Right Wing Nut House

BAD DOG! BAD! BAD! BAD!

Apologies for not posting anything about my beloveds and their Super Debacle earlier. And no, it was not because I was prostrate with grief or hospitalized for an attempted suicide.

For those who may not be aware, I work 3 days a week - Friday, Saturday, and Sunday - from 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM at a convenience store. For just sitting around for 8 hours, I get an obscene amount of money. It really is offensive to me that someone is willing to pay me what some employees make in a 40 hour week just because they can’t find anyone else to work the graveyard shift on the weekends.

Be that as it may, it truly is an exhausting ritual to constantly change my bio rhythms in this fashion. And since I was beginning to feel like I was coming down with a cold, I took yesterday off and slept around 12 hours. The entire weekend, I think I managed around 9 hours of sleep so I hope I am forgiven my sloth.

As for the game, I thought my analysis of what would happen and what the Bears needed to do to win was on target. I still can’t believe the Bear’s defense went into a shell and failed to attack the Colts offense. But I predicted Hester would return one, that Wayne would probably catch a long one for a TD. I also predicted that Indy would score more field goals than touchdowns (4 FG attempts to 2 TD’s and that if the Bears corners played off the Indy wideouts, it would be a very long, depressing day.).

That last was the key to the game. By playing 5 yards or more off Harrison and Wayne, the Bears defenders were out of position when Manning began to toss flat passes to his backs. By the time a Bear defender showed up, the Indy backs were already 5 yards downfield. Manning nickled and dimed the Bears to death.

And anyone who puts the onus for this loss on Rex Grossman doesn’t know anything about football. Yes, Wonder Dog was bad. But I would also mention that he didn’t have a chance to show what he could do because the offense never had the damn ball! When the game was actually on his shoulders in the 4th quarter, it was almost like he wasn’t even warmed up. I thought he was reasonably accurate but suffered from the fact that there didn’t appear to be an offensive game plan. Or at least one that would have made a difference.

No team will win a Super Bowl if the defense gives up 400 yards. You can have the greatest quarterback in history and the Bears still would have lost because the defense played soft. The fact that this is exactly the same problem the Bears had last year in their playoff loss to Carolina makes me question the overall coaching in this game and whether they changed strategies as a result of the weather. It was almost as if the coaches were playing not to lose - a sure way to defeat. In any case, Lovie was outcoached by Dungy.

So my beloveds are now 1-1 in the Big Game. And, as I mentioned in my preview, I don’t think it will take another 21 years before the Bears make a return visit. Next year, Grossman will be better, Brown and Harris will most likely be back, and there will be lessons learned so that when they make a run at the brass ring again, they’ll at least realize what it takes to grab it.

With the potential loss of Lance Briggs to free agency, a huge hole could open up at outside linebacker. However, I think the Bears will slap a franchise tag on Briggs which will bring him back for another year but not at the kind of salary that he would get in free agency. And they will use the nearly $30 million they have available under the cap to improve. Perhaps acquire an outstanding offensive lineman via free agency or another impact player at D-back.

One thing is sure; Lovie Smith won’t let them fall back. And if they can stay reasonably healthy next year, the playoffs are almost a certainty even with their much tougher first place schedule. As Indy proved, you don’t need that first round playoff bye to win it all.

A disappointing loss to be sure. But it should make most of them hungry again next year. And this time in the Presidential election year of 2008 when the NFL crowns a brand new champ, I really believe that my beloveds have as good a chance or better to be on that podium accepting the Lombardi Trophy and being acknowledged as the league’s best.

There are times when television drama transcends the mundane, the ordinary and elevates the genre to a place where only great literature has gone before. Stephen Bochco’s Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue achieved that status on occasion as has Law and Order and ER.

This is not surprising. Most TV dramas in the past relied on tried and true formulas to be successful: Good guys and bad guys with the villains getting their just rewards in the end and precious little in the way of controversy to offend the sensibility of viewers. TV executives believed that mass audiences didn’t want to be surprised or disturbed, that they watched TV to escape from moral dilemmas and uncomfortable truths.

But with the advent of premium cable alternatives like HBO and Showtime and especially the strong showing of Fox Network’s shows, most of the over the air network dramas now carry controversial story lines with shocking twists and surprising moments - all designed to if not disturb the viewer then certainly get a rise out of the audience that will keep them tuning in week after week. Shocking audiences simply for the sake of doing the unexpected may make for interesting television. But in the end, such schlock fails to rise above the level of emotional manipulation thus becoming cheap and tawdry rather than elevating and sublime.

Last night’s episode of 24 went far beyond the kind of shallow, attention-grabbing, gimmicky plot lines of ordinary drama and entered the nearly uncharted territory of conflict and angst worthy of what is found in the best of western literary tradition.

While many may have expected Jack’s father to end up being a villain, I daresay no one expected him to murder his own son nor to acquiesce in the death of Jack. The revelation that much of what has transpired within Jack’s family during the last few hours was part of an elaborate ruse to throw Jack off the trail of the family company’s involvement with the nukes sets up a confrontation with Jack’s father that will prove both horrific and fascinating in the end - like watching a train wreck in slow motion. And the heavy burden that Jack carries for the sins of his father - something the Bible tells us shall be revisited on the sons for “3 or 4 generations” - now includes the death of Graem as well as the death of 12,000 innocents.

And it is perhaps a measure of how vulnerable Jack Bauer’s character has become this season that the extraordinary scenes of him torturing his own brother should bring such a rush of mixed emotions for both Jack and the audience. The schizophrenic combination of tenderness and blood chilling rage that Jack directs at his suffering brother are, in my opinion, among the most powerful images ever seen in a weekly dramatic television series. The scene where Graem states under horrible torture that he and Jack are alike, causing Jack to lose control of his sanity is all the more affecting because we realize that Graem is right - that he and Jack use measures that are outside the law for the same reason; they love their country. Does this make Jack a terrorist or a patriot?

Of course, Jack’s love of country is pure and unsullied by motives of profit or personal gain of any kind which is the one saving grace that separates him from his brother and father. Does it make Graem a tragic character in the end that he fails to realize this? I thought so. While certainly not redeeming him, his death at the hands of his own father is tragic because it was obvious that his love for his father and hatred of Jack led to his own destruction - a victim of the sin of envy.

The writers of the show have now set the bar for quality very high. Let’s hope they can live up to the standards they’ve laid down over the coming weeks.

SUMMARY

In a meeting with President Palmer, Tom cries crocodile tears over the resignation of Karen and offers up the explanation that perhaps she quit because she opposed the draconian “Executive Order 1068″ that Tom and the oily and untrustworthy Vice President (played with great effect by Powers Booth) have cooked up that would curtail civil liberties even more than they already have been. He convinces Palmer to reconvene the National Security Council to approve the measures. Palmer seems torn and once again, it is hard to tell if he is indecisive or simply cautious. The jury is still out on what kind of President he really is.

In resisting the shredding of the Constitution, the President states that he doesn’t want to redefine the country. Tom reminds him that “If one more nuke goes off, it will be Fayed who redefines our country.”

Who’s right? The answer, if I may be allowed to be cryptic, is both and neither. I covered what would happen in the event a nuclear weapon was detonated on American soil here. The real world concern would be what measures the government would take in order to insure that such an event never happened again. The American people might very well support measures as outlined in Tom’s plan but would it in fact mean the end of America as we know it? I think it would as do most civil libertarians. On the other hand, the idea that some rational compromises couldn’t be made in order to ferret out the enemy among us is suicidal. It appears that the writers don’t do “nuance” very well - especially when it comes to debates about civil liberties.

In the van that is taking Jack and his father to their presumed deaths, Jack’s father opens up and tells his son that everything he’s done, he did for him. Jack rightly protests that he doesn’t know what to say to that, apparently not wanting to assuage his father’s conscience.

