Happy Thursday... I'm So Sleepy!
Staying up past my bed time and pushing myself to continue waking up is catching up with me. I need a new plan, I guess.
The book is predictable, poorly written, and very exciting. I don't really have anything more to say about it. (But I'm gonna.)
It's the kind of book you buy in paperback at an airport on your way to the beach for a weekend that you intend to spend never without a mojito in your hand.
Actually, it's not that good. It's actually kind of embarrassing.
The descriptions are terse and unimaginative. You think of authors as being masters of language and real artists with just the application of an impressively broad lexicon. Brad Thor fails to uphold this expectation. His word choices are simplistic and even repetitive.
And yet he includes details that simply bewilder. Like, why do we need to know that the assassin is walking around in naught but a towel? Why do we need to know every single thing that an agent does when he enters the internet cafe?
There is an excess of effort put into presenting us with new, high-tech military gear, without actual descriptions of the gear. "Integrated tourniquet pants?" What do they feel like? How do they sound? You brought it up, tell me what it's like to wear them. But we both know they aren't important, so I wonder why you brought it up at all.
And there are characters in this book that appear and disappear without any clear thematic purpose. By my thinking, as a rule, novels should not have "extras." But there was some dude who was in the book for only about 50 pages apparently just so he could get shot.
OH! And maybe I've been reading too many old or academic books, but what is up with modern writers and the short chapters? Chapters that last only one or two pages?
This book is also painfully, obviously a part of a series featuring the same main character, Scot Harvath. Guess what Harvath's call sign is. Thor. As in Brad Thor. Yeah. I rolled my eyes, too.
As blogs are to articles in quarterly journals of actual intellectual interest this bundle of pages is to novels. It makes me think that the people I least respect on the subway could write best-selling books. It makes me wonder why I don't have more money from publishing royalties.
Oh. And could it be more obvious that the author votes Republican? Every page of the book reeks of straight, white, middle-class, protestant maleness. And not in the good way.
*sigh*
I've already said too much about this book. I've over-criticized it. It is the definition of mediocrity and if there's anything worse than bad, it's gray.
1
Thanks for this review. I saw a blurb about this book awhile back, and thought it looked like it had potential. I didn't seek it out, though, because I had suspicions that it would be just like you described.
Now I can safely cross it off the "maybe" section of my reading list. Well, if I had an actual list.
I just read the Amazon description of the book to remind myself why I thought it had potential, and it reminded me of another reason why I didn't pursue it. It looks like the whole premise of the book is that there is some super duper secret of Islam that will "stop militant Islam in its tracks" if it's discovered? What?
Here's the stupid teaser: --------------------- "June 632 A.D.: The Prophet Mohammed shares with his closest companions a
final and startling revelation. Within days, he is assassinated.
September 1789:
...Thomas Jefferson, who is charged with forging a
truce with the violent Muslim pirates of the Barbary Coast, makes a
shocking discovery - one that could forever impact the world's
relationship with Islam.
Present day: Harvath becomes party to an amazing and
perilous race to uncover a secret so powerful that militant Islam could
be defeated once and for all without firing another shot, dropping
another bomb, or launching another covert action." --------------------
WHAT? Come on!
So... can you share with us the "SUPER SECRET SECRET!" that can defeat militant Islam? (not Islam itself, just the militant part... whew! I'm glad they made that distinction)
You usually put spoiler alerts in your movie reviews, but I don't think you need one here.
Posted by: C. August at July 31, 2008 07:38 AM (SuEhM)
2
There's nothing to spoil in this book. They tell you up front that it's a lost prophesy from Mohommed that will tell Muslims to stop blowing shit up. So, you spend the whole book wondering what he said exactly but by the end you realize that that's all there is to it.
The whole premise behind why Muslims want to keep blowing things up is really dumb. It's actually kind of insulting to Muslims and utterly preposterous.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 31, 2008 01:38 PM (ErOeR)
50 Pushups
So, this evening I was a little tipsy from several glasses of a pleasant chardonnay and I got home from watching Project Runway and, of course, it's time to do my push ups.
Now, I know you shouldn't exercise before bed if you hope to sleep, but that's the time I have to do this sort of thing.
Well, I skipped to day 2 of the one hundred push ups program and I maxed out at 50 pushups. That's just 10 less than my initial max. I predict that by the end of this thing, I will be able to EASILY do 100 pushups. I actually think I can do 100 pushups now if I were willing to push it a little.
I am doing this with a group of people (by way of internets) and some of them started very low. I mean, I started at 60 as my alleged max, but one person is starting with less than 10 as their max.
I told my trainer about this and he believes that there is no way that these people will make it to 100 in six weeks. I am inclined to agree, particularly because I am a week behind them and only two others have logged their day one or day two maxes. This makes me think they aren't really working at this.
Also, tomorrow, one of my coworkers is bringing in this Nike thingie her boyfriend bought her. It's a runner thing and it tracks how far and how fast she runs.
I have not endorsed this product because what I saw initially was that this thingie required Nike shoes. I can't run in Nike shoes. They're clunky, heavy, and they kill my feets. I don't like them. I wear New Balance or Ascics. (How do you spell that?)
Well, she says that her thing doesn't need the shoes, so I'm excited to see it. I'm not keen on spending $60 on this, but I would spend that much on a watch and then forget to write my training down. So, maybe it's worth it.
I'm excited to see it.
Tomorrow night, I'm going to see Lisa Loeb in concert. Do you know about her? I think she has one song. Who knew she had concerts? Still. It should be fun.
1
I use one of the Nike things. It's the doodad that is supposed to go in a Nike shoe, but I use velcro to stick it on the top of my Asics. Works great. You do need an iPod, though.
