I'm Crushing This Morning: Concrete Blonde

I'm having a big of a crush on a band this morning and plan to spend an hour or two digging their music. Singer Johnette Napolitano has been a favorite of mine for almost 20 years. We had an assistant baseball coach at Lindsey Wilson College (John H.) who was into music and knew that I listened to quite a bit of stuff off the beaten path. He had a CD of Concrete Blonde's called "Bloodletting", which had their only hit "Joey" on it. He loved that song, but considered the rest of the record a bit dark for his tastes, so he gave it to me. 

I started listening to it.....A LOT! I listened so much that the guys I shared an apartment with started liking it. Then they started pulling it off the shelf and it was getting played even when I wasn't around. It truly is an amazing record and one that I recommend to any music lover. A pop sound, but there is an undertone of darkness to the music and definitely in the lyrics. Relationships, alcohol abuse, suicide, all of it is right there. 

Some years back, a college buddy of mine (Joey W.) ventured up from his hometown, which is in the Land of Lincoln, and attended a Concrete Blonde show with me at a night spot here in Louisville. I can't remember the name of the place, but that's not important. They were pretty damned good and the crowd was into it. There was some tension in the band though and at one point, the guitarist (James Mankey) got pissed off at singer Johnette Napolitano and told her to play the guitar if she didn't like what he was doing and he walked off. She sang a few songs by herself, one a heart piercing cover of "Mercedes Benz" made famous by Janis Joplin. 

Joey and I got to watch the band disintegrate before our eyes, but since then they have played together quite a bit. They even did a mini-tour commemorating the re-mastering and re-release of the Bloodletting record. Anyhow, I really dig their music and thought I'd write about them this morning and share a few songs that I think some of you may dig. They have released eight albums, the best of which are the aforementioned "Bloodletting" and "Mexican Moon". 

"Someday?" from Walking In London

"Caroline" from Bloodletting

"Joey" Live on Dennis Miller from Bloodletting

"Mexican Moon" from Mexican Moon

"Heal It Up" from Mexican Moon

A REAL SHOWCASE FOR HER SOARING VOICE

I hope you listen to a few tracks and enjoy it! Even if you don't, I'll make up for your displeasure!  

What Has Happened To My Republican Party?

Though I've never voted for a Democrat for president and am a registered Republican, I've been called a "liberal" and an "Obama supporter" from time by a few people who know damn well I'm not and I'd really like to address something as a matter of curiosity. This isn't in anyway supportive of the Democrats and/or liberals, it's about the GOP....the party I had voted with for a long time.

I've never been a Democrat, and if a Republican (or former one now) can't stand up and call out the party, who can?

Why are regular Joe Republicans still so clingy to the party? This really isn't meant for the radical right. Those people have a worldview that believes an authoritarian or theocratic government would be best. Even though I don't subscribe to that in any way, I can understand that they hold this view and may do so for a variety of reasons including how they were brought up, social philosophy, and religious beliefs. I'm talking to you guys who don't have that world view, but still can't seem to get out of the grasp of the Republican party.

I am a registered Republican who feels like the party just doesn't want my kind any longer, and that being the way it is, I don't care to give them my vote in certain cases anymore. Voting is an important right and candidates should earn a vote, not be given it by default. I will vote for the best candidate from now on, and if there is not a suitable candidate, I wont' vote at all. No more giving my vote up based on a false idea or an outdated notion of what it means to be a Republican or a conservative. No more voting on the "lesser of two evils" as if that is an acceptable way of electing the people who should be serving our interests and not the other way around.

Just look at the past year alone. All of this stuff coming out about Republicans (and really does it matter if its at the state level or not? it is still a reflection of the party) who advocate/support/believe in trying to rewrite history in regards to slavery being a blessing for black Americans, marginalizing a portion of rape victims, advocating a return to Biblical "morality" by killing gays or unruly children, and basically a strong desire to create a theocratic government based on fear, hate, and a "us vs. them" mentality that has no use for anyone that isn't a "true believer". Basically, the hard right wants what the Muslim theocracies have. They can distance themselves from that, but what do you think a government that was based strictly on Biblical teachings would look like? It would see people thrown in jail for all sorts of reasons that had nothing to do with harming others, but simply harming others sensibility (or lack thereof).

