, lots of clever notes and pictures to remind himself. He realizes Teddy's real name is John Gammel like the John G. he has been looking for. Consequently, Lenny scribbles another note to himself saying that John G.'s license plate is Teddy's license plate. He also writes on Teddy's picture that he is a liar and not to be trusted. Thus, it is revealed why Teddy is killed.

Honestly, I have some philosophical problems with this film. Lenny and Teddy are going around the country murdering people. Teddy, of course, receives punishment, and rightly so because he has essentially been orchestrating all these murders. Furthermore, once Teddy is dead Lenny may not have the ability to seek out anymore John G.'s. However, I would prefer to see Lenny receive some kind of punishment or separation from society. However, what is also disturbing is that Lenny could have killed Teddy right when he told him the truth. Instead, Lenny sets up another little chase for himself. Either he is admitting that Teddy should not be killed, or that he would like to play detective again. Regardless of these problems I maintain that Memento gets four and a half stars because of the amazing accomplishment presented in a thrilling engrossing manner. Slowly, I believe I am coming to realize it is fine for a film to be entertaining. It does not make the film art, it does not make it great, but it also does not make the film filth. Memento lacks philosophically, but it is a grand achievement worth praising. The lack of message is not cause enough to cast it aside.

Step Brothers - Two stars

Come on Will Ferrel. What is going on. Anchorman - hilarious. Blades of Glory - hilarious. Talladega Nights - kind of funny. That stupid basketball movie I cannot remember the name of - horrible. Step Brothers - not much better. My cousin gave this movie the perfect description - more misses than hits, but when it hit, it hit well. I would think two grown men acting like fourteen year old would be hilarious. Unfortunately, it got kind of boring. It was the same jokes over and over again. They are teenage boys that like weird toys. They want to stay home and eat Cheeto's, while also starting an enormous entertainment company. They like Chewbacca masks and porno. Their older brother is an asshole. All fine and good the first time around, but then enough is enough. There were plenty of missed opportunities like when Dale (John C. Reilly) first had sex. That should be huge in the mind of a teenager, but it was barely discussed.

The one place Step Brothers is earning stars is theme. Unfortunately, it comes late in the film, which appears to be the standard with these frat pack comedies. The message is that people should be who they are, and it is perfectly captured when Brennan (Ferrel) and Dale become productive members of society that no longer like singing, drumming, shark week, boats, or hos. The father (Richard Jenkins) can not stand the sight of his son and stepson being destroyed, so he tells the story about how he wanted to be a dinosaur and his father told him not to be. Brennan and Dale then embrace their true identities, which really means they do what they want to do, the like and do what makes them happy. In turn, they actually become successful. Their world wide entertainment business does not get that large, but they open karaoke lounges across the state. Success is the realization of one's values, meaning success is being happy, and that is exactly what happened to Brennan and Dale.

Mystic River - four stars

What starts as a film concerning another police case develops into a story of small town organized crime. The majority of the story focuses on the police investigation of the murder of Katie Markum (Emmy Rossum), and whether or not a strange acting Dave Boyle (Tim Robbins) committed the murder. The whole event reunites three childhood friends, Dave Boyle, James Markum (Sean Penn), and Sean Devin (Kevin Bacon). James is obviously the father of the victim, and Sean is the state police detective investigating the case. Over time it becomes clearer and clearer that Dave probably murdered Katie. He saw her in the last bar she was in on the night in question. On that night he returns home late with someone else's blood on him and a cut across his torso. He acts strangely and seems to descend into insanity talking about werewolves and vampires. When it appears clear to James that Dave is the culprit the unknown organized crime angle is revealed. James has some of his local partners in crime get Dave drunk at the beach where he then murders him at night fall. However, at the very same time Sean captures Katie's true murderers. Apparently, Dave did not murder Katie or the mugger he suggested but a known pedophile. Consequently, Sean is now looking for Dave. James then reveals he murdered Dave, but Sean does nothing. Annabeth Markum (Laura Linny) James' wife then thanks him for killing Dave even though he was innocent because it shows what he will do for his family. She then gives an excellent Lady MacBeth-esque speech about how he could be king of the town. The final seen shows Sean on one side of the street and James on the other side while at a parade. Sean then aims his finger like a gun and pulls the trigger. James only holds up his hands as if to say, "What do you want."

Usually, I find that these crime thrillers meet par maybe three to three and half stars. However, there is something else going on in this film. The whole development of James as the father of a victim to crime thug is interesting. There is only the slightest hint of his nature at the beginning when he is depicted as an eight year old talking back to an alleged cop. The story line concerning whether or not Dave is the murder is also somewhat thrilling; however, it relies on the fact that the movie does not show you one scene. It only shows you the scene as a flashback when Dave is about to be murdered. I would rather see this alibi scene in chronological order. Then the film might evoke a different feeling. Instead of a thrilling suspicion of Dave a hatred for all the other characters who suspect him with limited evidence. This theme concerning the need for evidence in punishing criminals, a theme of presumed innocent until proven guilty, is already in the film. The ending, of course, is all about this. Additionally, there is a fantastic scene where Sean's partner Whitey Powers (Luarence Fishburn) impounds Dave's car as if it were stolen. Basically, he steals the car with police force and ingenuity. He then processes the car finding multiple blood types. One belongs to Dave and the other is the same blood type as Katie. However, it is also the same blood type as the pedophile Dave killed. Powers asks Dave about this blood in the trunk, but Dave outsmarts his plan. He points out that the car was allegedly stolen; therefore, the people who stole the car must have done something because he knows nothing about it. Circumventing police procedures that protect liberty does not pay in the end.

The element I thought could use more development is the relation of the beginning to the rest of the story. As a child Dave is abducted by someone posing to be a police officer. This is what makes him act strange. All the physical and mental trauma damaged him for life. This does provide some motivation for killing the pedophile, for he was sexually abused during the abduction. However, the pedophile story is only revealed at the end of the movie. The event also casts suspicion on Dave. Being a victim of child molestation makes him more likely to sexually abuse and murder others. Another connection between the early childhood event and the rest of the movie is that all three characters were together when Dave is abducted. After that they do not remain friends. There is only the casual hello around the neighborhood. However, Katie's murder brings are three individuals back into the same story line. These are all the dots I see in relation to that scene and the whole storyline, but I do not see how they connect. Maybe I am missing something. I am sure to watch the movie again at some later point. Laura Linny's Lady MacBeth, Sean Penn's attire when he murder's Dave, and the ending parade scene are enough motivation for me alone. Maybe at that point I will understand why the story is about Dave's abduction.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Democratic Despotism

Here is another Ionic Column, and the link.

Democratic Despotism

German political theorist Carl Schmitt argued that the best state creates the law yet lives outside the law (Schmitt Political Theology 19). For example, if the state declares killing innocent men illegal, Schmitt’s ideal state has the authority to kill innocent men without repercussions. Additionally, Schmitt’s state also decides what is normal (Schmitt “Definition of Sovereignty” 13). For instance, it is certainly abnormal for killing innocent men to be legal; however, Schmitt’s state has the authority to decide that legal-killing of innocent men is normal. Clearly, Schmitt’s ideal state is immersed in vice. Unfortunately, democracy is not much different.

