Right Wing Nut House

I want to congratulate former Senator John Edwards and the entire network of netroots activists who, through a combination of thuggish threats and wild obfuscations of the facts managed to cow a candidate for President into doing their bidding by keeping two female bigots on his staff.

Amazing. So many issues have been raised by this dust-up that my “Last Word” post yesterday really doesn’t do the matter justice - especially after the shocking statement announcing the decision was released. For in my opinion, this couldn’t have ended worse for Edwards or the netroots if Karl Rove had planned it.

The general consensus among righty bloggers who are looking at the matter dispassionately is that Edwards probably did the only thing he could do in keeping the two women on board but that the prevaricating statement he issued to announce his decision was shocking in tone and substance. Simply put, to say that the two bloggers in question weren’t trying to malign Catholics or Christians is a crock.

Ed Morrissey:

However, it’s difficult to give much credence to Edwards’ explanation. He says that both bloggers have “assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith,” but given the quoted material, it’s almost impossible to reach any other conclusion. Calling Christians “misogynists” for their beliefs on the nature of life and the Virgin Birth, and that their opposition to abortion aims to force women to produce more tithing Catholics, certainly qualifies as intentionally malignant. It’s a convenient dodge, as were the “apologies” from the pair for having been misunderstood.

Contrary to the opinions of some well-intentioned bloggers, this never had anything to do with free speech. It had to do with the judgment of the Edwards campaign in hiring two incendiary bloggers known in part for their hostility to Christians.

This brings up a point that has puzzled me since the entire imbroglio began; how can you “smear” someone with their own words? Chris Bowers used the terms “smear” several times in this post in reference to the right’s attempt to highlight what any reasonable person would conclude are bigoted references to someone else’s personal religious beliefs. And despite the denials of both Marcotte and McEwan that they were only kidding or being satirical, the context of those hateful words and phrases clearly indicates rage not comedy was at work and a deliberate attempt to inflict emotional pain on Christian believers was fully intended. Why else would Marcotte refer to Jesus as “Jebus” so often on her site (one blogger counted 114 references to “Jebus”) or so shockingly refer to Christians as “misogynists?”

I suppose I should make it known for the umpteenth time that I am an atheist and am only concerned about the impact of these words on others. For the same reason we all blanch when someone uses the “N” word in a joke or other derogatory manner due to its hurtful connotations, we should all roundly and specifically condemn these hateful, hurtful, insensitive remarks published by both these women on their blogs.

But in this case, politics has trumped decency. No major netroots blogger that I have read has taken these women to task for their extraordinarily vile and disgusting diatribes. A few brave liberal commenters on my first post regarding Marcotte expressed outrage. But the outrage of the netroots was reserved for conservatives who, as I mentioned yesterday, were using the issue to try and damage Edwards while doing a little scalp hunting. While admitting the motives of conservatives were not pure, I was still shocked that nary a peep was heard regarding the two bloggers disgusting characterizations of Catholics and Christians in general. “Christofascists” as McEwan continually referred to them.

But the extent of whitewashing being done by the netroots when they concentrate on defending the obscenities used by the bloggers rather than the substance of their remarks is truly remarkable. I actually defended Jesse Taylor former blogger at Pandagon, and the use of obscenities in this post. I doubt that a few F-bombs would have been enough to cause the kind of stink that erupted. Saying that I or any other conservative is objecting solely on those grounds is a strawman argument plain and simple.

I have my own problems with the religious right but you would never, ever catch me using the kind of invective employed by Marcotte and McEwan. For me, it makes the defense of the two bloggers all the more curious. Apparently, tolerance, like every other part of liberal dogma, is a relative thing and that it can safely be disregarded if it interferes with the drive for power that is animating the progressive community.

Goldstein:

But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism—he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.

Further, in doing so, he has shown himself to be nothing more than a calculating political opportunist of the worst sort—one who believes the voting public so daft they might actually buy a statement like the one he just released.

As I wrote yesterday, I don’t care one way or the other, personally, about whether or not Marcotte and McEwan are allowed to keep their jobs. That’s Edwards’ call. And from a blogging perspective, I suppose Edwards’ decision is good news.