We have seen George W. Bush go from "compassionate conservative" to a non-vetoing, big spending,torture enabling, war mongering, corporate slave,lying puppet. Then we had the audacity to hammer away on Obama for being un-American and a socialist. Obama has been a continuation, in many ways, but that shouldn't let Republicans off the hook for slamming him when they didn't mind it under Bush and don't seem to mind the same types of beliefs and behavior from Mitt Romney. 

Think about the people who ran for the GOP nomination; Santorum, Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich. All of them with the exception of Gingrich (perhaps Cain) are supporters of theocracy and Gingrich is right with them, despite being the only one that god didn't call to run. Look at what these people have said and what they ran on and try to explain why they were popular at different times. Their words and beliefs are firmly anti-woman, anti-gay, and basically anti-anyone who isn't making over $75,000 a year. Why were social moderates and libertarians (who are the true conservatives in many ways) like Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and John Huntsman dismissed very early on in the process? They were marginalized by the radical right. 

Regardless if you are a social moderate or a fiscal conservative, this party doesn't fit you anymore. It's not YOUR party. It belongs to those with a radical right wing worldview. Again, that's OK for them, but how on earth can anyone who cares about human beings, fiscal responsibillity, and liberty over corporations, status, and religious dogma continue to support a party that doesn't hold their values any longer.

What has happened to the party of Lincoln? A man who thought all human beings had merit and were important. What happened to Roosevelts GOP military policy of a strong defense; "walk softly, but carry a big stick"? What has happened to the smaller, less intrusive government that Goldwater touted? What happened to the optimism and big tent philosophy of Ronald Reagan? What happened to "helping a person to help themselves" by giving them the tools they need to succeed?

All that has seemingly been replaced by loyalty to party over country, preemptive and aggressive military policy, big spending, the want to legislate morality, litmus tests for Republican candidates, and throwing people to the wolves without a safety net and calling it empowerment and freedom.The Republican Party through all of the above is beginning to limit itself on who is acceptable to them. The demographics of the country is changing towards a more diverse population, where the white male is no longer the majority. The country is becoming more secular. People are beginning to value liberty and freedom again, after having had it taken away piece by piece over the past 12 years. The base of the GOP is becoming marginalized as we move into the future. What will we have then? Just the Democrats? What's that going to look like? Having just one real alternative to vote for and even that isn't very appealing. Will we move towards a rise in libertarianism? If the Republican Party is dying and being overrun with radicals, I certainly hope an alternative that is acceptable arises in the name of freedom and a government for, of, and by the people!

And for those who are not Republicans; when the hell did we stop being creative in our problem solving? Why only two ways? Why keep going back and forth between failed ideologies and ideas? Why the demonizing of anyone who dares talk about a different way of doing things? Why the fear? Go back and read the words of Jefferson, Franklin and many others who dared to think differently when drawing up our style of government and governing documents. Neither party is very close to living up to the ideal of America. Why are we as Americans, not Republicans and Democrats, allowing career politicians, charlatans, and opportunists to rule us when they are supposed be doing the work of the people? Instead of us telling them what we want, they tell us how it's going to be and sell it all on safety, security, and the demonizing of free thought and expression.

Why are we not outraged? Why are we not passionate? Why are we not giving a damn about the country and the people (US!) who live here?

Struggling With Faith? Do Something About It!

For most of my life, I have been a believer in the Christian god. I was brought up on it and like others, I really got scared of the whole notion of hell and someone listening to my every thought. How bad I must be to have "sinful" thoughts as often as I did. I never even considered that everyone else has stupid stuff go through their minds too.....I thought it was just me. I wrestled with hell a lot, but I never allowed myself to even consider that I might be wasting my time with all that worry. 