Democracy’s problem is that it decides by majority rule, which is only concerned with agreement, not Truth. When a group assembles for the purpose of democratic decision making the group members are not trying to determine what the best or virtuous decision is. The group members are only striving to achieve fifty percent plus one; Truth and morality are not even afterthoughts.

Clearly, majority rule is not a virtuous decision-making-method since it classifies success as fifty percent plus one and not the moral quality of the decision. However, individuals assume majority rule is a virtuous decision-making-method. Moreover, individuals assume the virtuous method begets virtuous decisions. Of course, this is not the case at all; however, because of this assumption, majority rule’s decisions are excused from moral scrutiny. Essentially, democracy operates with a moral blank check.

Since majority rule’s decisions are assumed virtuous, a democratic state can create the laws, while operating outside the laws. Taxes are a perfect example. By majority rule, a democratic state decides that thievery – seizing another’s property without the owner’s permission – is illegal. However, the same democratic state can decide by majority rule that taxes – state acquisition of citizens’ funds without the individual citizens’ consent – is legal. Thievery and taxes are exactly the same, but individuals see no conflict. Individuals view the state as correct for outlawing thievery and correct for collecting taxes. This is exactly how Schmitt wanted a state to operate.

Majority rule’s assumed virtuous decisions also allow a democratic state to decide what is normal. War is a fantastic example. It is undoubtedly abnormal for one individual or state to attack an innocent individual or state. Initiating force against innocents – individuals or states that have not attacked the aggressor – is the acme of abnormality. However, democratic states consistently decide this is normal. The Iraq, Vietnam, and Korean wars are fine examples. Other excellent examples are the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, Prohibition, and the War on Drugs. Unfortunately, once again, individuals of a democracy generally accept the state’s classification of initiative war as normal, at least early on; opposition only grows much later. Though the eventual opposition does not adhere with Schmitt’s ideal state, the fact that the opposition is not immediate indicates majority rule does have some ability in deciding the norm.

Democratic states do not perfectly capture Schmitt’s ideal state, for Schmitt strongly opposed democracy for its long legislative decision making process. Schmitt argued that the ideal state was led by one decision maker, or what he called a sovereign. The fact that democracy is controlled by an assembly, requiring long legislative processes to decide, is what makes democratic states minutely better than Schmitt’s state. However, the nature of majority rule makes Schmitt’s state and democratic states of the same character; the only difference is that democratic states need more time to decide.

Schmitt, Carl, “Definition of Sovereignty,” in Carl Schmitt, Political Theology:

Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. George Schwab

(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985), 5-15.
Schmitt, Carl, Political Theology Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans.

George Schwab (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985).

The Dark Knight

A solid five stars.

If one has not yet seen The Dark Knight, I recommend that one does not read this review. Even if this review may not contain many spoilers, the film should be viewed with little foreknowledge as to what will happen. It is wonderful movie magic, though not necessarily an actual magic trick. It is what I have always wanted in a film and story; a tale with a purpose. A story that exists not for the simple sake of telling a story, but a story for the sake of a message or theme. The events of the story raise moral questions, and the characters openly discuss this dilemmas. The theme is not hidden. The viewer does not have to guess as to what he should learn. The Dark Knight is a creative message. It is a fictional example for the creator to say, "Here. This is what I mean," for some times a non-fiction essay appears to lack the practicality and the reader dismisses it.

Additionally, The Dark Knight is one of the best interpretations of Batman, like Batman Begins was one of the best analysis of his origin. The Dark Knight also contains the greatest interpretation of the Joker, which is also the greatest villain of all time. However, do not forget Two-Face. Some seem to forget this villain for the outstanding performance of the Joker by Heath Ledger. Aaron Eckhart's Two-Face is also one of the best portrayals of Two-Face. The Joker is the polar opposite of Batman, and Two-Face marks the downfall of a nearly virtuous man, a white knight that becomes a man seeking revenge. Harvey Dent morphs from Gotham's savior to the young Bruce Wayne depicted in Batman Begins before he attempts to kill his parents' murderer, Joe Chill.

First, I will begin with Batman. He has always been my favorite super hero. Infinitely superior to the loathsome Superman. Batman celebrates man. He has no supernatural abilities. He did not come from another planet. He only has reason. His mind allows him to control his body, become physical fit. Invent gadgets to give him an edge in fighting crime. Uncover clues and put them together to track down criminals. However, most importantly, his reason allows him to understand morality, and throughout The Dark Knight, Batman tries his best to stay on this fine line of moral truth. I will admit he does stumble a few times; however, director Christopher Nolan does not mistake Batman's vices for virtues. Nolan shows these vices so that they are understood as vices, so that virtue can be understand.

I usually do write much about vice, virtue, truth, morality, etc. I will not admit I exaggerate their importance, but I will admit I am repetitious on the topic in my writing. However, as I am writing about The Dark Knight I am not being repetitious, I am not being too overbearing on the topic. The film is about this. The film is about man, reason, truth, objective morality, reality, virtue and vice. Batman is not the mark of virtue, as I have stated he has his faults. However, he is of the virtuous big three: Batman (Christian Bale), Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), and District Attorney Harvey Dent. Batman is the worst of the three and Dent is the best of the three. The problems with Batman is that he is a vigilante, meaning he acts outside of the law. This is not to say the law is virtuous and one should always follow it; however, some laws are based on protecting natural rights, are based on protecting against vice. Therefore, some of Batman's actions are vicious. He does use vice to beget virtue, which I am no supporter of. He destroys property, endangers lives, harms individuals that should not necessarily be harmed in order to achieve some virtue, which actually is not all that virtuous. However, this is the essence of Batman. An individual that experience one of the worst initiations of force as a child, and has dedicated his whole life to compensating for that. Some examples of Batman's vicious or at least morally questionable behavior involve his violent interrogation of the Joker. A man already arrested, but not yet convicted for his crimes, his hit and thrown into walls. Batman also tosses a mob boss, who was arrested and made bail, from a short height to break his ankle. Batman then uses this pain to question Sal Maroni, the mob boss, (Eric Roberts) as to where the Joker is hiding. However, the greatest example of moral dilemma is when Batman creates a wiretapping device to track down the Joker. Every phone in Gotham is then recorded and turned into a sonar device, offering a complete 3-D blue print of the city, its inhabitants, and their actions. He asks Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) to man the machine and track the Joker for him, while he waits on the street for the location. Fox responds by saying it is immoral, unethical, to much power for one man, and that he will resign from Wayne Enterprises after helping this one time. Batman accepts this, but tells Fox to enter his name into the computer when he is done. When the Joker is captured, the mission complete, Fox enters his name and the device self destructs. Therefore, Batman is not wholly vicious. Obviously, the wire tapping is no good. However, is does question those extenuating circumstances. The Joker has threatened to annihilate a city, he has been good on his word in the past, he is indeed a man of his word, could this be an acceptable time to violate some natural rights for a greater good? I completely disagree, Batman obviously does not. However, as I have stated before he is not a hero, but at least he has enough good sense to destroy the machine once it is no longer needed, and when it is needed, he puts it in the hands of a trustworthy individual.

