Once again, the very fabric of American society is polarized upon a central question. The moral ambiguity of the death penalty? Roe v. Wade? Stem cell research, intelligent design, pit bull ownership? All these, of course, are the source of impassioned debate, polite cocktail party conversation, and feigned ennui from across social, economic, and even religious strata. One burning subject, though, polarizes thought and action the instant it is broached. Of course, I refer to The Dukes of Hazzard.

Parenthetically, I must write about what passes for online "criticism" nowadays. I had occasion to write to my good friend Graeme McMillan about an online comics reviewer yesterday: "All of his reviews of our books start out 'I wanted this book to be green. I wanted some green in my book, and it didn't deliver the green. What a disappointment.' YEAH, WELL, THE BOOK IS ORANGE, YOU SIMPLETON. THERE IS NO GREEN IN IT. GREEN WOULD OBVIATE THE POINT OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO. IT WOULD CHANGE THE COLOR! ORANGE! DEAL WITH IT ON ITS OWN MERITS! ORANGE, I SAY! One will have to be able to pass an English Composition class before you're allowed to have your own review blog, when I am king." and it is under this practice-what-you-preach mindset I commend to you the cinematic glory that is The Dukes of Hazzard.

The First Goal of any pop culture entertainment is to entertain. One assumes this would go without saying, but you'd be surprised. Otherwise excellent writers often gloss this over and go straight to the "Better Than Citizen Kane?" yardstick. So. The Dukes of Hazzard? Does it entertain? Only one response is necessary: YEE-HAW!

I would make the argument that The Second Goal of any pop culture entertainment is to entertain again, missing any stragglers or malcontents who might have been passed over in the freight-train ride of initial entertainment. I allow that this might just be me, and will say The Second Goal would be to make some money. Pop Culture is a commercial art, after all, and my views on this are widely known. So. The Dukes of Hazzard? Does it make money? Let's go to forbes.com: "Despite a solid, near-unanimous thrashing by critics, the film grossed an estimated $30.6 million according to box office tracker Exhibitor Relations. But not only gentlemen turned out to see those toned legs. Dan Fellman, distribution president for Warner Bros. said the audience was 47% female and that two-thirds of all viewers were under 25." Translation: YEE-HAW!

I enjoy a good narrative, a well-turned phrase, a pithy comment, some droll commentary, and Machiavelli as much as the next liberal arts sheepskin-holder (been known to produce my own entertainments so dense with satire and allegory that your regular joe misses it wide), but dang if I don't like to wave my beer at the car crashes and hot chicks, authority figures getting their what-for, and big-ass explosions without consequence, as well. Mimi calls this "The Dichotomy of Lar." Anyway. What Macbeth says in irony and despair, I say with conviction and glee: "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player/That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/And then is heard no more: it is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing." So you might as well enjoy some spectacle when it presents itself. YEE-HAW!