But let’s not confuse the effect with the rationale—which is both risible and insulting. Because were it really never Marcotte’s intent to malign anyone’s faith, she probably wouldn’t have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you know—maligning anyone’s faith.

Indeed. Numerous sins can be forgiven as long as those transgressions serve the “higher purpose” of electing a President beholden to progressive online community. Jeff thinks that Edward’s statement emasculates the two bloggers. Nothing could be further than the truth. With a wink and a nod at his online supporters, Edwards has included them in his political gambit of appearing to chastise the bloggers for the benefit of the press and the rest of America who view what the two bloggers wrote as beyond the pale while acknowledging to his supporters that he knows where they’re coming from.

The questions raised about Edwards in this regard are extremely troubling. If he can’t stand up to Chris Bowers, can we expect him to stand up to the Iranians? Or the North Koreans? Or perhaps China who some experts believe are ready to use force to take back their “lost province” of Taiwan in the next 5 years?

Are these unfair questions? I think not. This is what Presidential campaigns are all about. Voters examine a candidate using a variety of criteria and certainly personnel decisions are among the most important. In this respect, Edwards may have gained some online friends but lost some others - including the religious left:

“We have gone so far to rebuild that coalition [between Democrats and religious Christians] and something like this sets it back,” said Brian O’Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader who chairs the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, a Democratic Party group. O’Dwyer said Edwards should have fired the bloggers. “It’s not only wrong morally – it’s stupid politically.”

O’Dwyer e-mailed a statement to reporters saying: “Senator Edwards is condoning bigotry by keeping the two bloggers on his staff. Playing to the cheap seats with anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Democratic Party.”

This is what people outside of the online community are thinking. Are they part of the “right wing smear machine?”

I have no doubt that the issues that surround the use of bloggers on campaigns is far from settled. I disagree with some of the conventional wisdom that this will necessarily make things harder for both bloggers and candidates to come together.

Joe Gandleman:

It’s the nature of blogging (unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) for many blog writers to take positions that might be controversial in content, presentation, or language (each site makes a judgment on the latter and we avoid non-newspaper language here.) While some blog writers and commenters choose words carefully, more often than not blogging resembles a cyberspace form of talk radio with little censoring. And blogwriters can be far more blunt than newspaper columnists or editorial writers.

So if this is the new standard to be applied to campaigns on the left, it’s clear there is going to be a demand for the same standards to be applied to campaigns on the right.

The Marcotte-McEwan dustup has lowered the bar somewhat but I see this as a problem much more for the angry left than the right. Bloggers who have already attached themselves to Republican candidates (with the exception of Patrick Hynes working for McCain) are pretty staid representatives of the conservative sphere. Patrick Ruffini, hired by Rudy Giuliani is a long time GOP activist and can hardly be considered a bomb thrower. And a cursory glance at the top 50 or so conservative bloggers reveal a few that resort to obscenity laced tirades but most fall into a category more vanilla than hot sauce. Skewering the opposition without using dirty or inappropriate language will not be a hindrance in hiring them for GOP Presidential campaigns.

Of course, there are plenty of lefty bloggers who get their point across without tossing F-bombs all over the place or resorting to the kind of hate speech employed by Marcotte-McEwan. I have no doubt that some of them may have moved up the list of potential hires for Democratic candidates. It will be interesting to see what will happen as a result of this controversy. For instance, the bloggers at Firedog Lake are among the most raucous writers on the left. Will this keep some of those excellent bloggers from being employed by a Democratic candidate? Time will tell.

Edwards may have guaranteed that his candidacy will last at least through the first round of primaries by keeping the netroots happy. But he may have damaged his chances beyond that point by standing behind Marcotte-McEwan and their savagely anti-Christian pronouncements. Make no mistake. He can’t have it both ways. He can say from now until doomsday that he condemns the hate speech. But by keeping the two women on his staff, he is announcing to the world that he tolerates it.

I have a feeling this candidate/blogger issue will become a blood sport by summertime as all the announced candidates begin fleshing out their staffs to include members of the online community from both right and left. What this means for blogging in general and the future of the sphere, I have no idea. But I know there’s no way I would ever open myself up to the kind of public scrutiny that these bloggers will have to go through in order to participate in The Great Game.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category was yours truly for “9/11: Just a Real Bad Day.” Finishing second was newbie Bookroom Worm for “They’ve Finally Admitted It.”