The ending of the film also offers another great layer to the Batman, and displays the virtue of lying. The Joker has been captured, his atrocious plans stopped, but the Joker reveals while Batman and the authorities were busy trying to capture him, he had convinced Dent to exact his revenge on the cops that killed is wife to be Rachael Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). The Joker just laid out an experiment with a moral dilemma, which I will explain later, and the citizens of Gotham, even the criminals passed with flying colors. However, the Joker remarks that the Gothamites' spirit will now be shattered; they will no longer be able to commit such virtuous acts, for their savior, the greatest Gothamite, the White Knight, Harvey Dent has descended into utter vice. Batman saves Gordon and his family from certain death at the hands of Two-Face, and Two-Face dies as a result. Gordon agrees with the Joker's statements, saying that the Joker won and Gotham is lost. Batman then says that no one must ever be told as to what Dent did. Gordon remarks that is impossible, for Dent killed five men, two cops, and threatened his family. Batman tells Gordon to call in to the Gotham PD that he, Batman, has killed those people and threatened his family. Gordon hesitates at first, but then follows through when Batman remarks, "I am whatever Gotham needs me to be." At this moment, Gotham needs Batman to be the villain, they cannot take another blow. Then, the last lines of the movie are Gordon revealing to his son, why Batman is Gotham's Dark Knight.

At first I was incredibly skeptical of this ending. The entire film they had been fighting against the amorality and irrationality of the Joker. They were fighting for truth and virtue. Then at the end they are going to lie about Dent's fate, his descent into villainy. Then I realized there is no vice in that. Dent is already dead. He is already separated from the innocent. He will not continue initiating force, violating natural rights. There is no need to arrest him and try him. Batman, though he may violate some natural rights, will not initiate any more force than he did in the past. He will still destroy property in high speed chases, and punch criminals at moments they should not be punched, but he will not be murdering people like Dent did. Therefore, for the time being Batman wants to accept Dent's vices. Batman will subject himself to the pursuit of the police for murders he did not commit, so that the Gothamites, average people who do not have a coherent grasp on truth, reality, and morality do not give up on the pursuit of these qualities all together and accept vice. Batman is willing to be the scapegoat so that all the criminals Dent put away, all the mob men he was trying at the time, are not released. Though Dent did act viciously in the end, he was virtuous for separating criminals from the innocents, for at the moment, he was Dent the White Knight, not Two-Face.

Second, the Joker. Ledger's Joker is what Batman fans have always been promised of the Joker but never received. He is an amoral man, he admits this outright, stating to Dent that there is no morality but the one individuals make. The Joker is the spokesperson of the moral relativist movement. He is the pinnacle, which is the pit, of the movement that believes in no truth, the absolute of no absolutes. He is what man will become if man continues to not pursue truth. He is the essence of irrationality. Therefore, he sees no problems with any of his actions. He does not see murder, thievery, threatening, violating natural rights, initiating force as bad. He also sees nothing as good. Furthermore, he is convinced, deep down, this is the truth, and deep down, every one knows this is the truth, and deep down, no one will pursue what he incorrectly assumes to be fake virtue.

His appearance matches this philosophy, or lack there of. Vanity is for the good. He does not care about how he looks, how he walks, how he talks, how he presents himself. He does not strive to be a clean, concise, man. He does not strive to be anything. He just lets himself decay into the appearance of an animal. He then dons the Joker appearance because to him, life is Joke. This is prefect captured in the Joker's first line, "I believe whatever doesn't kill you just makes you... stranger."

Obviously, the Joker's actions also mirror his beliefs, or once again, lack there of. The best example is when the Joker says the city will be his at night fall, and anyone who does not like that, should leave. Ferriess are used in the evacuation, and the Joker is able to stop two ferries dead in the water. One is loaded with law abiding Gothamites, the other, with criminals. Over a loud speaker the Joker reveals that each ship will discover that their craft is wired to bombs - it indeed is. He then reveals each ship has a detonator; however, it detonates the opposite ship. Thus, the criminals' detonator would explode the law-abiders' ship, and the law-abiders' detonator would exploded the criminals' ship. The Joker says they have until midnight - about fifteen to twenty minutes - to act, or he will blow up both ships. In the end, neither ship blows up. After much heated debate and waiting, the passengers on each ship decide to sit and wait. This is true virtue, something the big three virtuous characters did not have. All passengers choose not to pursue vice - initiating force against other - to achieve virtue - protecting their own natural rights.

Fortunately, Batman stops the Joker before he can blow up both ships, then the great relationship between Batman and the Joker is revealed. Batman tosses the Joker off the side of a building, but then catches him with a grappling hook, and pulls him back to safety. This is the second time the Joker tries to get Batman to kill him and Batman refuses. The Joker then says to Batman, "You are truly incorruptible." While swinging upside down in the air the Joker explains that neither of them will kill one another. Batman is too virtuous, and the Joker has too much fun putting Batman in horrible moral dilemmas. The Joker explains that they need one another. Batman needs to fight villains, the Joker needs someone to pursue him, someone who will not give in, someone who will always fight through his moral tests.

Finally, there is Harvey Dent/Two-Face. He begins as Gotham's White Knight. The District Attorney who will eradicate all crime and save Gotham. He pursues it on a virtuous path, there is nothing in his past or through the movie as Dent that he does wrong. Even when he takes a criminal to a warehouse and threatens to kill the man if he does not answer questions truthfully, Dent is nearly absent of vice. I am skeptical of the situation; however, at first, it appears Dent is already a vicious man. He has a coin that he flips. If it is a heads, the criminal lives, if it is tales the criminal dies. The first flip is heads, but Dent says he will just keep flipping. On the second flip Batman arrives and stops the act, saying, "This is not something you leave to chance." Dent says he is not leaving it to chance. This is not explained at that moment, but later int he film, it is revealed that the coin has two heads. Dent's coin will always land on the side of virtue, just like Dent will always act virtuously. However, after his wife to be Dawes is killed and he survives with a damaged face, Dent becomes Two-Face. His coin has also been morphed. In the explosion one side becomes scratched and charred, representing vice, Dent's willingness to initiate force, which, of course, he leaves up to the coin. This full metamorphosis is made with the help of the Joker. He uses Dent's experience to try and prove that there is no morality. He explains that he was not behind the Dent-Dawes death trap, but the mob was, and the mob's dirty cops. The Joker states that those cops will get away, they are protected, and all Dent's work warring against the mob and corruption has been useless. Dent then acts as Two-Face. He tracks down all the people involved in Dawes' death, putting them to the chance of his coin. When Two-Face is confronted by Batman, Two-Face says he is just trying to get what is fair. This is incredibly similar to the young Bruce Wayne, who wanted equality in Batman Begins - his parents death equalized by his murdering of his parents' killer. The concept of an eye for eye, that vice proportionally responding to vice is virtue. Basically, like the young Wayne, Two-Face believes that the justice system is broken and utterly backwards. Something Dent knew to be false.

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight especially should have completely altered the way people view comic book films. Already, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk have tried to follow the path, Iron Man far more successfully than The Incredible Hulk. People are starting to realize that comic books are not dorky games of cops and robbers. They are explorations in truth and morality. They have the potential for excellent stories, meaning stories with themes, with purposes. Like Batman in Gotham city, The Dark Knight has "changed things... forever... there ain't no going back."

