Friday, December 31, 2010

Conspiratorial

[Note: This interview was taped before the Christmas interview, but my transcription time being limited, I posted the time-sensitive one first- so pardon any detriment to timeliness]

B: I’ve been thinking about what you’ve said, both on our record and off, and I think you’re right. I’ve been focusing too much on policy and politics, and not being a politician, neither is my forte- or very insightful.

But I do have a unique place in at least two worlds our readers may not have a full grasp on, the spandex set and as a highly placed member of the business community. So what I’d like to do, then, is share my unique experiences, and how I feel they bear on what we’re talking about. In the spirit of that, you’ve at least given me the broad strokes of the conversation topics, so I can be somewhat prepared.

DI: Yep. Nice sum up and disclosure- though I can’t help but feel, since we’re talking about disclosure today, that you might have been inspired. But I want to discuss with you Wikileaks, though given that you’ve spent about a third of your life behind a mask, I have an inkling of where you fall on the issue of secrecy.

B: I think a few years ago, you might have been right. There was a time in my life when secrecy was everything to me. I kept my life compartmentalized; even the people who knew I was Batman didn’t know everything.

But I also don’t knee-jerk. I wouldn’t have lived long if I simply categorized the Joker as another sociopath and tried to walk up and punch him in the face. I’ve seen supposed journalists, your peers, refer to Julian Assange as an anarchist, and its possible somewhere in the breadth of his writings that he’s asserted such, but he doesn’t to my admittedly limited reading strike me as a let it burn kind of person. He’s not against government, he’s against the conspiratorial nature of current governments.

DI: And you agree with his assessment?

B: In the broad strokes it’s virtually impossible not to. I’ll get you a link for my references, but a full fifth of the defense budget is classified. That means if these black operations were all done concurrently, we wouldn’t know what the military was doing for ten weeks out of the year. And that’s expenditures. I don’t think it harms our military readiness for anyone to know what we spent on a bomber, or even the rough estimates of what we spend on infrastructure. Given that our military is conducting policy in our names, and on our dimes, I’d balk at the idea of not knowing about a fifth of their operations- at least after the fact- and this is just budgets we’re talking about.

At the very least, I think earlier declassification dates should exist; sensitive information like details of spending on sensitive research and development can have its classification renewed, but say, the procurement budget from 2006 wouldn’t be. That would let the American people know what that 16.6 billion dollars in the budget bought them, and whether or not they thought the money was well spent.

During the mid-nineties, the US classified about 150,000 documents annually. We’ve been cutting back from a high in 2004 of 350,000 documents, but we’re still well above the 90s level, and even that I would say is probably too high.

And in the broad strokes, that’s where I agree with Assange: that the people have a right, and even a necessity to know what’s going on. And that’s why the comparison to my time as Batman isn’t apt, either; I wasn’t spending anyone else’s money, I wasn’t risking anyone else’s lives or interests. I was making decisions, backed by people who agreed enough with me to put their eggs in my basket, so to speak.

Or if you prefer, I think Assange is worried about the same interests that Eisenhower warned against in his famous speech when he said: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

And I think it was because Eisenhower was a man of war, as well as being a sign of his times, that he saw the military aspect of business as the main threat to liberty, but I don’t think he was unmindful of the creep of other economic interests in the corridors of power. I think Assange, again, at least in the broad strokes, just wants to create the right atmosphere for that “alert and knowledgeable citizenry” to exist.

And I think on the opposite side the reaction by some politicians has been downright scary: speaking publicly about assassination and execution. The man could pretty fairly be described as a journalist- and that’s the first time I can remember US public figures calling for the death of journalists. But if you’re looking for a comparable experience I’ve had, and not just my opinions on it, I’d point to Luthor and his political ambitions.

DI: You did ideological battle with Lex Luthor during his term as President.

B: Not just ideological. No.

He unleashed a 7.6 earthquake on Gotham City. He lobbied the government, specifically FEMA, to declare the city a “no man’s land,” cut off from federal authority and assistance. The city descended into violent chaos, and apparently, it was all part of some long-con he had planned, to buy up real estate and corporations based in the city at pennies on the dollar. He perpetrated mass murder through technology to make a quick buck.

He tried to destroy me- not Batman, but Bruce Wayne- and very nearly succeeded. After he became President, he killed someone I cared about, and framed me for it. I briefly considered ‘killing’ Bruce Wayne and just becoming Batman full time.

And we waged economic war, pitting his vast empire against mine, at the conclusion of which I took control of all of his companies.

DI: It’s funny. Superman being from Metropolis, having a long, personal history with Luthor, you’d expect him to hate the man, but he didn’t. He was saddened, by what I think he saw as the loss of all the good Luthor could have potentially done. You, on the other hand, are a few seconds away from popping that throbbing vein in your forehead.

B: If Luthor shot Lois, and Maggie Sawyer, Clark might have the reasons I do.

DI: Uh…

B: Luthor hired David Cain to kill Vesper Fairchild, a reporter I’d been seeing- a woman I think I loved. And while he might not have shot Commissioner [James] Gordon’s wife himself, he all but put [Sarah] Essen in that room with the Joker.

DI: But then shouldn’t the blame for her murder fall to the Joker?

B: It does, and it doesn’t. If you put a rattlesnake in bed with an infant, do you blame the snake?

DI: I suppose not- or at least, there’s more to it than just the snake.

B: Exactly. But my overarching point isn’t just that Luthor’s corporation functioned easily as a criminal organization, but that it fit seamlessly in with the government of the United States. There wasn’t even a learning curve for him. Corporate interests are so embedded in the mindset of Washington that what’s good for business is often seen as what’s good for the country.

There is a little truth to that idea. Business creates jobs, which create prosperity for individuals. But when businesses, as they have been doing at least on the macroeconomic level for thirty years now, continue to siphon wealth from the lower classes, without sharing any of the increased productivity of the American people with those on whose back that productivity was gained- that’s when the idea that what’s good for business is good for the country becomes hollow.

DI: It sounds like Luthor shook your trust in government.

B: Trust, yes.

Most people assume their political leaders are criminals, morally if not technically. But I knew it. I could all but prove Luthor murdered Vesper… David Cain admitted as much to me. And all the while his poll numbers remained high.

I don’t expect the government to do what’s right just because it’s right- I don’t think I was ever that naïve. But I still think there’s a place for government. After all, Luthor didn’t become corrupt the day he was sworn in- he was corrupt long before. The only thing that changed was the scale of his corruption.

Government is like any organization. It has to be held accountable. If we want our government to do what’s right, if we want them to pursue our best interests, as a nation, rather than the best interests only of those with money and influence, we have to pay attention, and make noise when people do wrong.

DI: But you were a vigilante- the least kind of accountable.

B: I was. And maybe in that I was wrong. But I also don’t think I’d have been able to have the same impact working within the system, either. There are limits to what the system can do. So if you’re asking do I advocate non-governmental organizations, including businesses, to work towards the common good? Absolutely. That’s why I run a philanthropic organization that’s bigger than most companies. But I also believe the everyone has to work together. I worked with the police, and as far as possible I obeyed the rules of law.

The government, at least at the conceptual level, is we the people. We guide and shape our collective destiny. At its best, it gives us all an environment in which to thrive and prosper. The dangers of government are that it stops listening to us, that it begins to serve other masters, or worst of all, itself. The purpose of Wikileaks, then, is to make it harder to serve secretive agendas, and increases the cost of doing clandestine business. The more difficult it is to use government as a weapon, the less frequently it can happen.

I’m still not entirely sure Assange’s is the right approach. It’s a risky strategy, and I can see how it could have negative consequences. But ultimately he seems to want a government that can’t have its own priorities- that has to do the people’s work. And that at least is an idea I can get behind.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

For The Man Who Has Everything

DI: Okay, you brood too much.

B: So I’ve been told.

B: Well, to hopefully get you to stop brooding, I want you to tell me about your best Christmas.

B: No. Because there’s three that are important to me, for varying reasons, and at different times. So depending on what I’m missing in my life at that moment, each is special.

DI: Okay- I will not look in the mouth of this gifted horse.

B: The first Christmas I’d like to talk about happened when I was very young, before I’d even started school. My father said it had been a rough year at his practice, and an even rougher year for the family’s companies, that we’d have no money for Christmas presents. And at first I was devastated. A child that age, on Christmas, with no gifts. But my dad said he had something that was almost as good. “Cookies?” I asked. He shook his head. “Candy?”

“We’re going to help people,” he said. And I thought he’d lost his mind. But we took the family car down to a homeless shelter. Well, technically my father dropped my mother and I off, then walked across the street to a free clinic operated by dad’s colleague, Leslie Thompkins, that dad funded. And at first I was really pouty, and bratty, and I didn’t want to cut carrots or stir the stew, but my mother was a gentle woman, and she had a way about her, that even when I didn’t want to behave, I couldn’t cause her too much trouble, either.

And what I started to see, and realize, as I dished out the kind of questionable looking food, was just how grateful people were. They thanked me for every ladleful I spooned out, and wished me a merry Christmas. And when children ate their fill, and wanted seconds, their parents stopped them, so there would be enough for everyone, and instead fed their children from their own plates.

Spending time with people who had so little, but were so willing to share what they had, and to sacrifice, even as a small child I felt foolish for my selfishness. And I remember when it looked like we might run out of food demanding, rather self-righteously, that my mother buy more. I insisted she must have some money, as, “I’m owed an allowance.” Sure enough, she produced some bills, and sent Alfred and I to the store.