Posted by: Mark Wickens at July 31, 2008 09:54 AM (++D8a)
I am a crazed runner, err jogger, err hobbyist, and so of course I went bonkers and go the Garmin Forerunner which uses GPS to track your every move. It also has a heart rate monitor.
Just sayin.
Posted by: Marnee at July 31, 2008 07:11 PM (vBx/A)
Posted by: Flibbert at July 31, 2008 11:25 PM (ru7wW)
4
I went and checked out the Garmins at the running store this weekend and they are super cool. I want one, but I'm not ready to spend $300 on a watch for a sport I'm really committed to yet.
I also worry about the need to charge the watch nightly.
Even so, it's VERY cool.
Posted by: Flibbert at August 04, 2008 05:40 AM (xzhy1)
5
Did you ever do 100. Did anyone else ever do 100 in one go?
Posted by: Tim at October 20, 2008 01:06 AM (YsbZD)
6
No, I didn't even try, really. After I did the first week and a half I noticed that no one else was doing it and when I asked, it turned out they had given up after the first day. I did it to kick some ass and they just quit.
Anyway, I told my trainer about it and he said the plan was silly. Not because it wouldn't build strength or anything, but because it would not produce results as quickly as it claimed.
Posted by: Flibbert at October 20, 2008 07:05 AM (xzhy1)
I do push ups fairly regularly - about 3 X a week. I do them on my knuckles (for extra height and because I have weak wrists that get inflamed easily) and touch my chest to the floor. I've been doing about 50 or so for a year or two.
Sometimes this 50 doesn't come easy too (depending on how tired I am), I may have to pause for 20 sec half way through then continue. So 100 sounds like an awful lot especially if they are proper push ups. But I think it's do-able for those more determined than me.
Posted by: Tim at October 21, 2008 02:00 AM (YsbZD)
I'm Not Naming Names
One of my client contacts just sent an email on which my team was copied asking one of her coworkers to encrypt the file attached to her email so that she could securely transmit the file to us by FTP.
1
That's the sort of thing that makes your development team think you can fool the clients or that the clients won't find those problems they're aware of but don't want to fix.
Posted by: The Director at July 31, 2008 06:36 AM (CkCC9)
What's Insomnia Like?
I think if I didn't have to sleep, I would get SO much more done. But I am really, really good at sleeping, so I really don't know what that would be like.
In college, I had a slight bout of insomnia and it was really good. I'd wake up early in the morning and I'd be up until the wee hours of the morning. Sleep wasn't pleasant, but it was also short-lived, so it was fine. I don't remember being otherwise physically uncomfortable.
I wonder what serious insomnia is like.
I worked with this guy at my last job that people said was an insomniac. He was insanely productive. He worked a zillion hours a week and got a lot of things done. Yeah, now and then he'd be kind of spacey, but by and large he made up for any lapses in memory with a really astonishing level of production and creativity.
I like getting up OUT of bed at 5 or 5:30 and I've been staying up late recently, so I've not been really getting up until 6:30. (Such are the perils of not using an alarm clock.) This doesn't make a very big difference, but if I start running in the morning, an hour will make a huge difference. It will mean that I can't get to work between 7 and 8 as I prefer.
I would just like to get more done in a day and all this sleeping looks really wasteful in my schedule. Food better get a whole lot more enjoyable and quick otherwise I am going to start looking for ways to not do that any more.
And since we're already talking crazy, as I understand it, amphetamines could both help me sleep and eat less. Who can score me some speed?
Yeah, I totally went off the deep end just now, but seriously. Sleeping? Total time sink.
1
I only sleep three to four hours a night. You get used to it. I've known other people who only averaged about four hours themselves and they seemed to just get used to it as well. I actually can't make myself sleep more than five or six hours, and that is when I'm really tired. I've been told that sleeping so little is ridiculously unhealthy, but it doesn't seem to have affected me too much. The human body is quite resilient.
Sad Productivity
You know what I noticed? I am way, way, way more focused and productive when I am less generally happy. When I'm very happy in general, I tend to be wasteful with my time, energy, money, and pretty much everything.
This is really a terrible thing on many levels because overall, I am a super happy person.
Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to foster an antipathy here shortly and get some shizz done. Ya heard? Best stand back.
Will I or Won't I?
I started this One Hundred Pushups program last night because a friend of mine is doing it and it's fun to do things with friends. I did my initial test and did 60 pushups. Not bad. I think I can do more, though, because I was very tired and sore from my weekend of volleyball, swimming, and gardening.
Meanwhile, on Sunday, a friend of mine ran his first half marathon and he did very well. I actually think his time was the same as my first half marathon time. I am very happy for him, but this morning he said he didn't think he would ever run a marathon.
This is ridiculous to me. If you can run a half marathon, I'm convinced you should just go ahead and run a marathon. I know that after my last half marathon, I could have run a full.
So, I am giving a lot of thought to taking up running again. The only problem is that I hate my current schedule. I think I will have to shift everything around so that I work out with trainer in the morning instead of after work in the evening. Then, I could run in the off-mornings.
On the bright side, I discovered this website Run Your City which has running maps and blogs for NYC.
I haven't made up my mind about it yet, though. Running is a hard sport to break into and it's hot out. I run better in the cold. I'm just SO out of running shape right now.
The first thing I need to do is get a new watch for running. Maybe I'll look around for one at lunch this afternoon...
1
<i>If you can run a half marathon, I'm convinced you should just go ahead and run a marathon. I know that after my last half marathon, I could have run a full.</i>
I agree that anyone who can do a half in that time can probably do a full marathon. But it depends on your goals whether you should or not. I did my first half in 1:32 but I'd never have tried a full marathon at that level of fitness since my goal was not simply to finish; it was to do well by my standards. I did eventually run a marathon -- after a brutal and life-consuming training regime. That kind of commitment is never a no-brainer!
