South Dakota Politics

Randy Pausch, RIP

Carnegie Mellon computer science professor Randy Pausch achieved notoriety with his riveting "last lecture" last September.  Pausch was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer and gave this lecture to honor his students and others at Carnegie Mellon, imparting life lessons and advice to his audience.  Jeff Zaslow of the Wall Street Journal covered the lecture and helped Pausch expand the lecture into the book "The Last Lecture."

Sadly, Dr. Pausch died Friday at age 47.  Valerie Nelson has a wonderful obituary in the Los Angeles Times and opens the piece:

Randolph Frederick Pausch was born Oct. 23, 1960, in Baltimore and said he won the "parent lottery" with Fred and Virginia Pausch. His father sold insurance and his mother taught English. As a teenager growing up in Columbia, Md., he was allowed to paint whatever he wanted on his bedroom walls. His artistry included a quadratic equation, elevator doors and the rocket ship that adorns the cover of his book.

Randy Pausch, Ph.D, father, teacher, mentor.  Rest in peace.

Sermon to the Germans

London Times American correspondent Gerard Baker humorously critiques the Obamessianic sermon to the Germans in "He ventured forth to bring light to the world."  Be sure to give it a read.

McCain Hits Hard

Here are some excerpts from a speech John McCain gave yesterday before a military audience in Denver (via PowerLine).  It's a devastating and factual critique of Barack Obama:

Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed.

We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops -- which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn't test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn't matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.

Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.

And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

...

Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn't have been more wrong.

By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. "Not only have we not seen improvements," he said, "but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.

Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened.

...

Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.

Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. ... In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.

Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.

Global Cooling in Alaska

We are rapidly approaching a tipping point in climate change, says Andrew Simms of the BBC. 

New and cautious calculations by the New Economics Foundation's (nef) climate change programme suggest that we may have as little as 100 months starting from August 2008 to avert uncontrollable global warming.

One hundred months, starting next Friday.  Well, you can't complain that he is being vague.  It reminds me of the David Bowie song, "news had just come over, we had five years left to cry in."  If the world is ending, it might be nice to know exactly how long we have.  But one thing is good news: if the world really is about to reach a point of "uncontrollable global warming," at least we can stop arguing about what to do when that point has been passed.

But you might suppose it would matter that the world isn't warming right now, that in fact it has been cooling for about ten years.  How, exactly, are we approaching a global warming tipping point if we are going in the opposite direction?  And it might matter that a lot of places in the world have been experiencing the coldest temperatures on record.  Consider this, from the Anchorage Daily News:

Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.

   

That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.

   

This year, however -- with the summer more than half over -- there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that's with just a month of potential "balmy" days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.

Of course, a decade long cooling trend doesn't mean that the long term warming trend is over.  On the other hand, it is hardly something that can be accounted for using all the famous global warming computer models.  And surely it means we have at least a few years breathing room.  But such is not part of the calculations of the faithful, who continue to dream of forcing us all to change our behaviors to conform to their preferences.

Obama in Europe. McCain in a hole.

I got this thoughtful note from intrepid reader Gene:

Professor Blanchard, I think McCain is still in the running because people genuinely like him.  Personally I spent over two years as the aide to a WWII Medal of Honor winner and later two years as the deputy to a Viet Nam POW.  Both of these men dealt with demons that I could only witness but never feel.  So I am truly in awe of John McCain.  Now comes the “but”.  McCain’s campaign is a disaster; this entire week he came off as “small” in his comments.    It hurt to see/hear him act like just another “look at me” politician—I prefer he get back on the pedestal and rise above sound bite chatter.  I believe that people really want to vote for him but right now he is losing them.  I don’t agree that this election is Obama’s to win or lose--as I’ve heard pundits say many times. As much as I respect the man I’m in the undecided column. I do have a much more favorable opinion of him than of Obama but my bottom line; I’m not sure at this time he is the right one to move us forward.

I don't think McCain's campaign is a disaster, but it is surely sputtering.  McCain has strengths, as Gene points out.  His greatest strength, however, is not his own.  It lies in the uncertainty that Barack Obama has created around himself.  All but the true faithful can now see that Obama's campaign is pure Hollywood.  He adopts or abandons positions based solely on whether they improve his ratings.  It is all but impossible to tell from anything he says or does what he really believes, if indeed he believes anything.  McCain has the advantage of a long presence on the political stage, and voters has a sense of who he is that can withstand the occasional flip flop. 