A little while later, I recognized my father beneath a fake white beard in a red suit handing out gifts to children at the shelter. I was still kid enough that everything in me wanted to ask him for one of the presents, but I’d learned a lot of humility that day, and I could see that Santa’s sack couldn’t have enough presents for everyone.

But, at the end of the day, presents were waiting for us back at our home. “It must have been Santa,” my father said, smiling beneath his moustache. I think I knew the truth, even then. But it started a tradition for us. Every year, on Christmas day, we worked with the poor, cooking meals, handing out presents. My father was a philanthropist, spending money all year long to help people, but giving, really giving back in person, it was different.

And it continued until the year my parents died. It was winter, snowing, I remember that. A lot of time had passed without me even knowing it. I didn’t even realize it was near Christmas, even though Alfred had put up a tree, until he shook me one morning and said, “Master Bruce, it’s Christmas, and they’re expecting us at the shelter.” I might have spent the rest of my life in that haze if it weren’t for Alfred. But getting back out into the world like that, seeing people, all the people who still needed help, whose lives hadn’t stopped with my parents’. That’s when I decided I needed to continue on my father’s work, and try and make sure no one ever lost their parents the way I lost mine.

DI: … You were a brat.

B: I was spoiled, but I like to think I learned. Maybe.

But I remember one Christmas, Clark, Diana and I decided to exchange gifts. I suspect it was Clark’s idea, believing as he did that I lacked companionship, and that Diana, being newly away from her sisters, so we could all use the company.

I brought Clark a new species of rose called the Krypton. Diana brought a crystal replica of a Kryptonian city fashioned by Themiscyra’s finest gem smiths. We met at his Fortress of Solitude. Diana was flying that invisible jet of hers, and Robin and I raced her in one of my batplanes. And won.

But inside the Fortress, Clark was catatonic. Attached to his chest was a writhing purple-hued thing, like a sea anemone. Are you at all familiar with Mongul?

DI: Er… big dude? Coast City…

B: Yeah. Large alien. Tough as hell. He was responsible for the destruction of Coast City, killing seven million people. On his worst day he was as powerful as Clark. And he was there.

I’ve never enjoyed feeling helpless, but against him, I was. And I was too much a fool to admit it. I reached for my utility belt, for the strongest explosives I carried. I would have thrown it at him, and probably been crushed into a paste by the first retaliatory punch he threw, but Robin grabbed my arm, and Diana launched herself at him.

She knew she was no match for Mongul, but with a single glance she told me that I had to get that thing off Clark or were all dead.

At first I tried everything I had with me, plastique, acids, even a flesh-eating bacterium, but the Black Mercy, as we came to learn it was called, healed too rapidly. Diana was losing her fight with Mongul. The sounds of bone on flesh are disturbing, but the two of them were so strong, so powerful, that while they’re the same sounds, they’re so much louder. I think Clark could hear them, even in the dream world he was in. And his eyes flicked open.

The Black Mercy gives a person their heart’s desire. Just that year Clark had found out about his Kryptonian parents, so more than anything he wanted to be back with them, to live out his life on Krypton. He was married in this dream, had a son. But the sounds of Diana’s pain, of violence, polluted his fantasy world. The planetary cataclysm that hadn’t destroyed Krypton began anew, he started fighting with his wife, and father. Even his people became embroiled in a war.

I don’t know how successful I was, but I talked to him, tried to reason him towards understanding where and how he was trapped, and how to break free. But I know, somehow, he did, and I’ll never forget the cry he let out as he tore the Black Mercy off his chest. Then he was gone.

When he wanted to be, when he needed to be, Clark could move faster than the human eye could perceive. In an instant he set upon Mongul. The violence of that first blow sent a shockwave through the Fortress that knocked me off my feet.

Unfortunately, I fell into the grip of the Black Mercy. And suddenly, I was there, the night my parents died. Every hair on my body stood up; I knew the moment so well, knew that it was seconds before my parents would die. Joe Chill was holding a gun, pointed at my parents, and then- my father slugged him, right across the jaw. Chill dropped the gun, but he gave him another anyway. He hit him, again and again, until Chill collapsed. It was the kind of savage, bloodless victory that happens in adventure movies and I thrilled at it.

And a whole, happy life flashed before my eyes, watching my parents grow old, have another son. They attended my graduation, and eventually, my wedding… and the birth of my son.

DI: Wait, who was the wife and mother?

B: Batwoman.

DI: But isn’t Batwoman a lesbian?

B: I didn’t know that at the time. And, you didn’t just out her, did you?

DI: I think she was pretty well outed when Us Weekly snapped pictures of her making out with the Question in the back of her car while they were on a stakeout.

B: My slightly convoluted fantasy of the moment aside, Robin talked me out of it, just as I’d done with Clark. As I emerged from the dream, I found myself back in that moment, before my parents’ murder, and as I pulled the Mercy loose, I had to watch, in slow motion, as the bullets tore through them.

And I watched as my dad, riddled with holes, rolled mom over and started to perform CPR, watched helplessly as Chill slunk up behind him, put the revolver to my dad’s head. He felt it there, I knew it, I saw it in his eyes, but he couldn’t stop trying to keep mom alive- until another bullet killed him. I don’t know if that ever happened, or if the Mercy elaborated it into the memory, but I froze there a moment, unable to look away, unable to think of anything but their death as it happened again before my eyes.

And by the time I’d come to, Clark and Diana were fighting Mongul in the armory. I ran there as fast as I could. I understood Clark’s rage, and I took up a pair of gauntlets. I hopped onto Mongul’s back and just started pummeling him. I nearly broke both my hands on his face. I was crying-

DI: Ooh, like that scene in A Christmas Story when Ralphie beats the crap out of Scott Farkus.

B: Tears were streaming down my cheeks. I’ve never been more conflicted in my entire life. I saw my life as it could have been, and got to be with my parents again. But removing the Mercy from my chest killed them again- in my mind, if only for a moment, I murdered my own parents to be free. The Black Mercy’s vision was a gift, both horrible and beautiful.

Of course, this was Mongul, so no matter how hard I hit him, even in those Kryptonian gloves, he laughed it off. Mongul may have killed us all, except Robin managed to fling the Mercy onto him. He stopped moving, and a smile crept over his face as he dreamed of interplanetary genocide.

DI: That’s… creepy.

B: After that we sat down to dinner, and exchanged gifts.

DI: Just out of curiosity, what did you get for Wonder Woman?

B: I donated a substantial amount of money to a charity fund for her. She’s proven to be an excellent philanthropist.

DI: So you gave her money to give to other people? That’s…

B: The only thing Diana could ever want. Her stipend, as ambassador from the Amazons, more than covers her needs. But the one thing she can never have enough of us helping people. It’s the reason we were easy friends, and I think the most important point of mutual attraction.

DI: That is a story you will one day have to tell.

B: But not today. Today we’re talking about Christmas, and the last is actually last Christmas. This was after I’d finally decided to stop being Batman. I sat down to dinner with Alfred, and my two adopted sons, Dick and Tim. Try as I might, I couldn’t convince Alfred to hire a caterer or even go out to dinner, so he cooked, and when he wasn’t looking we’d try to help, which he said meant dinner took twice as long because he had to redo many, many things.

But sitting down to dinner, with the three of them, it was the first time, I think that we all celebrated Christmas together, though maybe it wasn’t. Regardless, it was the first time I really felt that, since my parents died, my family was complete.

And I don’t know if you’ve ever experienced a broken home

DI: Don’t patronize me; you know everything from my instep to my credit score.

B: Okay, your parents divorced, I know that. But not all divorced homes are broken. I didn’t want to presume. But you know the old adage, that you can’t go home again? It’s largely true. But that doesn’t mean you have to be alone, and I wasn’t anymore.

DI: Okay, by my count that’s three and a half Christmases, or maybe two whole ones and then some chunks of other Christmases, but I appreciate you sharing.

B: It’s a time of the year I genuinely enjoy. A chance to spend time with people you care for, and an excuse to make the world a little better. We could use more of those.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Death and Taxes

DI: I’m still trying to find a good balance for these interviews, so I’d like to talk to you about two things, one personal, one political, both inevitable: death and taxes. What do you think of the new compromise reached by the President and the Republican leadership?

B: It’s… not as bad as I expected.

DI: Damnit. I was hoping for a “No, sir, I don’t like it” Ren and Stimpy quote. You know, the horse who tests out cat litter? Don’t stare at me like I’ve just escaped Arkham Asylum. Explain your response a little more fully.

B: Well, I think they do some things right. A temporary extension of the tax cuts, to help stimulate the economy is not a terrible idea- though as Krugman notes the multiplier isn’t great there. The unemployment benefit extension is good- though how they could trade two years of tax cuts for a thirteen week extension is beyond me- someone isn’t very good at math. And they managed a payroll tax holiday, which I had pretty much given up on. Practically speaking, it’s a stealth stimulus, put on the nation’s tab- only this time you won’t hear Republicans screaming about it because it gets them their precious upper-income tax cuts.

DI: You don’t sound particularly enthusiastic- particularly for someone who’s just been told they’re getting millions of extra dollars next year.

B: I’m not. It’s a stimulus, sort of, but it’s not a particularly well designed or implemented one. The unemployment benefits, easily the best part of the package, won’t last long enough to get the job done, and the rest of it is largely money spent that shouldn’t have been. Even the payroll tax holiday isn’t big enough at 2 percent. It could have been 3. It should have been 5, or even the whole 6.2 percent. That’s money the American people would notice- and spend. Median household income is $50,000, so ballpark a week’s wages at $1,000. A 2 percent payroll tax holiday is $20 bucks more a week; 5 percent would have been $50.