Posted by: Mark Wickens at July 29, 2008 03:11 PM (++D8a)
2
See, I'd start with one marathon just to see how it is and then do more to try and make a particular goal time.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 29, 2008 04:33 PM (ErOeR)
Slave Driver
I don't think I'm a difficult person to work for, but I do have very little patience for certain kinds of lapses.
I can excuse "simple mistakes" and things that are plausibly errors of knowledge -- up to a point. But I have next to no patience at all for a failure to meet commitments.
I realize that my work hours have exploded up to nearly 16 hours a day of late and that probably intimidates some people. They probably think that I have some expectation that they will work until midnight and still show up for work at least an hour early the next day. I don't. I don't even really expect that of myself. I just kind of do it.
How hard is it to look at what you have to get done, establish priorities, and project reasonable completion times? And if you see yourself missing a deadline, how hard is it to raise your hand and let people know?
It seems very easy to some to simply fail because they don't have to explain it to a customer. The problem is that I am their customer, but I'm a customer without the power to fire them.
Alas, there is little I can do about this. I'm just as frustrated as I am perplexed by this behavior in certain people.
Can't Talk! Bizzy Bee!
So, lately I've basically been possessed by the productivity demon with regard to my work. I've been working crazy hours and loving it.
I get up in the morning, go to work, stay until my bed time, come home to sleep and then do it all again.
Twice a week, I leave to go to the gym and most of the time when I'm done at the gym, I just come back to the office and work for a few more hours.
I'm not complaining. Work has been difficult lately, but I've really enjoyed it. I think it's the fact that I've been struggling for the last few months to get a particularly ornery account under control and things have been going well.
$700 Billion
I don't know if you've seen it, but oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens has commercials on television right now talking about how America needs to find other sources of energy other than oil. In case you haven't seen it, here it is:
I haven't paid close attention to what is said in the second half of the spot because I keep getting hung up on two items in the introduction:
"Over 700 Billion dollars are leaving this country to foreign nations every year."
And this represents "the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind."
These are foolish statements.
First of all, 700 Billion dollars may be leaving our country, but oil worth 700 Billion dollars is coming in. People aren't just putting dollars into envelopes and mailing them to the Sultan of Brunei. They're exchanging dollars for oil. It's trade.
Which means this isn't a transfer of wealth, but an exchange of wealth.
That brings me to the second claim, actually. The idea that oil trade represents the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of man is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's not a transfer, it's an exchange. The dollars go out, but the oil comes in. Second, this implies that it is a single transaction between just two entities, when in fact the trade of oil represents a massive supply chain of exchanges between innumerable entities.
I know that things have to be simplified for commercials to get attention and move to the key message, which for T. Boone Pickens is about wind power, but this is so simplified as to be just false.
There are so many flaws in T. Boone Pickens’ statements and subsequent plan that even a cursory examination reveals him to be a lunatic.
He proposes taking the natural gas that the USA uses to generate electricity (22%) and use it to power automobiles instead.His plan then suggests that we substitute wind and solar energy production to make up the difference to the Nation’s power grid.
Aside from the faulty thinking that Flibby already pointed out… Mister Pickens’ plan ignores the massive capital that would be needed upfront in order to build an infrastructure for supplying natural gas to vehicles.Not to mention all of the historical data that proves that wind-turbines are incredibly inefficient.
Pickens’ nutty ideas would cost billions and take years to implement.His plan would also require a huge amount of government forced regulation.
The only good thing I can predict might happen is that a few cities may reduce their smog levels by a small percentage, yet there will be no appreciable difference in the quantity of foreign oil we purchase.
That being said…
I still cringe at the thought of US companies trading (700 billion dollars worth) with so many evil middle-eastern entities.Those oil-rich Sheiks to not deserve their ill-gotten gains.
Posted by: Tiberius at July 23, 2008 07:42 PM (5b8pN)
Marxists Among Us
I have this friend who occasionally invites me to hang out with him and his friends. They're nice enough people, but I consciously keep my conversations with them away from the realm of politics. You see, many of them are social workers, or employees at NGO's and the like. Although I'd never talked to them about politics, I was sure such a discussion would not be pretty.
Well, Sunday was the last time I intend to hang out with them because the conversation turned to politics and could not be avoided.
One guy advocated seizing a person's property when they die on the basis of the idea that people have no rights when they die. He said that my claim that "rights" was merely an abstraction that he doesn't recognize and that there is no obligation to honor anyone's wishes with regard to their property once they're dead and that no one has a right to property they didn't earn it themselves. The idea behind this was to "level the playing field."
Another girl made the claim that Wal-Mart, specifically, destroys communities in spite of the fact that it does not and I offered to call my mother for her. My mother had a business that was driven out of business when Wal-Mart came to their town. Now, my mother is able to buy more for less and their community is wealthier overall with Wal-Mart representing a crucial part of the economic environment there.
It seems the ignoring basic moral concepts and proven economic principles are activities that come easily to these people.
I thwarted every hypothetical situation they put in front of me even though they were all absolutely ridiculous. In one case, they asked me what a group of people is supposed to do if they live in the middle of some huge tract of non-arable land and Wal-Mart is the only business and they refuse to employ or serve this group. Wal-Mart has never done this and no such place exists, but when I suggested that those people start their own businesses or start walking, they protested saying it costs money to start businesses and to walk.
Ridiculous.