A few years back, I started exploring my faith. I looked at Christianity with a critical eye and I began to research other religions. Then, I read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and it occurred to me; What if there isn't a god? What if I can just live my life without the guilt and torment? What if I could be a happy human being? 

From there, I felt like I should look into my questions. I had never really gave not believing a fair chance. How could I? I was raised up on Jesus watching me all the time (not just in December when Santa has his critical eye on me) and fear of damnation. I was in church at the time and came to a point where I felt like I was being hypocritical by attending Sunday school in the morning and then reading Dawkins and Sam Harris in the evening. I stopped going and decided I would put the Bible to the test, so I started actually reading it. I wanted to test it against modern morality and ethics and see what god really said about how to treat people and it didn't hold up. I still continued to pray a couple of times a day for Jesus to help me along and show me the truth. Obviously, he didn't have much to say. My relationship was a one way street with my imagination. 

I continued to study religion and atheism and finally a little voice in my head said; "There is no god." Along with my losing religion, I was also dumping my penchant for certitude. Rather than proclaim myself an atheist or whatever, I decided that I just didn't know. With a gun to my head, I'd bet on there NOT being a god, but otherwise, hell, I just don't know. Nobody does. 

OK, it's taken me four paragraphs to get here, but what I wanted to say is that it's alright to have doubts. It's natural and you should welcome those doubts. If you don't, you are shutting off your mind, your intellect, and reason. If you believe a god gave you those things, then certainly you can see why it should be imperative that you use your intelligence and exercise critical thought. If I had to suggest some reading for a Christian who was wrestling with his faith, I would first suggest the Dan Barker book "godless". Barker is a former evangelist, Christian song writer and record producer. His book outlines his journey from being on fire for god to firing god. It speaks in a easy going manner to the recently converted and/or those who are starting to become unsure of their faith. 

I'd also suggest "Letter To A Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. He makes a great case, in a very short book, against religion as a whole. He mainly focuses on Christianity, because it is the prevailing religion in the USA, but he does so in a way that tries to allow the reader to take their belief into account in context with Islam or any other religion. His first, full scale book is called "The End of Faith" and it's also worth a persons time. It would be easy and probably cliche' for me to tell someone to run out and buy "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens or "The God Delusion" by the aforementioned Dawkins. Those are great books and for someone who has recently lost their faith, I'd recommend them as great guides to strengthen your decision and resolve. You Tube is a great resource to hear anyone speak that I've mentioned to this point. Learning about the universe, quantum physics, consciousness, and critical thought have been so satisfying after spending much of my life tuned out to those things. 

Don't let anyone talk you into or out of your faith if you are wavering. Explore it for yourself. Use your mind and reason. Read the Bible. Really read what god says. If your faith is meant to be, it should stand up to the scrutiny of your mind and what you learn. You wouldn't be afraid to read Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ" or "The Ragamuffin Gospel" by Brendan Manning, so don't be afraid to read some of the stuff I've mentioned. Be fair to god and yourself.  It's been a very satisfying journey for me personally and I wouldn't change it for anything. If you are struggling with your faith, go ahead and do something about it. Either way, you should come away feeling proud that you came to your decision on your own terms, without indoctrination.

Gary Johnson for President in 2012!

I haven't written anything for this blog in about two months. That's an incredibly long stretch for me, and since I have my work week done, I've decided to get in some writing. 

I've pretty much been a Republican my entire adult life. I voted for Bush 1 over Clinton. I voted for Bob Dole. Hell, I voted for W.....twice! But enough was enough. I started checking myself and thought about my beliefs back in 2007. When I dissected how I thought and felt about the issues in a real and personal way, I started to find out that I didn't really buy into what the GOP was selling, especially on a social level. I still couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama, so I didn't vote at all. John McCain had gone from a middle of the road Republican to a right winger, just to get the nomination over Mitt Romney. This time, Romney has done the same thing and swung even more to the right. I still don't identify with the Democrats, and after seeing how Obama pretty much continued the Bush Administrations policies in many areas, I knew I was losing my political identity. 