DI: Okay, cool, now shut up about politics. We’re on to death: you have AIDS. We’ve mostly been sidetracked for a long time, but I wanted to get that back into the fore. You’re dying. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But sooner than maybe otherwise. Have you read White Noise?

B: Yes. Have you?

DI: I… perused the SparkNotes.

B: It’s not particularly applicable. I don’t really fear death- at least um, I’m not preoccupied with it the way that that novel is, or DeLilo, or Becker, whom the author relies upon heavily.

DI: Because not all of us went to Harvard, or wherever-

B: You ooze journalistic integrity-

DI: could you sum up for us Becker.

B: He’s most famous for The Denial of Death. It was a book theorizing that society is largely based around an attempt to refute our mortality. It’s sort of the polar opposite of the Freudian obsession with procreation, and by extension, the creation of life. Both have some points that they make, and I think both are a useful study in fixations- because I don’t think being too focused on life or death is helpful when there’s work to be done.

DI: But your work, and I’ll include your time in the underpants brigade as well as your philanthropy, isn’t that a way of combating death? I mean, you’ve discussed how your parents died pointlessly in an alley. That’s got to be one of the more brutal confrontations with mortality that exists.

B: That’s true. When I was young, my parents’ death weighed heavily on me. Life was fleeting- and the fragility of it made life at the same time more and less valuable to me. That’s why I was willing to put my own life in danger to protect other people. And at the same time, I think having that purpose gave my own life more value.

DI: And most importantly, you were cheating death.

B: Only slightly. There’s only a handful of times where I’d say I cheated death. Mostly, I studied death, came to know it intimately, and learned how to skirt the edges of its territory without trespassing.

DI: That sounds awfully purple.

B: Maybe. But what I’m getting at is that it isn’t cheating death knowing that an untrained criminal with a gun will panic and fire wildly, that the slightest distractions and misdirection can turn a decent threat into a quivering puddle. I played the percentages, that’s all. There were a few times where, say, a ricochet took an ear off my cowl, instances like that, where the devil may have been due, but cheating, no.

DI: But philosophically. Every life you saved, was a life snatched away from death, added to your tally, added to your mythos. You could be hit by a truck tomorrow- probably the least climactic death possible- and the world would remember you for years.

B: I hope not. I’m leaving my fortune to my sons, Tim and Dick. I’m leaving my costumed legacy in the hands of others, who I think in time are capable of so fully eclipsing my accomplishments that I’ll be lost to time. At least, that’s what I hope.

I’ve fought death, I think you can say that. But I’ve also always known you can’t win. Just this last year, losing Clark, that became that much truer in my eyes. If even Superman can’t escape death, what chance would I have?

But like you said. I’m not dying today. I’m not dying tomorrow. I may not even die from this- there’s a very real possibility that I’ll live long enough for a substantive medical breakthrough, or at least to be killed by something more conventional. Like a clot from any number of old bone breaks dislodging and catching in my brain or heart. Or a plane crash.

I think for me death was always an adversary, from the day my parents died, always on the opposite side of a chess board. And I relished every time I could take away one of his pawns, and I mourned my every failure. But I think I’ve always known that at the end of the game, no matter how well I did, death and I were walking away together.

DI: Do you think in death you’ll be reunited with your parents?

B: I don’t know; I don’t think I think so. But I hope so.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Movies

DI: First off, I want to say holy crap, we've actually been keeping this up regularly. I was beginning to think we didn't have it in us- and by we I mostly mean you, since I did this last year without issue.

But you and I have had this bad habit of focusing, almost myopically, on political stuff. It’s Lex Luthor, really impacting the world kind of stuff, I know, but man, sometimes it’s just the worst combination of depressive and boring. I was talking to Lois the other day- don’t give me that look, I know it’s weird that we keep in touch, but it’s entirely journalistic courtesy, I’m not looking to poach widows- though I suppose I should be flattered you think I could even attempt to compete.

B: Don’t be. You couldn’t.

DI: Harsh. But expected.

Anyway, I was speaking with Lois the other day, deep background kind of thing

B: Doesn’t that mean you’re not supposed to tell me your information is from her?

DI: Well… your bat ears are stupid.

B: Touché.

DI: But she mentioned that you used to tease Clark because, well, your movies did better than his.

B: Yeah, though only because, for whatever reason, it seemed to matter to him. I think it had to do with the odd messiah complex people try to build around him. Clark just wanted to help people, simple as that. He could, so he did. Nothing complex or psychological about it.

DI: So the fact that his planet was destroyed and there was nothing he could do about it, and the fact that as an adult on Earth he had the ability to save his adopted homeworld- nothing Freudian there at all?

B: Perhaps it influenced him, but that was in the background. Losing his planet, losing his parents, when he did, it barely affected him; he was a baby. His parents for most of his life were just the ones living in Kansas. By the time he found out about his birth parents, it was comparable to finding out he’d had grandparents he didn’t remember, who he used to stay with, who held him. I don’t mean to minimize the tragedy- just it’s place in his… psychology isn’t as grand as your framing would have it.

DI: Or, in other words, the death of his parents didn’t have the same kind of impact as yours.

B: Maybe; I know it didn’t have the same impact as losing his adopted father did. Clark absolutely missed and loved his birth parents. But it was an old, healed loss by the time he recognized it was there.

DI: But wasn’t that one of the things you and he bonded over through the years?

B: Not really, for the same reasons I’ve just mentioned. For Clark, his parents were in Kansas. For me, my parents are in the ground. His having a set of dead back-up parents didn’t really square that circle.

Some of it comes from the way he was raised, but honestly, having spent some time with his parents, having seen where their philosophies and his clashed, I can say pretty certainly that it’s just who Clark was. In a better world, he would have spent all that extra energy just helping little old ladies cross the street; in the damaged world we have, populated by the damaged people we have, being Superman was the equivalent.

DI: Damnit, I’m the journalist, I’m supposed to be keeping us on track. We were talking about your movies. So, batarang to your head, who’s the better director, Chris Nolan or Bryan Singer?

B: You know, they’ve both got their talents, their wheelhouses. I think Nolan’s a very solid filmmaker, and that in and of itself is a rare thing. But Singer’s no slouch, either. I think, really, their varied success came from divergent ideas, or maybe converging ideas from different perspectives.

Nolan took me, a normal man without powers, and pretends I’m more powerful than I am to emphasize my humanity. Singer took Clark, a normal man whose powers are godly, and tried to make him more human. I think the problem was in Singer’s initial assessment: that Clark’s abilities somehow made him more “other” than human. I’ve said it before, but Clark was, bar no one I’ve ever met, the most human person I’ve ever known.

I think if Clark had ever met him, he’d probably have recognized that right away. So I guess, the main point of distinction that I’d make is that while both men judged us oddly, Nolan was closer enough to the mark that his version of me was at least a little less disjointed. Singer’s construction of Clark as a messianic deadbeat dad, which I think is mixing your Christ and deic metaphors, was just odd.

DI: Have you had any input into Nolan’s movies?

B: Honestly, I stay the hell away from Chris Nolan. I don’t want a thing to do with his movies.

DI: So you’re not flattered, or whatever.

B: I just don’t want to have a part in them. On the one hand, playing an advisory role, say, would give them greater weight than they deserve. Because I’m not, contrary occasionally to my own musings, that important. There are literally hundreds of people who do what I do. And I might be a little older than most, I may have beaten most of them to the punch, but I don’t feel like I’m any more extraordinary or deserving than they are.

DI: But don’t you think telling a good story could help humanize them? Maybe get people to recognize and better appreciate the sacrifices that people have given for the greater good?

B: If I thought, for an instant, that a movie about me was going to do that, sure. But I think that idea is a contradiction in terms. A movie about me, or about Batman, misses the point. A movie about the League, I think, would be closer to telling a story, true or otherwise, about the people who really keep the world safe, and how collectively they’re able to accomplish far more than a man in black skulking in an alley alone.

DI: I get, from you and from Clark, the same kind of reverence for your fellow Leaguers as most people have for military service people.

B: They’re absolutely comparable. We come to these lifestyles from a lot of divergent paths, but the bottom line is that each and every one of us is willing to put ourselves between harm and innocent people. I can’t begin to describe how noble I consider those who have served with the League to be.

And not to speak ill of the dead, but the less like Superman they were, the more I respect them. Clark could stand in front of a bullet train without fear, but a good portion of our members are as human as you or I. They’re exceptionally well trained, skilled, and smart- but mortal. They accept mortal peril on a daily basis. They absolutely deserve the same kind of respect soldiers deserve.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Balancing Act

DI: Okay, you emailed me this, but I’ll let you introduce it however you want. So go nuts.

B: Some people have called me a deficit hawk, and I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I think my business experience has taught me that the books need to be balanced, but I’m also schooled enough in economics to know that governments don’t operate the way a business does, they actually operate more like an individual. What I mean by that is that most people go through phases in their spending, where they’ll spend more than they make and go into debt, or make more than they spend and squirrel some of it away. The only real difference is that when our government takes in more than it spends there’s this odd urge to give the money back to the taxpayers. If we had already paid down the debt, and it looked like we could safely reduce revenues to a lower level commensurate with spending, that makes sense, but giving back money when we still have this large debt would be like Visa handing you back your monthly payment and saying, “no, you spend it on something else- we’ll just keep charging the interest.”