But if Obama is a showman, he is turning out to be a spectacularly good showman.  His world tour may be, as most people seem to think, all campaign and no statesmanship, but it surely puts him way up on the stage.  Meanwhile, the McCain campaign cannot seem to figure out how to capitalize on his strengths.  It is impressive, as I said yesterday, that McCain is still competitive.  But given Obama's ability to rouse so many people where ever he shows up, and the constant adoration he gets from the American press, it's hard to see how McCain can convert. 

McCain needs to build a sense of substance and presence.  He needs to look like a safe bet to all those who wonder if a savior from Chicago, a rock star to the masses, is really what we need in a President.  Just now, he doesn't seem to know how to do that.   

Zombie Voters in the Rushmore State

Back in Arkansas, we all knew the score.  The hill country voted Republican.  Blacks did not, nor did most of the delta.  But the dead always voted Democrat. In many states the rights of dead voters are respected, but not, apparently, in South Dakota.  From Fox News:

If you vote by mail, but die before Election Day, does your vote count? It depends on where you lived.

Oregon counts ballots no matter what happens to the voter. So does Florida. But in South Dakota, if you die before the election, so does your vote...

Take the case of Florence Steen, an ailing 88-year-old grandmother born before women had the right to vote. One of her last wishes was to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. She wanted to be part of history, said her daughter Kathy Krause.

Steen was confined to a hospice bed in Rapid City, S.D., when she was brought an absentee ballot weeks before the June 3 primary. She studied it a long time, then marked her choice with such determination her daughter feared she would poke through the paper.

Steen died on Mother’s Day. With a heavy heart, her daughter took the ballot and dropped it in a mailbox. “In my mind, her vote counted,” Krause said. “My mother believed she had voted for a woman to be president.”

But the women down at the county courthouse told Krause the ballot had to be tossed because state law declared a voter must be alive on Election Day.

So Krause passed that word to the Clinton campaign. And Clinton drew great applause when she told the story in her concession speech four days after the South Dakota primary.

Now I am on record regarding the legal rights of zombies and vampires, so I wonder that I was not called about this.  Zombies are soulless corpses, without personality or legal status.  If Ms. Steen had lurched to the polls muttering "brains!  Must eat brains!" and then voted,  her vote should not have counted. 

But since she was alive when she voted, her vote should obviously count.  Ms. Clinton is right to complain, and the South Dakota law should be changed.

A Political Scientist Alive In An Interesting Election

Everything that political scientists use to game an election tells me that McCain should lose, and that he should be way behind already.  The economy is a problem.  OK, it's not really all that bad, by historical standards.  Unemployment isn't that high, the mortgage crisis hasn't really hurt that many voters.  Gas prices look high, but in constant dollars they have been worse before.  But clearly the voters are spooked, as well they should be.  The Republican brand name is worth elephant turds, and Barack Obama doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus, attracting more people than Abba would to his recent speech.  Meanwhile the American press doesn't seem to know or care that McCain is in the race. 

So why is Obama only marginally ahead of McCain in most polls, nationally?  And why is McCain ahead in Colorado and Ohio, in some polls?  Voters seem to like both Obama and McCain, but they have misgivings about both.  Obama's flip-flopping has brought him down to earth, and his trip to Europe may not reap the returns he hoped for.  Do we really want a rock star as President?  Obama's problem now is that many voters will see anything he says or does from this point forward as mere politics.  And that leaves them wondering how they can know who this guy really is.  I am not at all sure that McCain can capitalize on that, but he is still in the game.  Beyond that, I don't know what is going on. 

Grand New Party: A Review

Almost three years ago, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam penned "The Party of Sam's Club" for The Weekly Standard.  In that article Douthat and Salam argue that the key to success for the Republican Party is targeting the needs of the decent, thrifty working class, the kinds of people who shop at Sam's Club.  To do this, the GOP should adopt a series of proposals such as higher tax credits for families with children, promote a subsidy for parents who forgo work to care for children at home, offer wage subsidies for the working poor, and subsidizing private acquisition of health insurance (as opposed to state provided health insurance).  The authors provided in this essay a bold set of policy proposals that are government funded but relatively non-bureaucratic.  The goal is to ease the insecurity felt by the working class by providing them with the means to meet their needs without the bureaucracy that micromanages their lives. 

Douthat and Salam have expanded this article into a book, Grand New Party.  I am sorry to say that the book does not offer much that one cannot get in the article.  As is often the case when a widely read article becomes a book, there is too much filler and not enough substance to make the book worthwhile.  Grand New Party might be a fine paperback purchase, but save your money on the hard back and read the article linked above. 

