One it is usually “there is a fair probability if I break the rules I may saves lives”.

Two when is it moral to do so, one million lives, 100 lives or one life?

Three and I’m not sure how to say this but for those who are close to the action and are moral rely on those who are not as close to help them from crossing that line. When those who are not close become too unreasonable and unrealistic the system breaks down.

Then there was the cell phone surveillance. If Batman didn’t use it many would have died but it is a power that could easily corrupt. The trick just like in the movie is knowing what line if you cross will make you become a “bad guy”.

The thing is, if you really believe that you have to break a law to save lives, you're going to break the law. We don't need to make torture legal, just because it may one day save millions of lives. If that day comes, no moral person is going to say "gee, I'd really like to save a million people, but I might go to jail".

Did I miss it when we referred to them as The Great Satan? Or is it justifiable for OTHER countries to call us, every single American, evil but we can't point out that the leadership of certain countries are evil?

Nobody is saying that it's justifiable for them to call us evil. What we're saying is that just because they are calling us evil, doesn't mean we need to call them evil. We're also saying that just because they call us evil, doesn't mean it would be beneficial to us to call them evil. Some actions warrant retaliation in kind, but name calling isn't one of them. That's not moral equivalence, that's cost/benefit rationalizing.

Did I miss it when we referred to them as The Great Satan? Or is it justifiable for OTHER countries to call us, every single American, evil but we can't point out that the leadership of certain countries are evil?

Guess it's all morally equivelent.

Really, my reaction to Klavan has nothing to do with my desired outcomes for this year's election, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

And you apparently know more about my goals for the Fall than do I.

And I know that you think that "liberal" is an epithet, but if you want to sling it at me, go ahead and put "classical" in front of it.

Beyond any of that, even if we assume that I am an in-the-tank lifelong Democrat for Obama, I am not sure what that has to do with my post.

Still, I can respect the fact you don't agree-it isn't like I didn't expect dissenting views.

It isn't that the producers meant to create some conservative movie. Instead, they wrote a movie that espouses traditional American values of justice, and what is right and moral. Those things resonate with the populace. Showing moral equivalence and degrading our nation doesn't resonate.

While voters hate the war in Iraq, they still re-elected President Bush because they know winning the war is important, and won't take too kindly to a candidate who promotes American surrender. Wait and watch, OTB readers. Liberals like Steven will be very disappointed on election day (polls show the race about even. EVEN? w Bush's unpopularity? How can that be so? lol!). Maybe seeing Batman again will help them get through it.