But the whole reason I even mention any of this is I got a chance to balance the budget. No, the Obama administration wasn’t offering me a job; the New York Times put together a little game that illustrates the deficit. You have to make budget decisions, and it explains to you the impacts of the cuts you’re making. And it’s really kind of agonizing, some of the decisions you end up making, because there are all kinds of things that in a perfect world we wouldn’t be looking at cutting, but that in the context of trying to balance the budget may be necessary. I’m probably underselling how amazing this actually is, but I would entreat everyone to give it a try:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?hp

Though I should emphasize that tightening our belts, right this second, is probably a bad idea. Our economy is actually recovering right now, but the impact of government cuts that have already taken place have made it almost a zero sum game. Further cuts may very well cripple an economy that’s still hobbling.

DI: Very nice. And it is enlightening- and a little depressing, too. But I have journalistic things. And I really do hate to ask- because I hate to give Glenn Beck’s existence any acknowledgement whatsoever- but just a few weeks ago you distanced yourself from George Soros, and Beck seems to have taken an eager swipe at the man.

B: Yeah. Chills my blood to be even in the same neighborhood as Beck, but I’ll try and explain myself. Geoge, and I think I’ve known him long enough to call him George, is a great guy. He’s a fighter, going back decades. He’s spent billions of dollars funding anti-Communist efforts in the Soviet bloc, in large part because his family survived first the Nazis and then the Russians. He has a visceral dislike of authoritarian governments, and unlike some he really puts his money where his passion is. And I have a lot of respect for George, I really do. But he’s been associated with liberal causes for a long time and for that he gets written off, as if he does these things without deep and contemplative thought. He doesn’t- and I was saying I don’t want to be written off as a knee-jerk liberal, either.

I believe in a strong government that does certain things well for its citizens, and that if we’re going to have that government we’ll have to pay for it through taxes. Some people want a weaker government, or smaller, if you prefer that terminology- and that’s a possibility, too. The size and mission of the government is something we have to compromise on, because we can’t all get what we want, obviously. I think I’m realistic in that, not ideological. And I don’t want people to write me off because I know we need to have those conversations, in order to forge those compromises; otherwise we all suffer.

DI: I particularly liked the New Yorker takedown of Beck’s comments- the New Yorker being appropriate, since it was quotes from an old New Yorker piece that Beck repeatedly misrepresented- not that I regularly read the New Yorker, as I’m no effete East Coast liberal.

B: Careful- I am an effete East Coast liberal.

DI: Who would have given Bruce Lee a run for his money in his day.

B: No- not even close. Lady Shiva might have, on one of her better days. But what people forget about Bruce Lee is the man spent hours every day training. I’m in excellent shape, but I spent as much or more of my time on studies, on running my companies, on so many other things. Bruce Lee would have beat the holy hell out of me- though I think Kareem Abdul-Jabbar might be in my wheelhouse.

DI: So you’ve fought freakishly tall and long-limbed martial artists?

B: On occasion. I’d cheat, mind you. A fair fight with someone like that is just asking to get a size 16 foot in the eye.

DI: Oh my God- I’m going to Google that later, but did you just pull the man’s shoe size out of thin air?

B: I have a mind for details- not quite a photographic memory, but about 93% recall.

DI: Hmm. Damnit. I meant to steer the conversation away from politics; I know that’s a lot of where your mind is, these days- I think because you’ve had to step back from the chief way you tried to impact the world, and now you’re groping for new ways to be useful.

But I’m as much if not more interested in you and your past exploits. I think it’s a balancing act, there- and so far I’ve been failing. Next week, though, we’ll be back and hopefully better at it.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Fear

DI: Okay, it’s Halloween, or it was, at this point. What did you go as?

B: Rainbow Batman.

DI: Little on the nose, don’t you think?

B: Only if I was being serious.

DI: Fair enough. But given the season, I wanted to know, given a life of doing dangerous, reckless and occasionally heroic things involving lunatics, what was your scariest moment?

B: Hmm. There’s been a lot of them, like you say. Crazy and horrifying well describe my world for the last thirty years.

And for the same reason that people say that most shrinks got into the field to understand themselves or the crazy people in their lives, I think crazy people, really truly violent psychotics I mean, have an obsession with abnormal psychology, too.

Examples litter my career, like the Joker trying to prove to Commissioner Gordon that the world wasn’t sane by driving him clinically insane. And I’ve been trapped, by various means, in dream worlds where everything was how I thought I wanted it, only to have it fall apart.

But the one that got the deepest under my skin I think was largely accidental. Jonathan Crane, who you may know better under the alias of the Scarecrow, was a psychologist. He specialized in phobias, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t trained in all aspects of the clinical practice.

And he became obsessively convinced that Batman and by extension the man beneath the cowl had to be crazy. I don’t know entirely if I’d argue the point- particularly not at the time.

But he put together an old failing of mine. A girl was kidnapped, and the ransom paid, but as often happens with kidnappings, they had no intention of letting the girl go. I tracked her into the sewers, where she was trapped. The water in the tunnel was rising. There was a boulder preventing me from freeing her, at least 300 pounds of dead weight. And I couldn’t move it; I couldn’t even budge it. I had to watch as this girl, five years old, drown.

I didn’t take that… failure, lightly. I embarked on a pretty brutal training regimen- but I still couldn’t build enough bulk. Faced with the possibility- really probability- that something like that would happen again, I started taking a performance enhancing drug called Venom-

DI: The same stuff that makes Bane into the meat mountain he is [ed. note: “meat mountain” does indeed sound like a porno- it isn’t just you].

B: Right, only this was years before Bane showed up. Anyway, like steroids, there were consequences to taking the drug, including rages. I’ve got anger issues on my best day, but I became truly frightening- and eventually I realized I was terrified of what I might do- that there was very real potential that on Venom I would be capable of doing far worse than what I might fail to do without the drug- and quit. Crane pieced together that situation, or at least enough of it, and used it.

He set a trap for me, captured me. I woke up in the old meatpacking plant, in one of the freezers. He told me he’d captured both me and Robin; this was also after the death of my second Robin- after I nearly beat the Joker to death for it. So I was keenly aware of their potential mortality.

I was drugged, hypnotized; later analysis showed the cocktail he used included hallucinogens, Venom, and a mix of drugs designed to make a patient more pliant. Crane told me there was a woman on the floor with me, and that if I didn’t kill her, he had henchmen in a second room watching via teleconference who would shoot Robin.

For hours he beat me, and taunted me, and threatened; every five minutes he’d start a timer and tell me at the end that if I hadn’t killed her that he’d give the order for them to shoot Robin, and just as the timer was about to go off he’d wind it back. The drugs probably kept me from recognizing his bluff, and every single time I thought it was going to happen- several times I watched it all unfold in slow motion, the gun firing, and I’d flash back to my parents and I was that same scared kid, and I’d watch the bullet fly through the air and tear through Robin’s face and skull- only to realize I was hallucinating. I wanted more than anything to murder the girl, then Crane, and then his stooges if they’d hurt Robin- and maybe even if they hadn’t- and anyone else I needed to protect people I cared about. But I couldn’t. I couldn’t. Eventually I passed out.

When I woke up I managed to head butt Crane as he was trying to put me back into a hypnotic state. I crawled over the floor to where the woman was. The hallucinogens had worn off enough that I could see her for what she really was: a bloodhound in an evening gown and a wig.

A gunshot rang out, and I ran out of the freezer and fumbled my way through the Scarecrow’s henchmen- they were rent-a-thugs, or I might have been in serious trouble. They’d been in a freezer next to me the entire time, and it’s door was open. “Robin” was a Raggedy Andy in a bad Halloween costume; the colors weren’t even right.

I stalked back into the other freezer, sobering with every step, and I realized I’d overcome what had terrified me before: the idea that I was so crippled by a fear of failure that there was no limit on what I might be capable of. I picked Crane up off the floor by his collar. “You’re going to hit me, aren’t you?” he asked sullenly.

But I hugged him. It was such a relief, of such a great burden. I couldn’t even express how wonderful it was not to have it hanging over my head anymore. Then I punched him for a while. Some of that might have been the drugs.

DI: Just so we’re clear, here, you were celebrating your ability to ignore the violent murder of a teenager. That might be the scariest thing about that story.

B: You know you have an uncanny ability to cut through whatever emotions have built up by being a dick. I think you’re beginning to grow on me.

DI: I want you to know, if you’re making an erection joke I’ll have to bleep it out.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Losers

Losers

DI: You lost.

B: The Democrats lost. I’m a liberal, and it’s certainly a blow to hopes for any kind of a liberal agenda, but honestly the liberal agenda in this country’s been a little haphazard.

I see a potential for hope- or maybe it’s just a silver lining I’m picking out of a cloudy sky. But the country needs two things; there are a lot of things we want and that we’d like, but for the country to continue to exist and thrive, it needs two things. In the short term, we need a stronger economy; in the long term, we need fiscal solvency.

Being a Keynesian, I think spending is the answer.

What’s strange about that is that cutting taxes without trimming spending is actually another form of government spending- it’s in fact raising future taxes. We can argue over the best ways to spend, but I think economic modeling pretty effectively shows where this kind of spending is most effective.

Lower income people are largely more likely to spend new money, because their immediate needs are likely more salient. If the government cuts me a check for a quarter of a million dollars, it goes right into my piggy bank, because I’ve already bought basically everything I want or need, and you can generalize this, statistically. The top 10% of earners take home 50% of the money, but account for only 20% of consumption.

