Nancy Friggin' Pelosi

I am currently watching the aftermath of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's appearance on the Daily Show. I know the Daily Show isn't credible news, but it's the woman's own words that have me angry.

I am pissed. Let me begin with a quote:

Stewart: Are you proud of what Congress has done in this term?
Pelosi: I'm proud of what the Democrats have done.

Pelosi continued to expond on this bent, whining that the reason that Congress has been about as effective and meaningful as the British monarchy, ("a vestigal body" in Stewart's own phrasing) is, of course, the Republicans.

Are you serious?

In a nation where the line in the ideological sand might as well be a moat of lava, you're excuse for ineffectuality is something that I might do as a five-year old? It was their fault?!

Now, I agree that the Republicans have been stalling legislation, and if the legislation that the Democrats were trying to pass were undeniably the right path, I'd be whining right there alongside her. But it isn't. As I have routinely lamented, the Democrats are trying to pass bills that fit perfectly with their agenda.

Now call me an idealist, but this ISN'T how a two-party system is supposed to work: each side creates an agenda, then attempts to pass that agenda through the legislative process against the other side's attempts. Guess what happens when you try that? WHAT WE HAVE NOW!!

The way it's supposed to work, at least according to my Political Science professor, is that each side creates an agenda, and then the two sides cooperate rationally to reconcile the two.

Sound ridiculous? It shouldn't.

Essentially, what Pelosi is saying by stating that Republicans are making Congress ineffectual is that the Democrats are inherently, irrevocably right, and the Republicans, by opposing them, are either stupid are evil.

Those are the exact words I use often to describe fundamentalists. Although Pelosi isn't as obvious about it, the not so subtle message in her complaints about the Republicans is inherently identical.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these people who think Pelosi is just an arrogant, snooty, liberal femi-nazi off to destroy America as we know it. But this hacks me off. You cannot, as one of the country's most powerful politicans, go in front of the nation you serve, and tell them that the reason your institution is worth approximately it's collective weight in vienna sausage is that the opposing party won't lie down and do your bidding; at least not without a heaping helping of narrow-mindedness.

Now before liberals get up in arms and conservatives applaud, let me make this perfectly clear. The democrats aren't the only ones guilty of this. The Republicans are just as guilty. In fact, we, as Americans in general, are guilty, because, sadly, the Congress represents the American public at large. In the words of Dennis Miller, "America's greatest renewable resource is narrow-minded righteous indignation."

So, to all you Nancy Pelosi's out there, Democrat and Republican, it's high time that somebody, or even better somebodies, finally realize that this partisan finger-pointing is not going to get us anywhere.

But it's going to take somebody a whole lot more important than me.

The Joker: Delicious Psychosis

Holy Crap.

Have you seen The Dark Knight? It's incredible.

I wasn't a huge fan of Batman Begins. It was a well done movie, but it was largely just a glorified action movie. Yes the action was good, yes the cinematography was stunning, but where was the depth? Where was the pathos and the moral dillemas of Batman? Instead of a conflicted, troubled hero, we had a determined, hardened ninja (?!) out to clear out a stable of cookie-cutter villians.

This movie far surpasses the other one in every respect. First, it's just a straight-up captivating film. I think the moment I realized just how good this movie is was a scene that involves a tanker truck being thrown end over end, as the entire audience simultaneously gasps. As the truck hurtles silently through the air, a capacity crowd sits on the edge of their seats, mouths agape. The movie has several of these moments, where the audience involuntarily, physically reacts to what's happening on the screen. I saw it twice on the opening day (it's that good), and the reaction is always unmistakable.

By the way, all the hype about the Joker is valid. Heath Ledgers portrayal of perhaps the greatest comic book villian of all time is staggeringly good. Dark, violent, and psychopathic, but in a deliciously insane way that makes you both cringe, gasp, and sit agape, even making you laugh. I'm a huge fan of the Jack Nicholson Joker from the original Batman, and I expected that my love for that character would put a taint on the new one, but the two are so very different that the comparison is impossible.

WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE MY NERDY COMIC BOOK SIDE. PROCEED WITH CAUTION, AS THIS MATERIAL MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR SOCIAL LIFE

Alright, now I'm not a big fan of DC comics. Other than the graphic novel The Watchmen, (a trailer that made me just as excited as the one for The Dark Knight), the Batman franchise is the lone island in a sea of shallow and largely meaningless fluff in that universe.

But Batman is awesome. I am a firm believer in the role of comics as an art form, as a way to express emotions, stirring themeatic elements, and truths about the human condition, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the Batman stuff.

Batman isn't your bland, generic superhero, who triumphs over villians efforlessly, who is virtuos, faultless, and righteous. Batman is an often-brooding, very human hero, with emotional and psychological complexities, who struggles with the burden of his responsibilities as a hero. And many of his villians, especially the Joker, are as equally complex and troubling as he is.

This movie, unlike the first, delves deep into the thematic gold mine that is the Batman franchise.

First, the Joker's twisted psychology, utterly unlike any conventional thug is played up to great effect. Unlike the Mafia, who are simply greedy and corrupt, the Joker is simply out to, in Alfred's words, "watch the world burn". As he himself puts it, "I'm an agent of chaos", a man who is utterly unmoved by the forces that drive crime and, in many ways, society as a whole. His mangled worldview leaves him practically invincible, immune to intimidation, unmoved by money, and utterly unafraid of death.

Second, the film explores the "Batman/Joker Catch-22", which, as perhaps best explored within one of the greatest comics of all time, "The Killing Joke", is the fundamental reason why the Joker is Batman's most enduring and dangerous nemesis. Batman, whose one rule is that he will not kill, cannot kill the Joker, and the Joker cannot kill Batman, because he is driven to have him break that one rule. Thus the two are locked in an epic, ongoing struggle. As in the comics, Batman is faced with a terrible dillema; if he cannot bring himself to kill, villians such as the Joker will cause mayhem and death, but if he chooses to kill, then he is little better than the scum he is fighting. This dynamic, which pervades the comics, is incredibly powerful, and the movie depicts it masteruflly.

Finally, the film is, in many ways, an analysis on society as a whole. The carnage unleashed by the Joker brings the social structure of Gotham to the verge of catastrophic collapse. The movie brings into sharp focus the inherent fragility in human society. Yet at the same time, it brings out a hopeful glimpse of humanity, in the ferry scene, where the passengers of neither boat opt to destroy the other. The incident is remarkably realistic, incredibly tense, and overall a fascinating situation.

The Dark Knight is an exquisite piece of cinema; even without it's many deeper meanings, the sheer scale and quality of the action and cinematography is worth a look. However, the deeper meanings are what makes it a truly powerful film, one that is definately worth seeing at least once.

And see it in theaters...there are some crazy good sound affects that can really only be fully experinced by a speaker the size of a house.

The New Yorker: Barack Obomba?

The New Yorker is catching a lot of flak for it's newest cover. It depicts Obama, dressed as Osama Bin Laden, turban and all, fist-bumping his wife, attired in millitary gear, with an AK-47 strapped across her back.

It's hilarious.

I understand why people are up in arms about it. However, to me, it's pretty obvious that the cover is satire, and not of Obama. As soon as I saw the cover, I cackled, because its actually very clever.

Perhaps the reason most people are angry about the thing is they don't have the friends have. I am very good friends with a great deal of people who inhabit the far right of the political and religious spectrums. Among some of these, there are people I know who actually believe, in all seriousness that Barack Obama is covertly working for fundamementalist Muslims in an effort to destroy America from within. The number of people who actually believe this is way higher than is expected or reasonable. Don't believe me? I know of at least 3 Facebook groups that make the claim.

To me, the illustration is hysterical, because I actually know people who look at that and go "Y'See thur? Even them dadgum liberals know that Barack is one of them terrorists!"

I understand if people get upset about this illustration. If you don't know somebody who actually believes the caricature, it can seem like a totally tasteless, utterly gratuitous assault on Obama and his wife.

I applaud the New Yorker for having the cajones to print this picture, and I applaud the editor for standing by it. This kind of satire is bound to draw criticism; it's only sad that it's from people who should be laughing along with it.