Finishing first in the non Council category was HuffPo for “New Trend on the Rise: The Patriotic Terrorist.”

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

“Beware lest clamor be taken for counsel” (Desiderius Erasmus )

“Are we nothing more than a pack of digital yellow journalists writing pixelated scab sheets vying to see who we can lay low next? If this be the way to fame and fortune in the blogosphere, I truly fear that, like television, the last great technological breakthrough that promised to change the world, we will degenerate into a mindless, bottomless pit of muck and mudslinging, dragging down the culture and trivializing even the most important issues.” (Me)

Learning came late in life in my case. For 25 years, I goofed off in school, barely squeaking by as I was ushered from grade to grade, from high school to college, graduating only because of the kindness of professors I was wise enough to suck up to.

After college, I persisted in my ignorance, wearing it like a badge of honor and mouthing the liberal platitudes and pablum of the times. But forced to finally confront my ignorance as I set out to make a living in the world, I realized how truly deficient my knowledge of the larger world of ideas was and I began a conscious effort to rectify the situation.

Not having read much philosophy, I began by reading the Greeks Socrates and Aristotle, moved on to Erasmus, devoured Kant, Hume, and Rousseau and ended my initial explorations with Hegel and Marx. To this day, it is hard to put into words the excitement I felt when the ideas of those giants slammed into me, so powerful was was the force of their logic and personalities. This started my journey as an auto-didact. And for the nearly 30 years since those heady days in the summer of 1979, I have experienced the joy of learning simply for the sake of knowing.

Knowledge for its own sake is a concept perhaps out of style at today’s educational assembly lines where we churn out lawyers, accountants, and B-school grads. I guess when you’re paying in excess of $100,000 a year to educate your child, you tend to demand that what they learn is “relevant” to the employment conditions they will find after graduation.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this kind of education - as long as it is augmented with a well rounded curriculum that includes the humanities, the sciences, and the arts. My understanding is that these opportunities are still available to the undergraduate - even if you are pre-law or pre-med. It would be my advice to anyone going off to college to take advantage of everything the school has to offer including the study of subjects that hold no promise to assist you in whatever field you have chosen to make your life’s work.

But the accumulation of knowledge is only part of the equation. As Confucius said “Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.” Knowledge does not automatically lead to wisdom or infallibility nor does it insulate us from making mistakes in judgement. And that, my friends, may be the most important idea you read today.

The reason for this personal digression is that I wanted you to understand not how smart I am but how truly ignorant we all are. If, as Erasmus said “Humility is Truth” then surely it follows that before one can glimpse the truth, we must recognize and admit to our own ignorance, our own mistakes. Anything less reveals a towering conceit born of ego - a hubristic mindset that brooks no opposition and where ideas are set in stone rather than existing as free agents capable of altering their shape, their texture, even the very foundations on which they exist.

Long time readers of this site know exactly what I’m talking about. You can trace the arc of my support for the Iraq War, for the President, for Republicans, even for conservatives from where I started to where I am now and see where my ideas have changed to reflect the knowledge I have gained as well as changes in perception that have colored my thinking on a host of issues. Does this make me wishy-washy? To some, perhaps. I prefer to think that it proves I am at least receptive to examining other ideas that may clash with some of my long held beliefs.

Specifically with regards to Marcotte and the left in this matter, it is obvious their desperation to shift debate on this issue from Marcotte’s hate filled spewings to what they consider to be similar sins committed by conservatives precludes their having to examine their own beliefs, their own complicity in her shockingly corrupt ideological rantings.

In truth, they see nothing wrong with her warped view of Christians, Catholics, conservatives, men, and any other enemy she targets with her vile invective. Nor do other liberal commenters who have hurled obscene racist epithets at Michelle Malkin or made wild accusations about me, about my brother, or any other individual who has questioned Marcotte’s fitness to serve in any capacity on the staff of a major Presidential candidate demonstrate the slightest ability to examine what Marcotte’s insults and hurtful diatribes mean in a wider context.

By maintaining their silence or even voicing approval for what those outside the left side of the blogosphere almost universally condemn as hate speech, the left proves once again that ignorance is bliss and that self examination, like a little knowledge, is a dangerous thing, something to be avoided at all costs lest one lose their place in the stratified pecking order of lefty blogs.