At one point, they posited a future where houses, computers, food, and everything is produced automatically and perpetually by nanobots. And even though the idea of any such thing happening within our lifetimes is preposterous (And is literally preposterous because it is based on a premise that natural resources are unlimited, which they are not.) they felt that this warrants re-examination of capitalism.
When I pointed out the obvious violation of property rights involved in all of their schemes and the blatant Marxism behind their justification by need, they asked things like "Who owns education?" The idea of education being a service was beyond their comprehension. The idea of it being their right to do or not do as they please with their person was abhorent.
I was actually shocked at how they rejected basic concepts.
Ultimately, I discovered that these people don't even believe that reality is objective. They do not claim certainty about anything. There is absolutely no activity imaginable -- slavery, pederasty, torture, murder -- about which they think their moral protests may be mistaken. Morality is something determined by popular opinion.
I cut off the conversation after this. These were not rational people. They were not interested in figuring out the truth. Evasion and denial of reality is their bread and butter.
So, anyway, I won't spend time with them in the future. They seemed to shrug off our disagreement as unimportant and even invited me to go with them to see movies in the park tomorrow.
It's really tragic that ideas aren't at all important to these people. They will (and already seem to) suffer for it.
3
That's exactly what almost every college student is like here
(England). It's not a surprise really, when you see what the teachers
are like.
The Sociology textbooks don't even say the word
'Individualism', they say 'Anti-Collectivism'. It's kind of similar to
what Ayn Rand called an anti-euphemism.
WALL-E: If Hippies Made a Cartoon
I got up this morning and went to the movies to watch WALL-E. I was really surprised that I actually woke up in time because I didn't go to sleep last night until after 4am. For some reason, when I got home last night, I felt like that was the time that I should catch up on my DVR.
Anywhoodles, WALL-E is a cute movie, but I don't recommend it.
WALL-E is the last robot of his kind, left on Earth to clean up all the litter left by a global society/economy dominated by a company called Buy-n-Large, which encourages people to shop in mega-stores, eat bad food, and be lazy. See, all those people littered up the Earth and so Buy-n-Large convinced everyone to board a ship call Axiom for a five-year space cruise while all the little WALL-E's clean everything up.
Periodically, they send probes back to Earth to look for new plant life, which would be a sign that the planet was regenerating and they could return. Unfortunately, after 700 years, no plants have been found and WALL-E is still cleaning things up with a very long way to go.
Let me pause for a second to point out that throughout this entire movie, I could not get passed how over-engineered the robots are in this movie. They all have AI, of course, but they have emotions and they can talk and they have lots of other features that don't make a lot of sense to me. But it's a cartoon, so we forgive them. Even so, I wanted to point out that I did notice how inefficient it all is.
Anyway, so 700 years go by and this EVE probe shows up and hangs out with WALL-E and she's freakin' awesome. I want one of her. She can fly faster that the speed of sound and shoot lazers and she's sleek and pretty. Of course, WALL-E falls in love with her and she's there to find a plant.
Well, as luck would have it, WALL-E found a plant the day before she arrived and he shows it to her and she calls her spaceship back and he follows her to the Axiom.
The people on Axiom are fat. They can't even walk. They just scoot around on chairs all day and take their meals in liquid form. They have screens in front of their faces and never notice anything around them.
When WALL-E and EVE arrive on Axiom, they interrupt some of this and they make some people aware of their surroundings. The Captain of the ship is one person they "wake up" and he becomes convinced that they should return to Earth, but the autopilot has instructions not to allow that. So, they fight and eventually get the ship to return so that these disgusting people can start farms.
The movie is cute. WALL-E is cute. EVE is cute. It's cute.
But the not-subtle-at-all hippie themes are annoying to me. It's just so obviously a movie by and for California, limousine liberals. Hell, when WALL-E boots up, he makes the sound of a Mac.
The fat people can barely read, and yet this space ship stays in perfect order thanks to all the robots that take care of it. It's a self-sustaining spaceship. I don't know how that's possible since they launch TONS of garbage into space on a daily basis, but the notion is convenient since much of the movie is predicated on the notion that people are so disgusting that their sole motivation for inventing new technology is just so they can be lazy.
It's all very preposterous and annoying. As cute as the movie is, I can't possibly recommend that you sit through it. It's just that obnoxious.
Hey, plenty of non liberals use Macs. They are nice machines.
I suspected what you said about this movie so I haven't bothered to see it. This is disappointing because they made such a wonderful movie like Ratatouille a year ago.
Posted by: Andrew Baker at July 20, 2008 11:56 PM (E0Q5D)
2
As a multi-platform user, I have nothing against Macs in particular. In fact, I have argued their superiority for certain users. I am certainly not aware of any screening for political preferences made at the point of sale. Nevertheless, those computers are very popular among image-conscious and greens who also like to buy Toyota Priuses and what not.
Macs are the computer of choice for hipsters and hippies.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 21, 2008 02:00 PM (ErOeR)
Two Movies: Mamma Mia and The Dark KnightMamma Mia Last night, I went out with Tiger Kitten to see Mamma Mia. I had reservations about seeing it because I don't really care for musicals, but the music is ABBA.
ABBA!
So, I agreed to see it, but beforehand we went to this bar in Chelsea called Gym Bar. It's a gay sports bar. I know, right? And for their happy hour, they do buy one drink get one free, so two rounds actually meant four rounds. And the bartender winked at me, so he made my drinks kind of strong.
Why do bar tenders think that it's a favor to make drinks that are full of alcohol, rather than drinks that taste good?
Anyway, it was a good thing we were kind of tipsy going into that movie, because that movie was painful. It was like they took the script from the stage and just put it on film. Putting the ridiculous story about vapid people aside, many of the lines were delivered like... something... very not wanted. Like 18 pounds of wet bread.