Arriving at a conveniently located cement factory in the middle of nowhere (less than 10 minutes from McCarthy’s office by the clock) Jack and his father start to walk toward a freshly dug hole with a truck standing by to cover their dead bodies in fresh cement. If we were to ask how Graem knew even before the bomb went off that he would have need of the hole, the truck, and his father’s goons, we would discover a weakness in the plot. Not to fear. Everyone knows that bad guys always have contingency plans and that the execution set up could have been for anybody. At least, that’s my story and I’m sticking with it.

Cheating death once again, Jack wriggles out of his execution with the help of his father who distracts one goon while Jack overpowers another, using the gun held by one villain to shoot the other. When Jack’s father offs the second goon before he can be questioned, we immediately suspect him of trying to hide something. But at this point, it appears that he is still obsessed with protecting his company and perhaps Graem.

Jack calls Bill and tells him of Graem’s perfidy and requests a TAC team to recon Graem’s house. Few viewers don’t realize that this will set up the ultimate confrontation between Jack and his brother. What Jack will do to get the information he needs from Graem, we can only guess at.

Meanwhile, McCarthy calls Fayed with the good news that he’s found an engineer to construct additional triggers for the nukes but that he’ll need to be coerced. He sends the terrorist a picture of the victim along with his qualifications.

Good thing for us that the NSA has been violating the law and the Constitution because they intercept this completely domestic communication - including the picture of the engineer target. Morris begins to decrypt the corrupted file containing the picture, using some typical geek magic.

At Graem’s house, the CTU TAC team informs Jack that Graem is indeed at home and that they have the place surrounded. Curious, Jack’s father asks his son what he’s going to do:

JACK: I need to question Graem alone.

PHILLIP: What are you going to do to him?

JACK: Whatever it takes to find out what he knows.

Any doubts we may have had that Jack will put the screws to his own brother in order to get the information we need are laid to rest. The only question is, what method will Bauer use? His famous “electrotherapy?” Perhaps he’ll pressure Graem by using the former love of his life Marilyn and put a bullet in her thigh? Perhaps we’ll be treated to Bauer’s tried and true “Countdown” technique where he holds a gun to the head of his victim and calmly informs the subject that if he doesn’t get the information he needs by the time he counts to 3, the poor unfortunate’s brains will be spattered all over the wall?

The TAC team breaks into Graem’s house and the confrontation between the two armed brothers lasts only a few seconds but is extraordinarily intense. Graem surrenders and hears his own brother tell one of this team members to “prep” his brother for interrogation.

The ensuing torture scene has got to rank right up there with the best in the history of the show. Before Jack even starts, Graem offers the lame excuse that he “panicked” and that he was just trying to protect the company. Jack doesn’t buy it and begins firing question after question at his bound and helpless brother. “Where’s McCarthy? How do I find him?” Where is he?” Graem’s denials only seem to enrage Jack further. The patented CTU “Lie-O-Meter” detects deception and Jack decides to go for the gold: “Bring me the Agent Package,” says Jack.

Graem knows exactly what that means and visibly blanches.

Cut to CTU briefly where we discover that Morris’s brother is on his way to the hospital with severe radiation sickness. Milo balks at telling Morris, wanting him to continue working on the puzzle of the engineer’s picture. Chloe, once again making Milo looking impotent and powerless, tells Morris anyway and then convinces him to stay until the work on the corrupted image file is complete.

After being told by Bill that once they get a hold of the engineer, the nukes will become operational in 45 minutes, Jack tells his brother exactly what he’s going to do. He orders up something called “Cyacine Pentathol” which is a “neuro-inflammatory” designed to induce excruciating pain. Already sweating in anticipation of his ordeal, Graem continues to deny any knowledge of McCarthy’s whereabouts. Calmly, Jack orders Dr. Richard to administer 2 cc’s of the drug.

The effect on both men is hard to watch. As Graem screams in agonizing pain, Jack suffers along with him. What can possibly be going through his mind?

After ordering Richard to administer another two cc’s, Jack is unable to hold himself in check and rushes to the side of his suffering brother whose screams of agony actually causes us to feel pity for the man who has tried so hard to kill his own brother. As he cradles his brother’s head in his arms, he alternates between tenderness and rage, begging his brother to tell him what he wants to know one moment and screaming at him the next. Graem’s denials only seem to enrage Jack even further:

Jack: The machine says you’re lying! I know you’re lying! TELL ME THE TRUTH! TELL ME THE TRUTH ABOUT McCARTHY!

Finally, Graem appears to break down. It has nothing to do with McCarthy (what he is holding back). It has to do with Palmer, and Michelle. He set the whole operation up to assassinate the ex-President, kill his friends, and lure him out of hiding so that he could take the fall.

Jack is flummoxed. But why?

GRAEM: Because I love my country!. And in the real world, sometimes that means you have to do things, terrible things, even unforgivable things for the sake of your country. (Bitterly) But you know all about that, don’t you brother. Why do you look at me? We’re the same.

JACK: WE ARE NOT THE SAME! (attacks Graem).

Jack has killed for his country. He has tortured for his country. He has broken into private homes and offices for his country. He has terrorized civilians for his country. He has treated the Constitution like a “list of suggestions” as Karen accused Tom of doing - all for his country.

The fact that Jack’s motives are pure may not excuse his behavior. But because we can see that Bauer’s patriotism and fidelity to duty are in service to a higher, more noble cause, Jack is a hero while Graem is a heel.

Graem’s charge that Jack is just like him hits too close to home for comfort. An enraged and out of control Bauer orders 4 more cc’s of the pain inducing drug. When Dr. Richard refuses because it would kill the subject, Jack points a gun at him and orders him to do it anyway. And when Richard calls for help, Jack aims his weapon at a fellow CTU agent. Bauer has quite simply, lost it. It is left to Phillip Bauer to calmly stand in the doorway, not saying anything, to bring Jack back to reality.

Television just doesn’t get any better than that.

We revisit the President’s sister Sandra who is looking in on a badly beaten Walid who says he is “ashamed” that he spied on possible terrorists. Better I suppose that the real terrorists can plot in peace without having to worry about “good Muslims” like Walid informing on them. We are also told by Sandra that Walid shouldn’t feel that way, that those poor detainees were taken from their homes and their jobs largely on “trumped up” immigration charges.

Absolutely. Violating immigration laws - even being here illegally - is nothing to get in a snit about. Why should the United States care if it’s sovereignty is at risk? There are more important things at stake - like leaving illegal aliens alone and not angering the grievance mongers at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

When the President calls, he expresses surprise that Walid was treated so rudely. Sandra treats us to another speech about how evil her brother’s policies are which leads us to believe Palmer will probably not authorize Tom’s little Constitution shredding party.

Back at Graem’s house, Jack has what passes for a heart to heart with his father. Phillip says that Jack deserved “a better family” and regrets all the lost years between them. Jack agrees. In light of what was to come, this is actually rather poignant. And when Phillip says that he needs “a couple of minutes” alone, Jack’s instincts perk for an instant as doubt clouds his face temporarily. But after all, it is his father and they appear to be making some progress toward reconciliation.

Cut to a conference room where Tom is being congratulated by the Vice President for convincing the President to sign off on his civil liberties busting plan. The Veep mentions that he is happy that we are “finally going to stand up to them” - who exactly is unclear. Terrorists? Civil liberties absolutists? The ACLU?

As the National Security Council meeting starts, the President begins by saying that he had revisited his decision earlier in the day regarding the draconian executive order. He then surprises everybody when he once again declines to authorize the extraordinary measures contained in the order.

PALMER: Some of your seem to feel that the Constitution is valid only during times of peace not during wartime. That is not what the Founders intended.