But I cannot leave this subject without examining the role of those of us on the right who flogged this story into the mainstream media and may have cost Marcotte her job. Certainly our motives lacked nobility. I will be the last to argue that anything more than “scalp hunting” animated this effort. And the questions I raised in the quote at the top of this page remains valid: Is this all we are? Is this what we have become?

In the heat of battle, it is easy to lose sight of those questions. This is not an excuse but rather an explanation. And whatever the outcome of this latest blogosphere dustup, it may be well to ask a third question: Is there anything we can do to change this dynamic? The constant back and forth of charge, counter-charge, revelation followed by the inevitable attempt to alter the discussion by pointing to the sins of the other side - all of this has become an all too familiar pattern of behavior that any rational person would have to say cheapens us all on both sides of the aisle and doesn’t solve anything. Instead, it actually breeds resentment so that the next rhubarb will follow exactly the same course with perhaps even more intensity in the use of language and invective.

I don’t have any answers. And the only thing I’m sure of is that I and everyone else will be guilty of the exact same sins the next time blogs swarm in and target someone for scalp lifting.

Nature of the beast? Or something that can consciously be changed? I don’t know. I just don’t know.

UPDATE: A LITTLE HONESTY WOULD BE A GOOD START

Statement from Edwards:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

“…[I]ntended as satire, humor, or anything else…”? How about deliberately hurtful? And the idea that Marcotte’s intention was not to malign anyone’s faith is a baldfaced lie. “Reproductive issues” - including anti-abortion beliefs - that she denigrated in such a scurrilous and vile manner are the essence of some Catholic’s faith! That and her disrespecting the Pope show that it was fully her intention to malign the Catholic faith and any statement that says otherwise is meaningless drivel.

The left now has their champions ensconced in a campaign after the principal releases a statement full of what everyone with an ounce of decency recognizes as lies. I’m all for forgiveness but how about a little honesty? If Edwards had come out and said that while he recognized that Marcotte’s views were hurtful to some Americans, they didn’t reflect his beliefs or what he was trying to accomplish with the campaign. Instead, he pretends that Marcotte’s screeds were humor or satire and he further pretends to believe them when they say that they weren’t trying to be hateful or hurtful to anyone.

None of the players covered themselves in glory over this - least of all Edwards.

Also, check out the comments by The Anchoress below as well as her post here.

UPDATE II

James Joyner agrees with me:

These statements have all the believability of 5-year-olds being made to shake hands and apologize. Further, while I have no doubt both these women believe in the 1st Amendment, it’s utterly ridiculous to claim that they never intended to criticize people’s religious views. They did so routinely. The only way that religious people would not have been offended by any of dozens of statements on their blogs was by not reading them.

Of course, that was likely the case in most instances. Blogs that appeal to rabid partisans often devolve into ridicule and dripping condescension toward those who disagree. That’s great for building a fan base, as numerous bloggers (and talk hosts) on both sides of the aisle can attest. It’s not very effective for holding a national conversation, though, let alone a presidential campaign.

Malkin: “Meanwhile, the nutroots are waving their guns around in triumph.” Yep. Firing off their weapons in celebratory triumph like all the other primitive peoples of the earth.

Goldstein:

But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism—he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.

Further, in doing so, he has shown himself to be nothing more than a calculating political opportunist of the worst sort—one who believes the voting public so daft they might actually buy a statement like the one he just released.

See also some interesting thoughts somewhat similiar to my own about blogs and blogging from Sister Toldjah.

Allah is on fire. Keep scrolling.

Lambchop and TT-Boy at a recent strategy meeting of left wing bloggers.

It’s been a while since I’ve felt the need to fend off the chigger bites and gnat stings of some of my friends on the left. Oh, there has been the odd snarky comment, the snide reference to some post or other that the dufus either never bothered to read or couldn’t understand. But frankly, I’ve felt neglected of late by the port side of the sphere. In fact, I was getting worried that I was losing my ability to get a rise out netnuts.

It’s not been for lack of trying, I assure you. It’s just that it seems I’ve been getting a helluva lot more criticism from my friends on the right than the unhinged crowd on the left recently. Perhaps this says more about the inability the left to understand words containing more than 2 or 3 syllables than the unsettled nature of conservatism at present.