Oh. And those people in the movie should be outlawed from singing ABBA songs.
Awful. Just awful.
The Dark Knight When I bought my ticket on Fandango, I thought I had purchased an IMAX ticket. IMAX movies are cool because the screen is so big, but I have never once had a good seat in one of those theaters and there aren't enough of those theaters, so they're always crowded. It's kind of annoying. But it's Batman, so I thought it'd be worth it.
My showtime was at 9:30 this morning, but I knew there'd be a line, so I got there at about 8:30. The line for the 10am movie was already down the street.
And then I learned that my movie wasn't sold out and that I did not have IMAX ticket afterall. So, I got an awesome seat in the theater.
Well, it would have been awesome if these two great, big, fat guys who laughed very, VERY loudly through the whole movie hadn't sat down next to me and invaded my personal space.
Even so, I enjoyed the show a lot.
Heath Ledger's Joker is terrifying. He's the embodiment of anarchy and amorality. His entire motivation seems to be an intense hatred of what he calls "rules." He values no one and nothing. He is just malevolent.
Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent goes from inspiring to heart-breaking. When he first showed up, I didn't really trust him, but time after time in the movie, he proved that he was actually dedicated to bringing the criminals of Gotham to justice.
Maggie Gyllenhaal is my biggest complaint in the casting of the movie. She always looks frumpy to me. I think the Rachel Dawes character needed to be someone prettier, more feminine, more glamorous.
And Christian Bale's Batman still rocks the socks. I do appreciate how Bruce Wayne's personal conflicts don't dominate the movie or even his character. My only complaint is the "scary" voice he uses at Batman. I do wish they had explained the rationale behind his one rule -- not to kill the criminals he catches -- even though I agree with it assuming certain contextual caveats.
One of the major themes in the movie was about the losses the heroes suffer in fighting justice.
Bruce Wayne gives up having love in his life. Harvey Dent loses the love of his life. Commissioner Gordon loses friends and his wife at one point believes he's been killed.
Innocent people suffer and die because of these criminals and the good guys fight and fight and fight and the criminals just keep getting worse and worse. What's more, the criminals have no limits. They aren't constrained by reason, law, or even loyalty. The Joker doesn't even have any values he's concerned about.
There's more to it than that, but I don't want to spoil anything for you. I'd really like to watch it again to look more at all the different facets of the movie, but overall I enjoyed what I saw of it in my first take.
You should definitely run out and see it right away.
Update: I haven't re-watched The Dark Knight, but friends and readers have all corrected me about the ending of the movie. I clearly misunderstood what was going on with all the "noble" talk about "hope" and "heroes."
Batman in the end of this movie is not a hero, but a coward. He also arrogantly insults the virtue of the people of Gotham who did show their mettle by not destroying one another. In accepting the guilt for Harvey Dent's crimes, Batman is a liar and a coward and an enemy of justice. His sacrifice is not heroic in the least and is designed to delude Gotham into holding onto a childish, fairy-tale vision of what it takes to have virtue and defend justice consistently night and day.
It's appalling really and I'm now peeved that the writers of the movie threw away an incredible opportunity to illustrate the requirements of a completely rational system of justice and how heroes operate within it.
I liked "Dark Knight" but to be honest I think the Joker was over-rated. Over the top flamboyant performances just don't impress me. The Joker was good and matched the feel that this series of films has. I think Eckhart's Dent was interesting and scarier because he was the fallen hero which makes him worse than the Joker and still horribly tragic. (By the way, that was the first time I was shocked and horrorifoed by a portrayal of Dent after the fact, I think the horror intensified the dramatic effect of his tragedy.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the climax of the film seem like rejection of game theory style of ethical thinking? The situation the Joker made seemed to be a variation on the prisoner's dilemma.
Posted by: Andrew Baker at July 19, 2008 09:45 PM (YlBN4)
2
I liked the casting for Dawes. She portrayed courage well by not seeming fragile. She seemed feminine to me because she looked fine in a dress. I think my preference might be related hanging out with tomboys in the few times I hang out with women.
Posted by: Andrew Baker at July 19, 2008 10:06 PM (YlBN4)
3
See, I think Gyllenhaal looks fat in the dress. That's absolutely not true, because she has a good body for an average woman-- even a realistically above-average woman -- but she isn't the idealized stylized strong, uber-feminine woman that I think Bruce Wayne would be in love with. I think think he needs a Nicole Kidman or Gwenyth Paltrow or Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Connely woman. A woman who looks both strong and lady-like. Gyllenhall is fine as a hipster or best friend.
I think the climax of the film was difficult. I don't think it was an outright rejection of the prisoner's dilemma, because I felt like the focus was less on the boats than it was on Batman's committment to his no-kill rule.
I support the no-kill rule, actually, because he's basically a capture mechanism. He doesn't pronounce judgment on the criminals he catches; he just leave the evidence and the criminal and leaves it to the court to establish the case. I think this is his redeeming characteristisc as a vigilante, but also presents a clean case for the GPD in chasing him; to establish the rule of law.
If you look at the Joker based on the hype, I do think he's over-hyped, but in the film, I think Ledger did a really great job. Like you said, it matched this new series of films. I particularly enjoy how they concretized him as an anarchist.
I didn't know about Dent going into the movie. I want to see it again so that I can watch his progression more closely. They wrote and he played his tragedy so well... I was really saddened by his fall.
But what is particularly impressive is how each character contributes to the overall theme in difference ways. It's an impressively well-integrated movie.