But, in the last four or five weeks I have started seeing some articles about Gary Johnson. I took a couple of those "What are you?" political tests and saw that I fall in line, largely, with a libertarian point of view. I have decided to embrace that, while maintaining my preference to not strictly align myself with any party. It's a bit liberating to not have to defend the indefensible, which is the monopolized system we are currently in. 

Learn More About Gary Johnson!

You see, Gary Johnson gives me someone to vote FOR and not against. I don't see voting for the "lesser of two evils" as some sort of triumph in American politics. I see it as a disaster in the making, where politicians can pay lip service to the mainstream American as they gain power and wealth by setting our system up to cater to the wealthy and multi-national corporations. Why would a politician really address your concerns? You don't make large contributions. You don't throw fund raisers. You just vote. And if you only have one other choice, you just have to cling to the party you ALWAYS support as if this is one big sports rivalry like the Yankees and Red Sox. A two party system is agreeable to the Dems and GOP, because even if they lose an election, they are only one cycle from regaining power. They only have to fight the "other side" and they don't have to contend with other ideas. We have become a country of liberals and conservatives instead of a country of Americans. We have sold out the idea of America to belong to a club that we refuse to disagree with because we have invested in it on a prideful and psychological level. It's sad. 

With that, I am proud to say that I am going to vote for Gary Johnson. Johnson has more governing experience than either of the two major candidates and he has actually started a business from the ground up. When Johnson was in college at the University of New Mexico, he earned money by being a handyman. He went door to door searching out work opportunities. Over the years, he was able to grow from a one man show into a business that was worth $10 million! He didn't get that money from his daddy,and yeah, he built that! 

Johnson got into politics in 1994 for the first time and ran for governor in New Mexico. That's a really high place to begin for a guy just starting out in politics. Against conventional advice, he started his campaign using some of his own money and ran as a Republican. Mind you, New Mexico is a largely Democratic state, so not very many people gave him a chance to even get the party nomination, let alone to actually win the governorship. As these sorts of stories can go, he defied the odds and won the nomination and then the general election! Why did he win? Because he spoke to the ordinary citizen. He was (and is) a proponent of small, less intrusive government. He is a leader in the fight for personal freedom and he is a man of his word. True to showing that he wasn't bought and sold by any party, Johnson used his veto power to shoot down any piece of legislation that wasn't necessary to the state or the government. Wasteful spending was eliminated. 

When he ran for re-election, he simply campaigned on the success and fulfillment of his word from his first term. It was expected that he would have a tough time winning a second term, as he was running against a Hispanic opponent. The pundits proved how out of touch they can be by simplifying people down to being robots who are only capable of voting for "their own kind". Johnson won easily and continued to govern as he had before. He made the availability of school vouchers and the elimination of war on drugs central pieces of his agenda and he also opposed the building of private prisons. An industry that should give EVERY American pause about how we create and enforce laws. 

Meet Gary Johnson!

Gary Johnson is the real deal. He has a record that is one of success, met expectations, and kept promises. He tried to run for the Republican nomination, but was largely ignored by the GOP and the press. The party abandoned him, so he went about his business and embraced the Libertarian Party, much the way Ron Paul has in the past. Johnson and the Libertarian Party have worked hard and he is now on the ballot in 47 states. The Republicans have tried to block him from getting on the ballot in three other states, but Johnson is fighting those efforts. It's not likely that you will see him in the presidential debates, even though he meets all the criteria but one. He isn't at 15% in the polling. He may have never reached that point anyhow, but it's impossible to know because he isn't listed on polls and the pollsters only focus on Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or "other". It's a bit of a scam. It is specifically designed to keep anyone except Republicans and Democrats out of the conversation about our nation.  

Is Mitt Romney Scared Of Gary Johnson?