At any rate, my post on Marcotte below - specifically my update where I link Terry’s piece that asks some rather uncomfortable questions that the lefties have deigned to ignore entirely - has really flushed the cockroaches out from under the floorboards and sent them scurrying hither and thither, making a stink about my links to Dan Riehl and Michelle Malkin’s compilation of bigoted Marcottisms as well as making the charge that Terry and I somehow coordinated our posts, echoing each other’s talking points.

Terry is a big boy and can take care of himself. He hardly needs (nor, I imagine, wants) any input or “coordination” with me.

As for my linking Dan and Michelle, it is certainly a curious way to delegitimize any of my arguments by trying to say that Marcotte’s own words, which was the reason for my linking those posts in the first place, are somehow less bigoted, less hateful, less of a problem for her if they appear on blogs that the lefties don’t approve. The reason that is “ironic” escapes me as I’m sure it does most people with an IQ higher than your average marmoset.

This, of course, removes TT-Boy from that list:

Rick “The Lesser” Moran writes about Amanda and then he invites his readers to go see the ever-sensible Michelle Malkin and Dan Riehl.

I could have stayed up all night and not come up with anything near that funny…

The fact that TT Boy does indeed stay up all night in his job as grocery store stocker means that he truly can’t come up with anything near as funny as Marcotte’s nauseating, hate filled rants that I linked at those two websites. I’m sure if he really put his mind to it (or checked his archives) he could come close.

Meanwhile Atrios, about whom Chris Bowers gushed:

“Atrios has somehow managed to put up twelve posts a day, every day, for five years. A superhuman effort few can match.”

Well, let me play Superman for a moment and try to match the “twelve posts” put up by Duncan Black every day..

1. Open Thread
2. Open Thread
3. Open Thread
4. Bush Sucks! No more War.
5. Open Thread
6. Open Thread
7. Open Thread
8. Conservatives are Poopies!
9. Open Thread
10. Open Thread
11. Beware the Theocrats!
12. Open Thread
13. Open Thread

Befitting my Superhuman abilities, I went and did Mr. Black one better.

At any rate, The Reverend Mr. Black has made Terry “Wanker of the Day” calling him my “sock puppet.” A singular honor for which Terry is, I’m sure, grateful although since we disagree on almost every issue under the sun, that sock sure has a lot of holes in it - perhaps as many as we could find in Mr. Black’s head.

Yes, it sure is great to be back in the left’s bad graces. Now I can sit back and enjoy all the ever more imaginative insults and verbal bric-a-brats hurled in my direction, secure in the knowledge that when it comes to pissing off the lickspittle left, I haven’t lost my touch.

UPDATE

Terry responds to his critics here.

Well done, brother. And thanks.

Watching the destruction of Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon blogger and soon-to-be-ex “Blogmaster” for the Edwards campaign, has been one of the few bright spots in this otherwise dreary and depressing new year.

If ever there was a left wing hysteric who deserved to be tarred, feathered, and dragged through the mud and slime of their own writings, it is Marcotte. She is a perfect illustration of the liberal mindset that posits the notion of a relative moral code when it comes to racial, ethnic, religious, and gender semantics. For her, anything goes. No characterization of her political opponents is too vile. No racist, sexist, or bigoted thought is out of bounds.

This is because the left has insulated itself from such mundane considerations as good manners and decorous language by elevating themselves to what they consider to be a higher moral plane than the rest of us. Simply because they mean well, they are vouchsafed all manner of perfidious name calling and calumnious charges directed against their opponents.

The fact that Marcotte sees the world through the prism of post-modern feminism makes her impossible to take seriously on any level. Her writing is full of so many half truths, manufactured criticisms, dead-wrong assumptions, and a child like ignorance of the emotional universe inhabited by normal men and women that trying to decipher her scribblings - once you can get by the obscenities and work your way through the incoherence - is a task best left to a psychiatrist.

I won’t pollute this site with too many examples of what I mean. For that, I urge you to see Dan Riehl’s posts or Michelle Malkin’s writings on Marcotte.

