Planned topics for today’s “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard”: Does looking at the “context” of Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark help or hurt him? We’ll look at the arguments which make up that context and let you decide. Also, is Romney effectively answering Obama on this issue? Then, we’ll take a detailed look at “The Dark Knight Rises” (spoiler alert will be provided for those who haven’t seen it yet, so you can tune out and listen to the recorded podcast if necessary — but go see it ASAP).
Today’s live show, and then later the archive recording, can be accessed here.
To access the show page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode, or to subscribe to the recorded archives via iTunes and other services, use this link.
To access the new iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.
Don't Let It Go 
I would like to see the Colorado shooter be given brain scans/examinations as part of the pre-trial proceedings (Is he fit to stand trial ? Does he understand the charges etc.). We might learn something which could be a basis for further research. Is this legal and proper ? Is it ever done ?
I don’t know much criminal law, but I think he’d have to plead insanity, which would make such evidence relevant, before that would be done. We’ll have to watch to see what happens in the coming weeks/months. I read that he took Vicodin in advance of the massacre, but then what about the rigging of his apartment with all those explosives, and all the planning he did beforehand?
Reblogged this on Glory to man in the highest and commented:
Reposting does not imply agreement.
Politically, the movie seemed politically incoherent, as well as having some apparent plot inconsistencies.
Conservatives rave about how conservative the movie was, but that is grading on a curve. Throwing in a few bits to appeal to conservatives, does not make a conservative movie, and definitely not a Randian libertarian one.
Just one point for now. Consider the divide between nobless oblige capitalism vs. Randian/libertarian capitalism. The movie fariy clearly came down on the side of the former.On the one hand, the only capitalism is good period statement was made by the villain Daggett when criticizing Wayne’s clean energy investments. On the other, the concept that capitalism is good when the profits are given to charity was hammered home.
The movie did not glorify the world of entrepreneurial capitalism. We did not see many shopkeepers, small-to-mid-size businessmen, etc. Imagine John F. Kerry watching this movie. He’d love it. He’d see himself as a Bruce Wayne type (absent the charitable giving) in his proper social place permanently atop the masses (who would have anarchy without him) and without any threat to his social status from the absent pesky entrepreneurs.
“Politically, the movie seemed politically incoherent, as well as having some apparent plot inconsistencies.”
Can you give other examples? The political examples that I focused on had to do with the movie’s depiction of the danger of nihilism piggy-backing on socialism/egalitarianism, which, in the context of the movie, would imply a preference for either capitalism or the mixed economy, I assume. But other ideas we discussed were the importance of honesty, the ability of human beings to overcome great obstacles, primarily through thought and will, and the importance of the fundamental alternative of life and death — i.e., non-political ideas.
And as for charitable giving, notice that they explicitly said that Wayne’s charitable giving had to come out of the *profits* of Wayne Enterprises, and that the charity Wayne chose — one that benefited underprivileged boys — was something that had personal meaning for him. Consistent with Objectivists’ views toward charitable giving. (Also note that the beneficiaries we met in the movie were, like Wayne, orphans.)
Isn’t the objectivist view of charitable giving more one of admitted self-gratification than either noblesse oblige or a socially-imposed duty? The movie seemed to reflect the latter two. As for the profits aspect, it also reflected a leftist view of how corporations operate in that they have the ability to simply decide to increase profits.
The movie did not glorify the world of entrepreneurial capitalism. We did not see many shopkeepers, small-to-mid-size businessmen, etc. (we also did not see too many gang members, etc. – the mob was more generic). Imagine John F. Kerry watching this movie. He’d love it. He’d see himself as a Bruce Wayne type (absent the charitable giving) in his proper social place permanently atop the masses (who would have anarchy without him) and without any threat to his social status from the absent pesky entrepreneurial classes.
Rather than being a consistent conservative/libertarian the filmmakers probably intended to keep things ambiguous to appeal to the entire political spectrum, with a moderate leftist bent.
Take the subject of “clean energy”. To appeal to leftists: 1) there was no government crony-capitalist Solyndra aspect (if they wanted to appeal to conservatives, Wayne industries would have been bankrupted by being forced to adopt a failed technology advocated by a friend of the President); 2) the technology worked; 3) the technology was mocked by one of the only two pure evil guys (the stereotypical Hollywood capitalist Daggett, the other being Stryver played by a guy who looks like Willem DaFoe after a bad face lift; Bane being revealed as a fallen good guy); 4) nuclear reactors become nuclear bombs really easily. To appeal to conservatives: 1) nuclear power is clean energy; 2) it was privately funded.
As for the nihilism piggy backing on egalitarianism,even if correct, I think you are reading too much into it at an intellectual level well beyond the visceral responses that the 99% experience. They respond to the most unsubtle stimuli.
How was Bane a fallen good guy? Why because he helped Ra Al Ghul’s daughter escape? He’s always been a part of the league of shadows. He was her body guard. Hardly, a fallen good guy. Even hitler liked german children. Nolan’s point about the nuclear reactor was that in the hands of a nihilists who despises profit such as bane/talia it can be used for evil in the hands of a wealthy guy like Bruce Wyane it can be used to do good. Amy is 100% right about Wyane’s voluntary charity to Orphanes. It is Something he values very much because he use to be one. Amy also never made the claim that this was a conservative movie nor that it was explicitly pro-capitalist. Though, that scene where the cop won’t protect the people inside the stock exchange and then that other cop explains to him how it actually works and effects him was a capitalist freindly scene. You seem to be thinking about this movie on a strictly policial level. Nolan doesn’t really go there in his movies he’s more concerned with plot, characters, emotions, and ethics. He also totally believes in the three v’s values, virtues and volition. For example, look at cat woman she starts out as a robinhood/oliver twist type of character then discovers in the scene where she said “this house use to be so beautiful” which was followed up with her friend saying “now it’s everybodies home” that her ideology was wrong. Which is why she helped Batman defeat Bane.
“You seem to be thinking about this movie on a strictly policial level.” Yes, that was what I tried to say to ctlaw in my initial response, pointing out the non-political ideas in the film that are consistent with Objectivism. Thanks!
You’re welcome, Amy. I knew you were analyzing it on a fundamental level. By the way this is your little buddy, Zack. Incase, you didn’t know.
Ah, small world 🙂
I liked how The Dark Knight Rises had an anti-libertarian/anarchist line, too. If I remember correctly, “There’s only one police in this town–and it isn’t you.” A more profound point than the Judeo-Christian quip in The Avengers (“There’s only one God–and he doesn’t look like you”).