Thursday, July 31, 2008

W Is Batman? I Think Not.

Dana Hunter unleashes her Smack O'Matic TM on a particularly clueless wingnut who seems to think that George W. Bush is a real-life Batman:

Batman is villified and despised for being a dangerous, unknown quantity outside the law who also really fucks things up for the buggers getting rich off of other people's misery. Bush is villified because he's a raving fucktard who thinks he's entitled to do whatever he wants. Batman struggles with the morality of what he does and makes every attempt to put serious limits on his own actions. Bush uses other people's fear and uncertainty to grab as much power as he can, and you'd have to break his hands to pry it out of them. Batman ensures that the tools he has that could lead to people's rights being violated are used for uber-brief periods of time, in as limited a way as possible, and then immediately ensures their destruction, further adding a layer of security by placing the really noxious tools in the hands of a man guaranteed not to abuse them. Bush recognizes no limits in either time or scope, places the dangerous toys in the hands of completely evil fuckers, and uses every trick possible to permanently expand his toolbox. Is that enough, or should I go on?

Of Course He's Just Like Batman - In the Bizarro Universe

The wingnut in question is Wall Street Journal editorialist Andrew Klavan. The WSJ likes to have folks like Klavan writing editorials to counterbalance the reality that appears in the rest of their paper. He appears to be very good at his job, if this is any indication.

Watertiger has an intriguing response to Klavan's thesis.

What I found interesting about this is that once again we see wingnuts who can't see what is being said by the art they're viewing. It's always fascinated me that so many folks over at The National Review Online are big Star Trek fans. They clearly have no idea what the series was about.

Twenty years ago, A Fish Called Wanda put these guys in perspective in the scene where the ridiculously macho Otto and Wanda the con artist part ways:

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

IMDB: A Fish Called Wanda Memorable Quotes

When you bother to look things up, you realize the confidence in their voices has nothing to do with them knowing what they're talking about. If anything, it's the opposite. I've learned to be deeply suspicious of people who are always sure of themselves. To me, it's the surest sign that they know nothing.

UPDATE: Fixed the sentence about the Star Trek fans, who as it turns out were at the NRO, not PM. Sorry for the mixup (no, not really). I also added the link I spent far too much time looking for.


Dana Hunter said...

This post makes me feel better about Andrew Klavan's raving lunacy. I especially love what you said about wingnuts not understanding art. They really don't, do they?

This might explain how they came up with "Kill everyone we don't like" after reading "Thou shalt not kill."

Cujo359 said...

Some do, I'm sure, but understanding art usually requires some knowledge beyond your own desires and needs, and beyond what one finds consistent with one's prejudices. In those regards, wingnuts seem to be behind the learning curve.