This is one of those stories that starts out on the internet, jumps to cable talk shows, and finally, when the issue can no longer be ignored, appears in the mainstream press. In the case of Marcotte, her initial effort to hide some of her more outrageous and obscenity laced tirades against conservatives in general and men in particular by deleting the offending posts at Pandagon only made matters worse. In effect, it was no longer what she said (which was bad enough) that was the issue but rather her clumsy attempt to cover it up once she was named “Blogmaster” of the Edwards campaign.

But someone with a track record of stupidity as long and varied as Marcotte’s should have realized that she wouldn’t be able to delete all the offending posts written over the last few years. In the end, her weird anti-Catholic bigotry will probably end up bringing her career as “Blogmaster” to a quick and unceremonious close. Here’s Marcotte on the Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

(HT: Patterico)

And in one of the more delicious ironies I can imagine, Marcotte may be brought down by the object of some of her more unbalanced rants; the Catholic Church:

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, demanded that Edwards fire Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan.

“John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots,” Donohue wrote in a statement. “He has no choice but to fire them immediately.”

The Edwards campaign declined to comment. McEwan and Marcotte did not respond to e-mails requesting a response.

The New York Times tries to excuse Marcotte’s ravings as a consequence of being a member of the blogosphere:

The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.

This is absurd. Marcotte is not being taken to task for “incendiary” writing. Holy Smokes! Anyone peruse the DNC or RNC sites lately? “Incendiary” language is hardly frowned upon and is, indeed, a prerequisite for latching on to any political campaign.

Marcotte’s will lose her job because despite the fact that she believes herself to be well meaning and, probably according to her lights incapable of hatred directed against any group, she is a rank bigot, a nauseating, die hard dogmatist whose sickening screeds against people she disagrees with (including most non-emasculated men) have sullied the debate between right and left for far too long.

Unfortunately, Marcotte’s type will always have a home on the left. She will be welcomed back with open arms and continue her unbalanced rants, raging against people whose only transgression is that they fail to fit their beliefs into her own narrow, warped, and cockeyed worldview.

Perhaps there will be an opening soon in some other campaign, a job that she will be eminently qualified to perform as only she is capable.

I hear Ahmadinejad will be running for President again. Those two see eye to eye on more issues than either is likely to admit. Not to mention both being a couple of draughts short of a full keg.

Sounds like a match made in heaven…

UPDATE

It has been far too long since we’ve heard from the lefty’s #1 thinker, pundit, and sock puppet Lambchop.

Here, Lambchop weighs in on this controversy in his usual understated, intelligent, and perspicacious manner. And I quote:

NEENER!! NEENER!! NEENER!! NEENER!! NEENER!! NEENER!!

UPDATE II: OMIGOD THE MORANS AGREE ON SOMETHING!

My brother Terry (who has a new blog that you should bookmark immediately) gets it exactly right:

Questions: What, if anything, does it tell us about Edwards that he’s joined up with this blogger? Is Edwards’ association with a person who has written these things a legitimate issue for voters, as they wonder–among other things–whom he might appoint to high office if he’s elected? If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react? Is the mere raising of this issue a kind of underhanded censorship, a way of ruling out of bounds some kinds of opinion? Are we all just going to have to get used to a more rough-and-tumble, profane, and even hate-filled public arena in the age of the blogosphere?

Like any good journalist, he is asking the right questions - and the questions sort of answer themselves, don’t they? (HT: Malkin)

UPDATE III

Hugh Hewitt nails it and offers a challenge:

As L’Affaire Marcotte nears its inevitable conclusion, I can’t decide who was dumber, Marcotte or the Edwards campaign. On the one hand I can’t believe that Marcotte had become so comfortable in the left wing echo chamber that she actually believed her past didn’t preclude her from publicly entering a mainstream presidential campaign. On the other hand, I really can’t believe that the Edwards campaign apparently didn’t vet a high profile hire.

Anyway, it’s time to put together our first HughHewitt.com pool. In the comments section, name the date and time when Amanda Marcotte and the Edwards campaign irrevocably part ways. The winner will receive a free corned beef sandwich from the Palm Beach Gardens Toojay’s (tax, gratuity, and beverage not included).

I’ve got this Friday at 9:13 a.m.

Okay, Big Daddy I’ll take some of that action. Give me Thursday at 2:00 PM Central. As you know, good politicians lance boils quickly. The very good ones do it decisively. Marcotte is gone by the end of lunchtime tomorrow. Book it!