I want to watch it again.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 20, 2008 02:13 AM (ru7wW)
I agree with almost everything you've said, Flibby. But I can only reluctantly recommend the film. I'll probably watch it again, for the same reasons, mostly, that you will. It invites further analysis.
However, I am extremely disappointed in the fiction itself. For the first time, I can firmly take a stand in the debate about whether Superman or Batman is the better hero. I now stand with Superman.
Why?
SPOILERS FOLLOW
Because this movie, more than any other portrayal of Batman (in graphic art, animated film, or motion picture) has illustrated the crucial flaw in Batman. It is, namely, the idea that a fraud is moral. I'm not talking about lying to a mugger. We all know that the mugger has forfeited his right to honesty. But the idea that it is okay for Bruce to prop up the Gotham morale by taking Harvey's guilt upon himself. In fact, now that I "type it out loud", it strikes me that this is very Christ-like of him. (Deliberately, on the part of the writers? I wonder.)
Granted that it's still a fiction that glorifies man's ability to choose, and this film more than most, that crucial error in judgment on the part of Bruce (and Gordon for playing along), mars the story for me. (Not to mention that the representative sample of Gotham has just proven that it is better than that. Who is Bruce Wayne to buy into the Joker's assessment that the fall of Dent will break their collective spirit? Shame on him for dishonoring their noble demonstration!)
Look, I'm not expecting a fiction on the technical caliber of Rand's, but how hard can it be to match her moral caliber in art?
Add my voice to Gordon's son's: "But he didn't do anything wrong!"
Posted by: Rachel at July 23, 2008 10:40 PM (Cd7cG)
5
I'm not sure what you mean by Batman taking on Two-Face's guilt.
When he ran away in the end, he was running away because he killed Two-Face. Even though it was an accident, he couldn't really stand trial and prove his innocence -- because he'd also be charged with numerous other crimes he's committed in the process of being Batman AND he'd have to reveal his secret identity -- so the police have to pursue him.
The "line" he mentions to Joker is that of killing his enemies, a line he apparently crossed when he let Two Face fall. Mitigating circumstances aside, the situation combined with his identity as Batman, muddies the waters and makes the goal of justice seem unprincipled.
But, really, I took Batman's actions at the end as a way to re-establish the primacy of law in Gotham. As a vigilante, he was operating outside of the law and other people were imitating him without his due concern for the justice and due process. Unlike previous iterations of Batman, in this movie and the previous Batman is not the judge, jury, and executioner. He is basically a policeman whose sole job is to bring the criminals to jail so that they can stand trial, but it is clear that the people of Gotham do not realize this. They don't know that he actually seeks to uphold the law even though he operates outside of it. In becoming a fugitive from the law, he is able to remain fighting for good with a few people aware of his innocence, while also presenting a clear example of why vigilantism is problematic for those working to establish a clear system of law and order.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 24, 2008 11:02 AM (ErOeR)
6
I suppose it'll be that much more important for me to see it again, or at least listen to that final exchange between Batman and Gordon, because that is not what I understood the dialogue to mean. I understood the gist of the dialogue to be Batman telling Gordon that in order to maintain Dent's heroic status in the eyes of Gotham, Batman would have to be blamed for the Two-Face's murders and other crimes. If that is the correct interpretation, then my argument stands.
If it is not correct, and if yours is, then I'll simply have to fall back to my original position. It is that in the comic book world of Gotham, the status of civilization (i.e. rule of law) is nebulous at best. I see the Batman stories as taking place almost completely within a "lifeboat" situation. What I mean is that the rule of law depends on a stable, non-"jungle", non-wartime context; and that context simply doesn't exist given the efficacy of evil in that world. If this is not so, then Batman's whole existence is based on a fraud. You can't be a vigilante and still claim to yearn for the day when the rule of law will make your vigilantism unnecessary. In a rule of law context, vigilantism, by definition, is immoral. Outside that context, there is no such thing as vigilantism. No, I think Batman is legitimized by his context and that the rule of law, peace-time context does not yet exist in Gotham's world.
But you can disregard this opinion as it is outside the scope of this discussion (i.e. a criticism of The Dark Knight).
Posted by: Rachel at July 24, 2008 11:20 AM (g6BIR)
7
Oh, that could be. That final dialogue there was very confusing to me, so I took it as it made sense within my understanding of the rest of the movie.
I want to watch it again, too, to make sure I understood it all.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 24, 2008 03:23 PM (ErOeR)
what other crimes has batman committed? he helped out the city. the reason he ran away was because he wanted to take blame in dent's death so no one knows that dent turned into a villain. if dent turned into a villain then all his cases against the mob would have been looked at as being wrong and probably with corruption. the city would go nuts. and possibly the mob would be release from jail. so to avoid all of this, batman would rather be blamed for dent's death. no one, except for the gordon family knew that dent had turned into the villain two-face.
as far as batman and superman. yes, batman has always been more of the hero who gives up a lot, maybe even a flawed hero. it's been said time and time again in the comic books. a good comparison of him vs superman can be seen in all the crossovers the two characters have done in the comic books. batman has and will always be considered a darker hero than superman.
i thought the movie was great. i dont think it was overhyped at all. ledger got much attention because of his death, but all the acting was great - dent, batman, joker, rachel, alfred, fox. and from behind the camera, the direction was done good too. i enjoyed it very much and have recommended it when asked.
Posted by: roberto m at July 26, 2008 08:48 AM (ZStxt)
9
Well, trespassing, breaking and entering, assault, just for starters and never mind his cavalier disregard for international extradition rules and the fact that he's not a police officer but a vigilante.
There are mitigating circumstances in pretty much all of the cases where he breaks the law, but he never appears in court to prove his case objectively before the public.