TOM: With your indulgence, sir, George Washington’s enemies wore bright red coats and marched in a straight line. The Founders never could have conceived of stateless enemies, hiding among us, that targeted not our soldiers but our civilization.

Since the Founders did indeed realize the Constitution could be a hindrance in times of a domestic emergency, they allowed for certain extraordinary measures. While martial law is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the suspension of habeas corpus is mentioned in Article 1, Section 9, and the activation of the militia in time of rebellion or invasion is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. Limited martial law has been declared to cover certain regions and territories - the south after the civil war for instance - but has never been applied nationwide.

Tom’s argument is sound but his recommended measures to deal with the crisis are over the top. Palmer’s reaction is noble but potentially suicidal - especially his rather lame statement about American Muslims being “marginalized and thus radicalized” as a result of measures against them. One certainly doesn’t follow the other. And given Walid’s “shame” at spying on his fellow Muslims, the President’s words about American Muslims being such a great resource for law enforcement ring hollow indeed.

And just to show that the writers have been playing close attention to Democratic party talking points, we get this bit of nonsense:

PALMER: We Americans need to demonstrate that we are governed by the rule of law and not the politics of fear.”

This is hardly a way to get a discussion regarding civil liberties in wartime going when you automatically accuse your opponent of delving into the “politics of fear” if you want to compromise with the Constitution in any way.

Back at CTU, Morris has worked his magic and the picture begins to come into focus. Excusing himself, he heads for the hospital where his brother is supposedly near death. Imagine our surprise when the picture that appears is of Morris himself. His friends get in touch with him too late. McCarthy and his ditzy girl friend grab him on the road and hustle him away.

With Jack gone, Phillip asks to be alone with Graem. What could be the harm, right?

The ensuing conversation between Phillip and Graem is, to say the least, shocking. It also contains elements of pathos, poignancy, and a queasy realization at what a truly cold fish Jack’s father can be.

Graem crows that Jack has fallen for the “ruse” and that both his father and the company are insulated from harm. But something is wrong. Phillip seems pensive and lost in thought. Graem begins to get nervous. Did he realize what his father was capable of? He must have because he begins to, in effect, beg for his life. He sounds like a little boy reminding his father that he always told him to “make a plan and stick to it” - something his father agrees with but adds the caveat that “sometimes adjustments must be made” to the plan.

With a chilling “I love you” Phillip moves the plunger on the hypo containing the lethal drug all the way down and clamps his hand over his son’s mouth so that his screams of physical and mental agony will be stifled. And we realize that Jack is in for more emotional trauma when, after calling in the CTU medical team to tend to the now dead Graem, Phillip accuses “them” of killing his son. Since Jack was in charge of the interrogation, we know where blame will fall.

Jack will think he’s killed his own brother. What this will do to his already perilous emotional state is an unknown. And what Phillip’s role in the day’s events was and how it will be revealed is anyone’s guess.

BODY COUNT

Jack scores for the first time in weeks by offing a goon. Phillip murders the other one on purpose and commits “Filicide” to boot.

TOTALS:

Jack: 4

Show: 354

Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman

I got your Super Bowl lock right here. Take it to the bank. Frame it, bronze it, put it on ice.

The Chicago Bears will defeat the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLI.

I know, I know. The answer is some really potent Lebanese Blonde and you can’t have any.

But you don’t have to be smoking nothin’ to look at this game and see a narrow Bears victory in the offing. The fact is, the Colts need Peyton Manning to step up big time while the Bears only need Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman not to screw up.

And the Bears defense is replete with playmakers with a nose for the ball and a demonstrated ability to cause turnovers anywhere on the field. The Saints swore they spent the entire week before the NFC Championship game stressing ball security and look what happened to them; 4 fumbles (3 lost) and an interception.

Finally, when this week started, I would have given the game to the Colts. But something happened to the Bears on Media Day and the days since; they got mad. They got mad about the Colts being coronated by most of the country’s sports press. They got mad about hearing how inadequate Wonder Dog is. They got mad about people still questioning their greatness after winning 15 games.

But even beyond that, the Bears are surprisingly mad at…Da Bears - the 1985 version of The Beloveds. Apparently they don’t like the constant comparisons between the two teams (much to their disadvantage) nor do they appreciate how players from that team are popping up all over TV and bragging how their team was so much better than the 2007 Beloveds.

And if you’ve never seen an angry Bear, I suggest you keep little children and women from watching the game because it’s gonna get bloody. The Colts might be a confident and intense crew, ready to give their best today. But the Bears appear to me to be the more emotional club. That defense is going to be flying around the field delivering titanic blows while seeking to strip the ball on every play. Manning will get his yards but I think the defense stops the Colts from scoring touchdowns, holding them to field goals while the offense gets good field position a couple of times thanks to some timely turnovers. And perhaps Hester breaks one.

Of course, all bets are off if Wonder Dog chokes. While Rex proved he can manage a big game, I think in order for the Bears to win, Grossman is going to have to make plays. And if he’s just a bit off and gets picked a couple of times early, it will be a very long and depressing day for The Beloveds.

Here are a couple of keys that I see making the difference between victory and defeat for both teams.

BEARS O-LINE VS. INDY D-LINE

Bears need to run the ball. Indy needs to stop the run. In the end, it may be that simple. If the Bears rush for more than 150 yards, they probably win. And on pass protection, if Feeny can get to Grossman before Rex can get rid of the ball, the chances increase dramatically for Bears turnovers .

Conversely, if the running game is clicking, Feeny is slowed down by play action and Rex gets the extra second or two to set his feet and fire the ball. Watch and see how much pressure Indy puts on Grossman right off the bat. Ron Turner may use the draw play a lot if Indy’s ends are charging upfield.

Indy can afford to blitz a little more given Wonder Dog’s inexperience. But Bears backs Jones and McKie have been excellent all year at picking off blitzing backers before they get to Rex so Indys red dogging may actually play into the Bears hands.

If the Bears are still within 10 points midway through the third quarter, watch them start really pressing the run, hoping they can wear down the Indy defense. They’ve done it many times this year and tonight should be no different.

BEARS CORNERS VS. MANNING & CO.

No players on the field will have a tougher job than the Bears cornerbacks in covering the talented trio of wide receivers Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, and Indys bull-necked tight end Dallas Clark.

Harrison may have lost a step but is still cat-quick and crafty. Wayne is a burner with great hands and a knack for finding the soft spot in the zone.

But the X-Factor has to be Dallas Clark, a 265 pound tight end with speed and soft hands. Covering the tight end will be nickel back Ricky Manning, Jr. Ricky has had a great post season and will have his hands full with Clark. Expect help for Ricky from Urlacher and Briggs - especially Urlacher as Peyton Manning likes to find Clark down a seam in the middle of the field. Urlacher broke up two passes against the Saints in just such a circumstance, covering the slot receiver 20 yards downfield.

Ricky must be aggressive or Clark will manhandle him. The same goes for the other CB’s Nathan Vashar and Charles Tillman. If they give the Indy wideouts room, the game will become a nightmare. Peyton Manning is just too accurate and the Indy receivers are just too good getting yardage after the catch for our corners to play 5 yards off the ball and try to keep everything in front of them. Wayne especially doesn’t like contact at the line so pressing him makes sense. Harrison, however, thrives on press coverage, giving him an opportunity to make one of his patented double moves that has made more than one NFL cornerback look silly. This is where the Bears pass rush comes in. If they can get to Manning before Harrison or Wayne are finished running their routes and the Indy QB has to check down to Addai or Rhodes, there’s a good chance the defense can stop Indy in their tracks.

I expect a couple of big plays by Wayne - perhaps even a long score. But if the Bears want to win, they cannot do so by simply trying to “contain” the Indy attack. They must be aggressive and stop it cold.