The operation to get control of the streets in Iraq’s capitol is apparently underway according to both AFP and Omar of Iraq the Model.

AFP is reporting that one of the initial operations is mainly made up of Americans:

Iraqi and US forces have pushed deep into one of Baghdad’s most notorious Sunni bastions, making arrests and seizing weapons as part of a new plan to overrun insurgent strongholds in the capital.

The US military, meanwhile, said Wednesday it was probing reports of another helicopter crash near Baghdad.

A US military official said a crackdown on Sunni insurgents in the northeastern Adhamiyah district of the Iraqi capital began Tuesday in an operation involving some 2,000 US troops and hundreds of Iraqi soldiers.

According to an AFP photographer embedded with the US military more than a dozen people were detained overnight and large numbers of weapons seized.

Major Robie Parke of 3-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team said the security sweep in the Shaab and Ur areas of Adhamiyah marked the start of the much-vaunted crackdown by US and Iraqi forces against Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents in Baghdad.

“Iraqi and US forces conducted clearing operations in Adhamiyah today, which is the beginning of the new security plan,” Parke told AFP late Tuesday.

“Operation Arrowhead Strike Six” is apparently only one of the thrusts planned to clear the capitol of insurgents and blunt the activities of the death squads:

One US officer who asked not to be identified told AFP the operation would set the conditions for a “control and retain” force to move into Shaab and Ur and establish combat outposts in conjunction with Iraqi security forces.

The high-ranking US army official stressed that the Baghdad security plan was a process involving a broad range of troop and logistics movements as well as strategic planning.

“The process has already begun. The Baghdad security plan is a process, it’s a long operation, it’s not going to be a three day operation or a three week operation,” the officer said.

“You have to look at the whole process instead of just thinking in terms of a raid, or an operation in one of the districts, it’s much, much larger than that.”

As usual, the Iraqis are slow, disorganized, and have been hampered by sectarian squabbling over the command structure:

Pressure is increasing on the Maliki government to show signs of progress on the security plan that was announced more than a month ago, especially after three weeks of bloody violence that has killed 3,000 civilians.

Mr. Maliki made it clear to the commanders that they needed to show results soon. “I call on you to quickly finish the preparations so that we don’t disappoint people,” he said.

Mr. Maliki offered no reasons for the delay, but Iraqi military officials have expressed frustration over the slow pace and have cited several problems, including the failure of Iraqi troops from other parts of the country to arrive on schedule in Baghdad, the capital.

The choice of top commanders, drawn from the army and the police, has largely been settled, the officials said, but was slowed by sectarian disagreements, with Shiites objecting to Sunnis and Sunnis objecting to Shiites.

Integrating the Iraqi police force with the army, essential to the plan, remains a problem, officers say. Some Sunni neighborhoods remain off limits to the police, because they are thought to be deeply infiltrated by Shiite militias and are widely distrusted by Sunni residents.

This is actually the second Baghdad security plan signed off on by Maliki. The original plan back in July called for upwards of 10,000 Iraqi troops and policemen to set up check points and patrol neighborhoods while American forces (augmented by around 5,000 in early July) carried out “sweep, clear, and hold” operations, handing over control of pacified areas to Iraqi police and army units.

Of course, Maliki couldn’t get 10,000 troops to come to Baghdad. Kurdish units in the north balked at the idea of patrolling the streets of Baghdad and mutinied, according to US Army sources. And Sunnis were reluctant to go after their co-religionists who were part of the insurgency. In the end, Maliki was able to scrape together less than 4,000 troops which, by the middle of September, it became apparent that the forces he had were inadequate to meet the security challenge.

This is where the second security plan came in. It envisioned up to an additional 17,000 American troops for Baghdad - the “surge” announced by the President - but also another 20,000 Iraqi troops divided between east and west Baghdad with an Iraqi commander in overall control. No word yet on whether Maliki has been able to achieve the troop levels he called for.

But we do know that he has enough to begin operations. This includes moving joint American and Iraqi forces into Baghdad neighborhoods to establish a permanent presence:

American officers said the new plan, under which an additional 17,000 American forces are to be deployed in Baghdad, would not necessarily have an official start. They said it would be more accurate to describe the effort as a broader strategy shift that would put American troops in Baghdad neighborhoods in more aggressive ways, living and working with Iraqi troops.