Wall-E and The Blues Brothers Review

Currently, I am planning for three film review posts in a row. The previous post had four reviews, this post will have two, and then on Saturday there will be one review. In an earlier post I said I would be grouping film review posts together in order to allow more time for other topics. Unfortunately, I poorly planned when I would release these posts. Furthermore, I am only reviewing one film on Saturday because I will have just seen The Dark Knight, which has been the movie I have most anticipated this year. Therefore, I wanted to get all the other film reviews out of the way so I could focus on The Dark Knight, and my poor planning resulted in three film review posts in a row. If all goes according to plan, the next non-film post will be released on Sunday.

Wall-E - three stars

As with the previous film reviews Wall-E has some mixed themes, making the movie nearly hypocritical. However, there is enough positive elements in order to earn Three Stars.

The movie begins with a picture of earth after all the humans have left. Sky scrappers are abandoned, and at first look it appears large rock formations have actually been sculpted by the winds and rains of time to tower over the buildings. However, on a closer examination, these rock formations are actually towers of human garbage that have been neatly compacted into cubes by Wall-E, a Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-class robot. The film then begins to follow Wall-E who used to work in the company of other Wall-E's, but they all malfunctioned. Now, it is just Wall-E, going about loading, lifting, and allocating waste on Earth. The movie then begins to follow Wall-E as he wheels through garbage, garbage towers, and abandoned buildings. One of these is an enormous store called Buy n' Large (BnL), which is like a BJ's/Wal Mart kind of store. Every product is made by BnL. There are hundreds of BnL billboards, even one on the moon advertising BnL outlet stores coming soon. However, that day did not come soon enough because, as a perpetually active video billboard advertises, all humans had to reserve there space on the BnL space ship, Axiom, so they could leisurely spend the next five years in space while the Wall-E's cleaned up all the garbage. In the same time, and later in the film, Shelby Forthright (Fred Willard), CEO of BnL also appears to be the president, meaning that BnL is the free market and the government.

Obviously, it is no good to have the government and business so intertwined; however, this is the first place the film is unclear, and it begins to develop the first theme-mixing hypocrisy. All the garbage and BnL everywhere is clearly trying to cast man in a bad light. Man is wasteful, uncleanly, complacent with one buying option, and irrationally selfish or voracious like an animal. Yeah, yeah, I have heard it all before, and all before I have pointed out why this is nonsense. This man-is-bad-theme will be contracted later in the film. However, the BnL-government relation is more confusing. Since big business is being depicted poorly, I am assuming the scenario is that BnL took over the government, or maybe more appropriately, "greedily bought it out because all it wants is money." However, as I see it, the very opposite could have occured. The government could have nationalized BnL. This is never explained, and it leaves me confused as to what the theme is. Each scenario purports a completely different moral theme. Since it is unclear, the purpose of the movie is unclear. However it does not stop there.

As I already explained, the movie poorly depicts big business, selfishness, man in general. However, this movie was released by Pixar, which is owned by Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple. That is the company that makes ipods, itunes, iphones, laptops, and a whole bunch of other really cool technological stuff that man's mind has been able to create and which is now mass produced by big business. Furthermore, Wall-E has his own ipod in the movie, and the other robot EVE, looks like an ipod. So, just how anti-man and anti-big-business can Wall-E be? Obviously, man and big business cannot be that vicious since both of those produced the movie. Therefore, the film's anti-man and anti-big-business message could not have been released without man and big business. If one needs the elements one is attacking in order to make the attack, the attack is probably unsound. For a simplistic example, if one identifies bananas as vicious, but needs a bunch of bananas to throw at bunch of bananas, the bananas cannot be vicious. A better example may be identifying Nazis as evil and arguing they must be destroyed. However, then one raises his own Nazi army to destroy the Nazis. They cannot be both vicious and then used for virtue. This is utter hypocrisy.

However, the theme become even more mixed when EVE, an Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator arrives. Obviously, that word vegetation means the environment is involved. Apparently, the humans have been in space for 700 years, and can only return when there are plants on Earth. That is why then send down EVE's. Wall-E discovers a plant earlier in the film, and shows it to EVE when she arrives. EVE then returns to the Axiom. Wall-E follows because he is so madly in love with EVE. While on the Axiom, the audience finally sees what man has been reduced to. Obese, boneless blobs, perpetually reclining in hover chairs. Only with the arrival of the plant do the humans begin to shape up. Wall-E accidentally disturbs some hovering humans, and with the disturbance they begin to notice things around the Axiom, like that they have a pool and that there are other humans on board. When the captain sees some dirt fall off of Wall-E he is inspired to research where it came from. He then spends hours researching earth from the mere soil it is made of to dancing.

There is a little fight between some robots and the humans because apparently Forthright decided 700 years ago that man was not returning to Earth because the Wall-E's broke and the toxin levels were to high. The robots can only follow orders, but the captain realizes the plant proves there are no more toxins, so it is safe for them to return. Once they reach earth the credits begin to roll showing cartoons designed like cave paintings of the obese humans with robots rebuilding earth. However, they rebuilding like they are actually the cave men who made the pictures. They are fishing in the river with a net, they are sewing seeds by hand, handing their laundry out to dry, etc.

Here are the problems with all this nonsense. Once again the plant, the environment, is being given way too much credit. Without the environment man must leave earth and become lazy obese humans who are not curious and do not share any human contact. When the environment arrives man then becomes active, curious, and experiences human contact again. That itself is absurd. Trees do not make man active, curious, and desire human contact. Those are selfish human pursuits, and man would never give them up once the environment becomes extinct.

The second problem is another mixing of themes. Remember, the movie is trying to argue that man is worthless. The entrance of the environment purports that man is especially worthless without the environment. Once man has the plant, the environment, and returns to earth, man must rebuild, from scratch. Has everyone completely forgotten the spaceship the Axiom? The only environmental thing on that ship is the water in the pool, and that is probably loaded with chlorine. A frog would probably die just dipping one of its slimy toes in there. Even though the Axiom had no environmental aspects man was able to live on there for 700 years. The Axiom proves that man is great, and much greater than the environment. Man does not need the environment because he can create technology. However, what is really disturbing is the part where man rebuilds earth from scratch. Somewhere on the Axiom must be all the information to create more technology like the Axiom. It is disgusting that man must fish with nets in a river when he has his greatest technological achievement that alleviates all that physical labor parked right behind him. Furthermore, if man did create the Axiom he would not be obese and lazy. When man has that technology he will know how to control his own body. Man will be able to make every body healthy and physically fit. Man can then relax, enjoy luxury, without the fear of harming himself. This is a contradiction that puts a serious dent in Wall-E.