SPECIAL TEAMS

Indy has the edge in their field goal kicker. Bears have the edge in their punter and return unit. Vinatieri may be the best clutch kicker in history. Any conditions, any situation, he can hit from up to 55 yards out. The Bears pro-bowler Robbie Gould is excellent but untested in this kind of pressure cooker. Look for Viniatieri to hit at least 3 perhaps 4 field goals during the course of the game. I think The Beloveds defense will bend, not break which will give the Indy legend plenty of opportunities to score.

If Wonder Dog is underperforming, the Bears will rely on punter Brad Maynard to get them out of trouble. Maynard is one of the best in the league at nestling the ball inside the 20 yard line and if he can keep Indy pinned and give Manning a long field to work with, the Bears chances for victory will increase significantly.

What else can you say about Devin Hester that already hasn’t been said? The rookie’s mouth must be watering at the prospect of going up against one of the worst kick coverage units in football. This doesn’t translate into touchdowns but I think there is a very good chance that Hester will indeed break one and thrill Bears fans watching throughout the world.

All in all, the Bears special teams should clean up. But Vinatieri has a nasty habit of showing up at the worst times - like when you have a 1 or 2 point lead late and the legend lines up to break your heart. But Hester was made for the Big Game and I think he will shock us all.

SUMMARY:

Give Indy the advantage in the passing game, field goal kicker, and pass rush.

Give My Beloveds the advantage in defense, special teams, and the ability to cause turnovers.

Intangibles are even. Indy has been disappointed so many times they feel this is their year. They are supremely confident.

The Beloveds feel they get no respect and are mad as hell about how they think they’ve been treated by everyone.

As far as coaching, another wash. In-game adjustments? Advantage Indy. Preparing his players and motivating them? Lovie.

This game will turn on one or two plays made either by the Indy offense or Bears defense/special teams.

Prediction: Bears 21 Colts 20.

The spectacular skyline of one of the greatest and most beautiful cities in the world - Chicago, Illinois

The Indianapolis skyline. Not the corn, the buildings in the distance.

Tomorrow, I will give my Official Super Bowl Preview - a must see analysis and breakdown of all the match ups and keys to the game.

But today, I thought I’d size up the two cities. You know - show the relative strengths and weaknesses of Chicago and Indianapolis - to determine which city might come out on top when examined side by side.

This is a completely unbiased analysis done with my usual regard for accuracy and the truth.

Or not.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Chicago:

From Wikpedia:

Chicago is a major city in the U.S. state of Illinois. The city is the largest in the Midwest, and with a population of nearly three million people, Chicago is the third-most populous city in the United States. The Chicago Metropolitan area, informally known as Chicagoland, has a population of over 9.4 million in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana making it the third largest in the United States.[1] Chicago is located along the southwestern shore of Lake Michigan and is a major center of transportation, industry, politics, culture, finance, medicine and higher education. Chicago is informally called the “Second City,” the “Windy City,” and the “City of Big Shoulders” (from Carl Sandburg’s poem Chicago).

Indianapolis:

Also from Wikpedia:

Indianapolis was founded as the state capital in 1821. Jeremiah Sullivan, a judge of the Indiana Supreme Court, invented the name Indianapolis by joining Indiana with polis, the Greek word for city. The city was founded on the White River under the incorrect assumption that the river would serve as a major transportation artery; however, the waterway was too sandy for trade. The state commissioned Alexander Ralston to design the new capital city. Ralston was an apprentice to the French architect Pierre L’Enfant, and he helped L’Enfant plan Washington, DC. Ralston’s original plan for Indianapolis called for a city of only 1 square mile, and, at the center of the city, sat the Governor’s Circle, a large circular commons, which was to be the site of the Governor’s mansion. The Governor’s mansion was finally demolished in 1857 and in its place stands a 284-foot-tall (86.5-meter-tall) neoclassical limestone and bronze monument, the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument.

Okay. Let me get this straight. The city has been a mistake since the beginning. It was founded on a river that never became anything more than a backwater on the inland waterway because the dummies didn’t notice it was too sandy for trade. They commissioned a guy to design the city who helped L’Enfant design Washington - perhaps the most maddeningly confusing, screwed up design for a major city ever put on paper.

No? I lived there for 8 years and let me tell you, L’Enfant may have had a nice eye for beauty and all that but it’s obvious the guy never got a drivers license. Anyone who has entered Dupont Circle at rush hour knows what I’m talking about. Without the kindness of strangers, I still might be driving around that damn circle looking for a way to get back on Connecticut Avenue.

And obviously, this fellow Ralston was delusional. A capitol city only one square mile in area? And the governor’s mansion sitting in the middle like some kind of goddamn palace? All of it set down smack in the middle of nowhere?

Gives me the creeps…

FAMOUS CITIZENS

Chicago:

John Ashcroft
Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
George Halas
Michael Jordan
Paul Butterfield
Ted Nugent
Kanye West
Frank Lloyd Wright
Ernest Hemingway
Studs Terkel
Al Capone (bang! bang!)

Indianapolis:

Isaih Thomas (St. Joes HS, Westchester, IL)
Quinn Buckner (Thornridge HS, Dolton, IL)
John Dillinger (via Chicago, IL)

Rumor has it that the pig used in the film Babe is from Indianapolis but the mayor denies any of his relations have ever appeared in film.

FAMOUS CUISINE

Chicago:

Chicago style pizza, Italian sausage, Stewarts Coffee, cheeseburgers, Vienna hot dogs, Italian beef.

Indianapolis:

Well…let’s see. Can we come back to this one?

FAMOUS LANDMARKS

Art Institute, John Hancock building, Sears Tower, Lake Michigan, “The Magnificent Mile,” Lake Shore Drive, Rush Street, Billy Goat Tavern.

Indianapolis:

Great big statues where pigeons gather. The laundromat. The Jungle Jim at Riverfront Park. The Pool Hall.

2ND CALL - INDIANAPOLIS: FAMOUS CUISINE

I’m thinking! I’m thinking!

WHAT RESIDENTS DO FOR ENTERTAINMENT

Chicago:

Civic opera, world famous symphony orchestra, Field Museum, clubbing ’till dawn, fabulous restaurants, Goodman Theater, dozens of bars where you can have a naked girl give you a lap dance.

Indianapolis:

Watching sidewalks roll up at 10:00 PM. Eating at Domino’s. Hanging out at the mall. Going to the edge of town and watching the corn grow. Pig races. Dozens of bars where drunk Hoosiers throw up all over you.

3RD AND FINAL CALL - INDIANAPOLIS: FAMOUS CUISINE

Um…do Boilermakers count as food?

PRO SPORTS FRANCHISES

Chicago:

Bears (NFL)
Bulls (NBA)
White Sox (MLB)
Cubs (Well - they call themselves pros anyway)
Blackhawks (NHL)
Fire (MSL)

Indianapolis:

Pacers (NBA)
Colts (NFL)

They also boast a race track where cars go very fast around and around in a circle for a couple of hours while 500,000 people get drunk, take off their shirts (men and women), and hope that something interesting happens.

Hall of Fame Middle Linebacker Mike Singletary personified the ‘85 Bears defense.

The roar would start even before the team ran out from the tunnel to take the field. It was a primal sound, the kind of noise one might hear at a gladiatorial contest where the crowd anticipated blood being spilled or animals loosed upon unfortunates tied to stakes in the middle of the arena.

And then, as if shot from the mouth of a cannon, Mike Singletary would lead 1985 edition of The Beloveds on to the field at full gallop. The crowd, already working themselves into a fevered pitch, would scream even louder. There was no doubt in anyone’s mind that this Bear’s team was something special. And people appreciated the fact that the contest that was about to unfold would prove as entertaining an afternoon of football as had ever been seen in Chicago for all the long history of this team in this town.