I need to re-watch the movie because in talking it over with people, I clearly misunderstood the ending of the movie.
I don't believe that sacrifice is heroic at all and in fact I would say it is pure villainy. In this movie there was an opportunity to establish a clear picture of truth, justice, and rational juris prudence, but all of that was thrown away to delude the citizens of Gotham into having a misplaced sense of hope.
I would even argue that this hope is more dangerous for Gotham than allowing them to see that good people can go crazy.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 28, 2008 12:18 PM (ErOeR)
10
And also a betrayal of the noble act of not blowing up each other's boat that some of those citizens did minutes before.
Posted by: Rachel at July 28, 2008 12:27 PM (g6BIR)
11
Rachel, I updated my post and in reference to that very act, I said, "He also arrogantly insults the virtue of the people of Gotham who did show their mettle by not destroying one another."
Posted by: Flibbert at July 28, 2008 01:49 PM (ErOeR)
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at July 28, 2008 01:49 PM (ErOeR)
13
Oops. I must have missed it before. Those are my sentiments exactly.
Posted by: Rachel at July 28, 2008 02:11 PM (g6BIR)
14
I still need to think this out through, but my impression right now is that no noble act was done by the people of Gotham on those boats. The issue is not about *not* blowing each other up. It's about the possibility of being blown up by the other group--without the benefit of hindsight or having knowledge of how the plot unfolds. In this case, the moral travesty was that each group of people were expected to die--as an act of self-sacrificial virtue--for the other group, and this was held as the ideal. It just so happens that the plot in the movie goes on to more favorable scenarios wherein Batman interferes just in time. But from the standpoint of a person on either of that boat, there would have been no way of knowing that Batman would save the day.
This is certainly one of those situations where the killer is asking you to do something horrible while holding a gun to your head. We certainly would not blame a person for complying. At the same time, we can't really applaud them for resisting.
I think I disagreed with the reasoning of that guy who wanted to blow up the boat of criminals so much that I was very happy when they didn't.
Also, within the context of the movie, the Joker was trying to prove that the people of Gotham do not have the will to resist evil, to fight back, to prove that they are people who believe in Justice enough to put their lives on the line about it.
I do see what you're saying and I'm actually inclined to temper my praise for their actions, but it was a super dramatic illustration in the movie, I think.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 30, 2008 04:18 PM (ErOeR)
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't morality impossible in such a situation so any decision they make they can't be held morally responsible? I think the boat scene may have been a defense of intrinsic morality. They go through three main types of ethical processes: utilitarian (they're criminals), democratic (the vote), and self interest (why should they live and we die?). The only way I don't think that it could be intrinsic morality is if the reason they didn't do it was because of psychological reasons, they just didn't want to do it because it is just horrible thing to do even though they would not be morally wrong.
I grew up with the animated series and I don't remember him ever taking the fall. He has always been the facts speak for themselves, Res ipsa loquitur, so Batman is still the best in my opinion. But I agree that ending is was not what should happen. How can the DA's reputation be what all those mobsters' charges be riding on? I don't know the law but doesn't the evidence play some role in whether a person is charged?
I think it was a great movie, not my favorite, despite its flaws. Maybe I am being foolish and hoping the third act will correct the problem created by the ending because I didn't get the impression that what they did was truly worth it from the characters who knew what happened.
Posted by: Andrew Baker at July 30, 2008 11:16 PM (FePMz)
17
I really don't think it will. I see what you're saying and it makes perfect sense to me. I can't but agree.
I clearly misunderstood the ending of the movie and projected my own interpretation onto the movie ignoring what happened and the more I hear people discuss what happened, the more upset I get about this movie.
I predict that the next movie will be worse, though.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 30, 2008 11:22 PM (ru7wW)
18
By "it" above, I'm referring to a third movie. I don't think it will correct the errors in The Dark Knight.
Posted by: Flibbert at July 31, 2008 06:28 AM (ErOeR)
You are all very critical. Let us create a scenereo. Two criminals are on a ship. One, a young man...maybe 12-13 and the other say 38. They are told not to steal rations no matter how hungry they are and will only eat when they are served. At some point the boy becomes very hungry and steals a slice of cheese but noone saw it...evidenced only by a missing slice of cheese (ofcourse) The two criminals, the boy and the man, are the chief suspects because of their criminal history and are asked, "which one of you stole the cheese?!" The boy says nothing as he is horrified at the prospect of receiving lashings (zero tolerance) The man sacrifices his innocence and speaks up saying he stole the cheese and soon after is lashed for what the boy did as the theft HAD to be paid for.
On principle, the boy should have received the lashings for his crime but the man had compassion on him and took them for him. In essence, the man became the thief in the eyes of the crew...because he could handle it. I can't imagine anyone criticizing the incredible lengths this man took for the well being of the guilty boy.
Batman, at the end of the movie does the same type of thing yet some of you criticize his actions. Why? Someone on here posted that had the citizens of Gotham found out what their hero Harvey Dent had become (especially in the context of the horrific Joker) and the terrible things he did, the city would have turned upside down; (like the joker said, "...well then everybody loses their minds!) I agree w/ him. Batman did what he did for the greater good. (THE GREATER GOOD) He became the villan in the eyes of society, not indefinately but at least for the time being, to maintain order and sanity in a city already in disarray. I see no fault in what he did and anyway as Gordon said, "...he could handle it."
Posted by: friendlydiplomat at August 06, 2008 08:17 PM (qFKLH)
20
Oo. Girl, you crazy. I can't believe you just argued for the "greater good" among Objectivists.
Well, here we go...
You should use your imagination more.
Does this older criminal know the younger criminal? Is there some reason he values his life and physical comfort at all?