However, the film does get three stars, and that may be because I am a hopeless romantic, maybe, I do not really come off as one. However, every scene with Wall-E and EVE made me smile. EVE is first not receptive of Wall-E, probably because she thinks he is a fool. I understand, Wall-E can come across as an ignorant goof ball. Yet, Wall-E is incredibly curious. He wants to understand everything. He is the reason why EVE finds the plant. I am not sure if EVE is an environmentalist, but she was designed to find plants, and she takes great pride in the work. This work is equivalent to discovery, the love of a quest, the desire to understand. Therefore, EVE is incredibly curious like Wall-E. Except, EVE is smarter and she is really only concerned with finding plants. She is like a scientist. Wall-E is more of a cultural man interested in the arts. Particularly, a move called Hello Dolly which is constantly playing on his video ipod. EVE eventually understands the similar values between her and Wall-E, when Wall-E is also interested in protecting the plant from the other robots who want to launch it into space and have it explode. Also, a video of Wall-E obsessed with EVE's well being when she goes into sleep mode helps EVE come to that understanding. Therefore, it supports a perfect theme of love, a selfish value of one's own virtues in another.

The Blues Brothers - three and a half stars

Me oh my, what a ridiculously hilarious comedy. This is a deliberately passed comedy much like The In-Laws and A Fish Called Wanda; however, it does have a few absurd moments much earlier on. Unfortunately, the film kind of lags no and again in the earlier parts unlike the previous two. The problem may be that The Blues Brothers is trying to be a comedy from the start, yet also pace its comedy. The In-Laws and A Fish Called Wanda are stories first, the comedy comes later. Thus, they are able to pace the absurdity. However, the lagging is not too much of a problem, and personally I think the car chases can carry the whole movie. Even if the rest of the movie was atrocious I would consider giving the film two and a half may be even three stars on the absurd high speed pursuits alone.

The car chases are excellent commentaries on ridiculous action sequences in actual action movies. Several superhero films come to mind. Buddy cop films like Bad Boys II also comes to mind. Any movie where there is a chase with massive million dollar destruction is the butt of The Blues Brothers' joke. In those chase sequences the blues brothers drive through a mall while being chased by cops and purposely crash into stores. Later int he film basically a million police officers along with some country western singers and Nazis are sent to capture the blues brothers. Car after car topples offer embankments like lemmings. Car after car crashes into one another forming a fifty car pile-up, yet the cars keep coming, un-phased by the mountain of twisted metal. The army arrives, SWAT teams arrive, the fire department arrives, all of them cramming to fit through one door way. Hundreds of snipers line the buildings around a courtyard. SWAT members repel down buildings. All of this to stop two unarmed blues singers who fled arrest for driving with a suspended license, exceeded the speed limit in doing so, all for the sake of paying taxes on some church building. Comedy gold. The only thing that comes close to this commentary on absurd action is Hot Fuzz.

The other great element of this story is that the blues brothers are punished for their crimes, unlike the stealing in The In-Laws and A Fish Called Wanda. Unfortunately, the government is not punished for its ignorance, recklessness, and excessive force.

Four Film Reviews

Over the past week I have viewed four films, and as promised, I will review them in one post. Also, I will review the films from worst to best.

Wanted - Half a Star

This film is loosely based on the graphic novel of the same name. Actually, the only relation between the two is the name and that they concern villains. The graphic novel analyzes super villains through their point of view, and in a world where they have killed all the super heroes. The movie concerns a fraternity of assassins that keeps balance in the world through kill orders from fate and destiny. Fate, is not a person, but a magical loom, which is a machine that sews cloth. Sloan (Morgan Freeman), the head of The Fraternity, exams the cloth for overlapping strands. This creates a binary code used to decipher letters, and thus names of targets. That is correct. Fate communicates with The Fraternity through cloth. Cloth decides who should be killed. Clearly, these people are villains, and the movie depicts them as such... well... kind of... sort of... not really.

Wanted is actually more closely related to the themes of The Matrix and Fight Club. The movie begins with Wesley (James McAvoy) trudging through a meaningless existence as an account manager, though his previous title was service accountant, but some PR firm said they should manage not service their clients. Wesley has a girlfriend, who hates him, and a friend, who is banging Wesley's girlfriend, but thinks Wesley is the man. Wesley loathes his life and his self, but does absolutely nothing about it. That is until Fox (Angelina Jolie) comes around and says that his father was the greatest Fraternity assassins acting on the orders of fate, correction cloth. While visiting The Fraternity, Sloan says that Wesley's destiny is to be the next great assassin and kill his father's murderer, Cross (Thomas Krestchmann). So far, so good, well, meaning that the story is so far consistent. The message is not so great thus far because it is emphasizing fate and ancestry. These are the essential enemies of liberty. Fate - some supernatural force is controlling one's life. Ancestry - one is to be like his father. Why even wake up in the morning? Everything is already decided. One has no choice, he may not pursue his own happiness, and since happiness is the purpose to life, why even live? However, these people are the villains... kind of... sort of... not really.

Sloan convinces Wesley to join The Fraternity, which he should not really have to do because it is Wesley's destiny. Sloan also says things like, "Seize your destiny," which also does not make sense because destiny seizes people, not the other way around. Eventually, Wesley discovers that Cross is actually his father, not the guy Cross killed. He also discovers that The Fraternity wanted Wesley to join because Wesley was the only one Cross would not kill because Wesley is Cross's son. Therefore, Wesley could get close enough to Cross to kill him. Unfortunately, well maybe not, Wesley kills Cross and only discovers he is Cross's son when Cross tells him as he is dying. Wesley then goes into a brief period of hiding because Fox is sent to kill him, essentially to tie up loose ends. While in hiding, Wesley learns that Sloan has been manufacturing kill orders because the magical cloth said that Sloan had to be killed. Sloan certainly did not want to die, so he just started making up stuff. That's right, Sloan started making up kill orders because he did not like the kill orders from the cloth. Consequently, Cross found out and waged war against The Fraternity to up hold The Fraternity's code.

So now it is a little confusing who the good guys and bad guys are. The movie has classified Sloan and The Fraternity as villains. These are the people who are just killing who ever they want to kill. They are no longer taking orders from cloth. Alright, fair enough, that is pretty evil to go around killing innocent men. However, the movie has identified Cross as the hero. He is the man who wants to keep taking orders from the cloth, meaning fate. The hero, therefore, is someone waging war against liberty and free will. He is a hit man for the tyrant fate. That is pretty villainous, but not according to the film because Cross is upholding a code. A code should only be upheld if it is virtuous. Upholding vicious codes is obviously vicious because it demands that vicious actions be committed. Cross falls into the latter category.

Obviously, Wesley chooses his father's side. Ancestry is one reason - he has no free will. Also, the film thinks upholding a code destroying free will is absolutely solid. Subsequently, Wesley begins waging war against The Fraternity. In a final shootout Wesley reveals Sloan's scheme to The Fraternity. In turn, Sloan reveals that the cloth of fate ordered everyone in The Fraternity to be killed. Sloan then offers two options - kill Wesley and allow The Fraternity to kill who they want and control the world - or - uphold The Fraternity's code and commit suicide. I propose a third option, how about everyone just walk away and live their own lives. Of course, no one chose that. Instead, one man says, "Fuck the code," and is about to shoot Wesley when Fox pulls an awesome stunt by firing a bullet in a curving motion so it kills everyone in the room including herself and excluding Wesley. The moral of the story, when fate orders from his throne for you to die, submit and kill yourself. Bravo, life is not worth living because a supernatural power, correction cloth, can decide when you should die.