Slightly over half of Grand New Party is a basic political history of the post New Deal America, especially concentrating on the collapse of the New Deal Democratic coalition in the late 1960s and the failure of Republicans to ever put together a persistent governing majority. The authors concentrate in this history on the ways in which the political parties responded to the working class.  While the information in this part of the book is nicely presented, students of American politics will find little here that is new.  Interestingly, though, Douthat and Salam agree with Prof. Blanchard's often stated belief that Bill Clinton was about as good of a Democratic president as Republicans could have ever hoped for. 

In an addition in the book from the article, Douthat and Salam argue that family breakdown has hit the working class much harder than the upper class.  While wealthy liberals often talk up "sexual liberation" and the virtues of divorce, they tend to live relatively conservatively, meaning they raise their children in stable homes with all of the benefits of two parents and sound income.  Family breakdown amongst the working class, though, opens them up to greater incidence of all sorts of social pathologies.  Controlling for all other factors, including income, children of single parents are more likely to commit crimes, use drugs, end up in jail, have children out of wedlock, suffer from depression and attempt suicide, drop out of school...you get the point.  Thus to help the working class, argue the authors, policy should concentrate on strengthening the working class family (thus all the tax breaks to kids).  While they seem to be on solid ground here, Douthat and Salam essentially replicate the argument put forth better and more thoroughly by Kay Hymowitz in Marriage and Caste in America, a fine book that is summed up in this City Journal article. 

It is only in the last 60 pages or so that the authors offer any policy proposals and these are largely (but not exclusively) found in the Weekly Standard article.  Conservatives will balk at the number of government programs advocated by Douthat and Salam, but in truth most of their proposals are meant to empower individuals at the expense of bureaucracies.  One wishes they would have pondered more the fiscal impact of their program, namely taking the time to think about how much money their program would cost versus how much it would save.  Government debt is one of the biggest issues facing our country, but the authors don't address the budget impact of their menu of proposals. Also, they do discuss many education reforms, but they seem oblivious to the fact that most of their education program would have to be passed state by state, if not school district by school district. For example, they believe budgets should be cut for large flagship state universities and spent on small universities with specific missions.  Well, that must be done state by state.  They think that we should re-introduce vocational training in high schools.  Again, that must be done state by state, or even district by district. 

Most controversially they advocate universal health care, but not statist health care.  They are fond of Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan that mandated health insurance, but provided the money for the purchase of private insurance.  They also think it'd be best if we actually paid more for health insurance out of our pockets as a way to fight overconsumption.  But the government should step in to help with extraordinary expenses (say, hospital bills over $50,000). 

If one desires a take on post-WWII American political history, a fine presentation of the crisis of the working class family, and some policy prescriptions to address that crisis this book is for you.  I happen to think one can find much of what they offer elsewhere, put just as well if not better and, frankly, without paying for the book.  One reason to buy the book, though, is that it may give some insight into the views of Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, the man who coined the term "Sam's Club Republicans."  He may become John McCain's running mate, so that makes Grand New Party slightly more relevant than it otherwise would be. 

Bush Lied

The American News prints my latest missive, glaring first sentence typo and all. 

Evil & Education in Lebanon

In a recent post I managed to include both The Joker from the current Batman film, and Samir Kuntar, a Palestinian terrorist recently released by the Israelis after 30 years in prison, in exchange for the corpses of two kidnapped Israeli soldiers.  On my Keloland site I got this note from intrepid and loyal reader, BB:

Ken, once again your ignorance is appalling. I just don't think that you have any clue concerning history or reality with what is happening in Israel. I am inclined to think that this is by choice. If you actually knew what was going on it would force you to reconsider your paradigms. I have continually chided you to seek education on the topic. I still do...please get educated!

Well, that was typical BB.  Lots of insults without any hint of what facts, exactly, I am ignorant about.  And then, without warning, BB actually sent me some facts to chew on. 

Here is a good place to start: http://www.btselem.org/English/ This is the Israeli Information Center. Be sure to check out the pdf file about the "separation wall" in the West Bank. This is what W was talking about when he referenced not being able to make a nation out of "swiss cheese."

Btselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, is a NGO that documents human rights violations by the Israelis against Palestinians.  I was in fact aware that such violations occur.  I notice the image on the homepage, which apparently documents an Israeli soldier shooting rubber bullets at a handcuffed Palestinian detainee.  That is surely a case of abuse.  And just as surely, one won't find a similar case on the other side.  We should praise Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Palestinian authority, I gather, because they never shot rubber bullets at anyone. 