This team. This town. The 1985 Bears were a team for the books. Not just sports record books mind you. The 1985 Beloveds could have provided fodder for tomes from a couple of academic disciplines. There was the sociological phenomenon that were the 1985 Bears - a team that united a city as it perhaps had not been united before. The influence of the football team permeated all levels of society in Chicago, all income groups, all races, creeds, ethnicities, and classes. Then there was the economic impact of that team. If you had something with a Chicago Bear on it or the Bear’s logo, it sold out. Retailers couldn’t keep the stuff on the shelves. The city also estimated that year that each home game brought an additional $20-30 million dollars to Chicago businesses.

One might be tempted to even explore the religious angle to the story of the 1985 Bears although prayers offered for victory by priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, and clergy from every faith on gameday might be stretching my point a little too far.

The team’s march to the Super Bowl that year was filled with some of the most memorable moments in the long and storied history of Chicago sports. There was that incredibly dramatic performance by Bears quarterback Jim McMahon against the Vikings on September 20th. On the sidelines at the start of the game due to a sore shoulder and infected leg, McMahon convinced Da Coach to send him into the game in the middle of the third quarter with my beloveds trailing 17-9.

The very first play from scrimmage, the punk QB threw a 70 yard TD to speedster Willy Gault. Then, following an interception by Wilbur Marshall, McMahon’s first play in the series was another TD pass, this time a 25 yarder to WR Dennis McKinnon. Finally, getting the ball back after a Vikings punt, McMahon coolly led the team down the field, topping off his third quarter effort with a 43 yard strike once again to McKinnon.

Three touchdowns in 6:40, turning a 17-9 deficit into a 30-17 lead and an eventual 33-24 victory. It is the stuff of legends. And the nearly speechless ABC crew televising the rare Thursday night contest began to talk about the Bears as serious contenders.

There was the 49′ers game a few weeks later with the defense swarming, darting, and burying the Super Bowl Champs 26-10, avenging the humiliation of the 23-0 drubbing meted out by San Francisco in the NFC Championship game the previous January.

Then there were the Green Bay Packers. Ditka hated the Packers. He hated everything about them. He most of all hated their coach Forest Gregg. In the team’s 23-7 victory, Da Coach sent in “325 pound” defensive lineman William “The Fridge” Perry in goal line situations for the offense. I put Perry’s weight in quotes because it was obvious to all that Perry may have been 325 pounds at some point in his life - high school perhaps - but weighed closer to 380 that night.

Lining up in the backfield as a blocker for Walter Payton, Perry made Packer linebacker George Cumby the answer to a trivia question by knocking the poor unfortunate halfway to Peoria and opening a gaping hole for Payton to walk into the endzone. Later that year, Perry would actually run the ball for a touchdown in the Super Bowl and later in his career, catch a pass for a TD. But it was that magical night against Green Bay that started the Perry legend that has endeared him to Bears fans to this day.

There was the 44-0 blowout of Dallas and the playoff wins in the cold and snow against New York and the Rams before the lopsided 46-10 triumph in Super Bowl XX - all memories cherished by fans for the last 21 years.

That team was as unique a group of players who ever suited up together. The disparate and clashing personalities somehow all seemed to meld together to form an unbreakable bond - a bond that extended to the fans as well. There were quiet ones like Fencik and Gayle. There were loud ones like McMichael and McMahon. There were funny ones like Perry and McKinnon.

And presiding over the mayhem was the fiery Ditka who was at war with everyone - his own players at times, his own coaches (especially defensive coach Buddy Ryan), the press, the opposing players and coaches. One would think that if he could swing it, Ditka would take on the popcorn vendors at the game so combative he was. And the city ate it up.

It was the defense, of course, that brought out the beast in fans. Much has been made of the 2007 version of the Bears defense in comparing it to the 1985 crew. This is silly. The Buddy Ryan led group were nothing like this year’s cat quick, cerebral, position-conscious crew. That 1985 bunch were like animals in a zoo that Ryan kept locked up for 6 days without food and then opened the cages on Sunday afternoon to feast on opposing players. The flew around the field like madmen - ravenous beasts swarming, grappling, fighting, and hitting like a ton of bricks. Opposing teams were terrified and it showed.

This year’s defense is good and will be better with the return of safety Mike Brown and defensive tackle Tommie Harris next year. But even when they were playing lights out the first 8 or 9 games of the season, they relied more on deceiving the other team’s offense than frightening them to death. The NFL will be a long time before they see the likes of that 1985 crew again.

They are all in their late 40’s and 50’s now. Recently, the plight of some of them has been highlighted, shining a light on the crime that is the NFL pension and health care system for retired players. A couple of them are suing the league and the NFL Players Union for what they consider unfair treatment. But most of the 1985 Bears who survive are fit and reasonably well off. We lost Sweetness in 1999 to a liver ailment and Todd Bell to a heart attack at age 43 in 2005. The remainder pass in and out of memory as they appear here and there on television, calling to mind a glory that will always be remembered but can never be recaptured.

No matter what the 2007 Bears do on Sunday, they too will enjoy a modicum of immortality. And judging by their quality coach and the quality ballplayers he has assembled, I feel confident in saying that no matter what happens this year, the Chicago Bears will probably not take 21 years to get back to the Super Bowl.

But Lovie Smith could win a Super Bowl every year between now and the time he retires and it will not dim the memories or the rub the luster off that 1985 squad - the most beloved of all Bears teams.

Actually, if Smith wins on Sunday, it wouldn’t hurt. No sir…wouldn’t hurt at all…

The strange and bizarre saga of William Arkin endures as the Military Affairs columnist and blogger for the Washington Post continues to offer up explanations for what he really meant in his January 30th post savaging the American military.

Yesterday, Arkin posted an incoherent defense of his position that referred to his critics as “arrogant and intolerant” while furiously trying to backtrack from his original thoughts by lying about what he said in the January 30th post.

Not surprisingly, this didn’t work very well. In fact, a couple of hours after the response to his critics was posted, it was hastily taken down. Someone somewhere at WaPo may have seen Arkin’s response as not only inadequate but insulting as well and subsequently removed the offending post from Arkin’s webpage.

Arkin proved himself nothing if not dogged by posting a second, less inflammatory but still incoherent response to his critics that still contains obvious falsehoods about what he said in the original post while saying that he knew all along that his words would draw a huge negative reaction and that he did it on purpose to get a dialogue started on the issue of the military being put on a pedestal:

I knew when I used the word “mercenary” in my Tuesday column that I was being highly inflammatory.

NBC News ran a piece in which enlisted soldiers in Iraq expressed frustration about waning American support.

I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them. The public has duties, but not to the American military.

So I committed blasphemy, and for this seeming lack of respect and appreciation for individuals in uniform, I have been roundly criticized and condemned.

Mercenary, of course, is an insult and pejorative, and it does not accurately describe the condition of the American soldier today. I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally.

Long time readers of this site know that I rarely use profanity in a post but Arkin’s words impel me to make an exception:

What a crock of shit.

Everything he writes rings hollow. I don’t believe for one minute he could have possibly sensed the firestorm of controversy that erupted over his insults. And his “apology” - that he’s sorry anyone in the military took his words “literally” - is a shocking prevarication.

He didn’t just use the word “mercenary” in passing. He used it as part of what passes for humor on the left. It was a deliberate smear - the kind that keeps you in good standing with the anti-war crowd. It is a wink and a nod at the hard left, telling them that he agrees with them but that the mask must stay on so that the slack jawed, goober chewing, shotgun toting, mouthbreathers in the hinterlands don’t get their panties in a bunch:

But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

In effect, he was telling his friends on the left to take the insult literally while maintaining a certain deniability by making an awkward bon mot out of the phrase.

Where Arkin refuses to back down is in his belief that the American soldier shouldn’t be dissing the home folks - not when patriots like him “support” them:

Those in uniform who think about and speak out about this predicament are rightly frustrated and angry. Many seem to find some solace in blaming the media or anti-war “leftists” or the Democratic Party or the liberals, or even an ungrateful or insufficiently martial American public.