Unfortunately for Wesley, Sloan escapes, but he kills him at the end of the movie as he recites a montage about how he is controlling his life. Wait? What? The whole movie was just about submitting to fate, and now Wesley is going on about how people need to control their lives. Is he controlling his life by submitting to fate? That makes no sense. So, then what is the theme of this movies? Absolutely no idea. Convoluted, incomprehensible, nonsense.

Another sour point of this film was that it was schizophrenic, which is also a problem with the next film. It has some very funny moments, placed immediately next to serious moments. I entered the film thinking it would be a serious action film, then a quarter way through I thought it was a comedy spoofing comic book action films, then it got serious again and the convoluted plot developed and I was all confused. I still am confused.

Hancock - One Star

My God who green-lights this nonsense. This movie was like three separate scripts, put into a blender, and sold as one story. It was not like one of those good blends either like a strawberry banana smoothie. No, no, no, this was if some blended fried chicken and a powdered jelly doughnut. Like Wanted this movie is horribly schizophrenic with slapstick comedy next to serious drama leaving me asking, what is this movie, what am I supposed to think, what is the theme? Theme will be addressed later. The best example of this schizophrenia I can remember is when Hancock (Will Smith) discovers that Mary (Charlize Theron), Ray Embry's (Jason Bateman) wife also has super powers. All of the sudden the theme should take an enormous sift, all new super hero themes are just available. Except then slap stick ensues. Hancock uses a fork to see if he can stab her. Obviously, he cannot, she is super. I will let the fork slide. The movie does have a comedic element, and one test is acceptable. However, then he busts a rolling pin over her head, and threatens to hit her with two frying pans. Alright, I saw that routine from the Three Stooges and they were not trying to analyze the mythology of superheroes.

The other problem with the story is that it starts out realistically addressing the problem of superheroes, meaning the millions and billions of dollars in destruction they cause while saving people. Also, Hancock is a jerk, which is a completely foreign personality for a super hero. The first third of the film is Ray, a PR specialist, trying to change Hancock's image. All very interesting, though I would have altered the theme, I am still getting to that. However, the film then changes because Mary is also a superhero, who is trying not to be super. Apparently, there were other superheroes paired up as husband and wife. When they are close they lose their powers, far away they have powers. They were created millions of years ago. Why is all this important? I have no idea. Nothing is developed. Nothing is really answered. It is like they finished filming the first third of the movie and said, "Uh oh, the movie's over. Forty-five minute! That's not long enough. Quick someone think of something. Coffee boy what should we add."

Finally, my favorite, and most important part, theme, which also appears to have gone through a blender, like Wanted's theme. The overarching theme is that suffering is virtuous and happiness. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I will not explain why this is wrong. I have done it several times. However, I will explain how the movie shows this. Ray has this organization called All Heart, and he wants business to join to change the world. What businesses have to do to join is to give away some product they make for free to people who really need it. This is paralleled by Hancock, a super hero who is not interested in being nice, helping others, etc. However, Ray says he should, and makes Hancock give a speech saying, "You [other people] deserve better from me. I will be better." The movie is all about sacrificing the self for others. In a final blow, there is the stranger incomprehensible mythology between Mary and Hancock. They love one another, yet when they are near one another they lose their powers and they become mortal. Love is selfishness, but by being selfish they are punished. Therefore, they must live their lives away from one another so they do not basically kill one another by causing the other to become incredibly week. Again, sacrificing the self, one's happiness, for others. However, this theme is then corrupted, it is already a corrupt theme but then it is contradicted. Mary says she is happier living with Ray. So, one needs to sacrifice for others, one cannot pursue his own desires, but Mary is being selfish by living with Ray and not with Hancock. Therefore, she should be with neither of them. The theme could have been straightened out to be more virtuous if Mary just said, "Hancock, I do not like living with you, leave me alone." Of course, no one understands that is virtuous.

The reason Hancock gets a half star more than Wanted is the basic idea. A jerk superhero that causes massive destruction on his escapades is held accountable can be a far better film than the one produced.

The In-Laws - Four Stars

This was not that atrocious remake with Michael Douglass from a few years ago. This is the original, and it is far superior, and far superior to any modern day frat pack comedy. Of course, they are completely different comedic styles. The frat pack comedies like Anchorman are cartoonish. They are like live animation Looney Toons. From the immediate first second of the film, the movie needs to be funny, but not just funny, absolutely absurd. The In-Laws slowly descends into insanity. It begins as a normal film. The first somewhat absurd but still funny moment occurs twenty to thirty minutes into the film. However, in the last thirty minutes it is just one ridiculous event after another.

Both actors are superb in their performances. Peter Falk plays an insane CIA agent; however, he is not a lunatic like General Garcia (Richard Libertini) at the end of the film. He has more of a quiet insanity one would expect from a spy. He talks about beaked flies the says of eagles carrying away babies as if it is common knowledge. Then he states their is incredible bureaucratic red tape in jungle due to the Guacamole Act of 1917 that will not allow the extermination of these frightening flies. Later he speaks matter-of-factly about his profession as a CIA agent in a bar with a cab driver. My favorite scene, however, is when he casually speaks with Allan Arkin about his pea soup after the two of them escaped a fire fight.

Alan Arkin is an astounding straight man with lines like, "Beaks. Flies with beaks." He also actually becomes progressively more insane as movie continues, which is hilarious to watch. He starts out as a calm dentist running away from trigger happy Treasury Department agents shouting, "Don't shoot me I'm a dentist," to a man who enjoys the company of General Garcia and his atrocious army choir.

The one poor spot in the film is thematic, of course. At the end of the film Arkin and Falk escape with ten million dollars from the General. They basically set up the General in a kind of espionage drug bust. They sold the General stolen confidential goods, then called in the agents to arrest him. However, they overcharged the General by ten million; therefore, they kept ten million and surrendered the other ten million over to the CIA. They also both escape punishment for stealing this cash. It would have just been simpler for them to be awarded ten million for the capture, or not even introduce it to the film.

A Fish Called Wanda - Four Stars

Another excellent comedy that masters the descent into insanity. It begins as a jewel heist, but once the jewels are moved from their location, each thief is trying to outsmart the other and get away with the goods. The characters includes, Ken Pile (Michael Palin) a man with a stutter, Otto (Kevin Kline) a jealous psycho who reads philosophy and misunderstands it, Wanda Gershwitz (Jamie Lee Curtis) a skank looking for love, Archie Leach (John Cleese) a judge looking for love. What could not be funny?

Kevin Kline is easiest the most hilarious. He is in love with Wanda and is suspicious of every guy around her. Of course, he has a right to be suspicious because she has slept or at least made out with every guy around her. However, he is also incredibly jealous, but he constantly will not admit it because "jealousy is for the weak" according to Nietzsche. In some circumstances Wanda is actually trying to seduce people to get the jewels, like Judge Leach. Unfortunately, Otto is so jealous he sneaks in to spy on them. Even at the end of the film, when Wanda chooses to run away with Leach, Otto climbs on the wing of the plane to spy on them. He is also covered in cement because Ken steam rolled him in wet cement as revenge for eating his pet fishes, raw. That is just a taste as to how ridiculous this is.