But I suppose that, given the first post, BB thinks that the information provided by Btselem is germane to my comments on Kuntar, since that was my only point in that post.  Let's review what Kuntar is, and what it means that he has been received in Lebanon by Hezbollah as a national hero.   

He murdered an Israeli policeman.

He murdered Danny Haran in front of his four year old daughter, Einat.

He beat the little girl's brains out with a rifle butt.

Her mother, Smadar Haran, hid in a crawl space with her two year old daughter, and accidentally suffocated the child while trying to keep her quiet. 

Now I wonder, what are the facts of which I am ignorant, and which if I were only educated about them, would make me see that he is only an  innocent victim of an oppressive Israel?  What would lead to see him as a freedom fighter, a man to be celebrated by his people?  Here, my imagination fails me. 

I don't doubt that the Israelis have done a lot of bad things in their struggle for national survival. I don't doubt that an intelligent and decent person could be sympathetic  to the plight of the Palestinians.  But that wasn't what I was writing about in my recent post.  I wrote about Kuntar. And I discover from BB's information that the Israelis aren't picking up enough garbage in the occupied territories, and that water is scarce.  That is supposed to justify Kuntar's murders and his heroic status?  BB and I think differently. 

Kuntar's murders were pure evil.  No political considerations are relevant.  His elevation to rock star status in Lebanon on the basis of these deeds alone tells us that his evil was not some mere idiosyncrasy. That was my point.  It will stand, I think, against any education that BB can provide.   

Jindal?

Speculation amok that John McCain has selected Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate.

Update: Or, maybe not. 

A Proud Lesbian

According to Thucydides, it went down like this.  The island of Lesbos rebelled against the Athenian Empire.  The Athenians quickly subdued it, and then it was up to the popular assembly in Athens (you want to see real democracy?  This would be it!) to decide what to do with the rebellious islanders.  The assembly voted to kill all the adult males, and sell the women and children into slavery.  Frees up a lot of real estate.  A boat was sent out (powered by rowers) to inform the marines on Lesbos as to their duty.  But the next day a shrewd speaker convinced the assembly to reverse its vote.  So they sent out a second boat, with a reward promised to the rowers if they got there in time.  They did.  And so the Lesbians were saved.  The male Lesbians that is. 

Well, the Lesbians are revolting again.  At least one of them: "Dimitris Lambrou, editor-in-chief of the Greek monthly magazine O Davlos ("The Torch")." 

Lambrou filed a petition for a temporary injunction in an Athens court. He wanted to keep OLKE, Greece's gay and lesbian association, from continuing to use the word "lesbian." Lambrou himself was born on the island of Lesbos, the home of the poet Sappho, classical muse of all women who love women. Lambrou happens to love his native Lesbos. OLKE, he insists, has stolen the word "lesbian." Women from Lesbos are constantly confused with lesbian women, says Lambrou, who believes real Lesbians can only exist on Lesbos.

Lambrou and his actions were met with resounding applause, in Greece and around the world. Residents of Lesbos contacted him, offering their services as expert witnesses. He even received a call from Canada, from a man originally from Lesbos, who emigrated more than 30 years ago and insisted that he still suffers from the confusion.

Suddenly everything seemed possible. What if an island in the Aegean Sea manages to triumph over the entire world? What if lesbian is just a geographic designation, perhaps even a "brand," something that can be registered and protected?

I find it hard to have much sympathy for Mr. Lambrou's cause.  As indicated above, the ancient Greek poet Sapho lived on Lesbos.  She wrote love poems to other women.  I read her poetry in a Greek literature class back in the late seventies.  It was quite striking.  I still remember a single line: "lawn, darkened under roses."  When a line of poetry sticks with you for thirty years, well, it worked.  Because of Sapho, the word "Lesbian" becomes a term for women sexually attracted to other women.  That's the way language works.

On the other hand, he sorta has a point:

The matter was brought before an Athens court in early June. The gallery filled with residents of the island of Lesbos, along with homosexual men and women.

"My wife is a Lesbian, my daughter is a Lesbian and I am a Lesbian," Lambrou's [testimony] began, to laughter from the gallery.

"Do you hear those people laughing?" the witness asked the female judge. "All of Greece is laughing about it. And now you can imagine how we are treated abroad."

It's a rare man who can say all that! 