But if those in the military are now going to argue that we are losing in Iraq because the military has lacked for Ssomething, then the absence of such support should be placed at the feet of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld and company, and a Republican Congress — not on the shoulders of the American public, who have been nothing but supportive, even those who have opposed the war…

In the middle of all of this are the troops, the pawns in political battles at home as much as they are on the real battlefield. We unquestioningly “support” these troops for the very reasons that they are pawns. We give them what we can to be successful, and we have a contract with them, because they are our sons and daughters and a part of us, not to place them in an impossible spot

Is it “solace” those men on the NBC report were seeking? It sounded to me like they were seeking an answer to a very good question - a question that Arkin refuses to even try and answer (except by muddying the waters by saying they shouldn’t be asking questions in the first place): How can you “support the troops” without supporting their mission?

Arkin is silent on this point except to say that of course you can be supportive of the men while opposing the war! How dare you even raise the question!

No explanation. Just platitudes about free speech - a curious defense given his scolding of the soldiers themselves for speaking out. I agree with Arkin that it is possible to be a patriotic American and oppose the war and agitate for bringing the troops home now. And while we shouldn’t question their patriotism, we damn well can question their judgement. Of course, they can similarly question the judgement of those of us who support our continued deployment. This is called democratic debate. Perhaps Arkin has forgotten how that works and that the soldiers also have every right to participate.

All of this comes back to the mask being worn by Arkin and many on the left and how it hides their true feelings about the military and the United States in general. At the beginning of the war, we heard much from our lefty friends about how this time, unlike what happened in Viet Nam, they wouldn’t blame the war on the troops. No spitting please. No calling them “baby killers.” Of course, this doesn’t mean that they don’t really think that. They’re just not going to make the political error this time around of getting the rest of the American people angry at them for what they truly believe.

This why it is impossible for Arkin and others to answer the simple question posed by the soldiers. There literally is no answer because the soldiers are correct. But for very good political reasons, most of the anti-war crowd will obfuscate and set up straw men about “free speech” rather than give a direct response. Simply saying that it is possible to support the troops while opposing their mission doesn’t cut it. By putting the onus on the troops for asking it, Arkin tries to shift the focus from the obvious answer - he doesn’t “support” the troops or the war effort - to why the interlocutor was wrong for inquiring in the first place. They are “intimidating” the American people or they are “blaming” the citizenry for our failures in Iraq by asking the question.

We got a glimpse of Arkin’s mindset yesterday from this exchange that Michelle Malkin transcribed from an interview conducted by Fox’s John Gibson on his radio show yesterday:

GIBSON: The general tone of this piece is that the troops owe us, that we continue to support them through the war that they are losing.

ARKIN: Oh, come on, John, that’s your characterization! (Voice rising) I don’t say they owe us anything! I just say that when the troops start to express their dissatisfaction with the American public, they should look in the mirror and ask themselves whether or not the American public is their servant or they’re the servant of the American public. (Voice louder) I nowhere suggested that the troops shouldn’t have the right to speak up. I merely said we shouldn’t put them on such a pedestal that they are above criticism IF THEY SAY STUPID THINGS!

GIBSON: Well, what is so stupid about…[plays NBC segment...Staff Sergeant: "If they're going to support us, support us all the way."]

GIBSON: What is so wrong…

ARKIN: (Going bananas, sputtering at top of his lungs) HE’S JUST TOTALLY WRONG, JOHN. PEOPLE CAN SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND NOT SUPPORT THE WAR. AND THE FACT THAT THESE GUYS IN UNIFORM DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT TELLS ME THAT THEY ARE BADLY SCHOOLED IN THE REALITIES OF [unintelligible]…

Note that Arkin still makes no attempt to answer the question of how one can support the troops without supporting the war. He simply states it as fact - as if it were as much a part of the natural world as the sun rising and setting. No explanation needed. And his contention that he never asked the troops to shut up is patently false. In his original post, he hoped that their commanding officer took them aside and read them the riot act:

I’m all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn’t for them to disapprove of the American people.

He is clearly saying - despite his caveat about his supporting the idea of “everyone expressing their opinion” - that it “wasn’t for them” (not their place) to disapprove of the American people.

This does indeed sound like he thinks they shouldn’t be able to express an opinion on the subject despite his hollow nod to the First Amendment. No amount of explaining. No attempt to set up additional straw men will change that singular fact. The only thing he can do is apologize - something Mr. Arkin seems intent on avoiding at all costs.

In my post yesterday, I wrote that I was going to email the editor and publisher, asking them to fire Mr. Arkin. I didn’t do it because of this post by Don Surber that made me change my focus. I don’t think it’s necessarily “stupid” to ask for his resignation but I get Don’s point about not stifling debate. Arkin didn’t quite go far enough in his insults to warrant removal. But I don’t think it too much to ask for his apology - a full, honest, and complete mea culpa for the disrespect he showed to our people in uniform.

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq contains few, if any, surprises regarding the situation on the ground in that bloody country but offers “a glimmer” of hope that things can improve significantly:

A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.

In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.

The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.

Reading between the lines of what was leaked to the Washington Post, the NIE nevertheless seems to me to make the correct judgements and draws the right conclusions:

Sources familiar with the closely held estimate agreed to discuss it in general terms yesterday on the condition that they remain anonymous and not be directly quoted. But Negroponte and others in the intelligence community have made frequent references to its conclusions in recent testimony.

On Tuesday, Negroponte referred to the NIE in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Iraq is at a precarious juncture. That means the situation could deteriorate, but there are prospects for increasing stability” that depend on the commitment of Iraqi government and political leaders to take steps to end Sunni-Shiite violence and “the willingness of Iraqi security forces to pursue extremist elements of all kinds,” he said.

Congress, which requested the Iraq NIE last August, has pressured the intelligence community to complete it in time for consideration of Bush’s new strategy. Intelligence officials have insisted that their best experts were working on the project at the same time they were meeting the demands of policymakers for current intelligence reports.

In the end, we can send 10 times 21,000 troops to Iraq. But if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to avoid tackling the political problems that are fueling the sectarian violence, then all is for naught and we might as well redeploy our troops to Kuwait or some other base now.

I don’t envy the task of the Prime Minister but to date, he has been his own worst enemy. His cozying up to Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army is only one of his problems. The fact is, the Sunnis see Maliki trying to establish Shia hegemony over the rest of the country and indeed, this is what has been happening. The coalition of political parties that governs Iraq are dominated by Shia nationalists who refuse to back Maliki in taking the steps necessary to broaden participation of the Sunnis and Kurds as well as adding the secular parties to the mix. Every plea we have made, every attempt to engage the Shia parties in the kind of nation building that will take the fire from the hearts of both Shias and Sunnis and start the healing process which would begin to reduce the violence has been rebuffed.

The Shias, by their lights, don’t see the need. They point to their victories at the polls and have expressed the fear that if they give up too much power to the Sunnis and Kurds, their own voters will turn on them. Then there is the threat of assassination by one of the dozen or so militias. Sadr has made it clear that Iraq will be a nation dominated by Shias and any politician that advocates sharing power with the Sunnis does so at their own peril.

Meanwhile, the Sunnis are trapped by history and by the blood on their hands from generations of oppressing the Shias and Kurds. The only way out for them is amnesty. And at the moment, amnesty is a non-starter for Maliki who would have to please both the radical Shias represented by Sadr and the Americans who would not look kindly on pardoning insurgents who killed our soldiers.