I think a payroll tax holiday is the best of all possible solutions. And because of our trickle up economy, the wealthy will gain too, because their companies will sell more products, their stocks will do better; even property values will rebound somewhat.

I think now is the best possible time for it. Congress could pass the holiday in time for the holiday splurges; the fact that it’s passing out of a Democratically controlled Congress would marginally benefit them, but the recovery would largely happen with a divided government- and Republicans being the superior salespeople, I have no doubt they’d get at least their fair share of the kudos.

But that’s why I think it has the best chance of getting passed, and that’s only one factor. I also think that it has the best chance of having long-term benefits, too.

As an alternative, I think Jon Stewart had an excellent idea. Basically, if people are overly concerned with the proportion of their debt, the federal government can bail out the American people. Basically, figure out the average debt per person, and cut everybody a check. If you’ve overspent, you can regain peace of mind which would help the economy by both injecting further capital into the banks and rejoining the consuming portion of the economy. If you don’t have any debts, then you get a big wad of cash for a down payment on a car or a home or to throw into the stock market. The only two caveats, really, are that you’d want to prohibit people from squirreling away more than 10% of it in savings, and that it’s complicated enough as to be virtually unfeasible. But it’s still an interesting idea.

DI: But we’d be federalizing debt, and basically borrowing from ourselves in the future.

B: But that’s what debt always does. Except this time we’d all benefit, and in this particular case, it’s important to include in your calculus the fact that our economy is depressed. A depressed economy is less productive- so we’re losing out on all the productivity that our economy is not making use of. So even though such a measure would certainly cost money, as long as the effects on the economy were positive enough that our economy recovered faster, there’s a good chance we’d make up whatever it cost for those stimulating funds in the first place. Last year tax revenue was a full $600 billion dollars short of what it would have been without the recession. If another stimulus cost us say $1.8 trillion, but we got back to booming three years earlier, then the net cost of the stimulus would be zero. And right now our recession resembles the Japanese recession, which lasted a full decade, so the odds of us coming out ahead on such a transaction are pretty good.

And even if our government ended up losing a little money in the long run, isn’t it worth it to get unemployment down? Obviously the degree is important. $1 trillion for a .1% decline in unemployment isn’t acceptable, but there’s a sweet spot where the cost of intervention is justified.

DI: We’ve talked about Paul Krugman a bit, off the record, but there was an item in his blog I wanted to ask about. Republicans have stated their intention to put global warming science, and particularly the recent “scandals” through the testimonial ringer. Thoughts?

B: I imagine they won’t. Because what most climate deniers, at least in the professional arena, know but don’t want their constituents to know is that they’re full of crap. The science is about as tight as any other science right now. The supposed scandals involve, at best, professional secrecy, and the reasoning for it is pretty understandable. You know how people say that statistics can mean almost anything? It doesn’t mean that truth is fungible, or that there aren’t any abstract, measurable facts, but that through statistics you can obscure the truth. The scientists involved were reticent to disclose all of their raw data because raw data can be misused by people with an economic or philosophical agenda. That’s it. Nothing sinister about it.

DI: And we would be remiss if we didn’t at least mention the Deficit Commission.

B: God. I can’t imagine why the commission was staffed the way it is. Its co-chairs are a small-government Republican and a Wall Street executive; predictably the commission’s suggestions consist almost exclusively of tax cuts for wealthy and corporate interests, and spending cuts for everyone else, including cuts in Social Security, Medicare and even defense. Deficit reduction is absolutely an important and serious issue, but if we’re going to pay back our debt, we all have to share the burden. It might mean the rich pay more in taxes, it might mean that some people see a reduction in benefits, but we can’t, as responsible citizens, expect somebody else to bear the brunt.

My taxes should increase. As a multibillionaire, I have a lower effective tax rate than anyone in my entire company; even the custodial staff pay a higher proportional tax rate than I do. That’s because everyone pays about a 15% tax rate for Social Security and Medicare only on the first $100,000. I pay 37% in federal income taxes from my salary, which is modest for a CEO, and only 15% from capital gains, which is where most of my income comes from. Even if the capital gains tax goes back to 28%, I’d still have an effective tax rate equal to someone earning $80,000 a year. And that’s stupid. I can afford higher tax rates because of my affluence. Someone earning that much is certainly better off than someone earning $25,000 or even $50,000, and their tax bracket should reflect that, but when I bring home degrees of magnitude more money annually it doesn’t make sense that I would be paying a lower tax rate.

DI: What do you think about the proposed increase in the retirement age?

B: Apparently, since the 70s, life expectancy for most workers has increased by a year, and if everyone is living a year longer, then delaying Social Security benefits by a year makes a certain degree of sense- especially if it helps stave off benefit cuts. It’s all a delicate balancing act. To create a responsible budget, it’s highly likely that we’ll have to endure some pain, but hopefully when we get to the light at the end of the tunnel we can do better; sharing our triumphs as well as our torments is what makes us a society- it’s what keeps us human.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

As You Go

B: I take heat, from time to time, for being a partisan. Let me be clear: I’m not a Democrat because I like wearing a sweater with a triumphant donkey on it, or because I’m drawn naturally to blue bumper stickers. I’m a Democrat because I fall into the liberal half of the political spectrum, and for liberal policies the Democrats are the only horse (or donkey) in town.

But if I’m honest, I’m more liberal than the Democrats. I don’t blindly follow whatever the party says, because I often think they don’t go far enough. As an example, the best way to wring the remaining wasted money out of the healthcare bureaucracy would have been a single payer system. The Democrats might be the liberal party in our system- but they’re realistically only center-left on the spectrum. I wanted to say all that because I know people take whatever I say with a grain of salt, and I don’t want to be written off as a younger George Soros.

I don’t stump for any particular party; I want what’s best for the country. You, and I’m talking to the interviewer here, not those of you reading at home (or at work)- but I think you do, too. I think most Democrats in office this last couple of years have, as well. Honestly, that’s why, even when health care reform was unpopular- largely because of a campaign of misinformation by the opposition- they passed it. Not because they’re arrogant, but because they thought it was the best thing to do for the country.

Republicans, if you want a point of contrast, refused to participate in crafting the bill at all. Their strategy for the past two years has been to stall the legislative process on everything; if at the end of two years you can claim your opponents haven’t accomplished anything, great- if you can claim they’ve been partisan and hardly accomplished anything, even better. Tactically, their plan was sound.

But by and large I think most of us don’t vote for a party or its agenda- and certainly not for what’s solely in their best interest- but because we want our country to be great. We can have honest disagreements about what that means, about philosophies that differ on what are the best ways to help the economy or the vulnerable. But those conversations are a necessary part of the process of our country finding its way- and without those conversations, the process falls apart.

Specifically, I wanted to talk about a particular proposal. During the Clinton administration, one reason the budget was balanced was a 1990 reform called “Paygo.” New spending or tax cuts had to be offset by higher taxes or spending cuts- any changes had to be budget neutral. In 2001 “Paygo” ended, and massive deficits boomed. When they retook control of the Congress, Democrats reinstituted pay as you go rules. But the current House Minority Leader, John Boehner

DI: Aw, come on, you didn’t pronounce it “boner”

B: Boehner has proposed a “Cutgo” reform, where new spending would have to be compensated for with spending cuts. However, there is no proviso for cutting taxes- so things like extending the Bush tax cuts, at a cost of $370 billion dollars a year, could be done without cutting the budget at all. And the “Pledge to America” includes other tax cut proposals, too.

This is dangerous. It paves the way for still higher deficits by masking the intention to cut revenue without cutting expenses. It’s reckless.

DI: Let me advocate for devilmancy, here. Aren’t the Democrats in favor of extending some of the tax cuts, and aren’t they also responsible for the deficits?

B: Democrats do want to extend some of the tax cuts, that’s true, and something I’m against- whether or not we’re talking about an income group I fall into.

But we’ve had deficits most years going back to Reagan, but the increases began in 2009, the last year George W. Bush’s presided over the budget. The deficit was forecast at $400 billion dollars, an increase over the previous year, but a moderate one. Then the economy tanked, and federal receipts were $600 billion dollars less than expected, bringing revenue below 2005 levels; the economy bottoming out also increased the number of the unemployed and the poverty of the destitute, accounting for most of the rest of the increase in the deficit. 2010 receipts are expected to be on par with 2005- estimated to within 8 billion dollars of each other, and the deficit is expected to remain relatively static year over year. Mandatory spending, covering programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment, is about equal to total federal revenue for this year, leaving non-discretionary spending in the cold (a full half of which is gobbled up by Defense).

Some of 2010’s weaker receipts reflect the poor economy, but $300 billion came from tax cuts buried in the reviled stimulus bill- that’s what the President means when he says he’s cut people’s taxes. And T.A.R.P., unpopularly known as the bailouts, was a bipartisan law, approved by three-quarters of Democrats and half of Republicans, and endorsed and signed into law by Bush. It’s also expected to turn a modest profit, once all the loans are repaid. These two measures together are a large part of the reason why business profits are up 62% from the start of 2009 to the middle of 2010. The economy is righting itself- though I understand how meaningless that is for someone who’s out of work. These facts are often obscured by a political conversation focused on spin and blame, but there aren’t two Americas: there’s one. We are united states, a united people, and it’s our debt, and our future at stake.