But here's the thing: the modern left has worked for decades to build a legal doctrine of proprietary ownership of images and words by indigenous peoples.  My original Alma Mater, Arkansas State University, used to have a football team called The Indians.  The team mascot looked a lot like Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians.  But Native Americans apparently own the idea of Native Americans, and so ASU dumped the "Indians" name, and now the team is called the Red Wolves.

I happen to think that this is very bad political strategy. We are now in the business of systematically erasing the most visible references to our Native heritage.  The cowboys and Indians movies are long gone.  The mascots are on the way out.  In a few decades, most American children won't know that there ever were such people as the Cherokee or Osage nations.  That is what the Left is achieving.  What Native American activists should have done was what everyone who owns a powerful brand name should: lease it out but keep it under control.  Team mascots could have been a vehicle for teaching about our Native heritage, and I say "our" because Americans are Americans, native or otherwise.  I am sure the reply would be: "we would never sell our heritage."  Fine.  Then someone will have to dig it up, a few centuries from now, and say all sorts of ridiculous things about it. 

But back to Mr. Lambrou, the Lesbians are an indigenous people if ever there was one.  If Native Americans own the word "Indians," surely residents of the island of Lesbos own the word "Lesbians."  But of course this isn't a case of taking the word away from a soft target like a state university.  Here it is a luminous body of the left that has stolen Lesbos' heritage.  So whom does the left side with?  I can't wait to see this one played out.

More Joker

I know I should be blogging on serious things, like Barack Obama in Afghanistan.  Bear with me for a minute.  Professor Schaff posted an excellent review of The Dark Knight just before I did.  I agree with almost all of it.  I am not quite sure I agree with this:

One of the few disappointments I have with the film going experience is the laughter some viewers had with the Joker, a character so obviously devoted to cruelty as a way of life. As I noted above, the Joker is amusing at times, but as the film develops his sadism is so clear that he is no longer an object worthy of laughter.  I think this error is on the part of some in the audience, not the film.

I don't believe for a moment that the audience was laughing with the Joker.  Oddly enough, laughter doesn't always mean that something is funny.  Sometimes it is a genuine reaction to something outrageously anomalous.  It is not unusual in movies for a villain to look down at the sword thrust into his torso (by the hero of course), and laugh.  The laugh just means that he can't quite believe what he is seeing.  The Joker's goofy behavior as he beats Batman with a crowbar, it made some of us laugh (myself included) because there just can't be such a creature as this.  And yet there he was. 

One of the brilliant touches in the movie is that the Joker offers us an explanation for himself.  He explains that, as a boy, he watched his father murder his mother.  And as a man, he made a great sacrifice for his wife (this explains his scars), which she repaid by hating him and abandoning him.  A few decades ago that would have sufficed for an explanation: he was abused and traumatized, so now he abuses.  But this not the Joker's view.  Life gave me lemons, look at the delicious lemonade I have made from them!  He is a sociopath to be certain, but it is not at all clear that he is insane.  He knows the difference between right and wrong, knows that death is death, etc.  He is just utterly uninhibited by such notions.  He kills without the slightest hesitation, and is perfectly free from any fear of his own death.  The Joker is an artist and an idealist, but his ideals are mayhem, misery, and death. That is what is so truly terrifying about him. 

All this is correct, in the context.  What justifies the superhero is the pure evil of the perfect supervillain.  But it's not, unfortunately, just fiction. There are people for whom the most brutal murder has become a high ideal. 

Consider this, from Slate:

In 1979 Samir Kuntar entered Israel on a boat from Lebanon and kidnapped a young father and his 4-year-old daughter. He shot the father, Danny Haran, to death in front of his daughter, Einat, then killed her by smashing her skull against a rock with a rifle-butt. Israel has just released him and others of his ilk, in exchange for the bodies of two of their soldiers. His return to Lebanon is a national holiday. The streets are filled with cheering. What a triumph for the terror organization Hezbollah, which all but controls Lebanon and has long been demanding Kuntar's return. In an excellent column on this, Mona Charen asks, "What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?"

Kuntar is the guy with the thick, black mustache.  A lot of commentary on The Dark Knight has focused on the similarities between the Joker's bombs and 9/11.  But it's one thing to blow up a building to achieve some political objective (wicked though that might be).  It's another to celebrate a man for beating a four year old child's brains out with a rifle. That is real murder of the most brutal sort, and apparently it represents a heroic act to a lot of Lebanese.  The Joker has at least one redeeming quality that all these new wave barbarians lack.  He doesn't really exist.