Thanks to Nate Van Valkenburg (and his facebook profile) for the pointer to this. As I watched this new Batman film, at the unfolding moral equivalence, I scoffed. Only an idiot would consider that notion for more than a second. What the Joker does is show human beings as grievous sinners. I'm not sure we need help with that. There is something definitely Christ-like in the way Batman deals with the ending problem, though not entirely. The film was undoubtedly an Oscar-worthy performance for the late Mr. Ledger, and should be recognized as such. However, the script itself, replete with facile arguments, wastes the formidable talents of this cast. I'd give it 4/5.
As a general rule, I hate "pox on both your houses" takes on politics. Most of the time, I'm inclined to think that a particular person chooses this take because someone else has made them uncomfortable with a certain aspect of their own philosophy. If they adopt a posture of cynicism, maybe they can escape the moral force of that criticism. That could be bulverism in any one case, but I have seen it before, and I can't paint a picture without generalizing. Anyway, I didn't come here to talk about that. I came here to say that both major parties in the United States--and the people themselves--have embraced the absolute individualism at the heart of classical liberalism. Rightists want freedom from constraint in economics, environment, religious liberty, and a few other things. Leftists don't believe in this absolute individualism with respect to economics or the environment (not to mention religious liberty), but they do embrace it with respect to human sexu