Some of our conflict stems from opposing views, but that’s why it’s so important to find avenues where we can work with our ideological opponents. In times of economic stagnation, Democrats might favor stimulative policies like those suggested by John Maynard Keynes. The opposing side usually follows the philosophy of Milton Friedman, and policies similar to the lassaiz-faire strategy associated with Hoover during the Great Depression- (though it’s a bit unfair to that President, who was far from a theoretical purist and did try a few mixed measures). Whether or not government spending can stimulate an economy might still be an open question, but the evidence to me points to potential, and I sense there’s a desire from most Americans for the government to help. And deciding on the best course is a conversation to have with ourselves and our leaders.

The deficit is a worrying thing, and neither party is blameless here. The Democrats want to extend some of the Bush tax cuts- the bulk of them, really. But if we’re concerned about the debt and taxes- and at this point we all should be- we need to have adult conversations about it. We need leaders who will seek difficult answers, rather than settle for simple distractions.

I’m not telling you to vote the way I will. I just want you to think, as you go out there to vote, about what’s going to be best for our country and its future. And it is our country: we share in its rights, its privileges, and its responsibilities. And I hope, for all our sakes, that we make the right choice.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Ground Zero

ID: I was beginning to think there wouldn’t be another segment.

Batman/Bruce: I made a commitment. You’ll get your interviews. They just have to happen on my time and on my schedule. Clark could move faster than a speeding bullet- I actually have to schedule you around meetings and sleep.

ID: Still, I’d have thought with your nighttime duties curtailed, you’d have more time, not less.

B: So did I. But I hadn’t anticipated the economy going sideways, or the fact that there was going to be more for me to do logistically now that people know who I am.

ID: Okay, but you called me, and I assume you didn’t just do it because you wanted to bitch, so what’s up?

B: I wanted to talk about the “mosque.”

ID: Oh Lord.

B: We’ll start at the beginning. It isn’t a mosque, it’s an interfaith community center funded by Muslims- though what difference that does or should make I can’t contemplate. That’s why I wanted to have this conversation with you in particular. You have a way of provoking that might be useful. I’d like nothing more than for there to be some sinister plot we could all rally against

ID: Crab people.

B: But I just don’t see it.

It only really makes sense as a distraction, a don’t look at the evil bastard behind the curtain who doesn’t really want to discuss the quality of his efforts as a representative, but would rather publicly bash a minority group instead. It’s not even a straw man argument; it’s a piñata.

The only even plausible exception I’ve heard of in this case is that somehow a Muslim group, any Muslim group, building this close to Ground Zero is tantamount to the terrorists lording over their “conquest.” This is wrong, for any number of reasons.

I don’t want to call people who are against the community center bigoted, because I refuse to believe that’s true of so many Americans. They’re mistrustful. People with a different perspective perpetrated a horrible crime in our country- in my backyard. Gotham’s practically on top of New York, so this means something to me. But now there are people with a similar perspective, who want to set up shop nearby. I understand a certain degree of mistrust, but it’s wrong to conflate all Muslims with terrorism. There isn’t some secret cabal behind terrorism where every Muslim gets a vote.

I’ll contrast it like this: I’m at least a little culpable for the innocent people who died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because I was an American citizen while Bush was President and our nation engaged in those conflicts- so are you, and most of the people reading this. And for the most part that’s a fact of war: innocent people die, often in far larger numbers than the combatants. But when I’m in Kuwait, or Egypt or Lebanon, and I’m conducting business, people don’t treat me as an arm of the US government, they don’t spit curses at me for being part of a group who has harmed a part of their group.

Mistrust is a genuine, gut reaction, and I can’t fault a single person for having it. In my other, costumed life, I’ve been one of the most distrusting people on the planet, but the American compact is that we will trust our fellow citizens not to abuse their rights, that we agree to respect the rights of all our fellow citizens. Being wary doesn’t make you a bigot; pretending like that mistrust justifies mistreating another group of people- using it as a pretense to deny them something that is otherwise legal- that does. And part of our obligation as Americans is to take our fellow citizens by the hand and pull them back from that precipice, bring them back to that place where we can all feel safe and secure in our rights, in our country and in ourselves.

ID: You seem pretty passionate about this, and I don’t just mean passionate about civil liberty kind of passion. I, I thought you and Superman were off someplace else, doing, whatever my notes will tell me later that you were doing [note: they didn’t].

B: Clark was off gallivanting. I wasn’t. I told him that out where he was going I was a liability, or at least no more use to him than I could be at the other end of a satellite phone line, and that there was some business in Gotham I needed to attend to. So I was in my city.

In fact, when the first plane struck, I was still in bed; I’d had a long night. Alfred woke me up, at 8:47. He was holding my costume in one hand, crumpled in his fist, and said, “They’ve flown a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center.” For the briefest instant I felt like the suit, an empty symbol, before I got up and put it on. I told Alfred I’d need reinforcements.

He’d set the plane to warm up, and by the time I’d reached her it was ready. I flew at top speed, which we’ll just say is a lot; we’ll be generous and say my plane is part of the 5th generation of fighter jets along with the F-22 Raptor; realistically I’d say it’s more like 5.5.

But I was too late. I arrived in time to see the second plane hit the South Tower. I offered to chase after Flight 77, but was told that the passengers were going to try to retake the plane, so I stayed over New York until a pair of F-15s arrived, then I flew back to Gotham, where I stayed in the air until I was out of fuel.

ID: So… wow. I had no idea.

B: I had offices in the World Trade Center; I knew people. But it’s making a fundamentally unAmerican mistake to hold all Muslims responsible. Muslims are Americans, around 1% of the population. Muslims were victims, too, on September 11th. Muslims worked to save people in the Twin Towers, and some of those died.

There is no clash of civilizations; we’re at war with practitioners of a methodology- people who use terrorism as a means of coercion. I don’t find many occasions to agree with George W. Bush, but most people would say he was a stalwart fighter of terrorism, and he said, “Islam is peace.” He’s absolutely right, derived from “salaam,” perhaps better known by American from the phrase “salaam alaykum,” peace be upon you.

ID: But Muhammad (pbuh), was a man of war, a conqueror.

B: Yes he was, in the mold of David, the man after God’s own heart. But I’m not interested in discussing philosophy with you. The point is more that people misuse religion for their own purposes, and you will find rapists and murderers and worse in every faith.

But it’s wrong to hold every member of a group responsible for what a few people did.
As Americans, we are better than that. All of us. Even if a few of us need to be reminded of that from time to time. But it’s important to remember that these people who are so very wrong, they’re our brothers, our fellow Americans. It’s important for us to help them understand.

ID: Okay, so I don’t let you end on too dramatic a note: what if the Joker wanted to purchase a theater where he’d massacred an audience?

B: This isn’t Osama bin Laden putting down tent-spikes, so I’ll adjust your metaphor. It’s a little known fact that the Joker is Jewish- obviously not devout in any recognizable way, but that’s how he was raised, and I believe he was ethnically Jewish, that his mother was Jewish. Now would it be right to deny purchase of that land to Jews simply because a Jew committed an atrocity at the site?

ID: Hmm… Wait. Is the Joker really Jewish? What’s that shrug? You’re not really going to tell me, are you? Bastard.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Justice

ID: Here’s a question for you, do you believe in the death penalty?

Batman: I’ll assume, despite the way you asked it, you’re wondering whether or not I agree with its tenets as a public policy. First, I’ll briefly pass over what its two main tenets are, just so we’re agreeing on the premise: first, that it acts as a deterrent; and second, that it gives closure to the victims of families- in essence that an eye for an eye is justice.

First, as far as the death penalty being used as a deterrent, I tend to concur with Levitt, in that its deterrence is minimal at best. Consider that in Gotham, gang mortality usually hovers around 2% annually, at least when there aren’t any major territorial disputes; year-to-year, there are about 3,000 people nationally on death row, and around thirty executions, so 1% of the people on death row are executed every year. It’s actually safer to be on death row than it is to be in a gang on the streets. Add to the preceding the fact that of all criminal convictions eligible for a death penalty, only about 2% actually receive a death sentence. And only about 12% of death sentences are ever carried out, and they take an average of 12 years before they are.

Bear in mind that 80% of all executions occur in the south- where murder rates are consistently higher, by the way- so people living elsewhere have much better odds. For good measure, consider that a national survey of police chiefs found that 80% didn’t believe that criminals contemplated punishment before committing a crime. The statistics are simply against the idea that the death penalty acts as a viable deterrence.

Now, most of your readers will probably be familiar, but I’ll state for your record that my parents were gunned down during a mugging, right in front of me. I was only eight years old. The mugger was a man named Joe Chill. Witnessing that violent act led me to create the Batman persona, to train myself to stop others from suffering at the hands of criminals. Years later, I found Chill again, only to watch as another criminal gunned him down in an alley, much the same way he did my parents.

And let me state, for the record, I fully intended to shoot Chill myself; I was armed to that very purpose. But when I saw Chill shot, I wasn’t given peace, or satisfaction- not even relief. It hollowed out the pit of my stomach, and I recognized that no man has the right to take a life. What Chill had taken from me, from my parents, he deserved punishment, maybe even vengeance, but murder- even for a murderer- is too far.

I still shudder to think of what he nearly made me into; I had never before been farther from the boy my parents raised than in that moment, and what still terrifies me, to this day, is the fact that I probably would have pulled the trigger myself. I probably would have crossed that line, and I don’t think I would have come back from that. I think I’d have spent the next several months murdering my way across Gotham’s underground, killing monsters and mobsters and all manner of bastards who undoubtedly deserve to die. But the cost to me as a person, and I’m not even sure I believe in a soul but the damage it would have done to my soul- I would have been irrevocably lost.