I've been told I'm wasting my vote and I beg to differ in a big way! How is my vote wasted if I am voting for the person I believe in and who most reflects my values? Wouldn't I truly be wasting the right to vote if I simply cast my ballot for the "lesser of two evils"? Wouldn't I have to consider myself intellectually dishonest if I only voted for a person because of some sort of misguided allegiance to a party that doesn't have the countries best interest at heart? 

Gary Johnson is the only candidate willing to be an adult. To be open and honest about the state of the country and what needs to be done to start us going in the right direction again. Here is a rundown of a few of Johnson's beliefs and proposals for restoring America;

1) simplify the tax system, abolish the IRS

2) a strong defense that isn't into nation building and forcing our political will on others

3) he opposes censorship

4) he opposes the War On Drugs as it is currently

5) he wants to cut the federal budget by 43%, and allow states to get involved with Medicare to suit their citizens better

6)  he advocates state's rights

7) he is for balancing the budget immediately

8) he believes the Federal Reserve is devaluing our currency and wants to eliminate it

9) he supports the rights of individuals over the state

10) he believes corporate welfare should be shut down

11) he is against lobbying

These things are not out of step with most Americans. Gary Johnson is for all the things that most Americans say they are for and what the two major parties SAY they are striving for. But the results have not shown it. The Democrats and Republicans work their agenda the way they want to, not how the American people want it done. Those parties work for the wealthy and corporations. Sure, they will throw out some sound bites that make people believe they are in tune with people who have lost their jobs, their homes, and are struggling to pay their bills. These parties are directly responsible for the destruction of our manufacturing base which has crippled the middle class, but they will NOT do anything to solve those problems. 

The choice is simple for our country. Continue down the path we are on or start making changes. Gary Johnson may not win this election, but the tide has to turn somewhere. Why not now? Why not here at this point in history? Why can't we look back at 2012 as a point in time where we decided that things had to change? If Johnson got just 10 or 15% of the vote, it would be a huge wake up call for our mainstream politicians and this country. A voice will have been heard. I think our nation is worth it.

The Dark Knight Rises: An analysis of sorts

STOP!!!!!! Right now.....right here!!!  STOP!!!!!!

Read the first part here and then make up your mind if you want to continue on.

If you have not yet visited your local cinema to watch "The Dark Knight Rises", then you may not want to read further. I will reveal major plot points and give away certain themes about characters that you may want to reserve for your own sensibility and interpretation. So with that, if you read further, just know that you have been warned. 

KEY: 

BB is Batman Begins

TDK is The Dark Knight

TDKR is...you guessed it, The Dark Knight Rises

In no way am I telling you that anything I write is the true intent of the film, the filmmaker, its' producers, writers, or cast. I'm simply giving you my interpretation of how I perceived the films against the backdrop of our current place in history. 

In BB we had a film which explored the origins of Batman. But more than that, it set the tone for what kind of hero that Batman would be during the series. Bruce Wayne was an angry young man who had his parents and the promise of a certain way of life stripped from him when he was a child. Anger and vengeance were the things that drove him to leave his life behind and he chose to become a rogue agent, traveling the world and trying to punish bad guys in a fashion that lacked discipline and lacked a plan. He was "rescued" and trained by Ra's Al Ghul, who took Wayne under his wing and trained him to be his greatest pupil. Al Ghul's vision of the world was that once something got so out of control with corruption that it shouldn't be allowed to continue. That it was broken beyond repair and had to burn and be rebuilt for the world to see as an example. Oddly enough, he brought Bruce Wayne back from his broken nature and rehabilitated him, without having to destroy him. BB gives us a sense that Batman understood the problems with his city and believed that it could be rehabilitated and rescued from itself and he could be the man (symbol of doing what is right). At the time of its' release I considered BB to be the best "super hero" or "comic" movie I had seen and really didn't consider very much past that. 