Of course, the one sour point, theme. Wanda and Leach run away with the stolen jewels. Personal, I think there is a more hilarious ending where they could all get punished, even though the little updates at the end of the film are pretty funny. Apparently, Otto becomes Minister of Justice in South Africa, and Leach and Wanda found a leper colony in Argentina.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Do Not Support Bob Barr

Here's the latest Ionic Column article, and here is the link.

Do Not Support Bob Barr

Libertarians become ecstatic whenever a Libertarian politician with some name recognition campaigns for president. It happened with Ron Paul earlier this year and now it is happening with Bob Barr. However, in every case, without even analyzing the politician’s platform one can find several rotten planks. This was true for Paul, and it is true for Barr.

The fact that Barr is campaigning for president is the first reason not to support him. No individual actively seeking political office should receive support. The problem with political offices is that they are positions within an institution that has a monopoly on using force. Though the institution, government, is only supposed to use force for defending natural rights, it invariably initiates force, violating natural rights.

Government initiation of force is so prevalent it is essentially common knowledge. Therefore, most political candidates are aware they are seeking participation in a vicious institution. Barr is undoubtedly included in this group, for he is a Libertarian; his entire platform is based on curbing government vice.

However, this does not make Barr virtuous. In order for him to curb government vice, he must partake in it for some time. Furthermore, Barr will not curb every government vice. For example, taxes – government sanctioned armed robbery. Therefore, he will always be participating in some government vice. Barr is well aware of this; thus, he is seeking vice.

Additionally, if Barr was able to remove all government vice, he would have violated the Constitution to do so. Legislators have the most power in reducing government vice, for they pass and repeal laws, which initiate force. The President cannot repeal laws. Therefore, if Barr did remove all government vice, he would once again be vicious.

The other problem with seeking political office is that it includes seeking power or control over others. Only vicious men seek power; thus, politicians should never be volunteers. Even Barr is seeking power. Reducing the government’s infringement upon men’s lives means the reducer has control of men’s lives. For example, a firefighter, though reducing the flames, has control over whether or not the flames’ victims live.

The second reason not to support Barr is that he is going to lose, and that Barr knows he is going to lose. Barr is obviously intelligent. Therefore, he realizes he is a third party candidate lacking the support to win states and electoral votes; thus, he knows he will not win the presidency. However, he is still asking people for support, donations, campaign volunteering, etc. He is asking people to invest their time, money, and labor in a campaign he knows will lose. This is comparable to a businessman asking people to buy stock in his company that he knows is unprofitable. Barr is essentially asking people to buy something he knows is broken. This is a mark of skewed reasoning. A man, who knows he cannot achieve something, yet pursues to achieve it, and asks others to help him, is truly irrational.

The final reason not to support Barr is because he is religious. Government employment should not require passing religious tests because that would make the government a theocracy, which is just another way to spell tyranny. However, political candidates should have to answer for their religious beliefs. They should explain why they believe in something without any evidence. Of course, there is no logical explanation; religion is inherently irrational. Therefore, Barr is irrational, especially in regards to his morality.

The core of a religion is its moral code. However, religion is irrational; thus, the morality that follows is irrational. Since every action is a moral action, every action committed by a religious person is based on irrationality. Consequently, supporting religious candidates for political offices is to support irrationality within the government – an institution requiring the utmost reason to function properly and virtuously.

Barr is clearly infinitely superior to the presumptive alternatives, Barack Obama and John McCain, but these points alone make him imperfect. Therefore, though Barr is the lesser of the evils, he is still evil; thus, supporting Barr is supporting vice.

Customers To Blame For Poor Products

I listened to the most recent episode of Talkback this past week, and as usual The Merc and Have Hope attacked big business, specifically big studios, for poor movies. Clearly, many big studio movies of poor, but this is not the fault of the studios. Of course, the studios do determine what types of movies are going to be made, but the studios' number one concern is to earn a profit. I agree with The Merc and Have Hope, money should not be the number one concern. This does appear to be a contradiction; however, being selfish does not mean being irrationally selfish, materialistic, or to be overwhelmingly concerned with money. The virtue of selfishness is to desire and strive for producing one's best. The studios are not really concerned with creating the best movies. On occasion they are. However, there biggest concern is indeed earning the most money possible. A great deal of responsibility lies on the studios for this vice. The studios do choose what kind of movies they are going to make. However, some blame does rest on the customers.

Businesses produce what customers will buy. If customers will not buy it, the business will not make it. No business sells eye mittens, no one would buy that. However, several businesses sell alcohol because people will buy that. Businesses must be concerned as to what customers will buy because if no one buys the business's products, the business will go bankrupt. Business owners and employees do not want to business to go bankrupt because they like their jobs, they like creating products. Sometimes their priorities do get out of order. Eventually, some businesses stop being concerned with creating great products, and become solely concerned with making money. However, even in those situations, the business is still concerned with what the customer will buy.

Unfortunately, most customers are ignorant and complacent. Most customers like really bad products, and are satisfied with the less then mediocre. This is true for movies. Most customers like 27 Dresses, What Happens In Vegas, 88 Minutes, American Gangster, The Incredible Hulk, The Happening, etc. If customers hated those movies, like they should, the studios would not make them. The studios would not make any money on those movies, so they would stop making them. Therefore, The Merc and Have Hope need to start attacking customer ignorance and complacency. They should not stop attacking big businesses, but they should attack big businesses for the right reasons. Once again, big businesses should be more concerned with making good products and not making lots of money, that is true selfishly. However, The Merc and Have Hope need to address that business should not be completely unconcerned with money. They need to point out there is only so much the studios can do in producing good movies, for they still need to make money. It is the customer, the individual's desire for better products that will cause businesses to make them.

This actually reminds me of podcast 1083 of Freedomain Radio. Stefan Molyneux explains that artists promote vicious themes. However, it is not the artist that must be replaced, for as long as the customers respond to the artists vicious themes, the artist will continue to promote them. Molyneux points out that the first element that must be replaced or changed in order to destroy and correct the machine of evil is the family. Parents must stop promoting vicious and false morals to their children. Then their children will grow up, become the artists, and promote virtuous and true themes. Also, as the children are growing up, they will demand virtuous and true themes from the artists.

Paquin's Ionic Column - Vote Selling

The latest Ionic Column article is below, but here is the link.

Vote Selling Protected By Natural Rights

Max Sanders faces prosecution for attempting to auction his vote for president on eBay. However, the government is the true villain because it is violating Sanders’ natural right to property.

Selling one’s vote is indeed vicious because it is an irrational basis to select a politician. Government officials must be incredibly rational because to function properly and virtuously, the government requires superior reason. Therefore, as one of Sanders’ persecutors said, “…elections should be a contest of ideas and not of pocketbooks.” However, selling one’s vote does not initiate force; therefore, the government has no business in halting this vice.

Sanders’ oppressor also said, “There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote.…” This tyrant is absolutely correct. People have fought and died so Americans could elect government officials. However, before people can elect politicians they first need a vote.