Watching Chill die stopped me from doing something drastic and horrible, but it didn’t give me closure. Closure would have been holding a gun to him and recognizing that I couldn’t stoop so low, that I was better than him, that the people he murdered raised me better than that, that no matter what he’d put me through, he hadn’t managed to alter the core of me. And I don’t have that- I’ll never have that.

As much as I hated him- as much as I still hate him- I couldn’t revel in his death, couldn’t savor it. And I wanted to. I wanted to rejoice; my parents’ murder was finally avenged, but I couldn’t. It wasn’t justice, just another pointless murder in an alley. And he didn’t deserve to die like my parents- that was too good for him.

ID: Are you all right? You’re shaking.

B: I’m angry- and clearly I’m still upset. But oddly enough, what sickens me most about the debate is the first part, how truly ineffectual it is. But the best argument, because at the end of the day it’s difficult to sway people with moral ideas, let alone sympathy for monsters, is that it doesn’t make fiscal sense. Particularly when our government is chest-deep in debt.

The cost of executing criminals is enormous. A death penalty investigation is 3 times more expensive. Death penalty litigation costs an estimated 16 times more. And the sentences themselves, including appeals and incarceration, is 21 times more expensive. The extra cost of merely trying a death penalty case is about $2 million dollars beyond what a normal prosecution would be. Dollar for dollar, that money is better spent on more officers on the streets- that’s a deterrence you can’t argue with.

ID: What about with men like the Joker? Men who kill indiscriminately, who there’s obviously no stopping through conventional means.

B: Two quick points: there are no other men like the Joker- period- and he doesn’t kill indiscriminately; he kills when he thinks it’s funny. But I’ve always been of the opinion that when conventional means fail, you should use unconventional means. Sever his spinal cord. Take away his fingers. While you’re at it, remove his tongue and jaw. Take away everything he uses as a weapon, everything he’s lost the privilege of keeping. I’m okay with cruel and unusual

ID: Particularly with someone as cruel and unusual as him?

B: Something like that. But really I’m a pragmatist.

I’ve done everything I’ve done to honor my parent’s memory; to take a life, even to take his life, would have been to stain their legacy forever. A different man, and, maybe even a better man, would simply put a bullet in him- but I can’t. And on moral grounds, I don’t think we should. Especially with the Joker, I think to resort to barbarism, to kill him rather than continue to show that reasonable men are better by refusing to kill him, I think he wins. He doesn’t carry the day, but he walks away with the moral victory, and I don’t think that’s something we can let him do.

But it couldn’t be me, it couldn’t be a vigilante meting out this crude justice on the criminally insane; in his mind that would just be two madmen dueling on the precipice of insanity. It has to be a function of government, a state action, sanctioned and sealed. Chaos and insanity cannot prevail over a rational society- because we can’t let it if we hope for a peaceful world where no one will lose their parents in a dark alley- and if I pray for anything, I pray for that.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Batman XXX

ID: I know it's pandering, but this last year we've lost a lot of momentum, so I want to talk about your porn.

Batman: (sigh). It's sad that this is what it took for you to get your affairs in order.

ID: Heh. It's at least a little ironic that Superman actually filmed a porno movie, one you immediately bought up the rights to then shelved, and now, your alter ego at least, is starring in not one but now two pornographic adventures. I mean, over the years there have been knock-offs, probably the most notable having been “Dickman and Throbbin,” but this is actual, honest to god Batman porn. Why haven't you stopped this?

B: I don't think I could, honestly. If I tried for a defamation suit, or sued for libel or damages, the case would probably go along the same lines as when Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt- okay as parody on Free Speech grounds. Now, at first I talked to Lucious [Fox] about quietly buying up a majority stake in Vivid video, and we were about midway through that deal when we found out another company was making a similar film; the genie was out of the bottle at that point.

ID: But let's be clear, here, there's been Batman porn for years, it's just been relegated to internet drawings, and to the kinkier fetish and bondage sites.

B: That's right. But the reason the Vivid movie was a bigger threat is I spent most of my life crafting Batman to be something more than human, something difficult to comprehend. Watching Batman have sex is the opposite- a Batman who has sex is human, with weaknesses, who can be killed.

ID: But, and I don't think I'm really letting anything too sensitive out of the bag, but you've always been human, right? So's the current Batman. Of course, by only human what we really mean is that you were the peak of human physical conditioning and intelligence, like if Stephen Hawking were put into Bruce Lee's body by way of Brad Pitt's face- and even then, you're greater than even the sum of all those parts.

B: I'll assume you're not coming onto me

ID: Not a bit- my girlfriend would kill me- but you have to admit, objectively, you're a pretty spectacular specimen of the human condition.

B: I've er, boned up on Dale DaBone's work [the actor playing Bruce in Batman XXX], and while I might be impressive, I'm not that spectacular.

ID: Oh my god; I can't believe the first penis joke of the interview was not made by me.

B: Well, if nothing else, having multiple porn yous running around in tights will teach you to have a sense of humor about yourself.

ID: But if I can steer things for a moment back into serious territory: what do you think the tights community will think of this?

B: Honestly, I think this has been a long time coming. We're all public figures, at least according to parody laws, so this has been legal at least going back to the Falwell case. And particularly because of the reception Vivid has received pre-release, they decided to open a whole superhero imprint. So I'm just the first of many, it would seem.

ID: Axel Braun [the director] is no Sleez, but he does seem to have a passion for the subject matter.

B: And I'm not entirely certain it's a bad thing. With Batman, I think I had to compensate, maybe overcompensate, for the fact that I was human and was trying to exist in a world with true superhumans. But most of the members of the community, and most of the league, they're actually the opposite. In an earlier time, most of them would have been worshiped as gods, and while I do believe that no amount of appreciation for their work and their sacrificies could ever be enough, I do think that there's a peril there.

Take Clark, for example. He had for all intents and purposes his own cult. He deserved love, and respect, and honor, but worship? He didn't want that, and he did everything possible to dissuade his followers. But because outwardly he had this godlike appearance, and godlike abilities, it was impossible for people to get to know his humanity, to understand that inside Clark was the most human person I've ever met. And I've always thought that makes our heroes that much more heroic: they're people, with desires, fears, faults, and yet they still get up and do what they do to help people. Being human makes them better heroes, not worse.

So I think, while these films are likely to challenge some in the community, and I'm sure there will be more than one fist fight over dalliances real and implied, I think the end result might just be a world that better understands the people who are willing to lay down their lives in its defense. If the cost is making my butler blush every now and again- I think that's something I can live with.

Revelations

ID: I'm sitting down with the Batman, billionaire industrialist Bruce Wayne. He contacted me shortly after the passing of his friend and confidant, the late Superman, Clark Kent. To anyone live in a cave not inhabited by bats this last year, his identity was revealed by "accident" during an interview with Kent. Now, in quick succession, he has three revelations to share. Whenever you're ready, Bruce.

Batman: I'm quitting.

ID: You wear a lot of hats and cowls and such; care to elaborate.

B: Being Batman. I'm stepping down from it. My first Robin, who many of you will know better as Nightwing, will be stepping into the role.

ID: Now why is that? I understand why he'll be taking your place in the League, and even why he'll be assuming your place at the head of your impromptu bat “family,” but why not just leave it at that, let him still be Nightwing?

B: Vanity, I suppose. Because the Batman is my legacy, and I'd rather see it outlive me. But there's also other facets to that question. For example, why does Nightwing want to take the title and costume- because he does- and that's another reason why I want him to take over. And finally, because I think Batman matters. Not that Nightwing doesn't matter or hasn't, but I think Batman is symbolic, because there are people who Nightwing has been punching in the face his whole life who will still, for incomprehensible reasons, fear him more in a pointy-eared cowl.

ID: Okay, that's one. The second has to do with why you're quitting now.

B: I have AIDS. I've been living with the HIV virus for years, but recently the disease has progressed to the point of full blown AIDS. I'm still in physically good shape, but my immune system is compromised to the point where I would be a liability to my friends and colleagues if I did not relinquish my cowl.

ID: That's two down. The third revelation?

B: I believe I'm a homosexual. I've had long-term romantic relationships with women, and let me state unequivocally right now that each of those have been legitimate. The women I've dated I've cared for genuinely, and when I said I loved them, I meant it. Some might argue that that would make me bisexual, and, historically, I would agree, but I think, in light of all sorts of things, that I am and will continue into the foreseeable future to be a homosexual.

ID: And that brings us to our first official question of the interview: why are you here? You could have given a press conference, could have bought a giant laser and carved these three facts on the moon and signed it with a bat symbol, so why are you talking to me?

B: Mostly because I appreciated what you did for my friend. Despite your own inclinations, I think you dealt with him fairly, and tried to maintain his sense of dignity throughout. On the one hand, I think those qualities ought to be rewarded; on the other, I think I'd like to be similarly treated. But mostly, I think, it centers around one question: in a world without a Superman, who's going to notice that the original Batman's retired?

Really, this has been a long time coming. I've been sick for years, and been taking and trying all manner of treatments. But in that time I couldn't talk myself into giving up- I thought, and this was probably mostly vanity, that the world needed me. I think, in hindsight, I needed to be a part of the world far more.

Another factor is that the people who know me, my impromptu bat family as you called them, intervened. In a nutshell they told me that they've talked to doctors, and from this point on I'd be taking time off my life. I'm not exactly terminal, at the moment- people with AIDS can live relatively long, healthy, full lives, but if I continued to put the kinds of stresses being Batman does on my body, I'd be dead very soon- assuming that I wasn't done in prematurely by any number of the toxins several of my more colorful adversaries routinely make use of that my body is no longer equipped to fight. So basically we made a deal, whereby they would continue the work we've been doing so long as I retired.