So the insurgents believe they have no choice. They must fight or die - either at the hands of Shia death squads or in battle against the Americans. Getting the Americans to go away may seem to be the height of stupidity since the American Army is the only thing standing between the Sunnis and a human rights tragedy that could dwarf what is going on in Darfur - a bloodletting and refugee crisis that would involve more than 5 million people. But the insurgents, who have made common cause with al-Qaeda in Iraq in some instances, feel that their only play is to try and reclaim power. And they know the Americans would never allow that to happen.

This Gordian Knot cannot be cut by American troops no matter how spectacularly they perform in the field. It won’t be cut simply by reining in the militias or killing Shia and Sunni extremists, although this would be extremely helpful and give the Iraqi government some breathing room to initiate at least some political reforms. It might not even be possible for the Iraqis to cut it alone. I can understand the resistance by the Administration to a regional conference on Iraq that would include the Iranians and the Syrians. But the Saudis are apparently going to start taking a more active role in defending their Sunni brethren while Iran shows no signs of slacking off in their support for the militias. It would make sense that a regional conference, with a well defined agenda, could come up with solutions that would use the influence of those two nations (and possibly Syria) in helping the Iraqis achieve a consensus on how to move forward toward political stability.

This most recent NIE, if it does nothing else, will, I hope, disabuse those who are inclined to believe that the application of military power alone by America can do much to solve the long term, systemic political problems that keep the insurgency going. At this point, we can do little more than act as a buffer between Shia extremists who seek revenge and Sunnis who are being hunted down and killed by both regular and irregular forces. For this reason alone, our continued presence in Iraq is well worth the effort.

But if the government of Prime Minister Maliki continues on its course and refuses to engage the other factions in a dialogue that would lead to a truly non sectarian government of national unity, we should look very hard at exploring other options up to and including a redeployment of our troops outside of Iraq.

UPDATE

Allah points to this McClatchy dispatch from yesterday that blames the US for the rise in influence of the Mahdi Army. The story quotes American troops on the ground in Baghdad saying that the the Iraqi army is lousy with Sadrists and that their plan is to wait for us to leave and then carry out a nationwide massacre of Sunnis.

Bryan points out in an update that this is not entirely accurate, that Sadr appears to have lost total control over his own militia and that there are several agendas at work among Sadrists.

First of all, there is nothing very new here. Perhaps the idea that roughly half the Iraqi army in Baghdad is made up of Sadrites would be news - if it were true. Maliki has deliberately tried to sprinkle Kurdish units in with the Shias to head off just such an eventuality. The problem is, in the past, the Kurds have been reluctant to go to Baghdad and have gone so far as to mutiny against the idea - probably because they realize all too well the truth in some of what has been reported here. I agree with Bryan that it is the local police who are truly lousy with Sadrites and that the army is trusted to a much greater degree by all Iraqis.

Bryan’s take below sounds about right:

The case of JAM is, as I’ve mentioned before, not as simple as the press usually makes out. Of the entire JAM militia, probably half are truly loyal to al-Sadr. The other half joined up for various reasons from needing the money to being threatened if they don’t join to having a grudge against Sunnis to wanting to tamp down local petty crime, etc. JAM isn’t a monolithic force in the way that Al Qaeda is, all joined by one ideal. There are factions within it, and those factions can be and are being exploited politically by the US forces. That also takes time. I will say that all the panic in Washington these days strengthens the hand of Sadr, since he seems to be on the winning side right now and everyone who chose to side with us seems to be on the losing side. The momentum right now is undoubtedly with the Sadrists, not because of the infiltration, but because anyone who is on the fence in Baghdad is being compelled by events to choose a side, and one side appears to be running away. The rational choice for an awful lot of people will be to join the side that is staying and looks like it will have a great deal of power after we’ve withdrawn. Had we stayed and not shown so much panic over the years, those who sided with us would be in a stronger position in Iraqi society than they may be in the coming months and years–if they survive that long.

None of this is to minimize the threat of militia infiltration into the ISF. But stories like the one above present the negative gotchas–see here, the whole Iraqi military is nothing but JAM–while leaving out the positive things our troops might have said about the ISF or how they see the infiltration being dealt with. The same troops at FOB Justice who were candid with us about JAM infiltration in the ISF also noted that some units are standing up fairly well and some are taking their missions very seriously and doing them well. You’ll hear about that in a bit more detail in tomorrow’s Vent, actually.

The votes are in from this week’s Watcher’s Council and the winner in the Council category is “On the Possibility of an Embargo of Iranian Oil” by American Future. Finishing second was “Teacher Merit Pay” by The Colossus of Rhodey.

Finishing first in the non Council category was “Because the Language They Use Is Killing” by INDC Journal.

Time to welcome our newest Council member Bookworm Room replacing Andrew Olmsted who has been called up.

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers vote, go here and follow instructions.

French President Jacques Chirac shrugs off Iranian nukes in response to a question at a press conference held yesterday.

The last time I did a post on French President Jacques Chirac readers walked away with the impression that I hate the French people and treat them unfairly when I make fun of some of their national peculiarities.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Like P.J. O’Rourke, I have a soft spot in my heart for the French:

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don’t know.
O’Rourke, P.J. (1989), Holidays in hell. London (Picador), 199

Perhaps if the French drank more whiskey and tried harder not to undermine the United States on Iran, we would quit calling them “cheese eating surrender monkeys” and simply refer to them as weasels:

President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.

On Tuesday, Mr. Chirac summoned the same journalists back to Élysée Palace to retract many of his remarks.

Mr. Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he believed he had been talking about Iran off the record.

“I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record,” he said.

I shouldn’t have insulted weasels so.

To say that the French are being unhelpful with regards to Iran wouldn’t be true. They have been of enormous help to the Iranians. The only possible way to convince the Iranian government to cease enriching uranium or, at the very least, allow for intrusive, on site inspections of the enrichment process is for the Big Three in Europe - Great Britain, France, and Germany - to stand shoulder to shoulder and speak with one voice along with the United States on the question of Iranian nukes.

The United States worked extremely hard last summer and early fall trying to reach a consensus with our European partners on Iran. We worked even harder to bring the Russians and Chinese on board for even the limited, watered down sanctions that were eventually passed by the Security Council. All the major players in the game seemed to agree on at least one thing; no nuclear weapons for Iran under any circumstances at any time.

This united stance actually seemed to be having a limited effect in Iran as prices for basics went through the roof because speculators were worried that even harsher sanctions would be in the offing thanks to the unity of the major powers. Ahmadinejad lost some prestige and perhaps even some support as a result of the sanctions regime being passed by a united Europe and America.

And now Mr. Chirac has detonated a bomb right in the middle of this coalition. It doesn’t matter that he tried to take it back. What matters is that the Iranians know that when push comes to shove at the United Nations, the chances are good that France will abandon consensus and once again pursue its own agenda. Not out of any over riding national interest but because they feel it their duty to oppose the Americans while pretending that France still has influence in the world beyond their former colonies and certain segments of what we used to call the “Non-Aligned Nations.” By giving a wink and a nod to Tehran on their nuclear program, Chirac has almost single handedly guaranteed that someone - either the Israelis or us - will have to go in and take out the Iranian nuke program before it can build a bomb.

Granted the chances of the Iranians giving in to the Security Council demands were remote even before Chirac’s casually stupid remarks. But Chirac’s comments guarantee that those chances now sink to near zero.

Chirac will be gone in a couple of months. It will be interesting to see if his successor continues the game of “now you see our support and now you don’t” that Chirac has played for years on a variety of issues. Just about anything would be an improvement over this insufferably arrogant man.

In Stanley Kubrick’s wildly funny and depressingly dark comedy Dr. Strangelove, Peter Sellers, playing several roles including both the President and the title character, just can’t help himself as Dr. Strangelove. The more Strangelove talks about the end of the world and nuclear annihilation, the more his Nazi instincts try to take over. He struggles to keep his arm from flinging upwards in a Nazi salute. His feet desperately want to do the goose step despite his being wheel chair bound.