But then came TDK and its overt look at terrorism and how to respond to it. I believe some of TDK to be fairly supportive of how America and the Bush Administration responded to 9/11/01. I also see areas where it questioned the validity of our response. The Joker was a great villain and one that law enforcement and certainly Batman couldn't quite understand. The Joker destroyed to destroy. He killed to kill. He didn't have rules. Terror is a form of warfare that is truly off the charts. The targets are not always military in nature. The targets can be random and hit the very conscious and heart of its target. The Joker took advantage of the survival nature and fear of Gotham's people. He took advantage of Batman having a certain set of principles that he bound himself to when taking on crime and corruption. He (Batman) wouldn't kill in response to killing. Harvey Dent was interesting to Bruce Wayne/Batman because he was a representative of the people, right out in the open, saying that it wasn't acceptable to terrorize free citizens. That it was not acceptable to take advantage of the nature of the common man. He even believed it was not acceptable to draw justice from the well of vigilantism. That is why Batman saw Dent as the true leader of Gotham's anti-crime movement. He didn't hide. He represented the people and looked the bad guys in the eye. He had no fear and didn't hide from the chaos brought on by the criminal element. The law is important and following the law to bring down crime validates the law. Dent didn't lie or distort any part of his determination to bring crime to justice. That is why at the end of the film, Dent was hailed as the hero. Batman was not taking on terror or crime within the law, he was circumventing it. It was the only way, in the short term to deal with an immediate problem, but Batman knew that it wasn't the way to change things in the long run.  

Thus, the connection to America, terrorism, and how our leadership chose to approach it. Remember, Batman developed a system of spying on the citizens of Gotham, just like the Bush Administration pushed and got with the Patriot Act.  But unlike Luscious Fox in TDK, our political leadership has not drawn down from using techniques that are a violation of our right to privacy. Batman, like Bush felt there was a need to approach this enemy different than any they/we had ever dealt with. Rules were out the window. If you watch TDK carefully enough, you can grab on to the undertone of Batman being secretive about the things he was working on to combat crime. He was willing to go to some dark places to combat crime and terror, just like America did, but how valid and right is that approach. Fortunately, Batman seemed to consider those things. Sadly, at times, we as a nation have not. The Joker actually brought out the worst in Batman at times (ie, the beating Batman gave the detained Joker while in the holding cell). Batman also wanted a life and saw Dent as his ticket to dumping the Bat Suit and pursuing a relationship with Rachel Dawes and running Wayne Enterprises. He longed to get out of the way and let freedom and justice prevail out in the open. Wayne and Commissioner Gordon thought it was the right thing, to deny the truth, so the people could feel safe and embrace the right way of taking on crime.  

TDKR comes back to some of these themes. I believe the film showed how problematic it is to create a fake sense of security and prosperity. Underneath the lie is the truth. The truth was that despite the "comeback" that Gotham was enjoying in the aftermath of the Joker's "defeat", evil was reloading right under their feet. Literally. This deflection of the validation that was seen at times in TDK, wasn't pushed upon the audience for the most part. It seems that Nolan, through both films, put the success and failures of our battle against terror out there for us to consider and judge for ourselves. This ties a bit into the way that he handled social injustice (in the film) in our monetary system today. The battle lines are drawn and Nolan touches on both sides and the middle, then lets the audience consider the good, the bad, and the ugly of it all. 

There is definitely a fantasy glimpse into the mind of an Occupy Wall Street supporter. The Wall Street scene felt both good and bad. It hinted at the prosperity that is constantly being traded among our society's elite and how satisfying it would be to see that world interrupted and exposed. At one point in the film, the common citizens and thugs begin to run Gotham City and it has dire consequences for those in law enforcement who perpetrated a lie about the safety of the city and those who enjoyed life on a premium level, while the mainstream citizen struggled. It shows the illusion of control that the elite portray, as if they are shining brass on the Titanic, even after the iceberg has been hit. Bruce Wayne is not immune from it. His sensibility towards society and culture were washed away by his pain and anger and the false notion that he and Rachel Dawes were going to be together if not for her death. Alfred had lied to him and in that way, failed Bruce Wayne. The lie spared Wayne's feelings, but was not good for him. Much in the way that the lie of the mass media and consumer culture tries (and largely succeeds) to lead us into a sense of security socially, even as people are hungry, jobless, and homeless all around our nation. Things are failing all around us, but like Bruce Wayne, our feelings are spared, so we don't react to life based on truth. 