The Americans are arriving in staggered intervals over months, and troops on the ground are beginning to carry out the new strategy, the officers said. In western Baghdad, American forces are living with Iraqi soldiers at new Joint Security Stations in two neighborhoods. More stations are under construction.

From the beginning, American officers have cautioned that the new plan would take time, because any chance of success rests on building trust with a population whose faith has been severely tested by nearly a year of vicious sectarian violence. But they know that time is not on their side.

Time - something the President does not have. That, and the luxury of the surge plan being given a fair chance to succeed in reducing the violence in Baghdad.

There is no way that war critics will allow this plan even the perception of success. Any progress made will be minimized. Every car bombing, sectarian massacre, and terrorist attack will be lovingly dwelt on - proof that the plan is a “failure.”

We will have the interviews with Baghdad residents in a few months who will complain that they see no difference in their daily lives - that things are still dangerous. Every miscue by the Iraqi army will be headline news. And God help us if Americans were to kill an innocent civilian. Or at least a civilian that the AP tells us was innocent.

The sad fact is that no matter what progress is made in securing Baghdad, the only thing that can turn perception on its ear and actually start changing some minds is progress in the political arena by the Iraqis. If this surge had been accompanied by an announcement by al-Maliki of some political overtures to the Sunnis, of concessions on oil rights, amnesty for insurgents, and other necessary political steps that would start the process of giving the Sunnis a reason to stop fighting, then I think the surge would have had a vastly better chance of exceeding expectations and thus being pegged a success.

But Maliki and the Shia nationalists who hold sway over the government are not interested in sharing power and, in fact, are desirous of seeing Iraq “Sunni free.” This from StrategyPage:

The Sunni terrorist organizations are now attracting some truly fanatical recruits. It appears that a small percentage of the Iraqi Sunni Arabs are willing to fight to the death. Of the four million or so Sunni Arabs in Iraq in 2003, about half have already fled their homes, and either left the country, or moved to areas where the population is entirely Sunni. But even if only three percent of the Iraqi Sunni Arabs fight to the death, that’s over 100,000 people who would rather die than live in a democracy with the majority Shia Arabs. These diehards are getting financial and emotional support other Sunni Arabs in the region, who see an Iraq run by its Shia Arab majority, as a danger to all Sunni Moslems. That’s because of the ancient feud between Sunni and Shia (who disagree on who should be the supreme authority in the Islamic world, and on several other religious issues.)

While the United States would like to have the Iraqi government take care of these diehards, that would be a messy process. Many of the Shia and Kurd troops that predominate in the security forces are willing to kill all Sunni Arabs they encounter in a hostile area. The American troops can go in and just pop the bad guys, leaving most of the innocents unhurt. But to the majority of Iraqis, there’s no such thing as an innocent Sunni Arab, and would prefer to see them all dead, or gone to some other country.

As long as there are Shia militias, rogue Interior Ministry units, and killers-for-hire who are seeking to eliminate the Sunni presence in Iraq, the insurgents will continue to fight no matter how many of them we kill. Many of these insurgents belong to tribal based militias whose numbers are constantly being replenished. While it is true that we have made some progress with the tribes in Anbar at getting their help and cooperation, we are less successful in other Sunni provinces at bringing the tribes to our side. This is partly because al-Qaeda in Iraq has been most active among the tribes in Anbar, building resentment with their heavy handed administration and fierce religious conservatism.

For the tribes, they feel their own survival is at stake. With more than a million and a half Sunnis already having fled Iraq in the last 3 years and an estimated 350,000 displaced inside the country, the burden for proving that there is a place for the Sunnis at the table in Baghdad rests with the Shia majority. And al-Maliki - for a variety of reasons - has proved unable and unwilling to take the necessary steps to take the fire out of the hearts of both Shias and Sunnis and attempt a reconciliation that would lead to a more peaceful and just society.

I hope and believe the surge will do everything it is supposed to do - make Baghdad a safer place and give Maliki a political boost among the Iraqi people. What he does with this breathing room will determine whether or not the blood and treasure we are expending in this final effort to turn the situation around in Iraq will have been in vain.

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.