One does not have a natural right to a vote. One only comes to have a vote because the government is required to annually give citizens – legal residents who are 18 years of age or older – one vote for every election in which they may participate. A vote is a piece of property given by the government. Therefore, when the government gives someone a vote, it may not control how that someone uses his vote, for the government no longer owns the vote. A charity may not give a man free soup and then forcibly prohibit him from pouring it down the drain, for the charity has transferred ownership of the soup to the man. What a man does with property he receives whether it is soup or votes is protected by his natural right to property. One may use his vote in any way he chooses, including for sale.

Unfortunately, the government incorrectly believes one does not own his vote. The government believes it retains ownership of the vote. If this is true, one does not have the right to vote. One could only use votes in ways the government allowed because the vote would be the government’s property. In this case votes exist for the government’s sake, not the people’s. Consequently, the government would not be a democracy.

Altruism's Contradiction

I have addressed the seemingly infinite problems with altruism in previous posts; however, last night speaking to my cousin I brought up the stomach churning flaw that I do not believe I have yet addressed. The fact is, altruism contradicts itself.

Everyone can accept that everyone wants to be a good or virtuous person. Even the heathen wants to be virtuous, he just mistakes virtue as being reliance on mere sexual and physical pleasure. The problem is only some correctly understand virtue, while a mob of people split into factions of warped philosophies have differing but all incorrect understandings of virtue. One of these factions is a significantly large group believing that altruism is the highest virtue. These people are altruistic because they believe it makes them good or virtuous people.

This begins to reveal the sinister contradiction. The desire and pursuit to be a good or virtuous person is selfish. It is probably the most selfish desire a person can have and most selfish act a person can commit. The individual acts virtuously because he wants to make himself virtuous. There is no way to make it clearer that they pursuit of virtue is selfish.

However, altruism is inherently selfless. It is the belief that sacrificing one's self for another's benefit is virtuous. This is the contradiction. Altruists act altruistically because they want to be virtuous. They act altruistically because they are selfish. They are concerned with making themselves good people. However, altruism demands that individuals not be selfish. Selfishness is the vice opposite of altruism. Therefore, altruists selfishly try to make themselves virtue by being selfless. Consequently, according to their own belief, they are acting viciously. Of course, there is no other way for altruism to work. One pursues altruism because he identifies it as a virtue and wants to be virtuous, yet altruism identifies selflessness and virtuous; thus, acting altruistically to be virtuous is vicious according to altruism.

Obviously, altruism is truly vicious because it conflicts with man's nature; however, this just makes it more vicious because it is a moral system that forces its followers to contradict the moral system. Basically, it is a moral system that forces its followers to act viciously according to the moral system. It is comparable to a moral system that identifies writing 2+2=5 is virtuous yet also identifies that writing =5 is vicious. The followers of this moral system would then have to be vicious in order to be virtuous. Acting vicious to achieve virtue is always absolutely vicious, it is never virtuous; pursuing the greater good is always vicious it is never virtuous.

Therefore, I suggest people embrace their nature. Man's nature is egoistical. Thus, man should stop pretending he is not selfish by pursuing altruism, which actually confirms he is selfish, causes he to be vicious by contradicting his nature, and causing him to be vicious according to altruism.

Moral Knowledge

I recently listened to podcast 1086 of Freedomain Radio where Stefan Molyneux explains and corrects an apparent contradiction with Ayn Rand's explanation of Objectivism and understanding morality.

According to Molyneux, Rand argues that morality is not inherently understood by man. This seems fair enough until one realizes that Rand classifies some of her characters like James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged as villains for acting viciously. The conflict here is that if morality is not inherently known, man does not know how to act virtuously. Consequently, one cannot hold people such as James Taggart responsible for his vicious acts because he just did not know how to act virtuously. For example, one cannot identify a two year old as ignorant because he does not understand two plus two equals four. The child has not yet learned that. Additionally, one cannot classify a doctor from the 16th century as ignorant for not prescribing penicillin because doctors from the 16th century were completely unaware of penicillin.

Of course, this is a problem if no one can be held accountable for their vicious acts. However, Molyneux disagrees with Rand's position, and uses Rand's own life to prove that man inherently understands morality on a basic level.

Rand grew up in Soviet Russia; therefore, she was completely unexposed to capitalism, individualism, free thought, etc. However, she understood that the Soviet Union's philosophy was wrong. If Rand is correct, someone from outside the Soviet Union had to educate her in morality. However, this did not happen. Rand was not educated on morality, but she knew communism was wrong. Therefore, Rand, and other humans must posses some innate knowledge of morality.

Molyneux goes on to say that innate moral knowledge does not necessarily mean that someone knows why something is wrong. A man will know that stealing and murder is indeed vicious; however, he may not know that the reason they are vicious is because man's nature gives every man natural rights, which no other man may violate. Thus, man can be held accountable for his vicious actions, for he knows they are vicious yet not why.

Originally thinking over Molyneux's argument, I agreed with it completely; however, after a conversation with my cousin I am not convinced that innate is the proper word to use. Molyneux's stance is that moral knowledge in humans is immediate; therefore, the moment a child is born, he understand what is virtuous and vicious. I am unconvinced that an infant immediately understands this. My cousin argued that man understands morality through perception, specifically perceiving himself as an independent individual. In other words, once a child understands that he controls his own body and thoughts, and controls no one else's body and thoughts, the child understands he is an independent individual. Obviously, the child will not be able to explain this; however, he will realize that he chooses to hit a ball and cause it to move and that he cannot use his mind to make someone else choose to a hit a ball and cause it to move.
Once a child understands that he is an independent individual, he can take the next step and understand morality by analyzing it selfishly. Independence and individuality are two elements of man's nature; therefore, when one comprehends his independence and individuality he then comprehends his natural rights. Once he understands his nature and natural rights, he understands that other individuals have the same nature and natural rights, for he observers others and sees they are the same as himself.

Therefore, understanding morality is not exactly innate; however, a child does understand his independence and individuality very early on. His physical interaction with reality will quickly lead him to understand this. Basically, life itself leads one to this understanding, and leads one to understand morality.

Additionally, discovering how man understands morality adds another element to man's nature. In the first part of the "My Philosophy" series, I explained that man's nature includes three characteristics, reason, independence, and individuality, and that these characteristics make a being man. Obviously then, animals do not posses all three of these characteristics. Molyneux's argument combined with my understanding of moral knowledge actually makes the distinction between man and animal more distinct.

I explained that reason was the ability to understand morality, or virtue and vice. Originally, I meant that reason was the potential to understand morality; however, now I understand reason also includes self identification as an independent individual. Therefore, a being that has reason understands his independence and individuality, then through a further application of reason the being understands what is virtuous and vicious, but does not understand why actions are virtuous and vicious. However, a being that has reason can ultimately discover why actions are virtuous and vicious, only after it understands what is virtuous and vicious. This obviously sets animals back even further. Not only do animals not have the ability to understand why certain actions are virtuous and vicious, but they do not even understand they are independent and individual. Since animals are controlled by instinct, the do not act for themselves. They act because their instinct ordered them to act a certain way. In order for animals to understand morality, they must first lose their instinct. At that point they can begin to understand that they are acting for themselves not to fulfill some unavoidable demanding urge. Essentially, animals have not even made the first step.