Sacrificing yourself for someone else for no good reason -- particularly when the consequences are extreme pain (lashings) or death (infection resulting from receiving lashings in a filthy prison while being immune compromised by starvation) -- is plain idiocy.
Also, don't let's forget that we're talking about art here. In real life, one may have a number of mitigating circumstances for taking an action that appears to be sacrificial but is not. In art, we look for the illustration of principle and the principle at play here, just as you stated, is altruism. That the hero (Batman) should sacrifice himself for the greater good. This is a morally vile sentiment.
Posted by: Flibbert at August 07, 2008 08:22 AM (ErOeR)
21
As far as I understand the end, it portrays the de facto victory of evil, even though the Joker is being caught by Batman -- because the Joker manages to corrupt and destroy the "white knight" Harvey Dent, the symbol of a benevolent universe in which the good (esp. justce) is practical. In the movie it is said more than once that, should it become known that Dent is not a moral ideal (any longer), this would discredit the people's believe in the practicality of the good and thus lead to the triumph of the Joker's nihilism -- of a vision of a malevolent, violently chaotic universe in which blind chance is the only ruling power, the only remaining moral authority. Observe that Batman at some point near the end (I think it is after Dent's death) exclaims that the Joker must not win. But the only answer Batman can give to prevent the explicit triumph of the Joker is _a lie_. This lie consists in: The moral ideal, personified in Harvey Dent, is incorruptible and thus can be generally practical and victorious; an orderly world ruled by justice is possible. And the very bitter element is that upholding this lie, and thus preventing the world's collaps into nihilism, can only be achieved by the primary exponent of the good -- Batman -- pretending that he actually belongs on the side of evil.
In my opinion, this is incredibly vicious, and very sad given the fact that The Dark Knight really is brilliantly plotted and a great example of Romantic cinema.
Posted by: Sascha Settegast at September 02, 2008 04:27 PM (ScTzj)
22
I think you're exactly right, Sascha. I completely misunderstood the ending of the movie, but upon review, your description is how I understand it as well.
I enjoyed the movie a lot. My present understanding of it only diminishes my enjoyment of it a little bit because it was just so well put together.
Posted by: Flibbert at September 03, 2008 06:24 AM (xzhy1)
23
I agree. It is among the best movies I ever saw, and I was still shaking with excitement and feverish thoughts on the movie's meaning hours after I left the cinema. I wish there were more movies of that kind.
Posted by: Sascha Settegast at September 03, 2008 09:39 AM (QM3oB)
Jaeger Bombs
Ok. I saw this video a while back and I thought it was funny, but now that I see these people on the train every day, it means a lot more.
Warning: there's so bad language in it, so you might want to clear the children from the room.
Solo Travel?
I am a person who is perfectly willing to go to the movies and dinner by myself, but I've never traveled by myself for vacation.
I'm thinking about giving it a shot, you know maybe for like a long weekend or something.
People tell me that San Diego is nice. Portland could be really cool. I like the beach and hiking and museums and restaurants, so I'm pretty flexible. London is relatively easy to get to from New York and I know a couple of people there.
1
Hey Flibby. I've traveled alone for months at a time in London, NZ, Canada, and all over the US. I vote London. I think you'll love it!
Posted by: monica at July 17, 2008 09:55 AM (NDwcq)
2
Tokyo.
Hong Kong.
Main advantage of traveling alone is flexible plans and I enjoy my company.
Posted by: Andrew Baker at July 17, 2008 10:05 AM (OCyso)
3
Can you afford the pound to dollar conversion? I traveled for a week alone once all over Italy while in grad school. It was great. I'm not sure San Diego is a great city to go to alone. Honesty, I didn't find much there to do while I was there for a convention and it's part of the California "car culture" where it is hard to walk anywhere. I'd recommend going to a walkable city. How about Boston, MA? Madison, WI? Maybe Seattle, WA? Have you traveled to chicago before?
Posted by: colin at July 17, 2008 07:55 PM (WjXmd)
Posted by: roberto m at July 18, 2008 06:30 AM (ZStxt)
6
Flibbert, If you want to stay within the Northeast corridor maybe Boston or Washington D.C You can book an AmTrack rail commute out of Penn. Station. If you have never been there you might like Vancouver British Columbia. You could also visit Seattle and BC. The Pacific Northwest is a beautiful part of North America's west coast that is a bit overshadowed by California. What ever you decide I hope that you get to travel. There is a certain freedom in traveling alone. All the best!
Posted by: JP at July 19, 2008 12:08 AM (s9N9y)
7
Come to San Francisco. I can get you a special deal on a room.
Posted by: WillySF at July 19, 2008 05:40 PM (k8goc)
Tomorrow, I'm going after work, I'm going with a friend of mine to see Mama Mia. I'm scared because it's a musical, but at the same time it's ABBA, so hopefully it will be fun.
On Saturday, I'm going to get up early and go see The Dark Knight in the IMAX and then I am going to zoom to midtown and meet a friend of mine and we're going to go kayaking in the Hudson... for FREE!
THEN, I'm going back home to take a nap and then I will wake up and meet up with friends for a birthday party.
On Sunday, I will probably get up later in the morning and go see Wall-E and then come home and make some food and then go to a potluck BBQ at another friend's house. Hopefully, that won't go on for too long because I will need to go home and have some me time before starting the week again.
Read my full review of these products under my State of the Arts category!
SEO - create one way text link ads to your website for top search engine listings.
Forex Analysis - investing in stock markets, market analysis
Sofas Jokes From India - jokes from india contains a huge selection of jokes from the various parts of india and also some universal jokes.
Forwarding Agent - www.venthill.com.my/shipping-forwarding.html