ID: What was your other option?

B: I think they were going to taking turns kicking the hell out of me until I came to my senses.

ID: But do you think they could have? Aren't you the goddamned Batman?

B: I used to be.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

HCR Passed

Batman: I’m proud of our Congress today. I’m a democrat, and I’ve never really seen a problem saying so in public. I give a lot of money to democratic candidates, I’m fairly active in the party. So in that regard I’m not Clark. But I didn’t have much of a dog in the healthcare fight.

I abandoned private insurance for my workers a long time ago; the administrative fees insurers charged was making the already steep curve of healthcare less and less affordable, and Wayne Enterprises is a large enough company that we were able to create our own insurance pool. And wherever possible, we don’t hire outside contractors; anyone we can have in-house we do. So I really had no stake in healthcare reform.

Then Clark got sick. He never used his health insurance, but within a week of his diagnosis with cancer, the Planet’s insurance company tried to cancel his plan. Perry White, the Planet’s EIC, called them up and told them Clark Kent’s policy staid, or they were going to lose the entire Planet account. That’s just the kind of guy Perry is. A few days later and the story had worked its way up to me; I haven’t owned the Planet very long- a few years- I bought it out from under Lex Luthor when he was on one of his tirades. I personally called the insurance company and cancelled the Planet account, and brought them into the Wayne insurance pool.

But the damage was done. Clark had seen the nasty side of the insurance industry. Not that there was much the insurance could have done for him. The vast majority of his treatment, which obviously wasn’t successful, took place in either S.T.A.R. facilities or WayneTech.

As the year of healthcare reform wore on, Clark became more and more animated. He wanted to help people, and he realized that this one bill could help more people than he could in the time he had left. It’s the first time I’ve seen him drag politics into the League meetings, and he took more than one of our junior members to task for repeating demonstrably false claims about the bill. It was one of the few areas where I think Clark was unaware of his own strength, but I remember he cornered Hawkman for basically quoting Sarah Palin about death panels. And Clark, when he got upset, he had this way of getting breathy, and suddenly the air all around you was warm and moist and you would immediately start to sweat, and he boomed “There are NO death panels.” It was because he could hold a thousand times as much air in his lungs than a normal human being, and did, without thinking about it. And Hawkman would have dropped his mace if it hadn’t been on a leather strap around his wrist.

But I’m beginning to stray from the point. I wasn’t particularly animated about healthcare reform, because I knew that single payer and a public option were a pipe dream, even with a pseudo-supermajority in the Senate. But I am absolutely a democrat, so I supported the President and the Congress on those grounds.

But a few months ago, the prognosis was grim; Scott Brown’s election had a lot of people adopting defeatist language, and precedent said the democrats were going to fold like a cheap suit.

But because of Clark I started paying more attention to it. I’ve always been a proponent of insurance reform, and have on more than one occasion thought about starting an insurance company within WE- one that operated on a non-profit basis. But beyond the fact that such an organization usually has selection bias issues which make it tougher to realize the cost savings necessary to cut premiums accordingly, I honestly believed that the only real solution was for the government to step in and either regulate intensely or nationalize it. But because of Clark, healthcare reform became something I paid attention to; I even read Jonathan Cohn’s TNR blog religiously. Every rise or dip in the polls

And almost surprisingly, the democrats didn’t fail. Over the years I’ve grown accustomed to the democrats being on the right side of an issue, but lacking the courage of their convictions to do a damned bit about it. Obama’s gambit, allowing Republicans to show just how mean and ugly and petty they could be, without really opposing them, worked out, and Nancy Pelosi, who I think was the real hero behind healthcare reform, was able to deliver the votes in the house. The democrats didn’t fail. For the first time in a while, I’m actually proud of my party.

Now, we should discuss logistics, since this is likely coming out before the first segment of our interview, because while we taped that ages ago, it turns out that, in a world without its Superman, and equally in a continually struggling economy, there was a lot that needed my attention. And

DI: Judging by the uncomfortable silence and piercing glare, I take it that’s my cue- but I’ve been dealing with some personal shenanigans, some of which have to do with being an often freelance writer whose main printed magazine folded in part because of the lousy economy. So the delay was mutual- though much more my fault than Mr. Wayne’s.

B: You don’t have to call me “mister;” Bruce works just fine.

DI: Actually, your eyes kind of scare me. I think “mister” is good for now. But we are going to be starting up the ongoing interview with Mr. Wayne soon, just as soon as a few things stabilize.

B: Though it was never meant to be a weekly occurrence anyway. Billionaire industrialist, adventurer- I want to be as open and accessible as possible, but sometimes other demands in my life have to take precedence. Still, I’m looking forward to it.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Preview: Massachusetts

[NOTE: This was recorded Tuesday night]

B: I know we haven’t actually posted the first segment, but I want to talk about Massachusetts. Living in New England, Delaware, specifically, it’s in my backyard.

That was actually one of my more amusing moments, reading your interview with Clark, when he admitted he was a Democrat. I always told him it was pretty obvious, really. I think the only person who ever thought he was a Republican was his mother. But I’m a Democrat. And a lot of Democrats are terrified.

Massachusetts is a Democratic stronghold. All of their statewide offices are held by Democrats. The Kennedys are a legacy in Massachusetts. Even a few weeks ago, it was inconceivable that a Democrat wouldn’t win the seat Ted Kennedy left open when he died of brain cancer.

But it was only inconceivable because the Democrats lacked imagination. First off, Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate. It’s the problem with primaries- they have a tendency to pick candidates that may not fare as well in general elections: like John Kerry, to recall the other senator from Massachusetts.

Second, Americans are worried. It isn’t about health care, really, or the rest of Obama’s agenda, either. It’s about the economy, stupid. 10% unemployment scares people. They see layoffs everywhere they look, and it’s impossible not to wonder if they’re next. And if they do get a pink slip, they know just how difficult it will be to find another job.

Third, where the Democratic agenda has landed them in hot water is in its focus. When people are worried about feeding their kids, the absolute last thing that people want to think about is being generous and charitable. And that’s the frame the Democrats have been using during the healthcare debate. What would have made the legislation ten times more palatable would have been nixing all the talk of covering the uninsured, and instead focusing on reforms that make insurance more affordable, and make coverage portable even in the event of a job less. That’s not to say that the rest of the bill is meaningless, but the way it’s discussed has been fatally flawed- even terrifying to some people. Massachusetts is the one state in the nation where healthcare really shouldn’t be a factor in an election like this, because Massachusetts already has this kind of healthcare reform, and it’s popular, too.

Fourth, even when Democrats have done things that directly effect jobs, like the stimulus, they forget to talk about it. The stimulus didn’t create too many jobs, but it saved thousands of state and local government jobs, kept thousands of state and local governments from having to make really painful cuts to services when the bad economy would have made those cuts that much worse.

Fifth, Americans don’t like a supermajority. There’s a belief in this country that a balanced Congress can synergize the best ideas of the right and the left. Look at what happened in Georgia. In the general election there was a fairly tight race for the Senate, tight enough that neither candidate got 50% of the vote, so there was a mandatory run-off contest. But in the interim, Democrats had won what was one vote shy of a supermajority. Subsequently, the Democrat lost by five times what the deficit was in the general election.

Massachusetts wasn’t about anything other than the electorate worrying about themselves, and I don’t mean that in a disparaging way. Things have gotten bad enough that most Americans worry about falling into that widening sinkhole of people without jobs, with foreclosed homes, without insurance, basically without hope. If Democrats don’t want to be spanked come November, they’ll find a way to make Americans hopeful again.

ID: … oh, you’ve stopped talking. Okay. Uh. How might they do that?

B: Probably the best way would be to change the filibuster.

ID: To play Devil’s Advocate for a moment, wouldn’t using the nuclear option piss off the electorate?

B: The real question is whether or not Americans would prefer Senatorial gridlock, which is the current status quo, or getting the business of the people done. The filibuster is decidedly undemocratic, because it allows a minority to prevent the majority from legislating. I’m not saying we have to do away with it entirely, but lowering it to 55 would certainly change the dynamic.

And the filibuster isn’t sacrosanct. It was changed several times in the last century. The ability to vote for cloture, the end of a filibuster, didn’t exist until 1917. In 1949, the cloture requirement was changed from 67 senators to 60. And until 1975 filibustering required that opponents of a bill continue debating twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, to maintain a filibuster. The nuclear option has actually been used three times, though this “precedent” was retroactively removed. And really, debate over the nuclear option has been ongoing since 2005, when a Republican majority started talking about using it.

ID: So you’re saying for the Democrats to legislate effectively, they should emulate Republican tactics?

B: I’m saying a good idea is a good idea. In 2008 Republicans used the filibuster a record 139 times, almost double the Democrats’ usage when they were in the minority. This means that twice a week Republicans stopped debate on a bill.

Republican strategy is focused on preventing Democrats from legislating effectively. And they can do that so long as the filibuster remains intact.

ID: But you’re a billionaire. Shouldn’t you be a Republican?

B: If I were only concerned with the size of my fortune, maybe. But I believe the primary role of government is to be an advocate for its people, to serve as a check on the power of others with influence on American life. And compared with the power of other nations, compared with the influence of corporations like my own, I think the American people need a strong advocate.

The first actual segment of this interview will be coming shortly, but in the meantime, well, he couldn't help himself.