Finally, almost swooning with ecstasy over the possibilities in a post nuclear world, Strangelove loses the battle and his arm shoots up in a Nazi salute, calling the President “Mein Fuhrer.” In the end, he forgot that he was trying to fool people about his true feelings and gave in to his natural inclinations.

In similar fashion, try as they might to suppress their natural proclivities regarding the American armed forces, many on the left get so carried away sometimes they forget that they are trying to fool the American people into believing that they are but simple patriots, concerned about the lives and welfare of the troops and, in a spasm of hate and loathing, reveal exactly what they think of the young men and women who have volunteered to serve.

Of course, some never try and hide their contempt for our military. One of the major players in the anti-war movement, Code Pink, picketed Walter Reed hospital where many of our wounded vets are being treated. They even accosted and razzed some soldiers who were out-patients coming in for further treatment on wounds suffered in battle.

The press was extremely careful not to report these demonstrations. Gather half a dozen anarchists, greens, or moveon.org types on a street corner asking people to “honk for impeachment” and that will get you a page 3 write up in most newspapers. But somehow, there were no reporters available to cover these demonstrations at Walter Reed that showed such monumental disrespect for the volunteers who have suffered wounds in service to their country.

But the Democrats and their allies on the left have largely been successful in subsuming their real feelings about the military with only a couple of exceptions marring the record. Predictably, John Kerry’s “botched joke” about the intelligence of soldiers serving in Iraq was one such example of this subsurface hate for those in the military. It apparently sank his presidential ambitions and probably saved the Republicans a couple of House seats in the election. But at the time, it was generally felt that Kerry’s revealing anecdote was just a demonstration of his long time loathing of active duty personnel. Like Strangelove, Kerry just couldn’t help himself.

Now we have William Arkin of the Washington Post revealing in spectacularly ignorant fashion, his own contempt for the men and women who currently wear the uniform. In what can only be described as a shockingly inappropriate post on his blog, Arkin complains that the men and women in the military who speak out in favor of the mission in Iraq and complain about the lack of support from the American people are a bunch of ungrateful wretches who who should shut up and do their jobs - a job that Arkin believes is akin to one that a mercenary does:

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don’t get it, that they don’t understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover’s and Nixon’s will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren’t the United States, I’d say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

You can put your hand down now, Arkin.

For those who can’t fathom why Arkin would write such a post in the first place, I would say that these are obviously feelings he has suppressed for a long time for so much bile and hate to spill out so nakedly and in such a public way. The entire post reeks of self serving hypocrisy as Arkin sets up one straw man after another, posits logical fallacies again and again, and then, most shockingly, questions the motives of the troops who volunteered to keep him safe in his bed at night.

For a specific refutation of Mr. Arkin’s execrable ideas and statements, I would visit first Blackfive. Although this is the kind of post that is emotionally satisfying to read and write, if you get beyond the name calling, the author does indeed make several valid points answering questions raised by Arkin’s writing as well as easily knocking down several of the strawmen propped up by the Post blogger.

Hugh Hewitt has some background info on Arkin as does Marc Danzinger. Apparently, WaPo hired a raving, anti-military lefty loon to write about military affairs. Ben Domench anyone?

Michell Malkin has her usual thorough round up and posts some of the comments left at Arkins blog - 504 and counting as of 6:30 AM Central time this morning.

John Hinderaker wonders where WaPo’s editors were prior to the publication of Arkins blog post.

AND IF YOU READ ANYTHING TODAY ABOUT THIS ISSUE, YOU ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY HAVE TO READ THIS ARTICLE BY JOHN AT OP-FOR:

And with that piece, every frustration that I’ve felt over America’s new fifth column, every insult that smug anti-war pundits have hurled at the silent stoics in our armed forces, all the false pity, all the overused meaningless cliches (”we support the troops but not the war”) that we in the military have endured, every bit of anger that I’ve suppressed in the name of good manners and honorable debate, reaches a fist-clenching apex…

If there is a war that’s unwinnable, it’s the war on this type of horrid ignorance. The type of uniformed, intellectually lazy thinking that can only exist in the sheltered bubble of cocktail parties and classrooms. Arkin is a gazer. A man forever condemned to peering out the window into the real world, watching the exertions of men better than himself. And yet he fancies himself the educated one. Any logical human being would trade career in journalism for the expertise gained by serving a mere one month in the box, yet this slime fancies his opinion so informed, so expert, so utterly irrefutable that even the very soldiers who are fighting this war are shamefully ignorant for daring to challenge his infallibility.

Go. Read. Now.

If, as Dan Reihl speculates, the press is now in open opposition and is making no effort to hide their bias, then we should expect to see more of this kind of truthiness coming from the left. After all, the election is over. They won. They successfully fooled enough of the American people into actually believing they cared a tinkers’ damn about the troops or about the United States for that matter. They successfully allowed people to believe that they had no intention of cutting and running in Iraq before some semblance of victory could be achieved all the while planning to do exactly the opposite.

But with the moves afoot to not only cut off funding for “the surge” but also attempts to micro manage troop levels, mission goals, and benchmarks that must be achieved by the Iraqi government, a sick sense of defeatism and helplessness is running through our political class, weakening any remaining resolve to bring the Iraq adventure to some kind of honorable conclusion. The politicians - both Republicans and Democrats - simply want the issue to go away. And with it, the hundreds of thousands of American servicemen who have served courageously, honorably, and despite what Arkin says, with few complaints. They have done all that they have been asked to do and then gone beyond that and heroically done much more.

And this is the thanks they get. Not just from the Arkins of the world and other leftists who, after all, just can’t help themselves. But also from people who should know better.

I don’t know where these young men and women will be in two years. But I hope that wherever they are, they are at least given credit for carrying out their mission with honor and that sense of duty that only a true calling to serve others brings to life.

UPDATE: ARKIN RESPONDS TO CRITICS

Michelle Malkin has the gist of Arkin’s response. Basically, he’s a liar:

Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of e-mails I’ve received, I’ve never written that soldiers should “shut up,” quit whining, be spit upon, or that they have no right to an opinion.

I said I was bothered by the notion that “the troops” were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

Beggin’ your pardon kind sir, but where in God’s name in the original post do you write, hint, or dream of anything you claim you were saying? Where, for instance, do you posit the notion that our soldiers believe they are “the one true nation?” Or that they “hid behind the constitution?”

In fact, after an obligatory nod to their constitutional rights, you then attempted to take that right away:

I’m all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn’t for them to disapprove of the American people.

Sounds pretty clear cut to me. You don’t think it “was for them” to disapprove of the American people. How do you get around the fact that you hope that their commanders shut them up? Or that they should just keep their criticisms about the American people to themselves?

William Arkin is a bald faced liar. His “response” is replete with instances like the one above where he claims he’s just some poor, misunderstood newspaper guy with people making death threats against him and saying he should leave the country.

Welcome to the blogosphere, chum.

His meaning in the initial post was clear. Trying to muddy the waters with this response will not wash away his rhetoric about “obscene amenities” and the ridiculous and insulting scenario where our robot-like troops would follow a General James Matoon Scott in some kind of military coup against the government - all because the troops were mad at the press and politicians.

Doesn’t he realize what a monumental insult that is to the honor and integrity of every member of the United States military both living and dead to intimate that any of them would violate their oaths to the Constitution so cavalierly?

Sorry Mr. Arkin. If you had left well enough alone and not tried to throw sand in our eyes about what you truly meant to say with your original post, the issue may have faded away on its own.

But since you have seen fit to compound your monumental errors in judgement by trying to school your readers in what you really meant - equally reprehensible in any case to what you originally wrote - I am going to write a letter to the editor and publisher calling for your resignation.

And if you had an ounce of decency, you’d beat them to it.

UPDATE II

Allah has some audio from Arkin’s appearance on Fox last night.