There are three main characters that are responding to the failing of Gotham's capitalism. Bruce Wayne becomes detached from his role and responsibility to the community. His negligence of his company, and simply living off the spoils of the past, leads to the suffering of others. Bane and the League of Shadows sees the have/have not disparity as another reason that the corrupt Gotham City must be made an example of and destroyed. Then, you have Catwoman/Selina Kyle who is right in the middle. Not quite as ready to commit to the destruction, but quite at odds with the upper crest of society gaining more power and wealth while standing on the shoulders of the working class and poor. She and Robin....oops, I mean John Blake (by the way, I called that one, even as many people were telling me that Nolan/Bale were NOT going to have Robin in the series....sucker fan boys) are really the heartbeat of the film. Kyle comes across immediately has distrustful of the wealthy and Blake develops a distrust in being fearful of the enemy while hiding behind a badge. The bridge scene took him over the top, and amplified the words of wisdom he gained from Wayne/Batman throughout the film. 

In the end, we got hope. Bane at one point said that Bruce Wayne couldn't truly experience his punishment unless he had a glimmer of hope. It was a way to torture Batman. The hope that Nolan gives at the end of the film is that we can see that while the truth may hurt, a life built on lies feeds into the underlying fear of not having enough, of not being safe, and of looking out for ones self, instead of others. Trust, sharing, and truth are the ways to build a truly free society that gets us closer to everyone being able to enjoy the fruits of this country. Fear, anger, and hate play against those themes and are prevalent in many parts of our society today. 

A couple of things I noticed in the film that play into the notion of putting a glossy finish on a piece of garbage (metaphorically speaking) is the way that the mayor of Gotham just went about business as usual, attending a football game, even as an important crime fighting initiative was taking place. He didn't trust the people enough to tell the truth even at that point, when destruction could be just around the corner. Like George W. Bush told us after 9/11/01....if you want to contribute against terror.....just go shopping. The people paid the price. They were treated as children and left in the dark and paid a very high price for not being told the truth. For too long things seemed OK, even as horror was barreling towards them. The people of Gotham had given up responsibility for their city, much in the way we have done that with our country. 

I also caught on to there being no American flags in the scene where the kid was singing the national anthem. Some in the crowd were mouthing the words, most were silent. It was a false sense of patriotism that seemed forced and out of place. After the anthem, the crowd goes nuts waving flags and cheering. The distraction of the game was taking precedence over the truth....that their society was faltering. What is the old cliche'? "Fiddling as Rome burns". Later in the film, when Gotham is coming unglued, we see flags hanging off of buildings. Those flags are in tatters, but are still there. I take this as symbolism. We are still here. We are coming apart though. We need to recognize injustice and lies when they are right in our face. We need to demand the truth and not play the role of the child waiting for the daddy (the elite, the media, government) to protect us. The ideal of America is still right here, but we have recognize it and regain our place as the controllers of our own prosperity and destiny. 

Well, if you made it this far, I'll just close with a disclaimer; I am simply interpreting the films as I see them. There are things I didn't touch on in relation to national security and wealth disparity. I could really dig into those a bit deeper, but I seriously doubt anyone wants to read 3,000 or more words on this, if you've even made it this far. If there are things about the film that you want to share, please feel free to hit the COMMENT button and let it rip. I take film fairly seriously when the context is there for it to be done. I'm sure Christopher Nolan would laugh at what I've written on one hand, but probably be happy on the other that someone was thinking about his work on another level. Nolan is one of our great filmmakers and to this point, has not made a bad film. As of right now, Nolan's Batman series has taken over the top spot in my favorite film series of all-time. Sorry Mr. Lucas. If you had left the Ewoks and the "house band" sequence from Jabba the Huts lair out of "Return Of The Jedi", perhaps you would still be on top. 

Thanks for reading!